"No One Could Play Behind This OL"

[kungfoodude]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

I'd agree, with the additional point thrown in that it shouldn't be an excuse to skimp in that area.

That was one of my biggest complaints with Ron Rivera.

Agreed. I haven't taken a closer look but I would bet that the data would show(unsurprisingly) that average QB play can be elevated by elite pass protection. I can always produce the same list with the opposite end of the scale. I might do that if I get some free time this evening/this afternoon. I'd be interested to see the QB's included on the top 5 list.

[kungfoodude]

13 minutes ago, BrianS said:

That's a lot of numbers that don't tell me anything new.  I watch the game, our OLine looks terrible.  No need for a bunch of stats to show me what I can clearly see.  And it's not just pass blocking.  We can't really run block either.  If we could blow people off the ball in the run game, there are four games we would have won.

 

I'm not really evaluating the OL. I'm evaluating QB play among the bottom tier offensive lines. I have already evaluated the OL in an older thread and it basically bears out that we are a bottom 5 unit, to no one's surprise.

[Khyber53]

Just for fun, add in another line to the equation with scores from one to 15 for drafted position of the QB. One point for being the highest draft pick and 15 for being the lowliest of the picks.

There were at least 10 first rounders in that list. (And it does figure that top draft picks often go to teams with bad O-lines).

Kyle might well be a journeyman level QB out there, but without decent protection it's hard to judge him. I really thought Tannehill was a complete wash up until he started lighting things up in Tennessee. Go figure.

[CatfanMO]

i think its legit. Russel wilson and Cam can scramble. Take out the 2 Panthers games and Ryan is not a good QB this year. Point is.. If you have a horrible line, you better have a mobile QB or you look like Allen, Dalton, etc.. 

 

[kungfoodude]

26 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Nice idea. Kudos.

I've said before that I don't think Ron Rivera believed a superior offensive line was necessary as long as you had a really mobile quarterback. There's reason to think Pete Carroll believes the same way. It's not unusual among defensive coaches.

Of course, if you try to stick a pocket passer behind a line like that, then you'd better hope they get the ball out really quick. Otherwise, they're gonna get slaughtered.

I'd throw in that even with a mobile quarterback, it's not an accident that our best season came when we had our best offensive line (2015).

Actually, in relation to Sacks Allowed Ranking and Sack Percentage, 2001-2008 were all of our best offensive lines. Note: This data has not been updated.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Agreed. I haven't taken a closer look but I would bet that the data would show(unsurprisingly) that average QB play can be elevated by elite pass protection. I can always produce the same list with the opposite end of the scale. I might do that if I get some free time this evening/this afternoon. I'd be interested to see the QB's included on the top 5 list.

Brady is still very good, but most analysts would tell you he hasn't looked as good this year as he has in previous years.

I'll give you three guesses as to why 

(it ain't his age)

[Eric4280]

Is it scheme related or is it the individual players? Because if you’re looking at everything individually- Little was technically good a couple games and had some clunkers. Daley was also above serviceable. Van Roten was highly improved, especially in comparison to how he was. Paradis was given a contract on the basis of being a top five center (but hasn’t played like it).

 

Trai.... this is where I’m a bit baffled . Is he done? When’s the last time he’s been elite? I don’t WANNA write him off, but I feel like his impact has become minimal. And lastly, Moton, who I’ve been big on. Hasn’t been bad bad.

 

How exactly do we fix this? Is it the scheme or players?

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

Just for fun, add in another line to the equation with scores from one to 15 for drafted position of the QB. One point for being the highest draft pick and 15 for being the lowliest of the picks.

There were at least 10 first rounders in that list. (And it does figure that top draft picks often go to teams with bad O-lines).

Kyle might well be a journeyman level QB out there, but without decent protection it's hard to judge him. I really thought Tannehill was a complete wash up until he started lighting things up in Tennessee. Go figure.

That would be interesting but I wouldn't want that to skew the data since it isn't performance based. You could try and correlate it to draft position, however. 

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

Actually, in relation to Sacks Allowed Ranking and Sack Percentage, 2001-2008 was all of our best offensive lines. Note: This data has not been updated.

I'd say that's one where the data doesn't tell the whole story. 2001? Yikes!

Funny thing too: Someone a long time ago ran the numbers and found that mobile quarterbacks actually took more sacks than pocket passers did. The rationale, as I understood it, was that a mobile quarterback was more likely to run around trying to extend the play whereas a pocket passer would probably just throw it away rather than take the sack.

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Brady is still very good, but most analysts would tell you he hasn't looked as good this year as he has in previous years.

I'll give you three guesses as to why 

(it ain't his age)

Supporting cast, most likely. Specifically WR play. I'd have to look at the data to see if that bears out, however. I do think that age is playing a factor but I think that will become more apparent if he sticks around another 2-3 years.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, kungfoodude said:

Supporting cast, most likely. Specifically WR play. I'd have to look at the data to see if that bears out, however. I do think that age is playing a factor but I think that will become more apparent if he sticks around another 2-3 years.

His OL this year has been banged up and underperforming. Even when he hasn't been sacked, he's been under significant pressure.

Hell, his left tackle for several games was Marshall Newhouse, a depth guy we chose not to re-sign.

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'd say that's one where the data doesn't tell the whole story. 2001? Yikes!

Funny thing too: Someone a long time ago ran the numbers and found that mobile quarterbacks actually took more sacks than pocket passers did. The rationale, as I understood it, was that a mobile quarterback was more likely to run around trying to extend the play whereas a pocket passer would probably just throw it away rather than take the sack.

You could look at QB Pressures and QB Hits to see if they match up with the performance in 2001. If anything is skewing that data, I'll wager it was the fact that we ran the ball a much greater percentage of the time, which would have an impact on the pass protection statistics. 

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, kungfoodude said:

You could look at QB Pressures and QB Hits to see if they match up with the performance in 2001. If anything is skewing that data, I'll wager it was the fact that we ran the ball a much greater percentage of the time, which would have an impact on the pass protection statistics. 

Don't know. We were running Seifert's West Coast Offense back then.

[d-dave]

Wow @kungfoodude!  Nice work!

I think it comes down to if you're a player or not.  A great QB can deal with crappy line play, and a good coach can scheme around their deficiencies at times.

The panthers need to help the line for sure, but it would also help if Allen was making better decisions when structure starts to break down.  He's getting better week by week, but he still has a LONG way to go in that regards.