Thread: PFF: Ranking offensive lines through week 5

Denver comes in 20th. Raiders 5th.

20. Denver Broncos (10th)
Pass blocking rank: 22nd
Run blocking rank: 20th
Penalties ranks: 16th

Stud: It's Evan Mathis (+3.7), but he hasn't reached anywhere near the levels of play he was at in Philadelphia.

Dud: It was a lot to ask of Ty Sambrailo (-10.6) to adjust to life as an NFL left tackle—indeed, proving too much. He has struggled throughout the season.

Summary: The line does seem to be getting better, and the play of Matt Paradis can be considered a success. But with so much invested on defense, there is a feeling that Denver may have neglected this unit.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...tering-week-5/

1)You might want to edit some of the mis-typed letters in that post.

2)Better ranking I would have given with the eye/watching test.

Through week 5? Whoa.....I missed an entire week? That was some good shit.

As always, a lot of this depends on how much weight you give PFF. If you buy into their methods, this says that we're below average but not bottom five or whatever, so I'd probably agree with that. The Colts are at #19 though, and their line is worse than ours.

I will agree that the Seahawks line (#30) and the Lions (#32) are probably right, though that last one had something to do with us, I'm sure.

If the Raiders are really as good as #5, this game Sunday will be interesting.

Interesting that the AFC Suck Division (tm) are all in a group: 16. Houston, 17. Tennessee, 18. Jackassville, 19. Indy.

Speaking of our O-line, Football Outsiders has a great in depth look at the line in last week's game and its problems in pass protection. Really interesting read:

There are really only two reasons that offensive lines struggle: lack of talent and lack of chemistry. Usually, when things are really bad, it's both. I'm still undecided on if the Broncos are suffering from lack of talent. I like their guards (Evan Mathis and Louis Vasquez), who have both been getting better as the season has gone along. Right tackle Ryan Harris is a veteran offensive tackle that is really nothing more than a stopgap (there's a reason he's on his third team in four years) but if he's your worst offensive lineman, you can have a decent unit. It's the other two spots that could end up making or breaking Denver's line.

At left tackle, Denver went with a rookie, Ty Sambrailo, who has struggled early on but has shown some things that I find encouraging. The problem is that he's already banged up, and he sat out last Sunday with a shoulder injury. If he's going to be where the Broncos need him to be come January, he needs to be playing. At center, Matt Paradis had a terrible first game but has looked better since. He still gets pushed around by nose tackles in the run game, but looks good at the second level and may develop into an above-average pass-blocker. I think he has a shot to be at least a league-average center, and paired with above-average guard play, that could give Denver a nice interior line.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/wor...-mountain-sigh

Originally Posted by VonDoom

Speaking of our O-line, Football Outsiders has a great in depth look at the line in last week's game and its problems in pass protection. Really interesting read:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/wor...-mountain-sigh

Great article, thanks, and the kind of incisive nuts and bolts stuff that makes me like FO (and its inspiration) so much better than PFF (note to those guys: You can't explain stuff you don't understand. ) It's a far more depressing read, but also far more informative and reliable, and does a fine job highlighting why our lines unfamiliarity with the playbook, each other and (in Sambrailo and Paradis' case) actual NFL games is probably a bigger issue than talent (though, as FO notes, Paradis and Sambrailo are still young unknown quantities there, and will likely look it for a while.)

The other one though... ranking our line only slightly below average is a textbook example of why so many people don't take PFFs gloss of football sophistication seriously. We're 28th in passing yds/att and 25th in Ints, while 29th in rushing yds/att. Our average ToP, plays and yards are mirror images of our defenses: And that's a TOP FIVE D in every meaningful category but ONE, #1 in most. In other words, our offense is producing as if facing a top five D weekly, yet Minnesota's the only opponent with multiple rankings even in the top ten (and still very) few and all are below average in most things.

