| Welcome to the home of some of the Washington Redskins' most ravenous fans. If this is your first visit, please read our rules and regulations. You must register before you can access all of the forums, and to use all the board's features and options; members also enjoy fewer advertisements. |
| Author |
Message |
SkinsJock
08 Champ
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Posts: 11514
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
^^^ I just love it when this happens - great job FFA
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
markshark84
Hog
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 1460
Location: Houston, TX
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14716
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| markshark84 wrote: | | This ranking is not a true cumulative ranking and is from a cite that boast about how they come up with outside the box type analysis. Which makes sense.... because it goes against almost all the other rankings. |
Then they must be incorrect. Imagine! coming up with a different outcome than a fantasy football blogger? It boggles the mind.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
markshark84
Hog
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 1460
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deadskins wrote: | | markshark84 wrote: | | This ranking is not a true cumulative ranking and is from a cite that boast about how they come up with outside the box type analysis. Which makes sense.... because it goes against almost all the other rankings. |
Then they must be incorrect. Imagine! coming up with a different outcome than a fantasy football blogger? It boggles the mind. |
The stats iru-bru provided were from a blogger........
Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's pretty telling that everything you can find puts the skins OL between 24-27 including sources such as nfl.com. I know the mods all support one another regardless of issue, but come on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14716
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| markshark84 wrote: | | Deadskins wrote: | | markshark84 wrote: | | This ranking is not a true cumulative ranking and is from a cite that boast about how they come up with outside the box type analysis. Which makes sense.... because it goes against almost all the other rankings. |
Then they must be incorrect. Imagine! coming up with a different outcome than a fantasy football blogger? It boggles the mind. |
The stats iru-bru provided were from a blogger........
Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's pretty telling that everything you can find puts the skins OL between 24-27 including sources such as nfl.com. I know the mods all support one another regardless of issue, but come on. |
I'm not a mod. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
cowboykillerzRGiii
CKRGiii
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 3163
Location: 505 New Mexico repn
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| markshark84 wrote: | | Deadskins wrote: | | markshark84 wrote: | | This ranking is not a true cumulative ranking and is from a cite that boast about how they come up with outside the box type analysis. Which makes sense.... because it goes against almost all the other rankings. |
Then they must be incorrect. Imagine! coming up with a different outcome than a fantasy football blogger? It boggles the mind. |
The stats iru-bru provided were from a blogger........
Maybe I'm wrong but I think it's pretty telling that everything you can find puts the skins OL between 24-27 including sources such as nfl.com. I know the mods all support one another regardless of issue, but come on. |
Blanket statements, like the two you just dropped, are pretty telling. I've seen the.mods duke it out probably harder then anyone...
The way different sources gauge an o line is up to the reader to take n what ever.manner they want to take it.
You say they are crap.
I say look at the 100+ rushing yard games they produced 3 of which without the best player on the whole line.
You might mention: The qb hits the qb sacks...
I'll counter look at the damn qb! Horrible vision, iceskates on in the pocket + happy feet = fail.
Add rgiii better vision paytenesque release time, and automatically overnight that same line is MUCH better.
So its in how you look at it, and you choose to loom at it with doomsday glasses where kos on here prefer the cup half full glasses. Either way not much is going to happen now a week before final rosters so let's hope for the best instead of pulling up bogus stats from "know it all" bloggers... Eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Red_One43
Hog
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Posts: 4606
Location: D.C.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Irn-Bru wrote: | | Quote: | | You're correct in that a lot of this is just the voicing of my frustrations due to the blatent disregard our FO has given to the OL over the years. |
Well, OK. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, I guess, but I'm still not sure why you thought it was a good idea to do that venting as though it represented a rebuttal of anything I had written. 
| Quote: | | I agree that if we have our 5 starters for 16 games, we'll have a mediocre line, |
Agree with whom? That's not my opinion. I think our offensive line (i.e., starters and backups when needed) will be mediocre this season. We are healthy going into the year in that our projected starters are ready to go. (I'm not counting Brown as I think he will be cut after his PUP status expires, effectively meaning he didn't make the team.)
Provided we have an average season so far as injuries are concerned — i.e., we stay relatively healthy and don't lose 2-3 guys for the whole season — I think we'll be middle-of-the-pack. That is not the same thing as saying we will need all 5 guys to start all 16 games if we are to have any hope of being mediocre. See?
And this unit also has the potential to show flashes of top-10 performances for stretches at a time, like they did at the end of last year. I am less confident that they will do this, but it's not unlikely.
That's my view, which is substantially different than anything I've seen you say.
| Quote: | | As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves. |
Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point, as I showed in my last post. Go ahead and look them all up: right now I'm not sure there's a single team that doesn't have at least one starter acquired through FA. Using FA only for reserves is a blockheaded strategy that would harm a team, not help it.
But if you soften this position to say that teams should generally draft the players they want on their OL, then I agree. And Bruce Allen agrees too, actually, which is why Trent Williams was the first draft choice of the current FO. That's also why we've taken six linemen in this FO's three drafts, including our first pick one year and our second pick another. As a result, we have better starters and much better depth than we did in Zorn's second season here. It's a work in progress.
Remember that Allen's only been here for three seasons; it's unfair to criticize him for Cerrato's mistakes, which is what you are clearly doing. |
Check out this Thread Trends Found in Play-off Team's Offensive Lines. LINK You will find that FA O linemen especially undrafted FA's are a key to all O lines. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 10627
Location: on the bandwagon
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| markshark84 wrote: | | There's more, but thought you got the idea. Nice try though. |
You asked; I answered. I haven't scoured the web for sources that agree with me.
