Bears vs. Chiefs

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I jinxed us.

 

But that was an interesting nugget from the announcer.

 

The Chiefs were last in the league with 13 total sacks before this game. They got 6 in THIS GAME ALONE. That means the Bears OL is freaking horrible. There is no debating this.

 

--edit--

 

7 sacks.

Yes there is. It comes down to the Bears being very very predictable in the play-calling and the Chiefs not being worried about Hanie beating them. Both points were true. Add in forte being out (who can hurt you with screen's out of the backfield) and it made things even worse.

 

I'm not going to throw the Bears oline, which had done pretty good the past 7 weeks, under the bus due to one game.

[madlithuanian]

I was too busy drowning my sorrows in some great IPA brews.

 

The D is on time, the O, with Cutler is simply not professional.

 

It's funny, there is so much to talk about after this game. It was a doozy. Yet hardly any activity (so far) on these boards. I think most of us are feeling a little sick.

 

[flea]

Yes there is. It comes down to the Bears being very very predictable in the play-calling and the Chiefs not being worried about Hanie beating them. Both points were true. Add in forte being out (who can hurt you with screen's out of the backfield) and it made things even worse.

 

I'm not going to throw the Bears oline, which had done pretty good the past 7 weeks, under the bus due to one game.

 

 

I disagree that the Ol has done pretty good the last 7 weeks. It was an illusion the pressure was there Cutler just made them look good. It is a piss poor OL

[jason]

Yes there is. It comes down to the Bears being very very predictable in the play-calling and the Chiefs not being worried about Hanie beating them. Both points were true. Add in forte being out (who can hurt you with screen's out of the backfield) and it made things even worse.

 

I'm not going to throw the Bears oline, which had done pretty good the past 7 weeks, under the bus due to one game.

 

Actually, it's what I said is not up for debate. The Bears went against the worst pass rush in the NFL and gave up 6 sacks. That's pathetic. That, in and of itself, is not up for debate.

 

As for the rest of the games, you're not watching the same game as I am apparently.

 

OAK: Average at best. I was there and saw the QB pressured on nearly every pass play. The running holes weren't tremendous by any means either.

SD: Better than average.

DET: The OL sucked. If not for the tremendous performance by the D/ST, the Bears lose, and a great majority of the blame is in the OL's lap.

PHI: Tremendous performance.

TB: Above average. Although, there were several big screw ups.

MIN: Good.

DET: Sucked.

 

So, if you figure in the KC game, that's 3 horrible performances, 1 average performance, 3 above average, and 1 great. Sounds to me like a very inconsistent group.

 

They're improving, but it's easy to be happy with a C+ when you're used to getting F's on everything. I'd like to see a consistent B average before I start saying they have been doing "pretty good."

[Bears4Ever_34]

I disagree that the Ol has done pretty good the last 7 weeks. It was an illusion the pressure was there Cutler just made them look good. It is a piss poor OL

Of but it wasn't. For once, Mike Martz offered to help out the line by calling for more protections and more rollouts, which is what you are suppose to do with your team. You play to your strengths (Look at Green Bay). They've given up 29 sacks this season and I don't see anybody calling them atrocious the way they are calling the Bears offensive line atrocious. That offense doesn't even run near as many, if any 7 step drops as this offense does and they've allowed almost as many sacks as the Bears. So what do they do to get away with it? They roll the quarterback out, they run a quick passing system, and they have the best quarterback in the NFL. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I'm pretty sure that over the past 5-6 weeks (with Cutler) the offensive line hasn't given up more than a handful of sacks, ~6-7. That's pretty good if you ask me.

 

I guarantee you that just about every team in the league would be near the top of the league in sacks allowed if they ran the Mike Martz offense. Hell, even the greatest show on turf that had Orlando Pace were still among the top 10 in sacks allowed during their hay day. Bottom line, when you run this style of offense, there is no beating around the fact that your quarterback is going to get sacked. But when Cutler finally got to Mike Martz right before Minnesota, he decided to do some logical things with this offense by aiding the line with chip blocking, with less 7 step drops, running the ball more etc.. That's what you are suppose to do!! Once Cutler and now Forte went down, it's pathetic to start using your evaluation tool with the offensive line now that there two best players are out of the game. Once Cutler went down, our season was over and Martz is looking ahead to his next job.

