Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ESPN O Line Rankings: Typical ESPN Garbage

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 21ST View Post
    I mean is it based off of last year because if it is i can understand us being 23 but i just dont see us being that low if they are ranking our O-line healthy
    I think that injuries are factored into this ranking. Jansen has been hurt consistently throughout his career and with the chance that Samuels (he got hurt last year too right?) could get hurt again, it brings a higher likelihood that the reserves would come in, thus bringing down the rating.

    ...Well that's at least what I assume is going on here.

    Oldie but a goodie.

    Comment


    • #17
      The thought of Kwame Harris at left tackle is terrifying to me, if Cable can make it work he's a wizard. He's done a great job with the team so far.

      Also, I think the best Colts OL is yet to come. With the young guys they've drafted, and the guys they thankfully have let walk, they could have a line finally run-block almost as well as they pass-block. I would let Jeff Saturday walk after this season I think, he's aging and his play might be wearing down.
      Pugnacity, testosterone, truculence, and belligerence.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Geo View Post
        The thought of Kwame Harris at left tackle is terrifying to me, if Cable can make it work he's a wizard. He's done a great job with the team so far.
        You're telling me... And you're not even a Raiders fan. How do you think we feel with Russell coming in to start at Kwame "protecting" his blindside?

        Oldie but a goodie.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by nobodyinparticular View Post
          The place where the Raiders are--#29 is just about where they should be. Maybe a little generous considering they have a massive hole at LT and C is up the air--the two most important positions on the line. I feel they are better than the Falcons and Chiefs' lines, but the other one I felt should be the Dolphins. Maybe not... I don't know.
          Definitely not better talent.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by JT Jag View Post
            Is it just me, or did the they POINTEDLY ignore the Super Bowl when rating the Patriots?
            ugh. Way too much emphasis has been placed on that one game. Being the biggest game and the biggest stage, it's understandable to me that the phenomenal game played by the Giants D somehow gets misinterpreted as "the Pats o-line sucks," but it's a very foolish sentiment. Frankly, the noise many of ESPN's "experts" was the usual drivel spewed forth on that "network" - ya'know, all that crap about how the Pats should take Albert b/c they needed soooo much help at O-line? Uh-huh, this is the same team that gave up very few sacks while breaking some of the most heralded passing records, while winning 18 games straight, right?? But I digress . . .


            Vikes & Jets O-line are much too high, Bills too low. Also, I totally agree w/the previous call of the Colts being too high - though this article at least makes it a point to mention how much easier Manning makes it on the line.


            As far as ESPN is concerned - see sig. Gotta love Tom Terrific!

            Sig img shamelessly stolen from teh interwebs

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by kmartin575 View Post
              Definitely not better talent.
              People obviously have a hard time getting that terrible 2006 performance by Oakland's offensive line out of their heads, but the moment even a fairly modern blocking scheme was installed (or at least one that hasn't been around since the 1950's), they shaved 31 sacks off and paved the way for over 500 more rushing yards with essentially the same stable of runners (the difference between being 29th in 2006 and 6th in 2007).

              That's more than just a considerable leap ahead. You could argue that the Chiefs have more talent once they get Albert signed, but they performed far worse last year.

              Comment


              • #22
                Kyle Kosier is the weak link by far on the Dallas O-line, and Marc Columbo is no where close to being pressed for playing time. He played exceptional last year and help the kampmans and strahans of the league without a sack.

                ESPN -- more garbage

                Comment


                • #23
                  Actually the Texans only gave up 22 sacks last year and made it pretty obvious that the main problem (probably ask anyone in Carolina as well) was David Carr. This guy found ways to get sacked that would just baffle me and it was very satisfying seeing the improvement in that regard from both Matt Schaub and Sage Rosenfels. The talent level has also improved nicely, there honestly aren't that many right tackles in the league I would readily trade for Eric Winston, something you couldn't say about any Houston O-lines of the past.

