Peppers

[balta1701-A]

I'm sorry, but any statistic that says only five names on that list graded out better than Webb is flawed. As already mentioned, Loadholt is easily better than Webb. He may not be an all-star, but he's an easy upgrade to Webb. The fact that there are OGs and Cs on the list just backs up my point about it being a crap list.

 

Not blaming you, attacking the data.

I wonder if these sort of metrics count it against an o-lineman when they receive help. Like I keep saying, guys like Bushrod...get help from a TE or RB on almost every play, whereas the Bears had Webb one on one against the team's best rusher on a huge number of plays.

[jason]

I wonder if these sort of metrics count it against an o-lineman when they receive help. Like I keep saying, guys like Bushrod...get help from a TE or RB on almost every play, whereas the Bears had Webb one on one against the team's best rusher on a huge number of plays.

 

I can almost guarantee it's not that complex. Which is one of the reasons why there was so much discussion and disagreement on the Bears OL after various games this year. I actually broke down each lineman's play on each play and put it into a spreadsheet so that they could be properly evaluated. Quantitatively evaluated. It's much better than the typical, "But I thought he played well, because I saw the game." Yeah, that doesn't tell nearly the entire picture. For instance, if Webb gets blown up, and it just happens to be a play where Cutler rolls the other way, and there isn't a hit/sack, most people will forget the play. There are countless examples like this, and your thoughts about additional help fall right into the analysis.

[Bears4Ever_34]

I can almost guarantee it's not that complex. Which is one of the reasons why there was so much discussion and disagreement on the Bears OL after various games this year. I actually broke down each lineman's play on each play and put it into a spreadsheet so that they could be properly evaluated. Quantitatively evaluated. It's much better than the typical, "But I thought he played well, because I saw the game." Yeah, that doesn't tell nearly the entire picture. For instance, if Webb gets blown up, and it just happens to be a play where Cutler rolls the other way, and there isn't a hit/sack, most people will forget the play. There are countless examples like this, and your thoughts about additional help fall right into the analysis.

And you can't say that about anybody else? Really? Is Webb the only player in the NFL that has that happen to him? I think not. You better be watching every tackle in the NFL before you use that example as part of an argument.

[bowlingtwig]

And you can't say that about anybody else? Is Webb the only player in the NFL that has that happen to him? I think not. You better be watching every tackle in the NFL before you use that example as part of an argument.

But also think the only way to properly evaluate an olineman is using coaches tape as there are many times tv cuts off some plays. And just a guess that none of us here have that. Most here also shouldn't try to because we are emotionally connected to the team which is why emery said he looks at pff to help him. That's nothing on any of us that's just the truth. Plus unless u know the actual play and assignment for the players how can evaluate effectively

[Bears4Ever_34]

But also think the only way to properly evaluate an olineman is using coaches tape as there are many times tv cuts off some plays. And just a guess that none of us here have that. Most here also shouldn't try to because we are emotionally connected to the team which is why emery said he looks at pff to help him. That's nothing on any of us that's just the truth. Plus unless u know the actual play and assignment for the players how can evaluate effectively

That's exactly why I hate when people throw out statements such as the one above that I commented on. Everything is always worse when it's the team you are a fan of. We say things as if it can't possibly happen to anybody else in the entire league.

[jason]

And you can't say that about anybody else? Really? Is Webb the only player in the NFL that has that happen to him? I think not. You better be watching every tackle in the NFL before you use that example as part of an argument.

 

It happens to others, without a doubt. But I don't believe it happens to the others as much as Webb and the guys on the Bears OL. Hence, why the Bears OL and offense has sucked for multiple years. It's why I've been saying for quite some time that the sacks are an incomplete measure of effectiveness, and there should be pressures included among other things. I'd love for some NFL-connected person put together a stat that measures each player, on a play by play basis, and then aligns that with their teammate OLinemen on the same plays. I'm confident we'd find the Bears' OL take turns screwing up, which is why it looks so bad. Meanwhile, this "horrible GB OL" that everyone loves to bring into debates like this would be shown consistent in their problems. When bad, multiple are bad. When good, they're rock solid. It sure didn't look like they were a bad OL this weekend when Rodgers was sitting back and picking the Viking secondary apart.

 

Seeing and quantifying all others from all other teams would make the data complete, but it's unrealistic to do so. It's enough to watch the Bears players and evaluate how well they are doing, so that an intelligent statement can be made that says something like, "Webb only allowed two pressures and one sack, but on five different other plays he got destroyed when it just so happens the play went the exact opposite way." This is how coaches review film. The end result is nice, but each player gets an evaluation on their assignment irrespective of others (i.e. what did YOU do on that play).