[jason]

Of but it wasn't. For once, Mike Martz offered to help out the line by calling for more protections and more rollouts, which is what you are suppose to do with your team. You play to your strengths (Look at Green Bay). They've given up 29 sacks this season and I don't see anybody calling them atrocious the way they are calling the Bears offensive line atrocious. That offense doesn't even run near as many, if any 7 step drops as this offense does and they've allowed almost as many sacks as the Bears. So what do they do to get away with it? They roll the quarterback out, they run a quick passing system, and they have the best quarterback in the NFL. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I'm pretty sure that over the past 5-6 weeks (with Cutler) the offensive line hasn't given up more than a handful of sacks, ~6-7. That's pretty good if you ask me.

 

I guarantee you that just about every team in the league would be near the top of the league in sacks allowed if they ran the Mike Martz offense. Hell, even the greatest show on turf that had Orlando Pace were still among the top 10 in sacks allowed during their hay day. Bottom line, when you run this style of offense, there is no beating around the fact that your quarterback is going to get sacked. But when Cutler finally got to Mike Martz right before Minnesota, he decided to do some logical things with this offense by aiding the line with chip blocking, with less 7 step drops, running the ball more etc.. That's what you are suppose to do!! Once Cutler and now Forte went down, it's pathetic to start using your evaluation tool with the offensive line now that there two best players are out of the game. Once Cutler went down, our season was over and Martz is looking ahead to his next job.

 

I highlighted the part that is the most important in your first paragraph. Rodgers would turn Knox into an all-star.

 

Also, I dont' think the 6-7 sacks necessarily means the OL is doing a pretty good job. It means the first part of your paragraph is correct; the Bears (read: Martz) changed the style of play and allowed less opportunities for sacks. That doesn't mean there wasn't significant pressure. It just means that Cutler threw it faster, there were more max protect type situations, and the offense was run-heavy.

[Bears4Ever_34]

I highlighted the part that is the most important in your first paragraph. Rodgers would turn Knox into an all-star.

 

Also, I dont' think the 6-7 sacks necessarily means the OL is doing a pretty good job. It means the first part of your paragraph is correct; the Bears (read: Martz) changed the style of play and allowed less opportunities for sacks. That doesn't mean there wasn't significant pressure. It just means that Cutler threw it faster, there were more max protect type situations, and the offense was run-heavy.

But that's my point. That's what you are suppose to do. That is a logical thing to do when you don't have a line filled with All Pro's. What's wrong with doing something that benefits your offense? The reason this is even a discussion is because of who our offensive coordinator is. None of that will matter after this season anyways once that guy is gone. I think everyone will be surprised with how well our line will play in a system that better suits them.

 

If you're line of thinking is "Well because Martz has to do all that extra stuff to help the offensive line, that must mean that our line is incapable of handling themselves without help," I would tell you that you are wrong. Every coordinator except Martz does this, and there is no discussion about it. When you run the Martz offense, you continuously put your offensive line in position to where they are expected to protect the quarterback for longer than what can be expected from a normal offensive line. 7 step drops automatically put your line at a disadvantage. There isn't a lineman out there that wants to do that routinely. There is nothing wrong with max protecting your quarterback from time to time, or rolling him out of pressure to help yourself out during a game. Gone are the days when you can consistently send all your guys in a route. But that's not to say you can't do it from time to time. 31 NFL teams do these things and it goes unnoticed because it's what can be expected.

[jason]

But that's my point. That's what you are suppose to do. That is a logical thing to do when you don't have a line filled with All Pro's. What's wrong with doing something that benefits your offense? The reason this is even a discussion is because of who our offensive coordinator is. None of that will matter after this season anyways once that guy is gone. I think everyone will be surprised with how well our line will play in a system that better suits them.

 

If you're line of thinking is "Well because Martz has to do all that extra stuff to help the offensive line, that must mean that our line is incapable of handling themselves without help," I would tell you that you are wrong. Every coordinator except Martz does this, and there is no discussion about it. When you run the Martz offense, you continuously put your offensive line in position to where they are expected to protect the quarterback for longer than what can be expected from a normal offensive line. 7 step drops automatically put your line at a disadvantage. There isn't a lineman out there that wants to do that routinely. There is nothing wrong with max protecting your quarterback from time to time, or rolling him out of pressure to help yourself out during a game. Gone are the days when you can consistently send all your guys in a route. But that's not to say you can't do it from time to time. 31 NFL teams do these things and it goes unnoticed because it's what can be expected.