                  Having said that we don't have anyone the caliber of Peters and our run game was not very productive last year. I think the rating is taking into account the probable increase in productivity of the running game due to the addition of Alex Gibbs. Having a runner like Marshawn Lynch wouldn't hurt either but they are banking on the system allowing less talented guys to have some decent success.

                  Maybe I'm being a bit of a homer here but I see the Texans finally having the building blocks of an above average line for this year and the future and I wouldn't be surprised to see this unit rank in the top 15 of a similar poll at this time next year.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Probably where I'd rank the 49ers after last year and at least he acknowledged that they have talent on the offensive line

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I don't know if I'd buy the Chiefs having the absolute worst line but meh, whatever. :p

                      Originally posted by fenikz
                      His soft D really turns me off
                      ** RIP themaninblack. You will be missed. **

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The person that made this needs to tell the readers how he determined these rankings.

                        In my opinion (I am making this up) it should be an average of pass protection (sacks allowed), Yards per carry (average all RB's), and potential (this is where an opinion must be shown and defended).

                        Now when I say average I do not mean a mathematical combination/equation of the variables above but rather an average of how well a line does all of the things above. (potential being opinion though)

                        example. (I am making these numbers up for the sake of argument)
                        The Jets' RB's average 5.0 yards per carry. They have allowed 50 sacks on the year and the average age of the line is 32.

                        The Raiders RB's average 4.0 yards per carry. They have allowed 45 sacks on the year and the average age of the line is 26.

                        Who would you pick? You see the Raiders line will be better but the Jets' line is currently better. Most people will take the YPC because a full yard more is > than 5 sacks on the year but you don't know how many times each team carried the ball so it is all ****** up.
                        Now this pseudo system I am trying to create is too subjective to be correct but it is a start. Mainly because there are too many variables that determine statistics such as sacks. Jamarcus Russell will undoubtedly get sacked more than Jeff Garcia no matter what line each player has. The YPC stat is a little harder to determine.

                        Honestly. it is all opinion. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady can make bad lines look at least average and Byron Leftwich can make a good line look bad. There are too many variables to concretely say that one line is better than another. You must remember, A talented line can be worse than a not talented line. A line that "gels" will always perform better.

                        (If this post seems convoluted, its because I am still ****** up on amphetamines and haven't slept in two days.) :)
                        Last edited by Bruce Banner; 06-19-2008, 04:00 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The rankings are open to interpretation and debate, but the author's assessment of the Bucs O-line seems pretty accurate - a lot of potential on the interior, some questions at the T positions, run blocking will be their strength.

                          The Bucs O-line has been so bad for so long that it is refreshing to actually have some guys on the team that you can be optimistic about.
                          "If everyone liked the same thing everyone would be after your grandmother."

                          My Grandfather

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Watchman View Post
                            The rankings are open to interpretation and debate, but the author's assessment of the Bucs O-line seems pretty accurate - a lot of potential on the interior, some questions at the T positions, run blocking will be their strength.

                            The Bucs O-line has been so bad for so long that it is refreshing to actually have some guys on the team that you can be optimistic about.
                            The Bucs o-line can plow for the tailbacks but they are always lacking in pass protection. Gruden's demand for a semi-mobile QB can disguise that most of the time though.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JT Jag View Post
                              Is it just me, or did the they POINTEDLY ignore the Super Bowl when rating the Patriots?
                              The Pats oline IS dominant against mediocre pass rushers.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Meh. I hate when these guys talk about things they don't even know about. It's kind of obvious that the writer has no idea who on the team plays what positions so he just talks about Larry and Staley.

                                The fact that the writer says Chilo Rachal is being tried at RT shows how little he knows about the situation. Sure Chilo was tried at RT... for two practices.

                                It's not a bad ranking for the 49ers. But sometimes they should just write some vague answers that doesn't totally blow their cover, that they actually looked at the ESPN depth chart and made their rankings based on name recognition.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information