O-line rankings: Talent and depth rare finds

[panthers55]

i agree. they can twist the numbers any way that they want to, saying that we had alot of stuffs and blah blah, but in the end, our o-line opened up the holes that our RBs ran through to produce the 3rd best rushing offense in the league last year, which in my opinion the oline should get a little bit of credit for.

The whole stats can prove anything argument is way overblown. Sure you can look at different stats and come to different conclusions but the numbers are the same just not the same interpretations. The reality is that 5% of the analyses which are skewed for the purpose of misinformation don't negate the 95% of stats which are meaningful and useful to everyone.

And again to look at the third most rushing yards without putting it in context gives you little to nothing. If you did look at the numbers you would see that we were first in big runs but we were frequently stuffed for zero or negative yards. We were 11th in picking up third down and less than 3.

So by looking at the numbers instead of just randoming spouting off we were third in total yards, you would gain a better picture which says that we were great at bustng guys loose for long runs, not very good running when we had to, and frequently got stuffed or lost yards likely due to being too predictable in our playcalling especially when we were afraid to let Jake pass the ball.

Now you can argue with the interpretations but the numbers remain and provide a much better basis for discussion and analysis that a quantitative stat like the third most yards which tells you very little.

[monstercat]

Problem is that without a non-biased perspective which stats give you, you can rank them anyway you want but it is meaningless. You have nothing of substance to back up your rankings but your own observation and opinion which really means nothing unless you are a recognized expert on the subject, which you aren't. At least numbers are objective and give you useful information that everyone generally agrees are reliable.

And I am not interpreting the stats but reporting the stats generated by reputable websites who make a living out of these stats and are recognized by the experts as reliable and valid. As opposed to you ranking them on your opinion of what you saw on television. LOL One is objective and defendable while the other is uninformed and totally arbitrary.

Tell me this...when you watch a football game, do you need to keep up with all these meaningless stats to figure out who is playing well, and who isn't?

You can LOL all you want, but I know what I saw, and I know that no other team in the entire NFL produced two 1,100yd rushers, even though every single opponent knew that the run was coming early and often.

There is just no way in hell there were 18 teams that had a better O-line than the Panthers, especially if they had to go 7 deep because of injuries.

[KillerKat]

didnt you forget? Only P55's stats matter and anyone that disagrees with him is uninformed and baseless. Nevermind the fact there are important stats such as having two 1,100 yard backs or how the QB's rating, cmp percentage, and yards per game increased when we got someone back there that knew what he was doing and then there's other meaningless stats. If you're not with him, you "don't have the facts".

[monstercat]

I would like to see the stats on how often Panthers opponents stacked the box with 8-9 defenders last year, because that would tell you a hell of a lot more about how impressive this O-line is than anything else.

[panthers55]

Tell me this...when you watch a football game, do you need to keep up with all these meaningless stats to figure out who is playing well, and who isn't?

You can LOL all you want, but I know what I saw, and I know that no other team in the entire NFL produced two 1,100yd rushers, even though every single opponent knew that the run was coming early and often.

There is just no way in hell there were 18 teams that had a better O-line than the Panthers, especially if they had to go 7 deep because of injuries.

When I watch a game I am doing just that. But I am not comparing offensive lines or performances from 16 games for example. Watching a game has nothing to do with using stats to compare offensive lines over the course of a season. Sometimes your logic is out in left field.

Again you didn't watch every game or every team all season long so you have no idea from observation who played well or not. Without a comparison format you would have no context for discussion.

What an inane argument.

[panthers55]

didnt you forget? Only P55's stats matter and anyone that disagrees with him is uninformed and baseless. Nevermind the fact there are important stats such as having two 1,100 yard backs or how the QB's rating, cmp percentage, and yards per game increased when we got someone back there that knew what he was doing and then there's other meaningless stats. If you're not with him, you "don't have the facts".

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing as long as they have a legitimate point of view. But when they just make personal attacks and ignorant comments like you then I do take issue.

Chris Johnson had as many yards as both Williams and Stewart together . So how are they ranked? They were ranked 21st. So the whole argument about rushing yards equals success is totally off base.

And the whole we got better once Moore took over has nothing to do with how we ranked over the whole season. I would agree with you on one thing, you clearly don't know facts and could use a lesson in basic logic as well.

[panthers55]

I would like to see the stats on how often Panthers opponents stacked the box with 8-9 defenders last year, because that would tell you a hell of a lot more about how impressive this O-line is than anything else.

That wouldn't tell you about our offensive line at all except it would explain why we got stuffed so often and had negative carries. It also would indict the obvious playcalling and predictability of the offense so that the defense could stack the box.

The 8 or 9 in the box actually explains why we had so many big runs as well. Once Stewart or Williams breaks through to the second level, there is no one back there. It suggests the backs are very elusive and getting good help from the receivers downfield more so than indicates the line is so wonderful.

[monstercat]

That wouldn't tell you about our offensive line at all except it would explain why we got stuffed so often and had negative carries. It also would indict the obvious playcalling and predictability of the offense so that the defense could stack the box.

The 8 or 9 in the box actually explains why we had so many big runs as well. Once Stewart or Williams breaks through to the second level, there is no one back there. It suggests the backs are very elusive and getting good help from the receivers downfield more so than indicates the line is so wonderful.

