The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:35 pm**

According to this

The Redskins don't need a lot of help on the offensive line.
The line ranked top 10 in run blocking and top 15 in pass blocking :shock:

31% of the carries were between the guards and the line ranked #2, the team ran more to the left than right or between the guards and that's where they ranked the lowest 25th behind LT and 18th around the end. The right side ranked 14th behind RT and 4th around the end.

With guys coming back from injury and the draft right around the corner, they be willing to wait.

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:00 pm**

I've thought all along we aren't as bad as people like to think, but think it pointless to try to argue it here. Our starters were good and our depth when people went down played well too. With a smarter, faster, and mobile qb our line will improve drastically is my thinking... W out Mr hold the ball like a statue taking the snaps- they are better. I'm fine w us not signing super over paid free agents, and drafting some young guys.

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:32 pm**

1niksder wrote:According to this

The Redskins don't need a lot of help on the offensive line.
The line ranked top 10 in run blocking and top 15 in pass blocking

31% of the carries were between the guards and the line ranked #2, the team ran more to the left than right or between the guards and that's where they ranked the lowest 25th behind LT and 18th around the end. The right side ranked 14th behind RT and 4th around the end.

With guys coming back from injury and the draft right around the corner, they be willing to wait.

And according to that same site BOTH Santana Moss and Jabar Gaffney had a better season than Garcon. In fact they were better him in 2010 too! Gaffney had a better 2011 season than any Egirls WR including D Jackson.

Don't believe me here it is http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr

That off topic banter was just to prove that these numbers crunching websites don't tell the hole story.

This site has the OL ranked 27 http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/02/22/ranking-the-2011-offensive-lines-part-1/

This geek fest web site had our OL rated #26 in OL WPA(what ever that is). It had us rated very good to excellent in the run, but horrible in pass pro!
http://wp.advancednflstats.com/teamOL.php
Only two teams got their QB hit more times than our OL!

You can make stats paint just about any picture you want. You chose a website the cruched a bunch numbers and came out with a ranking that i challenge you to explain what it really means. Sure the OL looks good in it, but my geek fest websites crunched a bunch of numbers that I don't undersatnd either. And evean though it had them as excellent rushing it still had them as the 26th best OL overall.

Personally, I don't like relying on nerds with pocket protectors and slide rules crunching numbers trying to tell me a story they want to paint. I'm a logistician and i can tell you that numbers can tell you any story you want so long as you know what story you want to tell.

There are several things I look at when I want to see how well an OL is playing.

In pass pro, look at the number of QB hits, not sacks. Certain QBs take more sacks than others. Big Ben takes a ton of sacks he doesn't need to. Peyton is king of avoiding sacks! And running QBs typically take more sacks than pocket passers.

In the running game. Yards per carry are more important than yards! Rushing TDs also indicate a good OL.

The Skins were 30th in QB hits (only the Rams and Colts were worse), they were 26th in yards/carry, and 28th in rushing TDs. Not too good.

They were 27th in 1st downs rushing, yet they were 2nd in 1st down % on 3rd. Seems contradictory, but it is all how you pull the data.

They were 24th rushes over 10 yards.

They were 11th in stuffs, but were 20th in stuffs/carry.

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:49 pm**

Those "stats" you used also aren't completely accurate.
Qb hits and sacks are inflated do to bone head qbs. 8 sacks was it beck had vs the bills? Rexs horrible play didn't help any passing stats either. Our run game wasn't a priority early on and developed when helu and Royster started.
Royster averaged over 5 yards a carry, or I might be wrong and closer to 4.5 either way good numbers.
You can't blame the whole line for an incompetent qb.

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:50 pm**

skinsfan#33 wrote:And according to that same site BOTH Santana Moss and Jabar Gaffney had a better season than Garcon. In fact they were better him in 2010 too! Gaffney had a better 2011 season than any Egirls WR including D Jackson.

If you were to follow that site, then you'd know why they are down on Garcon. He drops a lot of balls and has fumbled at inopportune times. DeSean Jackson had a year that was extremely up and down; the two Skins receivers who just went to work week in, week out had the better statistical year.

And actually, Gaffney beat Jackson in terms of conventional stats, too, if I recall correctly. Someone posted that to THN and caught a lot of flak for it.

