Can somebody explain the interest in Fleener to me?

[Southern9er]

No one is disputing that those two guys struggled. But other OLs were as bad or worse, yet their offenses as a whole were still able to get things done. You're acting like we had the worst OL in the league. We didn't.

Not "the" worst but there were 26 other teams that were better than us...we were also #8 for sacks allowed. #20 if you look at PFF...we are without question in the bottom third, with a high sacks allowed ranking.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Not "the" worst but there were 26 other teams that were better than us...we were also #8 for sacks allowed. #20 if you look at PFF...we are without question in the bottom third, with a high sacks allowed ranking.

How do you get 26?

I wouldn't dispute that we were in the bottom third, though I think we're toward the top of that group. New center, young players, new scheme and no real offseason. It's understandable that they took some time to gel. But I thought they showed nice improvement as the year progressed. And again, other teams with OL problems were much more effective than we were.

 

[TobyTyler]

Plenty of recent SB teams (winners and losers) have had questionable OLs. The Steelers' OL has been shaky for some time. The Cards' OL wasn't very good when they made it.

The O line is the foundation of every offense. If they were bad the team would not have reached the pinncacle of success in the NFL which is the Super Bowl. They are competent and there is no denying that. The results speak for themselves.

 

[Southern9er]

NFL Stats: by Team Category

We were also 10 out of 12 playoff teams. I agree the O-line play improved, especially in the run game, but the pass protection was generally bad (even embarrassing) in my opinion, with flashes of good play...seems more like play calling and adjustments caused the improvement and not real improvement in their play.

 

[Arete Tzu]

The O line is the foundation of every offense. If they were bad the team would not have reached the pinncacle of success in the NFL which is the Super Bowl. They are competent and there is no denying that. The results speak for themselves.

sports cliche and theories are nice and all, but they aren't an absolute infallible rule. If they where always right Trent dilfer would have never won a superbowl

 

[Crimsoncrew]

NFL Stats: by Team Category

We were also 10 out of 12 playoff teams. I agree the O-line play improved, especially in the run game, but the pass protection was generally bad (even embarrassing) in my opinion, with flashes of good play...seems more like play calling and adjustments caused the improvement and not real improvement in their play.

We were 26th in sacks allowed. That doesn't mean our OL was 26th in the league. Last I checked, the QB has just a tiny little bit to do with sacks, and the OL is also involved in run blocking.

According to the same set of stats, our OL was 8th in the league:

NFL Stats: by Team Category

 

[Crimsoncrew]

The O line is the foundation of every offense. If they were bad the team would not have reached the pinncacle of success in the NFL which is the Super Bowl. They are competent and there is no denying that. The results speak for themselves.

That's just awful reasoning. You could use the same logic to claim that any SB winner was sound at virtually any position.

"Defense wins championships." Every SB winner must have had a good defense.

"It's a QB-driven league." Every SB winner must have had a good QB.

If we combine the two above, every SB winner must have a good secondary and/or a good pass rush.

"It's a passing league." Every SB winner was good at WR.

The Giants' OL was bad last season, and they got worse as the season progressed. To borrow Southern's stats, they allowed the most sacks and the most QB hits (by far) in the playoffs.

NFL Stats: by Team Category

Granted they played more games, but even if we adjust for attempts they allowed more sacks and hits than our OL did despite games against Atlanta and GB (Eli sacked or hit on 32.5% of dropbacks, Alex sacked or hit on 31.5% of dropbacks). And they were much less successful running the ball. If our OL was bad, theirs was as bad or worse.

 

[RedneckNiner]

Interest in Fleener summed up.. Offense is sexy.. Oline and Defense aren't.

 

[Southern9er]

We were 26th in sacks allowed. That doesn't mean our OL was 26th in the league. Last I checked, the QB has just a tiny little bit to do with sacks, and the OL is also involved in run blocking.

According to the same set of stats, our OL was 8th in the league:

NFL Stats: by Team Category

Yes...you'd have to sum up the rankings to get a total...but we both agree the 49ers OL was bottom 3rd...which is close to the offensive ranking. I'm just saying the two are closely ranked. QB has and Ol both affect that....which ever is greater is arguable, but the foundation that has to be the pass blocking, then QB and WRs getting open. Rarely was our QB able to stand in the pocket unmolested...

 

[Flyingiguana]

We were 26th in sacks allowed. That doesn't mean our OL was 26th in the league. Last I checked, the QB has just a tiny little bit to do with sacks, and the OL is also involved in run blocking.

According to the same set of stats, our OL was 8th in the league:

NFL Stats: by Team Category

football outsiders has an adjusted sack totals measure. we were pretty low on the totem poll because of all the 3rd and longs.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Not "the" worst but there were 26 other teams that were better than us...we were also #8 for sacks allowed. #20 if you look at PFF...we are without question in the bottom third, with a high sacks allowed ranking.

I hate using sacks to judge an OL's ability to pass protect. Sacks have as much to do with the QB as it has to do with the OL. Unless you can go through every sack on every team to decide which was the OLs and which was the QBs fault, then it's a nonsensical measurement, IMO.

 

[clyde_carbon]

NFL Stats: by Team Category

We were also 10 out of 12 playoff teams. I agree the O-line play improved, especially in the run game, but the pass protection was generally bad (even embarrassing) in my opinion, with flashes of good play...seems more like play calling and adjustments caused the improvement and not real improvement in their play.

