(05-20-2019, 06:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: FootballOutsiders has a formula they use to try and separate the RB skills from the O-line skills when grading run blocking.  They penalize the O-line for tackles for loss or zero gain, and give the RBs more credit for yards gained more than 5 yards past the line of scrimmage.  It is called "adjusted line yards".  Based on just the standard "avg per carry" the Bengals 4.7 avg ranks 8th in the league, but their "adjusted line yards" is only 4.1 and ranked 22nd.  We averaged 4.7 per carry because our RBs ranked 11th in "second level yards per carry" (5 to 10 yards past line of scrimmage) and 3rd in "open field yards per carry" (10+ yards past line of scrimmage).

They also rank O-lines on "power success" (3rd or 4th down with 2 yards or less to go, and anything within 2 yard line).  The Bengals actually di very well in this category ranking 7th in the league.

Finally they calculate an "adjusted sack rate" that takes into account sacks and intentional groundings per attempt adjusted for down distance and opponent.  Bengals ranked 19th in this metric.

So while these numbers are bad, they are not as bad as some people here seems to think.  Lots of people here claimed we had one of the worst O-lines in the league last year and claim we will be bottom 5 in 2019.

I am hoping Price will be a different player with a healthy offseason to work out and get stronger, plus we added the best O-lineman in the draft.  I don't think we will have a great O-line next year, but it should be easily in the top half of the league.

Here are all the rankings......https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

(05-21-2019, 11:57 AM)grampahol Wrote: Perhaps there needs to be another stat called "With the game on the line" stat when some teams excel and others fold like a cheap suit. Anyone care to take a stab at where the Bengals have stood in the "With the game on the line" stat over the years? I'm guessing it ain't been pretty.. 

(05-20-2019, 06:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: FootballOutsiders has a formula they use to try and separate the RB skills from the O-line skills when grading run blocking.  They penalize the O-line for tackles for loss or zero gain, and give the RBs more credit for yards gained more than 5 yards past the line of scrimmage.  It is called "adjusted line yards".  Based on just the standard "avg per carry" the Bengals 4.7 avg ranks 8th in the league, but their "adjusted line yards" is only 4.1 and ranked 22nd.  We averaged 4.7 per carry because our RBs ranked 11th in "second level yards per carry" (5 to 10 yards past line of scrimmage) and 3rd in "open field yards per carry" (10+ yards past line of scrimmage).

They also rank O-lines on "power success" (3rd or 4th down with 2 yards or less to go, and anything within 2 yard line).  The Bengals actually di very well in this category ranking 7th in the league.

Finally they calculate an "adjusted sack rate" that takes into account sacks and intentional groundings per attempt adjusted for down distance and opponent.  Bengals ranked 19th in this metric.

So while these numbers are bad, they are not as bad as some people here seems to think.  Lots of people here claimed we had one of the worst O-lines in the league last year and claim we will be bottom 5 in 2019.

I am hoping Price will be a different player with a healthy offseason to work out and get stronger, plus we added the best O-lineman in the draft.  I don't think we will have a great O-line next year, but it should be easily in the top half of the league.

Here are all the rankings......https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

(05-20-2019, 10:27 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: PFF ranked our like 27. That's not decent or ok.

(05-20-2019, 09:53 PM)bonesaw Wrote: Interesting.  Do you happen to have 2017's numbers, because if I remember correctly that was a real shitty oline.

(05-21-2019, 02:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How does PFF even rank an O-line?

Do they have separate scores for running and passing?

(05-21-2019, 02:23 PM)Synric Wrote: The reason why football outsiders has never been considered a actual football source like Pro Football Focus is because they don't give all the relevant information. When it says a failed run to the right who was successful and who failed the center rg rt te etc?

There is a reason why ESPN CBS Sports and NFL.com mention PFF even during things like the draft. While I dont always agree with their rankings their in-depth stats are the best out there...

NFL.Com does the Next Gen Stats now that are pretty good too.

(05-21-2019, 02:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A success "rate" can not be inflated by a small sample size.