I think Moss and Gaffney had better seasons than Garcon last year, personally, though it's pretty obvious Garcon wins as a future prospect in terms of speed, youth, and talent.

That off topic banter was just to prove that these numbers crunching websites don't tell the hole story.

They don't tell the whole story, but they are far better to rely on for indicators of performance than whatever the talking heads on the NFL Network are saying.

This geek fest web site had our OL rated #26 in OL WPA(what ever that is).

WPA is an assessment of how much a person (or unit's) performance on each play was likely to contribute/detract from the overall chance of winning/losing the game.

(They provide glossaries and explanations of stats on these sites, btw. So if you see a stat that runs counter to your intuitions, you can trace how they derived it and think about whether it's a good measurement or not.)

You can make stats paint just about any picture you want. You chose a website the cruched a bunch numbers and came out with a ranking that i challenge you to explain what it really means.

I can explain what the stats mean on both sites.

And they aren't creating them just to make the Redskins offensive line look good so that some random guy on THN can post a counterargument to people who just regurgitate whatever ESPN is saying. :roll:

Sure the OL looks good in it, but my geek fest websites crunched a bunch of numbers that I don't undersatnd either. And evean though it had them as excellent rushing it still had them as the 26th best OL overall.

Well I can explain to you why it ended up that way, and why I disagree. The biggest component is that FO does a better job (IMO) of adjusting for more recent performances.

Personally, I don't like relying on nerds with pocket protectors and slide rules crunching numbers trying to tell me a story they want to paint.

Well the nice thing about stats is that if you disagree, it's pretty easy to come up with interesting arguments for why. Try doing that with the nebulous qualitative judgments that are typically floating around. I dare you to come up with a convincing reason that some team isn't really playing with "swagger" right now, for instance. :lol:

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:54 pm**

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Those "stats" you used also aren't completely accurate.
Qb hits and sacks are inflated do to bone head qbs.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

The reason advanced statistics websites exist is because the NFL is in the stone age when it comes to tracking stats. (Compare the tools football analysts have with those available to baseball fans.) They don't even properly track how often a WR is targeted or how often he drops the ball! It's a joke.

The NFL also restricts access to 11 vs 11 film of the game, making it very difficult for fans to do the stat tracking themselves. But that's a different story altogether . . .

And for a lot of other, conventional stats, the problem is that there are occasions when one player's performance (e.g., QB) can have a big effect on the conventional-stat outcome of another player's performance (e.g., OL).

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:08 pm**

You have to take a lot of what Football Outisders with a grain of salt. This isn't baseball and sabermetrics. They definitely have some interesting stuff, but they also, for example, have Jordy Nelson ranked as the 2nd most valuable wide receiver in the NFL in 2011 and Larry Fitzgerald 11th. Not saying they're wrong in their rankings, but in a lot of instances they are trying to use statistics to quantify NFL plays that I'm not sure you can actually quantify.

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:48 pm**

1niksder wrote:According to this

The Redskins don't need a lot of help on the offensive line.
The line ranked top 10 in run blocking and top 15 in pass blocking

31% of the carries were between the guards and the line ranked #2, the team ran more to the left than right or between the guards and that's where they ranked the lowest 25th behind LT and 18th around the end. The right side ranked 14th behind RT and 4th around the end.

With guys coming back from injury and the draft right around the corner, they be willing to wait.

Even if one doesn't agree with the interpretation of the stats, 1nik makes a valid point when you look at how Shanny builds his O lines. Here's a look at the 1998 line and the 2008 Bronco O lines.

Shanny seems to build his O line with low round draft choices and cast-offs.

When he sees an athletic LT in the draft and their is a need he goes after him i.e. Ryan Clady and Trent Williams. If he sees a guy in FA and the cost is to his liking then he will pursue. He will not break the bank for an O lineman. Yanda is an example here. in the FA market. He loves those athletic guys even though they aren't studs, Shanny believes that he can develop them. Chester fits this mold. Look at Lichtensteiger. In 2010, when he first took over for Dock, folks on the boards, screamed that he sucked and maybe he did then, but last year he was on his way to becoming one of our best linemen. Shanny expects the same with Chester.

