Rank our OLine among the 32 teams

Sacks Allowed: NFL.com - NFL Stats (http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-PASSING/2006/regular?sort_col_1=11&_1:col_1=11&_1:col_2=11)

Rushing: NFL.com - NFL Stats (http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-RUSHING/2006/regular?sort_col_1=7)

NFL.com - NFL Stats (http://www.nfl.com/stats/2006/regular)
well, i feel dumb now :(.


Ok I said the only way I would consider putting NO top 10 is if they were top 5 in Sacks allowed. They ranked 4th. hmm

I don't think though that the O Line is in any way reliant on the quarterback or receivers to do its job. I don't think we can blame the QBing for the line underachieving. That's just order of football operations.

Is it them underachieving their talent, or is it just a misevalutation of their talent?

I completely disagree. If you have a player like Patrick Ramsey holding on to the ball for at leat a full second too long as his weakness then the line will be at a massive disadvantage. If the QB has a noodle arm like Danny Weurfel or can only go deep if he is allowed the time to step into his throw like Brunell then the line is not going to perform at it's best. In the NFL if the Quarterback doesn't put pressure on the defense then the line can't possible function properly. Unless the line is ridiculously dominant and we don't have that kind of line. If Campbell becomes a top ten QB which I think he will then IMO this line will look very very good or great even. That's what they are right now. Very good, but certainly not great.

speaking of stats though, this stat page is cool FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2007 (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/premium/beta/)

I have a question though. Someone posted a book up last year that was about statistics in football. I think the book cost $50 but i can't find it on this site or anywhere else. While searching I came to find a book and the link i provided above but i don't think it is the book i am looking for. Does anyone know off the top of their heads what book i might have been thinking about

Its hard for me to say an o-line isn't good by saying its offense isn't good. I could say an offense that is good has a good o-line though. However, i don't think N.O has a top 5 o-line like its top 3 offense. I can't even say they are top ten.

When judging a line I look at
- Yards/ attempt (how good it is at opening holes)
- Sacks allowed (protection)
- Yards/ game (consistancy over a game)
- Big yardage running plays (Ability to block upfield)


Now many, actually all, of these numbers are dependent on the other parts of the offense. Yards/ attempt- RB, Sacks allowed- QB mobility and awareness, Y/G- RB consistancy and RB depth, BIg Yardage plays- RB ability to allude defenders.

N.O is a good example to look at. Nearly 400/game... amazing.

O-line- yards/ attempt -3.7 very low, 19 TDs rushing- pretty good, Very few 20+ yard runs- 6, 110 ypg rushing- average. NOw I can't say that this is a top 10 O-line. The onlly thing that will make me even consider that is if they are top 5 in sacks allowed. I don't know the number so... Matty?


moreso, i think a lot of how good an o-line is can only be seen on tape. The time in the pocket given to a QB would be a great stat. Average time until a defender gets behind the o-line or the pocket breaks down. That would be the stat of stats. That is why baseball can be fun, stats on everything... THat is the only reason baseball can be fun. :D

I think those are very good, but obvious ways to measure an offensive lines productivity. But let me throw this out there; What was our third down conversion ratio when we ran the ball? I think that's also a good way to quantify the effectiveness of an offensive line. Can you pound the ball when they know you're going to run it?

I completely disagree. If you have a player like Patrick Ramsey holding on to the ball for at leat a full second too long as his weakness then the line will be at a massive disadvantage.

I agree. The ability of a QB to make decisions and get rid of the ball quickly can make a OL look much better than they really are. And on the other hand like you said, if a guy like Ramsey is back there holding the ball all day long, even the best offensive line will break down eventually.

I think those are very good, but obvious ways to measure an offensive lines productivity. But let me throw this out there; What was our third down conversion ratio when we ran the ball? I think that's also a good way to quantify the effectiveness of an offensive line. Can you pound the ball when they know you're going to run it? yeah, that is true. The first thing i looked at when i went to that stat page was 3rd and short and it ranked the skins 30th overall. That was the 2006 version of the book so 2005-2006 season. I guess a few stats on that will be provided when the next version comes out next month

yeah, that is true. The first thing i looked at when i went to that stat page was 3rd and short and it ranked the skins 30th overall. That was the 2006 version of the book so 2005-2006 season. I guess a few stats on that will be provided when the next version comes out next month

Okay, then that says something to me. It's not everything, but to be ranked 30th out of 32 teams doesn't display dominance.

Okay, then that says something to me. It's not everything, but to be ranked 30th out of 32 teams doesn't display dominance.
That could also be a reflection of play calling.

That could also be a reflection of play calling.


I absolutely think it could be a result of the play calling. We did see evidence of that last year. Still to to be ranked 30 out of 32 isn't good.

On 3rd and short you also have to consider who's running the ball. Sometimes a back has to make something out of nothing. Neither Portis or Betts have been overly impressive in those situations.