Football Outsiders: interesting 2006 OL stats

[Angus]

These are interesting stats from last year. They could change some minds about Dallas' offensive line.

I'd like to know what AdamJT13 thinks of them:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol.php

 

[Future]

it was bad...you cant change my mind

 

[superpunk]

Our run stats off left tackle (Kosier/Adams) were especially interesting, adjusted rank of 2nd in the league. Of course, it was just as miserable looking at the adjusted rate off mid/guard and right tackle. Right end got alot better, though - possibly a Witten thing. And all this without a top RB talent.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Wow, I didn't even realize Detroit gave up more sacks than Oakland. Everyone was so excited about how the Cowboys sacked them 5 times. Well, that was just slightly over their avg for the year. (72/16 = 4.5 sacks per game) ...not that impressive. :

 

[AdamJT13]

Wow, I didn't even realize Detroit gave up more sacks than Oakland. Everyone was so excited about how the Cowboys sacked them 5 times. Well, that was just slightly over their avg for the year. (72/16 = 4.5 sacks per game) ...not that impressive. :

Detroit didn't give up more sacks than Oakland. Detroit allowed 63, and Oakland allowed 72 despite attempting 113 fewer passes than the Lions did.

For pass blocking, you have to look at the team name in blue, in the fourth column from the right. The teams names on the left, in black, are for run blocking.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Detroit didn't give up more sacks than Oakland. Detroit allowed 63, and Oakland allowed 72 despite attempting 113 fewer passes than the Lions did.

For pass blocking, you have to look at the team name in blue, in the fourth column from the right. The teams names on the left, in black, are for run blocking.

Whoops. Long day. I'm headded home!

 

[AbeBeta]

Those rankings, well, they depend on how much you buy the adjusted aspect -- me, i think the ranks are not the good info here. What is interesting is the adjusted vs. actual yards. The 10+ yard issue is stupid. That doesn't count toward the line success. Sure -- much of the action down the field is on the RB but the stats these guys use make those runs count toward nothing.

The funny thing about these stats is that even though we were 8th overall, were 17th, 20th, and 18th in power, 10+ yards, and stuffed. We were also well below average in RB Yards.

As a rule, adjusted values should correspond resonably to actual outcomes. These don't as they are presented.

 

[BouncingCheese]

it was bad...you cant change my mind

I agree; stats have a place in the arguments but I was watching with my own eyes... Romo was running around the pocket like crazy; I am amazed he was able to do so well, let alone Bledsoe even able to stay upright for more than a second or so.

 

[superpunk]

I agree; stats have a place in the arguments but I was watching with my own eyes... Romo was running around the pocket like crazy; I am amazed he was able to do so well, let alone Bledsoe even able to stay upright for more than a second or so.

That's probably why our pass blocking graded out so poorly.

 

[AdamJT13]

The 10+ yard issue is stupid. That doesn't count toward the line success. Sure -- much of the action down the field is on the RB but the stats these guys use make those runs count toward nothing.

No, they just don't count the extra yards gained past 10 yards. They figure once the back gets past a certain point, anything else he gains is up to him, not the line. If he gets caught from behind after 30 yards, that's his fault, not the line's.

 

[burmafrd]

Would be very interesting if they could be broken down as regards pass blocking to Bledsoe vs Romo. I bet there is a fair amount of difference.

 

[AbeBeta]

No, they just don't count the extra yards gained past 10 yards. They figure once the back gets past a certain point, anything else he gains is up to him, not the line. If he gets caught from behind after 30 yards, that's his fault, not the line's.

If that is the case, then they are doing a crap job explaining their adjustment. I see it now in the description of the 10+ yard data -- sort of. In describing adjuted yards here's what they say

"Adjusted Line Yards take every carry by a running back and apply those percentages. (We don�t include carries by receivers, which are usually based on deception rather than straight blocking, or carries by quarterbacks, which are generally busted passing plays except in Atlanta.) Those numbers are then adjusted based on down, distance, and situation as well as opponent (similar to DVOA) and then normalized so that the league average for Adjusted Line Yards per carry is the same as the league average for RB yards per carry (in 2005, 4.07)."

The % for 10+ yard gains is 0%. So that makes it sound very much like those don't count -- why not just clearly say "for runs of 10 or more yards, the OL get credit for X yards?"

Sometimes I wonder if my brothers and sisters in the field of statistics ever speak to real people.

 

[burmafrd]

I really doubt that any O lineman does a whole lot more then 5-7 yds from the line of scrimmage. Occasionally you see one farther then that- but not often and how often do they actually hit someone? So the 10 yd part is probably not out of line. I think that 8 yds would be better. Maybe even less.

 

[AbeBeta]

I really doubt that any O lineman does a whole lot more then 5-7 yds from the line of scrimmage. Occasionally you see one farther then that- but not often and how often do they actually hit someone? So the 10 yd part is probably not out of line. I think that 8 yds would be better. Maybe even less.

As I read it, if your guy runs 10+ yards, you get credit for 5.

 

[burmafrd]

It seems a little much to really get that detailed when you do not know how each play was SUPPOSED to work vs how it did. And you do not know how much of the success/failure of each play is the RB or the O Lines responsibility.