July 16, 2019, 03:10:11 AM

Author Topic: Position look: OL  (Read 1500 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3403
  • Karma: +59/-17

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2019, 09:17:24 PM »
I don't mean this to sound snarky, I'm serious about this.  And I don't remember who says what, so what seems inconsistent to my memory may be totally consistent within an individual poster; it's just that a board like this has multiple posters who often have very different perspectives, so I'm perhaps remembering posts by different posters that disagree with each other. 

Seems like some voices highly respect PFF often, and treat it as objective and view it's grades as really meaningful.  Others disrespect PFF, and don't treat it's evaluations as very trustworthy at all.  How closely are they really evaluating each play?  How do they even know what a player's assignment is supposed to be? 

Just yesterday, wasn't there a Bengal guy who spoke about Rodgers, and you RT dismissed his voice because he'd only gotten one sack last year, but then another poster said the PFF had given him a very strong grade? 

So, when should I believe PFF, and when should I not?  I have no idea!  My guess is that their evaluations are worth considering and respecting, with some caution.  And that *IF* there is a significant discrepancy between internal team evaluation versus PFF evaluation, that I'd probably weight the internal team evaluation somewhat more heavily?  They are internally motivated to spend a lot of focus on the Packers, whereas PFF has the whole league to look at.  And second the team does know the responsibilities on each play, which can probably assist the evaluation process. 

Unfortunately we only rarely know what the internal team evaluations are, unlike the accessible PFF stuff!

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2019, 09:24:44 PM »
In terms of the PFF evals, Bulaga got a very positive one, at least as a pass-blocker.  (run blocking, not as good, I assume.)  It's been board consensus that he's expiring and there is no interest in re-signing him, many posters seem to think they'd rather go with Spriggs or Turner at RT in 2020 and beyond than Bulaga.  I still question that presumption, and think there is merit in perhaps considering paying the player who was significantly superior last year, may remain significantly superior this year, and despite the advancement of father time might remain significantly superior beyond this year? 

Of course I get the flip argument:  Maybe it's exactly the favorable ratings by PFF that will drive his price up and make him unaffordable.  Maybe it's not that he's not good enough to extend; maybe it's that he's too good to extend because players as good as he is will get paid a lot? 

Beats me, of course.  But it does occur to me that his injury history, and his birth year, are also familiar to every other GM in football.  I'm not sure he's going to get as overpaid by anybody as posters sometimes assume? 

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2019, 09:29:44 PM »
The other thing in the PFF article is that while Gute was ready to invest long-term starter-dollars in Turner, and many posters are almost assuming that he'll be a good RT replacement for Bulaga in 2020 and beyond, PFF rated him as only marginally better than Byron Bell, who was paid <10% that Turner got, and RT thought that was too much!  (If I'm remembering correctly.) 

This may be a case where I sure hope Gute's detailed film study and high appreciation for Turner is much more insightful than PPF's tepid appreciation for him! 

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3403
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2019, 05:54:02 AM »
I think it is a case that the grading systems are just a tool craig, but not the end all answer to what was or will be. In the microwave society we live in people just want to slap a number on everything and that is the answer and it is the end of evaluation process for them. It allows people to be experts in everything 'right now' with no real work done or attempts made to truly understand a subject.

Bait a hook and throw it in a lake and now people know how to win a bass fishing tournament. Take a gun and walk though the forest and now an expert in bagging elusive big game. Hit a bucket of golf balls and they can tell you what it takes to win the Masters. Like every occupation or hobby, to be really good at something takes work and dedication, it takes an open mind that you will always keep learning and growing. It is not PhD in 30 seconds obtained with one Google search.