Fantasy football rankings, by the way, are not my idea of assessing how well a line has played. They are all going to say the same thing because FF assesses points in standard ways, so you can pull 1 source or 20 and it won't make much difference to me.
Some random moron's personal rankings on "Bleacher" "Report" doesn't impress me either.
For NFL.com, you just pulled up the stats on sacks. I freely admit that we were much worse in pass protection than in run blocking. But offensive line performance is judged on balance, and even within sacks allowed there is more to figuring out who is to blame.
The remaining links to Pro Football Focus and Advanced NFL Stats — the only interesting links you provided — I do respect, though I disagree with their conclusions. I've also seen them before.
"Nice try, though."
Last edited by Irn-Bru on Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 10627
Location: on the bandwagon
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| markshark84 wrote: | | The stats iru-bru provided were from a blogger........ |
No, they were from an advanced stats site. These guys literally make their living off trying to bring NFL statistics out of the stone age.
You should check out FO, by the way. I think you'd like it.
| Quote: | | I know the mods all support one another regardless of issue, but come on. |
Aside from your mistake in saying JSPB is a mod, this statement is demonstrably untrue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 10627
Location: on the bandwagon
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, yes, I do remember that thread. Very helpful analysis. Thank you for reposting the link! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 10627
Location: on the bandwagon
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| markshark84 wrote: | Lastly, here is the quote:
I stated: "As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves".
Your response: "Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point, as I showed in my last post." |
Hmm. So we had this exchange, which I've pasted together from multiple posts:
| markshark84 wrote: | | Everyone also knows that franchises don't let their solid OL starters go unless: (1) their old, (2) they want too much money, or (3) they have "issues". |
| Irn-Bru wrote: | | I'd be willing to bet that there are very few, if any, NFL teams without an FA starting on the line. The best teams / offensive lines have them, at any rate, which is proof enough of the ridiculousness of this argument. |
| markshark84 wrote: | | As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves. |
| Irn-Bru wrote: | | Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point … right now I'm not sure there's a single team that doesn't have at least one starter acquired through FA. Using FA only for reserves is a blockheaded strategy …. But if you soften this position to say that teams should generally draft the players they want on their OL, then I agree. |
And then this is how you sum up what I said?
| markshark84 wrote: | | I am not sure how you can state that most NFL teams don't draft their best OL and instead opt to acquire via FA. |
 Come on, you have to admit it's funny how much of a caricature that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Red_One43
Hog
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Posts: 4606
Location: D.C.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Irn-Bru wrote: |
Oh, yes, I do remember that thread. Very helpful analysis. Thank you for reposting the link! |
You're welcome! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Deadskins
JSPB22
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 14716
Location: Location, LOCATION!
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Irn-Bru wrote: | | Come on, you have to admit it's funny how much of a caricature that is. |
OK, OK, I admit it.
Happy now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
markshark84
Hog
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 1460
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Irn-Bru wrote: | | markshark84 wrote: | Lastly, here is the quote:
I stated: "As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves".
Your response: "Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point, as I showed in my last post." |
Hmm. So we had this exchange, which I've pasted together from multiple posts:
| markshark84 wrote: | | Everyone also knows that franchises don't let their solid OL starters go unless: (1) their old, (2) they want too much money, or (3) they have "issues". |
| Irn-Bru wrote: | | I'd be willing to bet that there are very few, if any, NFL teams without an FA starting on the line. The best teams / offensive lines have them, at any rate, which is proof enough of the ridiculousness of this argument. |
| markshark84 wrote: | | As such, I will stick to my statement that because of this, we need to DRAFT core OL and use the FA for reserves. |
| Irn-Bru wrote: | | Well the best NFL teams all disagree with you on this point … right now I'm not sure there's a single team that doesn't have at least one starter acquired through FA. Using FA only for reserves is a blockheaded strategy …. But if you soften this position to say that teams should generally draft the players they want on their OL, then I agree. |
And then this is how you sum up what I said?
| markshark84 wrote: | | I am not sure how you can state that most NFL teams don't draft their best OL and instead opt to acquire via FA. |
Come on, you have to admit it's funny how much of a caricature that is. |
I provided my response based on what you quoted from me and what your response was. I did not pick and choose sentences from our prior exchanges. If you wanted to be more clear, you should have. If that is not your opinion, that is fine, but I don't see -- based on that initial quote above between the two of us -- how my conclusion couldn't have been formulated (arg. double negatives....). I don't see taking bits and pieces of a rather long and at time different exchange and manipulating them as if it were one single conversation as constructive. Perhaps you have been in DC too long......
And in terms of the OL rankings --- first, your cite is a stats site run by a couple guys in college. I could have just as much "created" a stats cite just like that (yes, much like the blogs, basically everything but the NFL stuff). They can call themselves anything they want, but I see them as a blog. Second, I believe all rankings are going to be different due to the subjectivityt that goes into evaluating OL. That said, the reason I provided the blogs and other data was to show that almost everyone ranks the skins OL in a position within a couple points of one another. I saw your ranking as an outlier -- being that is was 15 points differnet than the average. |
|
| Back to top |
|
markshark84
Hog
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 1460
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Red_One43 wrote: | | Irn-Bru wrote: |
Oh, yes, I do remember that thread. Very helpful analysis. Thank you for reposting the link! |
You're welcome! |
I'm actually happy you posted that. It shows that most of the upper tier teams had around 3 players drafted from their particular team. The others were fitted in via FA. That is what I am trying to say. You build your line from the draft and fill in the pieces via FA. A franchise doesn't have enough picks to fully outfit their entire 9 man line via the draft and still focus on other needs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
| Page 9 of 12 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