 

I think everyone realizes this, even Martz. The problem is, when he doesn't do these things (i.e. max protect, two TEs) the OL performs almost universally bad. Sure, there is a random game against Philly when everyone is playing well together and the schemes gel, but for the most part there isn't a game that goes by where the pressure on the Bears' QB is anything other than constant, the running holes inconsistent, and the penalties plentiful. It would be different if he could rely on these bums to do something well even at a 25% clip, but he can't. And the result is Cutler throwing off his back foot while under pressure, or Hanie running for his life when everyone on D is loaded up near the LOS.

 

So what is he left with? Running an inept, watered down offense that has minimal chance at success. He's left with an offense that is happy to get 21 on its own, maybe a bit more with a short field from the stellar D/ST. In this situation he's like a boxer who will be lucky to out-point his opponent; a good option is to throw the occasional hay-maker.

[Bears4Ever_34]

I think everyone realizes this, even Martz.

Obviously not, because if he did, it wouldn't have had to take Jay Cutler to scream and yell at him for 5 weeks before he realized that what worked well late in last years season could work again this season.

The problem is, when he doesn't do these things (i.e. max protect, two TEs) the OL performs almost universally bad.

What happened in the San Diego game when the Chargers failed to record a sack against the Bears? Just lucky huh? How about the game against Minnesota where they only allowed 1 sack? Oh but they only had one random good game against the Eagles.. Silly me.

It would be different if he could rely on these bums to do something well even at a 25% clip, but he can't

Actually, since that game against the Vikings, the Bears have only allowed 5 sacks going into the game against the Raiders including two shut outs against the Eagles and the Chargers. That's a fact.

 

So what is he left with? Running an inept, watered down offense that has minimal chance at success. He's left with an offense that is happy to get 21 on its own, maybe a bit more with a short field from the stellar D/ST.

They were scoring about 25 ppg with Jay Cutler in the lineup. That's pretty solid given the lack of talent at the WR position.

 

Also, I remember you said "As the offensive line goes so does the offense." The offense was starting to play very well before Cutler went down, but you say the OL has only had one random good game against Philadelphia, does your statement all of a sudden not apply anymore? How is it possible to put up 31 against the Chargers using your logic if the line didn't play well?

[jason]

Obviously not, because if he did, it wouldn't have had to take Jay Cutler to scream and yell at him for 5 weeks before he realized that what worked well late in last years season could work again this season.

 

What happened in the San Diego game when the Chargers failed to record a sack against the Bears? Just lucky huh? How about the game against Minnesota where they only allowed 1 sack? Oh but they only had one random good game against the Eagles.. Silly me.

 

Actually, since that game against the Vikings, the Bears have only allowed 5 sacks going into the game against the Raiders including two shut outs against the Eagles and the Chargers. That's a fact.

 

They were scoring about 25 ppg with Jay Cutler in the lineup. That's pretty solid given the lack of talent at the WR position.

 

Also, I remember you said "As the offensive line goes so does the offense." The offense was starting to play very well before Cutler went down, but you say the OL has only had one random good game against Philadelphia, does your statement all of a sudden not apply anymore? How is it possible to put up 31 against the Chargers using your logic if the line didn't play well?

 

Try not to think so simply. Sacks are not the only way to measure an OL. Watch the games and you'll also see a lot of pressure and inconsistent running lanes. The logic of "good OL play = good offensive performance" still applies, but it's possible for the talent positions to still make great plays. Also, if you'd bother to read the thread, I said they played "above average" in the game against SD.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Try not to think so simply. Sacks are not the only way to measure an OL. Watch the games and you'll also see a lot of pressure and inconsistent running lanes. The logic of "good OL play = good offensive performance" still applies, but it's possible for the talent positions to still make great plays. Also, if you'd bother to read the thread, I said they played "above average" in the game against SD.

Lol. I find it incredibly ironic that of all people, I'm the one that is thinking simply when all this time I've sat here and shared some factual information from this season that aids my argument while you continue to throw out blanket statements of senseless fluff. Your sentences are filled with baseless information and its hard to take the things you say seriously. I don't think you've ever once showed me any bit of circumstantial evidence or some form of a statistic to support any of your claims. I feel like I don't even need to respond to half of the stuff you say because its usually things like "Watch the games" or "We can't run deep routes" or "Look at Noot's notes", "There is no debating this" etc.. etc.. the list goes on. When you say these things, it makes you sound like someone who is inane or half-witted.

