Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

[quote=BigSKINBauer;321990]Very interesting way of looking at it. I like the way it sounds because I have always felt that both sides, offense and defense, starts at the line. I still feel the team builds on those spots so i would look at it as a team is only as good as its o-line rather than an o-line is only as good as its team its on.
[/quote]


i am quoting myself.

For example, New orleans had a great offense but its o-line isn't that great. They are among the worst in yards per rush. But that negates the " an offense is only as good as its o=line" thing. Maybe the QB is by and large the most important thing on an offense

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

[quote=wilsowilso;321995]No better than top ten. This line has underachieved in years past based on talent. They should have been more dominant and they have not done that. The thing is they have had garbage QB's forever so who really knows? If Campbell is the real deal then I don't doubt the Oline could move up to top two or three in the entire league.[/quote]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?

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

[quote=BigSKINBauer;321997]i am quoting myself.

For example, New orleans had a great offense but its o-line isn't that great. They are among the worst in yards per rush. But that negates the " an offense is only as good as its o=line" thing. Maybe the QB is by and large the most important thing on an offense[/quote]Well, was New Orleans' line really not that great? Why so quick to dismiss them?

Not saying you're wrong, not saying you're right. Just wondering.

Offensive lines are so hard to evaluate on the whole, that were are stuck making assumptions like "good offenses have good lines, bad offenses have bad lines". This sounds good in principle, but we can't be certain its correct. I just have to assume its correct and evalutate accordingly.

Redskins line is in the 11-20 range in my mind. But when I'm done with this article, I could have a very different perception of them. That's why I started this thread.

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

Ranking an offensive line is so subjective. Two of the key things to look at though IMO is rushing yards and sacks allowed.

Last year the Skins were [B]4th overall [/B]in the NFL in rushing yards per game (138.5 per game), behind only Atlanta, San Diego and Jacksonville.

As far as sacks allowed goes, the Skins were [B]3rd overall [/B]with only 19 sacks given up. Only the Colts and Ravens gave up less.

So I was wrong with my first post, the Skins were the only team to finish in the [B]top 4[/B] in these two key categories, not top 7 like I originally said.

I'd say it was a very impressive season for the offensive line. Probably more impressive than most people realize.

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

[quote=Mattyk72;322001]Ranking an offensive line is so subjective. Two of the key things to look at though IMO is rushing yards and sacks allowed.

Last year the Skins were [B]4th overall [/B]in the NFL in rushing yards per game (138.5 per game), behind only Atlanta, San Diego and Jacksonville.

As far as sacks allowed goes, the Skins were [B]3rd overall [/B]with only 19 sacks given up. Only the Colts and Ravens gave up less.

So I was wrong with my first post, the Skins were the only team to finish in the [B]top 4[/B] in these two key categories, not top 7 like I originally said.

I'd say it was a very impressive season for the offensive line. Probably more impressive than most people realize.[/quote]
They did that last year when they were learning a new system and if you look back to 05 they a CP carried us into the playoffs. I'd say in the top 5.

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

[quote=Mattyk72;322001]Ranking an offensive line is so subjective. Two of the key things to look at though IMO is rushing yards and sacks allowed.

Last year the Skins were [B]4th overall [/B]in the NFL in rushing yards per game (138.5 per game), behind only Atlanta, San Diego and Jacksonville.

As far as sacks allowed goes, the Skins were [B]3rd overall [/B]with only 19 sacks given up. Only the Colts and Ravens gave up less.

So I was wrong with my first post, the Skins were the only team to finish in the [B]top 4[/B] in these two key categories, not top 7 like I originally said.

I'd say it was a very impressive season for the offensive line. Probably more impressive than most people realize.[/quote]
hey matty, where did you get the 3rd overall in sacks given up. Was it a ranking or a just was it listed independently somewhere. I want to find a sacks given up ranking but i don't know where to look.\

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

I am basing this ranking on where the teams finished the season last year, not overall, but the last day of week 17.

1) Indy (incredible coordination and execution in both pass and run blocking, less power, more technique)
2) San Diego (smash-mouth physical line with a mean streak, excellent in both protection and run blocking)
3t) Redskins (excellent run blocking power, good but not great pass protection)
3t) Jax (very strong line with excellent zone blocking for MJD)
5t) Bears (asked to run-block their way into the Superbowl and they did, pass block just average, but an actual QB would have made them look better)
5t) Pats (consistently excellent pass blockers with better than average zone running schemes - not super powerful)

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

If you based it off last year we are the #6 ranked O-Line in the NFL
Indy,Denver,ATL, SD, KC, all were in the top 5...If the LG spot can be as solid as last year look out baby .......

MS

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

[quote=GTripp0012;321999]Well, was New Orleans' line really not that great? Why so quick to dismiss them?

Not saying you're wrong, not saying you're right. Just wondering.

Offensive lines are so hard to evaluate on the whole, that were are stuck making assumptions like "good offenses have good lines, bad offenses have bad lines". This sounds good in principle, but we can't be certain its correct. I just have to assume its correct and evalutate accordingly.

Redskins line is in the 11-20 range in my mind. But when I'm done with this article, I could have a very different perception of them. That's why I started this thread.[/quote]

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

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

[quote=BigSKINBauer;322008]hey matty, where did you get the 3rd overall in sacks given up. Was it a ranking or a just was it listed independently somewhere. I want to find a sacks given up ranking but i don't know where to look.\[/quote]
Sacks Allowed: [url=http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-PASSING/2006/regular?sort_col_1=11&_1:col_1=11&_1:col_2=11]NFL.com - NFL Stats[/url]

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

[url=http://www.nfl.com/stats/2006/regular]NFL.com - NFL Stats[/url]

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

[quote=steveo395;322013]Sacks Allowed: [URL="http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-PASSING/2006/regular?sort_col_1=11&_1:col_1=11&_1:col_2=11"]NFL.com - NFL Stats[/URL]

Rushing: [URL="http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-RUSHING/2006/regular?sort_col_1=7"]NFL.com - NFL Stats[/URL]

[URL="http://www.nfl.com/stats/2006/regular"]NFL.com - NFL Stats[/URL][/quote]
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

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

[quote=GTripp0012;321998]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?[/quote]

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.

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

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

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

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

[quote=BigSKINBauer;322012]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[/quote]

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?

Re: Rank our OLine among the 32 teams
 

[quote=wilsowilso;322018]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.[/quote]

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.