Looking at how Shanny aquires O linemen, he seems to be content with picking up guys like Mo Hurt in the 7th round and the Undrafted Willie Smith and developing them. Not getting guys like Grubbs in the FA market doesn't seem to phase him.

Going back to 1niks' title, "The Redskins don't need a lot of help on the offensive line," he is spot on in the eyes of Shanny.

Lichtensteiger will be back and even better if the knee holds up.
Trent Williams, looking at the positives, was gaining consistency before caught consistently dating mary jane.
Chester is expected to get better
Monty - serivceable - look for a draft choice here
Brown - ? - Possibly a June 1st cut - Watching what happens here.

Depth: Now we have experience - definitely better off than last year at this time.

Mo Hurt - should get better
Willie Smith - was impressive - should get better
Tyler Polombus - played better than Brown at RT
Erik Cook - probably gone
Sean Locklear - Did Shanny owe him a favor or something? - he is long gone

Look for some late round picks, undrafted FA pick ups and June 1st vet cuts for more depth

Shanny said that the only problem that he saw with the O line last year was depth. He doesn't believe that we need a lot of help on the O line. Whether we agree or not, that explains why we have seen guys like Nicks, Winston and Grubbs sign with other teams.

1998 Denver Broncos Superbowl Champs Starting O line

LT Tony E. Jones Undrafted

LG Mark Schlereth Washington Redskins / 10th / 263rd pick / 1989

C Tom Nalen Denver Broncos / 7th / 218th pick / 1994

RG Dan Neil Denver Broncos / 3rd / 67th pick / 1997

RT Harry Swayne Tampa Bay Buccaneers / 7th / 190th pick / 1987

2008 Denver Broncos Starting O line - last year for Shanny

LT Ryan Clady Denver Broncos / 1st / 12th pick / 2008

LG Ben Hamilton Denver Broncos / 4th / 113th pick / 2001

C Casey Wiegman Undrafted

RG Chris Kuper Denver Broncos / 5th / 161st pick / 2006

RT Ryan Harris Denver Broncos / 3rd / 70th pick / 2007

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... roster.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... roster.htm

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:20 pm**

CanesSkins26 wrote:You have to take a lot of what Football Outisders with a grain of salt. This isn't baseball and sabermetrics. They definitely have some interesting stuff, but they also, for example, have Jordy Nelson ranked as the 2nd most valuable wide receiver in the NFL in 2011 and Larry Fitzgerald 11th. Not saying they're wrong in their rankings, but in a lot of instances they are trying to use statistics to quantify NFL plays that I'm not sure you can actually quantify.

I agree. I think they suffer from wanting to be contrarians. (They are especially high on discovering a good player way before the mainstream picks up on him. Sometimes they are successful in this regard, as they were the first analysts I knew of that were praising Asomugha, and they had the numbers to prove why he deserved it.)

Advanced football stats will always be tough because football is much more of an interlinked team sport than baseball is and the sample sizes are so much smaller.

So I agree that you have to take what they say with a grain of salt.

Still, having studied them for several years, I do think their metrics have a good bit of merit. And anyone can examine the methodology and criticize what they think leads to inappropriate rankings. The reason I like to introduce them here is that I would like to see the people who keep talking about a "pathetic" Skins offensive line "in shambles" back that up with a little more hard data. (Not talking about you with that comment, CS.)

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:35 pm**

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Those "stats" you used also aren't completely accurate.
Qb hits and sacks are inflated do to bone head qbs. 8 sacks was it beck had vs the bills? Rexs horrible play didn't help any passing stats either. Our run game wasn't a priority early on and developed when helu and Royster started.
Royster averaged over 5 yards a carry, or I might be wrong and closer to 4.5 either way good numbers.
You can't blame the whole line for an incompetent qb.

No those were hits that were graded out as on the ol. The team had more, but I suppose rex/beck could be blamed for some of them, but that is what the ol git tagged for. Besides every team is graded the same.

You're right you can't blame the ol for incompetent qb play, just like you can't blame the qb for incompetent ol play.

Besides the main point I was trying to make in my first post is stats can be misleading if you don't know their context. I might not gabe made it well.

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:04 pm**

This is tight.