[jason]

Lol. I find it incredibly ironic that of all people, I'm the one that is thinking simply when all this time I've sat here and shared some factual information from this season that aids my argument while you continue to throw out blanket statements of senseless fluff. Your sentences are filled with baseless information and its hard to take the things you say seriously. I don't think you've ever once showed me any bit of circumstantial evidence or some form of a statistic to support any of your claims. I feel like I don't even need to respond to half of the stuff you say because its usually things like "Watch the games" or "We can't run deep routes" or "Look at Noot's notes", "There is no debating this" etc.. etc.. the list goes on. When you say these things, it makes you sound like someone who is inane or half-witted.

 

LOL. And I find it contradictory and slightly ignorant that you call me half-witted while:

 

-Saying you've provided statistics while judging the OL's performance entirely based on one statistic (i.e. sacks)

-Constantly harping on Martz about the offense while admitting to the fact that he has made significant changes

-Ignoring the changes by Martz as largely contributing factors to the better performance by the OL

-Constantly saying Martz has done poorly while claiming the WRs and OL are bad, and obviously realizing Hanie sucks

-Completely dismissing supporting evidence, others' opinions, countless links, and numerous stats I've compiled over months/years proving the OL is the weakest link of the team, and when they do well even the poor WRs perform significantly better

 

The simple facts of this are, you can't say Martz sucks and the OL has done a lot better while simultaneously admitting to the fact that Martz has changed the offense to support a weak OL and minimize their mistakes, especially after he called a nearly flawless game against KC and the OL allowed 6 sacks to the worst pass rush in the NFL.

 

As for Noot's Notes, he's been a contributing, and respected member on this website before it was even talkbears, and I was trying to persuade the other side of the disagreement - because that's what you do in a disagreement - towards my opinion by using his respected, unbiased (meaning he hasn't taken a side in the debate) opinion. With his grading scale I provided data, actual hard data without my input, that displays a measurement showing the OL performing worse than the WRs. It's not my fault you don't recognize someone else's efforts as having merit. To be quite honest, the way you dismiss his efforts is kind of rude, and definitely insulting.

[Bears4Ever_34]

-Saying you've provided statistics while judging the OL's performance entirely based on one statistic (i.e. sacks)

Sacks are a great barometer for measuring the success of an offensive line. QB hits are another way of measuring success and the only reason I haven't brought it up is because I haven't been able to find that statistic from a game to game basis. I do know that this line has given up 62 quarterback hits over the entire season (7th out of 32) but those are counting the two with Haine at quarterback and of course, early on in the season when they couldn't block anybody with Frank Omiyale starting.

 

I've also provided statistics from previous arguments over WR's when you keep saying that our offensive line is unquestionably worse than our WR core, and I cited the fact that we were 3rd or 4th worst at the time in drops as a team. We were ranked 15th or 16th overall in sacks allowed with Cutler (Again that's including the first few weeks with Frank Omiyale leading up to the Vikings game). When you compare the two, given that WR drops ranks much higher in its category than Sacks allowed ranks in it's category, lends credence to my argument. So far, you have shown nothing of the sort that would even invite me into re-believing that our offensive line is the worst part of our team. I provide facts and statistics to support my opinion, while you continue to say one thing and hide behind it.

 

 

-Constantly harping on Martz about the offense while admitting to the fact that he has made significant changes

No, I hate the offense. Plain and simple. I hated the signing from the moment we got him but nobody else wanted the job at the time. I knew his style did not fit with Cutler well, I knew his offense often got his quarterbacks killed and essentially ended Marc Bulger's career because of it. The fact that it had to take another Mike Martz intervention to get everything together this season is really scary. He might change for a couple of weeks but sooner or later he goes back to being Mike Martz.

 

-Ignoring the changes by Martz as largely contributing factors to the better performance by the OL

I don't get this.. ? The changes made by Martz is something that should have been a given in any offense that doesn't have an All Pro offensive line. You do those things (the rollouts, the screens, the chip blocking) to help alleviate some of the pressure from the line, which, in turn, keeps the defense off balanced. That's something the Bears should have been doing anyways. The fact that they have to do those things is not an indictment on the offensive line, otherwise we would have to go in and say that about every other NFL team that runs two TE sets, rolls there quarterback out, or throws the occasional screen pass.