But it does not matter.  In 2018 the Bengals had 40 plays last year that were 3rd or 4th down with 1 or 2 yards to go were they ran the ball.  The league average was 42.4.  We converted 72.5 of those plays for first downs wich ranked 17th in the league.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/play_finder.cgi?request=1&match=all&player_id_hint=&player_id_select=&player_id=&idx=&role=&year_min=2018&year_max=2018&team_id=&opp_id=&game_type=R&playoff_round=&game_location=&game_result=&game_day_of_week=&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&quarter%5B%5D=1&quarter%5B%5D=2&quarter%5B%5D=3&quarter%5B%5D=4&quarter%5B%5D=5&minutes_max=15&seconds_max=00&minutes_min=00&seconds_min=00&down%5B%5D=3&down%5B%5D=4&yds_to_go_min=1&yds_to_go_max=2&yards_min=-99&yards_max=99&field_pos_min_field=team&field_pos_min=&field_pos_max_field=team&field_pos_max=&end_field_pos_min_field=team&end_field_pos_min=&end_field_pos_max_field=team&end_field_pos_max=&type%5B%5D=PASS&type%5B%5D=RUSH&type%5B%5D=PUNT&type%5B%5D=KOFF&type%5B%5D=ONSD&type%5B%5D=FG&type%5B%5D=XP&type%5B%5D=2PCR&type%5B%5D=2PCP&is_complete=&is_sack=&include_kneels=&no_play=N&is_first_down=&is_turnover=&is_scoring=&turnover_type%5B%5D=interception&turnover_type%5B%5D=fumble&score_type%5B%5D=touchdown&score_type%5B%5D=field_goal&score_type%5B%5D=safety&margin_min=&margin_max=&rush_direction%5B%5D=LE&rush_direction%5B%5D=LT&rush_direction%5B%5D=LG&rush_direction%5B%5D=M&rush_direction%5B%5D=RG&rush_direction%5B%5D=RT&rush_direction%5B%5D=RE&pass_location%5B%5D=SL&pass_location%5B%5D=SM&pass_location%5B%5D=SR&pass_location%5B%5D=DL&pass_location%5B%5D=DM&pass_location%5B%5D=DR&order_by=yards


The Bengals also had 12 plays inside the opponents 2 yard line where they ran the ball.  The league average was 11.5.  In those siytuations only 3 teams converted a higher percentage than the Bengals 66.7.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/play_finder.cgi?request=1&match=summary_all&player_id_hint=&player_id_select=&player_id=&idx=&role=&year_min=2018&year_max=2018&team_id=&opp_id=&game_type=R&playoff_round=&game_location=&game_result=&game_day_of_week=&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&quarter%5B%5D=1&quarter%5B%5D=2&quarter%5B%5D=3&quarter%5B%5D=4&quarter%5B%5D=5&minutes_max=15&seconds_max=00&minutes_min=00&seconds_min=00&down%5B%5D=0&down%5B%5D=1&down%5B%5D=2&down%5B%5D=3&down%5B%5D=4&yds_to_go_min=&yds_to_go_max=&yards_min=-99&yards_max=99&field_pos_min_field=opp&field_pos_min=2&field_pos_max_field=opp&field_pos_max=1&end_field_pos_min_field=team&end_field_pos_min=&end_field_pos_max_field=team&end_field_pos_max=&type%5B%5D=RUSH&is_complete=&is_sack=&include_kneels=&no_play=N&is_first_down=&is_turnover=&is_scoring=&turnover_type%5B%5D=interception&turnover_type%5B%5D=fumble&score_type%5B%5D=touchdown&score_type%5B%5D=field_goal&score_type%5B%5D=safety&margin_min=&margin_max=&rush_direction%5B%5D=LE&rush_direction%5B%5D=LT&rush_direction%5B%5D=LG&rush_direction%5B%5D=M&rush_direction%5B%5D=RG&rush_direction%5B%5D=RT&rush_direction%5B%5D=RE&pass_location%5B%5D=SL&pass_location%5B%5D=SM&pass_location%5B%5D=SR&pass_location%5B%5D=DL&pass_location%5B%5D=DM&pass_location%5B%5D=DR&order_by=yards


Now there may be some overlap in these two sets of numbers, and the goal line stats counted conversions for firat down instead of TDs.  So the numbers may be off just a little.  But overall the Bengals were not horrible in short yardage situtions.