Red_One43 wrote:
1niksder wrote:According to this

The Redskins don't need a lot of help on the offensive line.
The line ranked top 10 in run blocking and top 15 in pass blocking

31% of the carries were between the guards and the line ranked #2, the team ran more to the left than right or between the guards and that's where they ranked the lowest 25th behind LT and 18th around the end. The right side ranked 14th behind RT and 4th around the end.

With guys coming back from injury and the draft right around the corner, they be willing to wait.

Even if one doesn't agree with the interpretation of the stats, 1nik makes a valid point when you look at how Shanny builds his O lines. Here's a look at the 1998 line and the 2008 Bronco O lines.

Shanny seems to build his O line with low round draft choices and cast-offs.

When he sees an athletic LT in the draft and their is a need he goes after him i.e. Ryan Clady and Trent Williams. If he sees a guy in FA and the cost is to his liking then he will pursue. He will not break the bank for an O lineman. Yanda is an example here. in the FA market. He loves those athletic guys even though they aren't studs, Shanny believes that he can develop them. Chester fits this mold. Look at Lichtensteiger. In 2010, when he first took over for Dock, folks on the boards, screamed that he sucked and maybe he did then, but last year he was on his way to becoming one of our best linemen. Shanny expects the same with Chester.

Looking at how Shanny aquires O linemen, he seems to be content with picking up guys like Mo Hurt in the 7th round and the Undrafted Willie Smith and developing them. Not getting guys like Grubbs in the FA market doesn't seem to phase him.

Going back to 1niks' title, "The Redskins don't need a lot of help on the offensive line," he is spot on in the eyes of Shanny.

Lichtensteiger will be back and even better if the knee holds up.
Trent Williams, looking at the positives, was gaining consistency before caught consistently dating mary jane.
Chester is expected to get better
Monty - serivceable - look for a draft choice here
Brown - ? - Possibly a June 1st cut - Watching what happens here.

Depth: Now we have experience - definitely better off than last year at this time.

Mo Hurt - should get better
Willie Smith - was impressive - should get better
Tyler Polombus - played better than Brown at RT
Erik Cook - probably gone
Sean Locklear - Did Shanny owe him a favor or something? - he is long gone

Look for some late round picks, undrafted FA pick ups and June 1st vet cuts for more depth

Shanny said that the only problem that he saw with the O line last year was depth. He doesn't believe that we need a lot of help on the O line. Whether we agree or not, that explains why we have seen guys like Nicks, Winston and Grubbs sign with other teams.

1998 Denver Broncos Superbowl Champs Starting O line

LT Tony E. Jones Undrafted

LG Mark Schlereth Washington Redskins / 10th / 263rd pick / 1989

C Tom Nalen Denver Broncos / 7th / 218th pick / 1994

RG Dan Neil Denver Broncos / 3rd / 67th pick / 1997

RT Harry Swayne Tampa Bay Buccaneers / 7th / 190th pick / 1987

2008 Denver Broncos Starting O line - last year for Shanny

LT Ryan Clady Denver Broncos / 1st / 12th pick / 2008

LG Ben Hamilton Denver Broncos / 4th / 113th pick / 2001

C Casey Wiegman Undrafted

RG Chris Kuper Denver Broncos / 5th / 161st pick / 2006

RT Ryan Harris Denver Broncos / 3rd / 70th pick / 2007

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... roster.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... roster.htm

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:20 pm**

Irn-Bru wrote:
You can make stats paint just about any picture you want. You chose a website the cruched a bunch numbers and came out with a ranking that i challenge you to explain what it really means.

I can explain what the stats mean on both sites.

OK go for it. I can read the glossary to and did but it didn't tell me anything.

Irn-Bru wrote:

And they aren't creating them just to make the Redskins offensive line look good so that some random guy on THN can post a counterargument to people who just regurgitate whatever ESPN is saying.

Never said they did. I was implying most people have an idea of how they want stats to come out or what is important to them soo they emphasis those stats.

I don't watch ESPN and seldom watch the NFL network. I waugh the Skins and other NFL games.

I do value stats, heck they are a big tool for my job, but I never trust stats I don't understand and can't tell what data they used.

Irn-Bru wrote:
Well the nice thing about stats is that if you disagree, it's pretty easy to come up with interesting arguments for why. Try doing that with the nebulous qualitative judgments that are typically floating around. I dare you to come up with a convincing reason that some team isn't really playing with "swagger" right now, for instance.