Again, which of these sacks were because the OL couldn't block the people in front them, and which ones were because Alex held the ball too long or didn't adjust the blocking scheme at the LOS?

 

[Arete Tzu]

I think we need an official Alex hold's the ball to long tracker, no other sites will have it as a stat so we are left wondering.

 

[deep9er]

for last year ONLY, we were very lucky that Alex didn't fumble as much while being sacked. just recalling how some of his sacks seemed sure to be fumbles, but he hung on?

the focus is always on INT's which he DID do a good job with, but if he starts to fumble due to "holding the ball", factor this in.

at first thought i'd take a sack over an INT, but on second thought........getting sacked also means potential fumbles....worse than an INT.

 

[Flyingiguana]

for last year ONLY, we were very lucky that Alex didn't fumble as much while being sacked. just recalling how some of his sacks seemed sure to be fumbles, but he hung on?

the focus is always on INT's which he DID do a good job with, but if he starts to fumble due to "holding the ball", factor this in.

at first thought i'd take a sack over an INT, but on second thought........getting sacked also means potential fumbles....worse than an INT.

it's been a season and a half since he had fumbe issues...

 

[Ray_Dogg]

I think we need an official Alex hold's the ball to long tracker, no other sites will have it as a stat so we are left wondering.

I know in the first part of the season imac and myself pointed out several that took place with less than 3 seconds. A lot were right at 2 seconds. Snyder helped but we need an upgrade over him and the blocking should improve even more than it did as the season wore on. Keep in mind the Baltimore debacle where the oline didn't get off the plane and we gave up 9 sacks!

 

[CalamityX11]

first part of the season was indeed a brutal time for Alex... i recall the cincy game where Alex couldn't lock onto a WR since a Bengal was already in his grill.

 

[Bemular]

Good points all around. I'm impressed.

Fair enough. My dissent with PFF stems from their use of flawed formulas (See PBE), the unpublished plethora of variables that would need to be considered in order to pull off the research method they are using, the arbitrary and unpublished weighting of those variables, their almost entirely subjective and expressed ignorant grading method (see sacks), not to mention, among other issues, their inconsistent, sometimes incoherent results (See 2011 Broncos PFF Rush Ranking vs. Statistical Ranking & NE 2011 PFF o'line overall ranking vs. their PFF individual grades).

Add to those problems the fact that PFF is, or at least was at times during last season, under-resourced severe enough to reduce their analyses to that of being little more than a educated guess.

On the positive side, I have been a part of a couple conversations with Neil and Kahled, both are engaging fellows with the right idea and if they can pull it off they will be the first to do it; science, however, is not on their side. At this point in time I would use PFF to slightly broaden my perspective but never as a stand-alone conclusion.

 

[Bemular]

Look, this is pretty simple. I look at Davis compared to Ballard, and I see that Davis has far superior physical ability. He is MUCH faster, stronger, and more explosive. I also see that Davis has produced far more on the field. I have not seen as much of Ballard, but from what I have seen, I believe that he is more limited than Davis. You said Ballard and Davis are similar in terms of "tangibles." I don't know what you mean by that. So explain what you mean, and provide some evidence to support your claim. Or just continue to be a little bitch. I'm betting on the latter.

As for Eli, do you have any statistics that show that his OL was actually quite good? Btw, suddenly statistics are relevant again? You have a habit of dismissing stats when I provide them to support a position you disagree with, yet you constantly ask me to provide them when I have not done so. Make up your mind.

So let me see if I have this correct, YOU make a conclusive statement which can be supported only with tangible evidence and then admit you have no idea what the hell tangible evidence even is - Brilliant strategy. I'll get back to you when I stop laughing.

As for why I dismiss your use of statistics out of hand, because you have not a clue how to create, apply or interpret statistics - seriously, when it comes to statistics you are CrimsonClueless.

 

[Bemular]

That's just awful reasoning. You could use the same logic to claim that any SB winner was sound at virtually any position.

"Defense wins championships." Every SB winner must have had a good defense.

"It's a QB-driven league." Every SB winner must have had a good QB.

If we combine the two above, every SB winner must have a good secondary and/or a good pass rush.

"It's a passing league." Every SB winner was good at WR.

The Giants' OL was bad last season, and they got worse as the season progressed. To borrow Southern's stats, they allowed the most sacks and the most QB hits (by far) in the playoffs.

NFL Stats: by Team Category

Granted they played more games, but even if we adjust for attempts they allowed more sacks and hits than our OL did despite games against Atlanta and GB (Eli sacked or hit on 32.5% of dropbacks, Alex sacked or hit on 31.5% of dropbacks). And they were much less successful running the ball. If our OL was bad, theirs was as bad or worse.

Actually, whether or not this season confirms Toby's reasoning, his reasoning is spot-on and yours is wrong - the exception does not negate the rule and you have provided zero evidence that this season is an exception.

Also, where are you getting the notion that the Giants o'line became worse as the season progressed? How are you measuring that? I thought the Giants last 6 games of the regular season, which were against tougher opponents, were better than their first six games. Are you just making shit up again or do you have any relevant facts to back-up your claim that they became worse as the season progressed?

As for the playoffs, for 3 of the 4 playoff games the Giants o'line performed just fine. While the debacle against us does lower their aggregate statistical performance, it does not diminish the individual on field performance of the other 3 games; which, as I said, was just fine.

And finally, as if I scripted this myself, I mentioned to you in my other post why I dismiss your statistical arguments out of hand and this post is just another on a long list of reasons why. Good Job!