[jason]

But also think the only way to properly evaluate an olineman is using coaches tape as there are many times tv cuts off some plays. And just a guess that none of us here have that. Most here also shouldn't try to because we are emotionally connected to the team which is why emery said he looks at pff to help him. That's nothing on any of us that's just the truth. Plus unless u know the actual play and assignment for the players how can evaluate effectively

 

If you know what you're looking at, and know about football, you can usually tell what the specific OLineman was supposed to do. There are times when you may be wrong because they reacted to a blitz late, tripped, covered for another guy, etc., but more often than not it's pretty clear what their assignment was.

 

Having the coaches tape helps tremendously, no doubt.

[Mongo3451]

It's why I've been saying for quite some time that the sacks are an incomplete measure of effectiveness, and there should be pressures included among other things. I'd love for some NFL-connected person put together a stat that measures each player, on a play by play basis, and then aligns that with their teammate OLinemen on the same plays. I'm confident we'd find the Bears' OL take turns screwing up, which is why it looks so bad.

 

I agree that sacks do not tell the whole story. To me, it's the question of what the protection was when the sack or pressure was observed.

 

This brings the point of the data/analysis you would like to see, as stated above. There are flaws in all types of player analysis. The primary reciever tripped or ran the wrong route, causing the QB to go through his progressions. In the meantime, the OL set up for a protection that can no longer be effective due to the WR. There's one instance. Another could be that there are several protections that can be called and we don't have that information on each individual play, so all we see is the success or failure and sometimes the wrong person is to blame. So, unless you have the precise play and the protection for that exact play, any data is not and can not be conclusive. So, having that is useless to us and even other NFL people. It's individual team inclusive.

 

Now to GB and the sacks. I beleive GB is running their whole offense, which includes plays of risk, which means slow developing or less protection. That is the difference from the Bears. We often saw max protect, meaning their are less targets in the route. I don't believe we ever ran our entire offense.

 

We as fans have to rely on how it looks and feels.

[Stinger226]

I'm sorry, but any statistic that says only five names on that list graded out better than Webb is flawed. As already mentioned, Loadholt is easily better than Webb. He may not be an all-star, but he's an easy upgrade to Webb. The fact that there are OGs and Cs on the list just backs up my point about it being a crap list.

 

Not blaming you, attacking the data.

The list includes RTs of which loadholt is. It apparently includes some OGs so not a well done list, but gives you some names to look at.

[jason]

I agree that sacks do not tell the whole story. To me, it's the question of what the protection was when the sack or pressure was observed.

 

This brings the point of the data/analysis you would like to see, as stated above. There are flaws in all types of player analysis. The primary reciever tripped or ran the wrong route, causing the QB to go through his progressions. In the meantime, the OL set up for a protection that can no longer be effective due to the WR. There's one instance. Another could be that there are several protections that can be called and we don't have that information on each individual play, so all we see is the success or failure and sometimes the wrong person is to blame. So, unless you have the precise play and the protection for that exact play, any data is not and can not be conclusive. So, having that is useless to us and even other NFL people. It's individual team inclusive.

 

Now to GB and the sacks. I beleive GB is running their whole offense, which includes plays of risk, which means slow developing or less protection. That is the difference from the Bears. We often saw max protect, meaning their are less targets in the route. I don't believe we ever ran our entire offense.

 

We as fans have to rely on how it looks and feels.

 

Your points make sense. I agree that any exterior analysis is ultimately inconclusive, but I still believe a picture can be painted if it's done thoroughly enough. Very thorough analysis, no matter that flaw, is almost always better than just look and feel. This is particularly true in terms of OL analysis in football, because since our very first game we've been trained to watch the football. Hell, it's the same in any sport. Watch the ball. So when a quick out pass zooms to Hester in the flats, the OL is ignored. It's normal viewing tendency. But if someone were to actually watch the game the way I did those two games earlier in the year, where I went back and forth on the DVR, multiple times per player on the OL, to specifically watch their movement and performance, then even from TV a very good idea can be had about the player's performance.

[AZ54]

I agree, I've used my DVR occasionally to review games and focus on the Oline and Dline play. You can pick up a lot in just the first 2-3 seconds of each play before the cameras break away. It is time consuming flipping back and forth to watch individual players but for a coach they have a total of perhaps 5min of actual game film to break down because assistants pull the various footage together for them.

[jason]

I agree, I've used my DVR occasionally to review games and focus on the Oline and Dline play. You can pick up a lot in just the first 2-3 seconds of each play before the cameras break away. It is time consuming flipping back and forth to watch individual players but for a coach they have a total of perhaps 5min of actual game film to break down because assistants pull the various footage together for them.

 

My wife agrees. Which is why I only did it for two games.