 

 

 

-Constantly saying Martz has done poorly while claiming the WRs and OL are bad, and obviously realizing Hanie sucks

See my point on hating his offense.

 

-Completely dismissing supporting evidence, others' opinions, countless links, and numerous stats I've compiled over months/years proving the OL is the weakest link of the team, and when they do well even the poor WRs perform significantly better

What are these countless links you speak of? That's news to me. So far the only thing I've seen from you is a link to some random guys notes and some small sample size from a game that is suppose to indicate how if the OL performs our offense gets better, which is obvious. That doesn't cut it.

 

 

The simple facts of this are, you can't say Martz sucks and the OL has done a lot better while simultaneously admitting to the fact that Martz has changed the offense to support a weak OL and minimize their mistakes, especially after he called a nearly flawless game against KC and the OL allowed 6 sacks to the worst pass rush in the NFL.

I find it pointless to point towards the two games Cutler hasn't been under center as any kind of evaluation tool for grading the offensive line. That all ended when he went down. I mean, what's the point? You're offense is obviously going to get worse with your backup quarterback and RB, especially when the quarterback has no clue where he's at on the field and often times can't get rid of the ball as quick as he needs to because he doesn't know how to read an NFL defense. I was one of the guys last year and early in the season this year that said this was the worst offensive line in the history of football so it's not like I can't change my opinion on something when it's worth changing. This line has really done an admirable job once they got things tightened up and the coaches finally realized Frank Omiyale was garbage.

 

As for Noot's Notes, he's been a contributing, and respected member on this website before it was even talkbears, and I was trying to persuade the other side of the disagreement - because that's what you do in a disagreement - towards my opinion by using his respected, unbiased (meaning he hasn't taken a side in the debate) opinion. With his grading scale I provided data, actual hard data without my input, that displays a measurement showing the OL performing worse than the WRs. It's not my fault you don't recognize someone else's efforts as having merit. To be quite honest, the way you dismiss his efforts is kind of rude, and definitely insulting.

 

I think I said it before but if I didn't, I respect the guy's opinion. I think it's cool that he does what he does. But he is no different than you or I in regards to being your average person talking about the sports teams that we love. So I don't value his opinion anymore than I view yours or anyone elses. Not only that but what you were showing were his grades, which is a totally subjective and arbitrary way of expressing something. That just doesn't do anything for me. That's all I'm saying.

[jason]

Sacks are a great barometer for measuring the success of an offensive line. QB hits are another way of measuring success and the only reason I haven't brought it up is because I haven't been able to find that statistic from a game to game basis. I do know that this line has given up 62 quarterback hits over the entire season (7th out of 32) but those are counting the two with Haine at quarterback and of course, early on in the season when they couldn't block anybody with Frank Omiyale starting.

 

I've also provided statistics from previous arguments over WR's when you keep saying that our offensive line is unquestionably worse than our WR core, and I cited the fact that we were 3rd or 4th worst at the time in drops as a team. We were ranked 15th or 16th overall in sacks allowed with Cutler (Again that's including the first few weeks with Frank Omiyale leading up to the Vikings game). When you compare the two, given that WR drops ranks much higher in its category than Sacks allowed ranks in it's category, lends credence to my argument. So far, you have shown nothing of the sort that would even invite me into re-believing that our offensive line is the worst part of our team. I provide facts and statistics to support my opinion, while you continue to say one thing and hide behind it.

 

What are these countless links you speak of? That's news to me. So far the only thing I've seen from you is a link to some random guys notes and some small sample size from a game that is suppose to indicate how if the OL performs our offense gets better, which is obvious. That doesn't cut it.

 

Yes, sacks are a great barometer, but they are without question an incomplete barometer. It's a ridiculously incomplete picture. Admitting that there is a lot more to it (i.e. hits) is a good step towards the middle. For the record, I think to accurately measure the OL in terms of pass-blocking, you'd have to compile the at least the following six stats with respect to how they rank against the other teams in the league: sacks, hits, hurries, forced rollouts, QB time in pocket before pressure, percentage of OL holding a block on each play. The last two are particularly important, because the former sets a baseline for what constitutes the ambiguous "QB pressure," and the latter constitutes OL success. Afterall, who gives a shit if 4 different guys on the OL play well as long as 1 guy is getting blown up every play? Having said all that, I don't have the time or game film to undergo such a monumental effort, so it ultimately comes down to the eye test.