I use stats that I understand and I trend to be more production oriented. If a wr is supposed to be fast but has never cracked the 11y/c average any year in his career then I don't care about his "big play" ability because it simply former exists. If an ol is in the norton of the nfl in both passpro, y/rush, and rushing TDs then they aren't very good. I don't try to figure out why, that is for the coaches.

If and ol looks bad and has bad production then they are probably bad and need to be improved. Improvement can come from many paths and it doesn't necessarily mean they need new players, but if your staying LG probably won't be completely healthy until mid season and your RT has chronic hip problems you might want to add some players.

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:52 pm**

skinsfan#33 wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
You can make stats paint just about any picture you want. You chose a website the cruched a bunch numbers and came out with a ranking that i challenge you to explain what it really means.

I can explain what the stats mean on both sites.

OK go for it. I can read the glossary to and did but it didn't tell me anything.

"Didn't tell you anything" as in it literally didn't improve your understanding at all? So when you see the three letters you don't know what they stand for? You don't know what they are at least aiming to measure?

I'd be happy to explain but it's going to be too time consuming if I don't have any idea of where you're getting hung up. It'd be more helpful if first you explained what you do know about them, what you think is missing, etc.

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:55 pm**

Irn-Bru wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
You can make stats paint just about any picture you want. You chose a website the cruched a bunch numbers and came out with a ranking that i challenge you to explain what it really means.

I can explain what the stats mean on both sites.

OK go for it. I can read the glossary to and did but it didn't tell me anything.

"Didn't tell you anything" as in it literally didn't improve your understanding at all? So when you see the three letters you don't know what they stand for? You don't know what they are at least aiming to measure?

I'd be happy to explain but it's going to be too time consuming if I don't have any idea of where you're getting hung up. It'd be more helpful if first you explained what you do know about them, what you think is missing, etc.

so my response was more of a wise donkey type deal. I really didn't expect you to try to explain them. I'm not saying you couldn't but the disruptions were so caught and broad that you could throws put smudging that fit their disruption and I would have to just nod my head and say, "sounds good".

With out seeing the data behind theirs results, everything is just a guess.

However, you never really did address any of the stats that I presented in my first post that shows the team was reticle in pass pro and not very good in rushing. Or the fact that our starting LG and RT have serious medical concerns and their availability for next season is tenuous at best.

I've watched enough good ol play to recognize good play and what our team did wasn't good ol play. Now the running game really picked up at the end of the season and I feel much better about our backups than I did going into the season, but that doesn't abate my concerns over our starting LG and RT. Heck our LT is one toke away from being home for a year.

I just thought, considering the investment we are making in RG3 we would want to try to keep him healthy and not put him behind a group off ol that give up qb hits like the man behind center is stuffed with candy and it is a birthday party for the using team's pass rushers!

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:55 pm**

Irn-Bru wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
You can make stats paint just about any picture you want. You chose a website the cruched a bunch numbers and came out with a ranking that i challenge you to explain what it really means.

I can explain what the stats mean on both sites.

OK go for it. I can read the glossary to and did but it didn't tell me anything.

"Didn't tell you anything" as in it literally didn't improve your understanding at all? So when you see the three letters you don't know what they stand for? You don't know what they are at least aiming to measure?

I'd be happy to explain but it's going to be too time consuming if I don't have any idea of where you're getting hung up. It'd be more helpful if first you explained what you do know about them, what you think is missing, etc.

so my response was more of a wise donkey type deal. I really didn't expect you to try to explain them. I'm not saying you couldn't but the disruptions were so caught and broad that you could throws put smudging that fit their disruption and I would have to just nod my head and say, "sounds good".

With out seeing the data behind theirs results, everything is just a guess.

However, you never really did address any of the stats that I presented in my first post that shows the team was reticle in pass pro and not very good in rushing. Or the fact that our starting LG and RT have serious medical concerns and their availability for next season is tenuous at best.

I've watched enough good ol play to recognize good play and what our team did wasn't good ol play. Now the running game really picked up at the end of the season and I feel much better about our backups than I did going into the season, but that doesn't abate my concerns over our starting LG and RT. Heck our LT is one toke away from being home for a year.