Of course the play calling was predictable...what choice did they have? To me, that makes it even more impressive that they produced two 1,100yd backs. And BTW, there was no drop off when Sutton got the ball either, so it wasn't just that we had elusive RB's. There were holes there, and that's on the O-line.

Whatever though. I would be willing to bet money that there are some football experts out there that would argue with your logic. I mean damn, if your QB gets sacked after 5 seconds, is that the O-line's fault, or was it because the WR's just couldn't get open, or did the QB hold it too long because he didn't trust himself to throw it in to a tight window? That's just one small example of how easily these numbers can be skewed on any given play, and how much power the QB has to influence the numbers.

[panthers55]

Of course the play calling was predictable...what choice did they have? To me, that makes it even more impressive that they produced two 1,100yd backs. And BTW, there was no drop off when Sutton got the ball either, so it wasn't just that we had elusive RB's. There were holes there, and that's on the O-line.

Whatever though. I would be willing to bet money that there are some football experts out there that would argue with your logic. I mean damn, if your QB gets sacked after 5 seconds, is that the O-line's fault, or was it because the WR's just couldn't get open, or did the QB hold it too long because he didn't trust himself to throw it in to a tight window? That's just one small example of how easily these numbers can be skewed on any given play, and how much power the QB has to influence the numbers.

We seem to be arguing apples and oranges. My point is that a statistical analysis using qualitative stats gives you a much better understanding of how a line is functioning in various situations. As I noted, Football Outsiders did that and based on their regression model we were ranked 17th overall ranging from 1st in long runs to 23rd in being stuffed.

You seem to be arguing that based on the fact we were third in total yards that our O-line was very good last year. And now you are going down a bunny trail about if a quarterback gets sacked it might not be the o-line fault so therefore stats are not relevant? Is that the argument??

We all agree that the o-line can't be separated from the running backs, the quarterback, or the play-calling. In fact they stated that in their original analysis. All of those issues do factor in the O line stats alone with the defenses we played, the schedule and some points I probably forgot. That was agreed on pages ago so why are you replowing old ground?

Are you saying that their results aren't factual regardless of whether you agree with the parameters they used to make their analysis? Are you saying that their results don't agree with what you saw so therefore they are wrong or something else.

Honestly I have a hard time following the bunny trails and tangents made to apparently win an argument regardless of how off track they are from the original argument.

[monstercat]

We seem to be arguing apples and oranges. My point is that a statistical analysis using qualitative stats gives you a much better understanding of how a line is functioning in various situations. As I noted, Football Outsiders did that and based on their regression model we were ranked 17th overall ranging from 1st in long runs to 23rd in being stuffed.

You seem to be arguing that based on the fact we were third in total yards that our O-line was very good last year. And now you are going down a bunny trail about if a quarterback gets sacked it might not be the o-line fault so therefore stats are not relevant? Is that the argument??

We all agree that the o-line can't be separated from the running backs, the quarterback, or the play-calling. In fact they stated that in their original analysis. All of those issues do factor in the O line stats alone with the defenses we played, the schedule and some points I probably forgot. That was agreed on pages ago so why are you replowing old ground?

Are you saying that their results aren't factual regardless of whether you agree with the parameters they used to make their analysis? Are you saying that their results don't agree with what you saw so therefore they are wrong or something else.

Honestly I have a hard time following the bunny trails and tangents made to apparently win an argument regardless of how off track they are from the original argument.

I'm simply saying that you're over analyzing this. You can use stats to make pretty much anything fit your argument, if you really want to bad enough.

The bottom line is that the Panthers offensive line was very good in 09, aside from the first couple of games, at least. They were actually horrible in that opener against the Eagles.

Also, how many times did the Panthers beat writers mention that the Panthers were screwed if any one of their starting 5 got hurt? Those young back ups were tremendous last year, and that says more about that unit than all the qualitative stats in the world.

[panthers55]

I'm simply saying that you're over analyzing this. You can use stats to make pretty much anything fit your argument, if you really want to bad enough.

The bottom line is that the Panthers offensive line was very good in 09, aside from the first couple of games, at least. They were actually horrible in that opener against the Eagles.

Also, how many times did the Panthers beat writers mention that the Panthers were screwed if any one of their starting 5 got hurt? Those young back ups were tremendous last year, and that says more about that unit than all the qualitative stats in the world.

I am not overanalysing anything just pointing out some generally accepted stats from a reputable source. You are the one trying to refute facts with opinion.

The bottom line is you think the line was very good. The facts and numbers don't agree. You say stats can be manipulated. I say that they weren't in this case given that the site analysts didn't have a point of view or case to discredit the panthers or anyone else this year. They just compared the lines and reported the numbers.

You are the one trying to manipulate things with your already preconceived notion about the line that you are trying to either fit the numbers around or discredit completely. In fact you are guilty of what you claim they are doing which is fitting the information to fit what you believe instead of looking at the facts and then forming an opinion.

But I am going to stop and let you get in the last word. It really isn't important and in a month the new season will begin making last year irrelevant.

[monstercat]

OK, you're right. The running game was only good because our RB's either did it all on their own or went through holes opened up by the WR's.

Does that make you happy?