 

BTW - The Bears OL is 7th worst in sacks and QB hits (but I'm curious to see what exactly is counted as a QB hit) and not that low in terms of team receiving.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?arc...;qualified=true

 

Also, if you haven't seen the countless links and stats I've provided over the course of the past few years in regards to the OL, you just haven't been paying attention. But just for fun, I think I might start doing this for future Bears' game until the OL finally gets shored up. Care to engage in the undertaking with me? We can create the measurements and the compare notes at the end of each game. Start easy:

 

QB sacks

QB hits

QB hurries

QB forced rollouts

 

No, I hate the offense. Plain and simple. I hated the signing from the moment we got him but nobody else wanted the job at the time. I knew his style did not fit with Cutler well, I knew his offense often got his quarterbacks killed and essentially ended Marc Bulger's career because of it. The fact that it had to take another Mike Martz intervention to get everything together this season is really scary. He might change for a couple of weeks but sooner or later he goes back to being Mike Martz.

 

Understood. I don't disagree, but I see two approaches. You either completely revamp the offense to suit the lack of talent or you buy/draft the parts necessary for the offense to succeed. The former neuters the offensive potential; the latter is potentially time-consuming. You'd rather see the former; I'd rather see an attempt at the latter. You're currently seeing your choice (while Martz is here), but I'll never get to see my choice because the Bears' front office (including Lovie) has an aversion to drafting more than one serviceable OL addition, and when they do they can't evaluate the guy to ensure he's not some broke-dick who is better suited for a different position.

 

I don't get this.. ? The changes made by Martz is something that should have been a given in any offense that doesn't have an All Pro offensive line. You do those things (the rollouts, the screens, the chip blocking) to help alleviate some of the pressure from the line, which, in turn, keeps the defense off balanced. That's something the Bears should have been doing anyways. The fact that they have to do those things is not an indictment on the offensive line, otherwise we would have to go in and say that about every other NFL team that runs two TE sets, rolls there quarterback out, or throws the occasional screen pass.

 

My point was, you can't say "the OL is doing significantly better!" and try to pretend it's all the OL improvement, and at the same time say that the offense has had a near 180 by the addition of rollouts, screens, cihps, etc. The additions to, and modification of, are potentially the true reason the OL has "improved" statistically, through no real improvement of their own. Although I will concede there has been very minor improvement, I still contend they are easily the worst part of the team, and certainly haven't had some sort of life-changing metamorphosis like some would pretend they've had. They are very slightly better, which could be entirely related to Omiyale not playing. The fact that they gave up 6 sacks to the worst pass rush in the NFL is a supporting statistic in this regard (i.e. still sucking this late in the season, despite the "improvement," against the worst pass rush in the NFL).

 

I find it pointless to point towards the two games Cutler hasn't been under center as any kind of evaluation tool for grading the offensive line. That all ended when he went down. I mean, what's the point? You're offense is obviously going to get worse with your backup quarterback and RB, especially when the quarterback has no clue where he's at on the field and often times can't get rid of the ball as quick as he needs to because he doesn't know how to read an NFL defense. I was one of the guys last year and early in the season this year that said this was the worst offensive line in the history of football so it's not like I can't change my opinion on something when it's worth changing. This line has really done an admirable job once they got things tightened up and the coaches finally realized Frank Omiyale was garbage.

 

Similarly, you can't judge the WRs. Right? Afterall, they can't expect the passes at the same time, don't have as long to run the routes, etc.

 

I think I said it before but if I didn't, I respect the guy's opinion. I think it's cool that he does what he does. But he is no different than you or I in regards to being your average person talking about the sports teams that we love. So I don't value his opinion anymore than I view yours or anyone elses. Not only that but what you were showing were his grades, which is a totally subjective and arbitrary way of expressing something. That just doesn't do anything for me. That's all I'm saying.

 

Understood. And I was simply trying to bring in some sort of statistic in regards to comparing the OL to the WR positions. This statistic doesn't exist, so using Noot's Notes is as close as statistics as they come in this regard. By bringing in an outside opinion, it was a way of not using my logic but another's. In absence of hard, quantitative data, one must use a lot of qualitative data as a scoring system. I'd argue his ratings are somewhere in the middle of quantitative and qualitative, and until we accomplish what I said in the first paragraph (i.e. the 6 stats).