I just thought, considering the investment we are making in RG3 we would want to try to keep him healthy and not put him behind a group off ol that give up qb hits like the man behind center is stuffed with candy and it is a birthday party for the using team's pass rushers!

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:58 am**

Though I mostly support SF33's overall thesis regarding the value of stats his fallback position is a bit troublesome -

skinsfan#33 wrote:Your quote above is not true, not even close, I don't know where you got your info.

The quote was true and still is. The source was www.pro-football-reference.com and I checked the math.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Interesting. I wonder what they consider a touch?

Really?

skinsfan#33 wrote:lThen the list isn't correct.

The list was correct and still is. See above.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Three different NFL coaching staffs disagree with you, but hey you know more than them!

Same goes for all of us - me included. Please self-insert an eye roll whenever you think you know more than three different NFL coaching staffs.

Anyway, with regards to the OL - I'm willing to trust the FO but sure would like to see at least some extra competition. The draft is fairly deep at OL (see threads) and Red's post shows how we are likely to proceed.

DarthMonk

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:17 am**

The offensive line was not as bad OR as good as the stats indicated - that's the thing; the play of so many facets of the offense can make stats for certain players look good or bad

There will be additions and subtractions here - FOR SURE - The tackle and guard positions need to be addressed to ensure better play + better depth

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:47 pm**

I'm sure this $36M salary cap penalty is a big reason we haven't signed any o-line help yet. Has anybody looked at our salary cap situation lately? I think we have just enough left to sign our 2012 draftees.

It looks to me like we couldn't afford the real o-line studs. And the guys that we could possibly make some moves to afford aren't necessarily upgrades on what we have. Any thoughts on that?

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:01 pm**

riggofan wrote:I'm sure this $36M salary cap penalty is a big reason we haven't signed any o-line help yet. Has anybody looked at our salary cap situation lately? I think we have just enough left to sign our 2012 draftees.

It looks to me like we couldn't afford the real o-line studs. And the guys that we could possibly make some moves to afford aren't necessarily upgrades on what we have. Any thoughts on that?

$6,372,437 (money to spend) under the cap... but Meriweather, Griffin, and Grossman deals aren't included

$5.5M has been set aside for rookie signings and $3,460,000 for Performance Based Pay

Actual figure is $15,332,437

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:16 pm**

DarthMonk wrote:Though I mostly support SF33's overall thesis regarding the value of stats his fallback position is a bit troublesome -

skinsfan#33 wrote:Your quote above is not true, not even close, I don't know where you got your info.

The quote was true and still is. The source was www.pro-football-reference.com and I checked the math.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Interesting. I wonder what they consider a touch?

Really?

Yes, because if they are using the number of touches (i.e. Rush, catch, PR, KR) and divide by the number of yards without any other qualification, then THE LIST IS WRONG. That is why I wanted to know what they considereed touches.

The number one guy on yards/touch was JL Higgins @ 17.3

Devery Henderson had 32 catches for 793 yards AND 4 rushes for 33 yards. No PR or KR. Total touches = 36, total yards yards 826 for 22.9 y/t. This is higher than 17.3!

Bernard Berrian's average was 18.7, again higher than 17.3!

Justin Gages average was 19.1, again higher than 17.3!

Vincent Jackson's average was 18.5, yep higher than 17.3!

Steve Smith's average was 16.9, yes lower than 17.3, but much higher than #2 on the list, Ted Ginn's 15.7!

So you can see. If the list is simply yards per touch, IT IS WRONG. If not it is misleading.

All of my stats came from pro-football-reference.com too.

DarthMonk wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:lThen the list isn't correct.

The list was correct and still is. See above.

[/quote]

No it isn't. See above!

I didn't feel like putting the effort into checking what was easy enough to see was wrong just by looking at how much migher the players on the Y/reception list than the y/t list. But since you punked me I decided to put a little effort into it.

DarthMonk wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:Three different NFL coaching staffs disagree with you, but hey you know more than them!

Same goes for all of us - me included. Please self-insert an eye roll whenever you think you know more than three different NFL coaching staffs.

Touché! UR right. My opinion is they need to add two starters, but as i said in an earlier post that isn't for me to decide. It is for the coaching staff to figure out how to fix the OL. They may not need to add anyone or they made do it later in FA or in the Draft, but it is clear it needs to be fixed!

