PDA

View Full Version : FF Index ranks the NFL's offensive lines:



baalworship
07-25-2003, 09:16 PM
Offensive Line Rankings for 2003 (starters) :

1.St Louis

2.Kansas City

3. Minnesota

4.Washington

5.Philadelphia

6.Cincinnati

7.Buffalo

8.Seattle

9.San Francisco

10.Denver

11. Indy

12.Oakland

13.Pittsburgh

14.Arizona

15.Green Bay

16.New York Jets

17.Carolina

18.New England

19.Baltimore

20.Tenessee

21.Dallas

22.Atlanta

23. Miami

24.Chicago

25.Tampa Bay

26.Jacksonville

27.Cleveland

28. NY Giants

29.San Diego

30.New Orleans

31.Detroit

32.Houston



AFC East Rankings

1.Buffalo
2.NY Jets
3.New England
4.Miami

MOULDSROCKS
07-27-2003, 09:40 PM
It should read:

Buffalo
Miami
NY
NE



but hey, our OL don't suck so bad after-all huh?!

Barbarian
07-28-2003, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by MOULDSROCKS
It should read:

Buffalo
Miami
NY
NE



I'll agree with that.

MOULDSROCKS
07-29-2003, 01:46 AM
Miami at 23 is ludicrous

Clumpy
07-29-2003, 02:07 AM
If they ranked OL's for depth as well, 23rd may be appropriate. At this point, Miami doesn't have a solid #6. McKinney could be that guy but that remains to be seen after only a few games in the trenches.

zach13
07-29-2003, 10:07 AM
Bills offensive line results for last year:


Rushing

24th in total rushing yards, 19th in yards per carry.



Pass Protection

31st with 54 sacks

Clumpy
07-29-2003, 10:34 AM
Dude, get a frickin clue..........I've got stats for ya........

Leading rusher
Leading sacker
AFC #1 D

That got ya NADA!!!!!!!

Stats do NOT tell the whole story :rolleyes:

zach13
07-29-2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by clumpedplatelet
Dude, get a frickin clue..........I've got stats for ya........

Leading rusher
Leading sacker
AFC #1 D

That got ya NADA!!!!!!!

Stats do NOT tell the whole story :rolleyes:

Try to stay on topic Clumpy.

What do any of the stats have to do with the Bills offensive line?

You had no reply to my post so you figured a mindless attack of the Dolphins was as good as a defense of the Bills?

What should I reply to that? 0-4 SB?, 37-20 overall?

Your arguments are pathetic.

I have posted the statistics that should be used in evaluating an offensive line. Can you use more than merely statistics in evaluating an offensive line? Certainly.

However, Buffalo's offensive line statistics were very poor. That would lead a reasonable person to conclude that their line was not good

Clumpy
07-29-2003, 12:46 PM
My point is that you can post stats and it doesn't tell the whole story. Why? Case in point, Miami Dolphins in 2002 as stated above.

However on topic, in 2002, LT Jennings, C Teague, RG Sullivan, and even RT Mike Williams were ALL playing new positions. In 2001, Jennings was our RT, Teague was a LT in Denver, Sullivan was a reserve OT for us and Mike Williams was playing LT at Univ. of Texas. By the end of the season, our OL began gellin' like a felon and Henry ran up and down the field against your D. This is now 2003 and it wasn't a Bills fan who ranked the OL's, but the ranking as it stands, for starters, isn't totally inaccurate, yes, the Fins starting OL should be higher but how much.....no higher than 15,..........but I have no doubt that if the same people ranked the Fins at #7 and the Bills at #23, y'all would be calling them the best thing since sliced bread. :rolleyes:

zach13
07-29-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by clumpedplatelet
My point is that you can post stats and it doesn't tell the whole story. Why? Case in point, Miami Dolphins in 2002 as stated above.

However on topic, in 2002, LT Jennings, C Teague, RG Sullivan, and even RT Mike Williams were ALL playing new positions. In 2001, Jennings was our RT, Teague was a LT in Denver, Sullivan was a reserve OT for us and Mike Williams was playing LT at Univ. of Texas. By the end of the season, our OL began gellin' like a felon and Henry ran up and down the field against your D. This is now 2003 and it wasn't a Bills fan who ranked the OL's, but the ranking as it stands, for starters, isn't totally inaccurate, yes, the Fins starting OL should be higher but how much.....no higher than 15,..........but I have no doubt that if the same people ranked the Fins at #7 and the Bills at #23, y'all would be calling them the best thing since sliced bread. :rolleyes:

Uhh...highly doubtful, because I usually do not care what a fantasy football publication says.

Notice that I did not comment on the dolphins rankings.

I don't care.

I know of their successes in rushing and in pass protection and I know their limitations, primarily depth.

Whether, this publication ranked them 1st or 32nd would not concern me at all.

However, it is laughable that Bills fans completely discard their line's horrendous performance of last year and blindly place their trust in the "FF Index"

Good luck to you

MOULDSROCKS
07-29-2003, 03:10 PM
Drew Bledsoe dropped back to pass over 600 times.


We rarely ran the ball.
When we did it was the 1st QTR or 4th WTR usually b/c Gilbride was in love with the deep ball and big play (hence the sacks and attempts)., and defenses could easily key in on our attack.