Statistics are a great tool when applied with the right evaluation process, but if not used with the proper perspective the knowledge of identifying key indicators is lost. Some statistics are relevant and some are not and that is were perspective comes into the equation, some people chose not to have it because it is to complicating and is too much work. Matt Barkley had a higher passer rating than Patrick Mahomes, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady last season, does that mean that Barkley is a better QB then all of them? WR John Brown with Baltimore last season averaged 17 yard a reception, that was better than Julio Jones, OBJ, Davante Adams and Troy Brown. So John Brown must be a better WR then those other WR's, correct? Carl Lawson had a higher pass rush win percentage than Khalil Mack (12.5 sacks), Aaron Donald (20.5), JJ Watt (16) and Von Miller (14.5), but surely Lawson with his one sack is a better pass rusher than the other because of his pass rush win percentage, right? Perspective. Some are black and white, but like every occupation and hobby there are many more that are in the gray area and that takes time to peel back the layers to get to the truth. The first step is asking why and being willing to dig for the answers and that alone will separate someone from 98% of the population.       

Offline craig

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3813
  • Karma: +21/-4
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #35 on: July 11, 2019, 08:58:13 AM »
Analytics are often geared to best process situations that are relatively normal.  The more deviant the situation, sometimes the less accurate the analysis.  I mention that because Rodgers and the Packers have been relatively abnormal, in terms of "HBL" ("Holding the Ball Long").  So I wonder if PFF perhaps struggles a bit in terms of it's pass-blocking calculations. 

I don't know PFF's formula, but I'm sure that embedded in their formula are both sacks, and protection time, both of which are impacted by HBL.  I wonder whether the details of their formula perhaps over-rates GB's pass blocking? 

HBL-Sacks:  Obviously HBL increases the volume of sacks.  RT recently implied (Lawson) that PFF underrates sacks; that they gave a 1-sack defender a top-10 score seemed deceptive, and suggests that somehow their formula has a flaw.  Seems to me that if they undervalue sacks for a defender, perhaps the same is true for blockers?  So that the extra sacks that result from HBL don't matter much to PFF? 

HBL-time:  Certainly blockers that "protect" for 5 seconds will get better analytics scores than those that protect for only 1.5, I assume?  So is it possible that Rodgers HBL is inflating GB's blocking scores, and that exactly the same blockers would get lower scores if Brees was getting a ball out at 1.8, while Rodgers is HBL and sprinting to the left sideline evading the chase of a guy Byron Bell let get free?   

In other words, is it possible that by Rodgers holding the ball too long, that the way PFF does their calculation, that blockers are getting extra credit for the way that Rodgers extends plays and holds the ball too long relative to normal QB's?  Even though those extra seconds of Rodgers running around aren't really a function of "protection" and uncommonly effective blocking?  (Or maybe put differently, if you put Rodgers behind the Patriots line, would their blocking scores suddenly go up because he unnecessarily extends a bunch of plays, which pads the blocker's PFF scores?) 

I'm just wondering, I'm not arguing or concluding that Rodgers HBL is skewing the pass-blockers PFF scores.  I'm just hypothesizing that something like that might be true.  If they are getting significant extra credit for play-extensions are more a function of Rodgers than of their actual protection, and *IF* PFF doesn't reduce hardly any credit for the extra sacks that result from the play-extensions, then they might have artificially high PFF scores. 

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5160
  • Karma: +38/-2
Re: Position look: OL
« Reply #36 on: July 11, 2019, 09:32:21 AM »
This goes back to "context" again.

I think PFF's grade on Lawson may be fair given all the factors (sacks, pressures, hurries, knockdowns, etc) that they include in their grading formula's.

However, Lawson was claiming that Rodgers is EASY TO SACK. He said nothing about the other variables. So, in that CONTEXT, RT is correct in calling out Lawson based on the additional information about how beat up GB's OL was on that particular day, plus the tendency AR has of hanging on to the ball, longer than other QB's, in hopes of making a big play.

I'd say there are plenty of other defenders who would claim otherwise about AR and his mobility. He may not be as elusive as he was 6-8 years ago, but he's still mobile.

You know who Lawson forgot to credit when he showered himself with accolades? His DB's, who obviously were throttling GB's receivers and making AR wait longer than he should have for someone to break open.

CONTEXT!