DarthMonk wrote:Anyway, with regards to the OL - I'm willing to trust the FO but sure would like to see at least some extra competition. The draft is fairly deep at OL (see threads) and Red's post shows how we are likely to proceed.

DarthMonk

I'm willing to trust the front office too, but my trust doesn't come without some anxiety.

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:05 am**

Red_One43 wrote:
1niksder wrote:According to this

The Redskins don't need a lot of help on the offensive line.
The line ranked top 10 in run blocking and top 15 in pass blocking

31% of the carries were between the guards and the line ranked #2, the team ran more to the left than right or between the guards and that's where they ranked the lowest 25th behind LT and 18th around the end. The right side ranked 14th behind RT and 4th around the end.

With guys coming back from injury and the draft right around the corner, they be willing to wait.

Even if one doesn't agree with the interpretation of the stats, 1nik makes a valid point when you look at how Shanny builds his O lines. Here's a look at the 1998 line and the 2008 Bronco O lines.

Shanny seems to build his O line with low round draft choices and cast-offs.

When he sees an athletic LT in the draft and their is a need he goes after him i.e. Ryan Clady and Trent Williams. If he sees a guy in FA and the cost is to his liking then he will pursue. He will not break the bank for an O lineman. Yanda is an example here. in the FA market. He loves those athletic guys even though they aren't studs, Shanny believes that he can develop them. Chester fits this mold. Look at Lichtensteiger. In 2010, when he first took over for Dock, folks on the boards, screamed that he sucked and maybe he did then, but last year he was on his way to becoming one of our best linemen. Shanny expects the same with Chester.

Looking at how Shanny aquires O linemen, he seems to be content with picking up guys like Mo Hurt in the 7th round and the Undrafted Willie Smith and developing them. Not getting guys like Grubbs in the FA market doesn't seem to phase him.

Going back to 1niks' title, "The Redskins don't need a lot of help on the offensive line," he is spot on in the eyes of Shanny.

Lichtensteiger will be back and even better if the knee holds up.
Trent Williams, looking at the positives, was gaining consistency before caught consistently dating mary jane.
Chester is expected to get better
Monty - serivceable - look for a draft choice here
Brown - ? - Possibly a June 1st cut - Watching what happens here.

Depth: Now we have experience - definitely better off than last year at this time.

Mo Hurt - should get better
Willie Smith - was impressive - should get better
Tyler Polombus - played better than Brown at RT
Erik Cook - probably gone
Sean Locklear - Did Shanny owe him a favor or something? - he is long gone

Look for some late round picks, undrafted FA pick ups and June 1st vet cuts for more depth

Shanny said that the only problem that he saw with the O line last year was depth. He doesn't believe that we need a lot of help on the O line. Whether we agree or not, that explains why we have seen guys like Nicks, Winston and Grubbs sign with other teams.

1998 Denver Broncos Superbowl Champs Starting O line

LT Tony E. Jones Undrafted

LG Mark Schlereth Washington Redskins / 10th / 263rd pick / 1989

C Tom Nalen Denver Broncos / 7th / 218th pick / 1994

RG Dan Neil Denver Broncos / 3rd / 67th pick / 1997

RT Harry Swayne Tampa Bay Buccaneers / 7th / 190th pick / 1987

2008 Denver Broncos Starting O line - last year for Shanny

LT Ryan Clady Denver Broncos / 1st / 12th pick / 2008

LG Ben Hamilton Denver Broncos / 4th / 113th pick / 2001

C Casey Wiegman Undrafted

RG Chris Kuper Denver Broncos / 5th / 161st pick / 2006

RT Ryan Harris Denver Broncos / 3rd / 70th pick / 2007

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... roster.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... roster.htm

Lichtensteiger will be back and even better if the knee holds up.

That's a VERY big if.

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:59 am**

yupchagee wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:Lichtensteiger will be back and even better if the knee holds up.

That's a VERY big if.

There is a real possibility he starts the season on the PUP or is simply not up to full strenght. Not a good thing for an itty bitty OG that struggles against powerful DTs.

Also, add JB to the big "IF" list. If his hip is OK at the biggining of the season he might play OK, but if it is bothering him like it has off and mostly on for the past two seasons he will be a big liability.