This year we have no Price (this is a GOOD thing for our offense, I repeat this is a GOOD thing), the line is much more cohesive, we will be grinding it out more and wearing out the D, we won't be going deep every play, Drew has promised to be mroe efficient in using the TE's and FB's like he did in NE, Mike Williams is a beast, Ruben is a 7-time Pro-Bowler, Jennings is unbelievably aggressive and athletic, Teague is solid and a year more experienced at playing Center and being able to make the right line calls, and Sullivan is a mauler, and all these guys have played LT at some point in their careers which means they are very athletic and know a thing or two about pass-protection as well.


Be afraid.

zach13
07-29-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by MOULDSROCKS
Drew Bledsoe dropped back to pass over 600 times.


We rarely ran the ball.
When we did it was the 1st QTR or 4th WTR usually b/c Gilbride was in love with the deep ball and big play (hence the sacks and attempts)., and defenses could easily key in on our attack.

This year we have no Price (this is a GOOD thing for our offense, I repeat this is a GOOD thing),


Be afraid.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You never let the facts get in your way do you?
Good for you!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

MOULDSROCKS
07-29-2003, 04:14 PM
Sam Gash will help too

Clumpy
07-30-2003, 12:21 AM
Want stats that tell more of the story about the Bills OL

1st 8 games: 30 sacks(3.75 sacks/game) given up and running game averaged 88.1 ypg

2nd 8 games: 21 sacks(2.63 sacks/game) given up and running game averaged 102.8 ypg.

1 full sack per game less per game and 14 yds on average difference between 1st and 2nd halves.

MOULDSROCKS
07-30-2003, 12:39 AM
Nice.

MOULDSROCKS
07-30-2003, 12:40 AM
and that figure includes the GB game which was a disaster

Clumpy
07-30-2003, 01:33 AM
Take out the GB game and the 2nd half numbers are 2.1 sacks per game and 111.3 ypg rushing

zach13
07-30-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by clumpedplatelet
Want stats that tell more of the story about the Bills OL

1st 8 games: 30 sacks(3.75 sacks/game) given up and running game averaged 88.1 ypg

2nd 8 games: 21 sacks(2.63 sacks/game) given up and running game averaged 102.8 ypg.

1 full sack per game less per game and 14 yds on average difference between 1st and 2nd halves.

1st of all your numbers are wrong!

2nd 8 games you allowed 24 sacks, not 21.

You also had fewer passing attempts. A more accurate statistic would be sacks per attempt which went from 9.43% (30/318) in the first 8 games to 8.22% (24/292) in the 2nd 8 games.

A small improvement.

Still a pathetic performance.

Miami allowed 25 sacks, for the entire year (1.56 per game), on 455 attempts for a ratio of 5.5%.

Barbarian
07-30-2003, 10:30 PM
Well, as much as I hate to defend the Bills, I have to admit that they had an awsome O-Line last year, lets not forget that this team was pretty one-dimensional on Offense, opposing D's were able to pin their ears back and rush the QB without much fear of the running game.

Of course this will lead to an inflated sack total. (It makes the numbers put up by miami's O-Line in the 80's and early 90's all that much more impressive as they faced similar problems)

I will say this much though, I do honestly believe that Miami had a slightly better run blocking unit last year than Buffalo, but Buffalos O-Line did an incredable job against the relentless pass rushes they faced last year. (Buffalo opponents blitzed more often than any other team in the NFL last season except for Pittsburgh)

Rushing = Slight Miami Edge
Passing = Solid Buffalo edge
Overall = very slight edge to the bills (thank god our RB is so much better than theirs. ;) )

MOULDSROCKS
07-31-2003, 12:04 AM
but one advantage you guys had, was experience to make good line calls (sometimes if we faced "weird" looking blitzes we got real confused like vs NE) and excellent blocking schemes. I think Norv Turners run-blocking schemes were far superior to ours (hopefully we are working on that, our new OL coach, Pat Ruel, should def help there). We relied too much on athleticism rather than technique or schemes. (btw they are still good even if they're stolen... ;) )


(you use schemes VERY similar to what Dickenson ran behind....)

Clumpy
07-31-2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by zachseau13


1st of all your numbers are wrong!

2nd 8 games you allowed 24 sacks, not 21.

You also had fewer passing attempts. A more accurate statistic would be sacks per attempt which went from 9.43% (30/318) in the first 8 games to 8.22% (24/292) in the 2nd 8 games.

A small improvement.

Still a pathetic performance.

Miami allowed 25 sacks, for the entire year (1.56 per game), on 455 attempts for a ratio of 5.5%.

I used the numbers from ESPN.com and I know how to add. I went week to week through last season's results. Now if another source has 24, then one of them is obviously incorrect. :rolleyes:

Clumpy
07-31-2003, 12:32 AM
A more accurate relationship of OL ability:

OL ability=atalent + bOLcoach + cdefenses faced + dQB ability + fRB ability + e

That's a multi-variate regression relationship. So many variables to accurately analyze any position, but I use the same logic I read here, so regression models may be a bit too much.

Dolfan984
07-31-2003, 12:47 AM
Take out the KC and Buffalo 1/2 game and he's the #3 rated QB in the league with a 93.8. But guess what, you can't take out games. All of them count. Neither of us made the playoffs.

zach13
07-31-2003, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by clumpedplatelet


I used the numbers from ESPN.com and I know how to add. I went week to week through last season's results. Now if another source has 24, then one of them is obviously incorrect. :rolleyes:

So sorry, but you are still wrong!!!!!!!!!!

According to ESPN.com

" SACK
GAMES 1-8 30
GAMES 9-16 24 "

And, oh yeah, I took statistics too. But the first rule of statistics is to make sure your underlying data is correct.

Check it again, genius