(05-21-2019, 02:44 PM)PAjwPhilly Wrote: 72.5% was 19th in the league... why does this chart have "games played" by some teams at 13, 14, 15, & 16? Do they not have data for games (that isn't professional)? Also the Giants lead the league in this stat with 90% (30 total plays but only 13 games). Missing data kinda makes this unusable to me. But what do I matter, lol...

(05-21-2019, 02:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How does PFF even rank an O-line?

Do they have separate scores for running and passing?

(05-21-2019, 02:23 PM)Synric Wrote: The reason why football outsiders has never been considered a actual football source like Pro Football Focus is because they don't give all the relevant information. When it says a failed run to the right who was successful and who failed the center rg rt te etc?

There is a reason why ESPN CBS Sports and NFL.com mention PFF even during things like the draft. While I dont always agree with their rankings their in-depth stats are the best out there...

NFL.Com does the Next Gen Stats now that are pretty good too.

(05-21-2019, 02:44 PM)PAjwPhilly Wrote: Yes it most certainly can and most certainly does.  For example...I flip a coin twice. I get heads and heads. Thus, I have a 100% heads rate.  If I increase the sample size to say 1,000... I wont see a 100% heads rate. 

However... you are correct, it didn't matter. Our sample size was comparable to the rest of the NFL (which I was suggesting it might have been well below average). Also those links are huge but I am going to check them out.  Why didn't our coaches recognize this and just go for it on 4th down if our line was on a hot-streak??

72.5% was 19th in the league... why does this chart have "games played" by some teams at 13, 14, 15, & 16? Do they not have data for games (that isn't professional)? Also the Giants lead the league in this stat with 90% (30 total plays but only 13 games). Missing data kinda makes this unusable to me. But what do I matter, lol...

(05-21-2019, 03:25 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: This is what they said last year:


The start of the new league year begins March 14, and with that, the 2017 NFL season is more than officially over. The 2017 season saw an offensive line seemingly carry its offense to the ultimate crown while portions of other teams’ struggles can be attributed to offensive line struggles. The following rankings for the league’s offensive lines are a look back at the 2017 season only, and do not reflect any moves that each team has made with regards to looking ahead to 2018.

Our comprehensive PFF player grades take into account every aspect of a lineman’s game on every play from every game — their performance in both pass-blocking and run-blocking, and their discipline. Our PFF Player Grades showcase the true effectiveness of an offensive lineman as an individual, so we’ve taken that a step further to give you a look at how the units graded out, on average during the 2017 regular season.

This looks back at the 2017 season only, this doesn’t factor in any moves made towards the 2018 season, and factors in a wide variety of context in addition to those grades:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-ranking-all-32-offensive-lines-from-the-2017-nfl-season

(05-21-2019, 02:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They may keep some in depth stats, but their individual rankings are not accurate at all.  They are too subjective and the formula they use is flawed.  And I don't even know how they rank a unit like an O-line.  Can you tell me how they do it?

At least FootballOutsiders uses objective stats.

(05-21-2019, 03:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So do they just add up the individual scores to get a score for the entire line?

(05-21-2019, 03:42 PM)Synric Wrote: Their rankings are more subjective because they dont have enough data. Hence why I said Football Outsiders has never been truly used as a real source of information for football.

(05-21-2019, 03:42 PM)Synric Wrote: You might not like PFF but it's used by every relevant media source and is even becoming a part of team analytics.

(05-21-2019, 03:48 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I would guess it's a weighted average though because a guy like Westerman has a good PFF grade despite playing a small amount of snaps.

(05-20-2019, 06:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This just in:

It's because of Andy's quick release.

(05-21-2019, 03:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is another problem with PFF rankings.

Player A gets 20 snaps and messes up 2 plays.  Player B gets 60 snaps and messes up 3.  Player A is ranked higher (-2 to -3) even though he played fewer snaps and messed up more often.