I'n sure MS and BA have a plan, but if that plan includes JB and CL as starting OL then RGIII will need to use all of his available skills to [prevent being one of the most hit QBs in the NFL like rex and Beck were.

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:40 pm**

SF33, etal.

THE LIST IS CORRECT (if anyone besides us (me) cares)! (You out there cowboykillerzRED?)

You do know what a touch is.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Yes, because if they are using the number of touches (i.e. Rush, catch, PR, KR) and divide by the number of yards without any other qualification, then THE LIST IS WRONG. That is why I wanted to know what they considereed touches.

What you missed is the qualifiaction at the top of the list: 6.25 touches per scheduled game to qualify as leader. That's why Devery Henderson (36 touches, your number) doesn't qualify while the guy with 91 catches, 11 rushes, 14 punt returns, and 23 kick returns does.

My "punking" of you was just a re-punking of your punking of me, btw.

DarthMonk

skinsfan#33 wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:Though I mostly support SF33's overall thesis regarding the value of stats his fallback position is a bit troublesome -

skinsfan#33 wrote:Your quote above is not true, not even close, I don't know where you got your info.

The quote was true and still is. The source was www.pro-football-reference.com and I checked the math.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Interesting. I wonder what they consider a touch?

Really?

Yes, because if they are using the number of touches (i.e. Rush, catch, PR, KR) and divide by the number of yards without any other qualification, then THE LIST IS WRONG. That is why I wanted to know what they considereed touches.

The number one guy on yards/touch was JL Higgins @ 17.3

Devery Henderson had 32 catches for 793 yards AND 4 rushes for 33 yards. No PR or KR. Total touches = 36, total yards yards 826 for 22.9 y/t. This is higher than 17.3!

Bernard Berrian's average was 18.7, again higher than 17.3!

Justin Gages average was 19.1, again higher than 17.3!

Vincent Jackson's average was 18.5, yep higher than 17.3!

Steve Smith's average was 16.9, yes lower than 17.3, but much higher than #2 on the list, Ted Ginn's 15.7!

So you can see. If the list is simply yards per touch, IT IS WRONG. If not it is misleading.

All of my stats came from pro-football-reference.com too.

DarthMonk wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:lThen the list isn't correct.

The list was correct and still is. See above.

No it isn't. See above!

I didn't feel like putting the effort into checking what was easy enough to see was wrong just by looking at how much migher the players on the Y/reception list than the y/t list. But since you punked me I decided to put a little effort into it.

DarthMonk wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:Three different NFL coaching staffs disagree with you, but hey you know more than them!

Same goes for all of us - me included. Please self-insert an eye roll whenever you think you know more than three different NFL coaching staffs.

Touché! UR right. My opinion is they need to add two starters, but as i said in an earlier post that isn't for me to decide. It is for the coaching staff to figure out how to fix the OL. They may not need to add anyone or they made do it later in FA or in the Draft, but it is clear it needs to be fixed!

DarthMonk wrote:Anyway, with regards to the OL - I'm willing to trust the FO but sure would like to see at least some extra competition. The draft is fairly deep at OL (see threads) and Red's post shows how we are likely to proceed.

DarthMonk

I'm willing to trust the front office too, but my trust doesn't come without some anxiety.[/quote]

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:26 pm**

Id personally rather sign #59 then over pay a big name line man, at this point he is a bigger concern. I'm fine w what we got but I imagine this fo w at least bring.in competition from free agency and draft a guy they can develop. I like all our starters if healthy but the Baylor center might get a long look if round three rolls around and he is on the board still[/url]

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:22 pm**

John Keim wrote:The Redskins remain in talks with free agent OT Demetrius Bell.
The best tackle left on the market, Bell's signing would likely signal the end of Jammal Brown's time in Washington. Bell would also provide insurance for LT Trent Williams, who was suspended for the final four games of 2011 after repeatedly testing positive for marijuana.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Still No OL Help... Why?

Still No OL Help... Why?

Re: Still No OL Help... Why?

Re: Still No OL Help... Why?

Re: Still No OL Help... Why?

Re: Still No OL Help... Why?

Re: Still No OL Help... Why?

Re: Still No OL Help... Why?

Re: Still No OL Help... Why?

Re: Still No OL Help... Why?

Re: Still No OL Help... Why?

Re: Still No OL Help... Why?