That's without breaking down tape of each play in all their games, but still, we've had nearly the worst performance in the league so far against average (at best) resistance. 5.5 yds/att through the air, 3.5 on the ground, against teams with unimpressive stats even with big boost from our awful offense. I guess in PFF Land, where our line's below average, but not awful, that means all our "skill" players suck. That might be plausible to most folks if this were still the early '80s, but it's a lot easier for the general public to verify (or refute) superficial analysis now.

I'll stick with FO; they actually know what they're talking about when they tell us what's happening, and have enough snap to figure out WHY it's happening.

Originally Posted by VonDoom

As always, a lot of this depends on how much weight you give PFF. If you buy into their methods, this says that we're below average but not bottom five or whatever, so I'd probably agree with that. The Colts are at #19 though, and their line is worse than ours.

I will agree that the Seahawks line (#30) and the Lions (#32) are probably right, though that last one had something to do with us, I'm sure.

If the Raiders are really as good as #5, this game Sunday will be interesting.

PFF grades players and ranks them but as far as I know there's no way of putting these into context, like who these players actually played against.

They're grades, probably similar to how position coaches grade their players, but theres a difference between a negative grade going against Justin Houston and a positive grade going against Barkevious Mingo.

I'd also like to know how/if PFF adjusts grades when players get help, such as TE/RB's chipping or when a G helps a T because he's uncovered.

There's a lot I don't know about their rankings but I still like having them.

Originally Posted by Jaded

PFF grades players and ranks them but as far as I know there's no way of putting these into context, like who these players actually played against.

They're grades, probably similar to how position coaches grade their players, but theres a difference between a negative grade going against Justin Houston and a positive grade going against Barkevious Mingo.

I'd also like to know how/if PFF adjusts grades when players get help, such as TE/RB's chipping or when a G helps a T because he's uncovered.

There's a lot I don't know about their rankings but I still like having them.

Its quality varies by individual authors; some know their stuff, others don't. Example: Around the start of 2013, there was a debate here over whether to keep Mike Adams or Rahim Moore, and someone arguing for Moore linked a PFF article claiming Moore had performed better. That claim was based on stats showing our defense performed better with Moore on the field than with Adams—even though the author cited but dismissed stats showing that, when TARGETED, Adams had a lower catch rate and far more deflections and tackles.

I don't know why our defense was worse OVERALL with Adams; maybe we mostly used him on long yardage downs (when defenses will eagerly surrender a 12 yd catch to reach a 4th and 5 punt.) What I DO know is that their RECORDS show Adams INDIVIDUALLY outperformed Moore in 2012 (even ignoring the playoff game) and went to last years Pro Bowl after posting 5 Ints (this year he has 3 through 5 games) while Moore's continues posting pedestrian stats starting for a Texans team so bad it couldn't beat a mediocre Colts team that had the only starting QB older than Manning (fresh off an early morning ER trip.)

Ultimately, PFFs analyses and conclusions (as everyone elses) stand or fall on the merits of content, not name recognition. But ranking Denver and Houstons awful lines merely a bit below average doesn't pass the smell nor eye test. Such dubious "stats" are only relevant to fans so rabid they view everything through team-color-tinted glasses and use stats as drunks use lightposts: For support, not illumination.

Pff > fo.

Originally Posted by Jaded

Pff > fo.

That's classic baiting; one might even call it masterful.

Originally Posted by Joel

That's classic baiting; one might even call it masterful.

I see what you did there, well done sir.

Originally Posted by tomjonesrocks

Denver comes in 20th. Raiders 5th.

20. Denver Broncos (10th)
Pass blocking rank: 22nd
Run blocking rank: 20th
Penalties ranks: 16th

Stud: It's Evan Mathis (+3.7), but he hasn't reached anywhere near the levels of play he was at in Philadelphia.

Dud: It was a lot to ask of Ty Sambrailo (-10.6) to adjust to life as an NFL left tackle—indeed, proving too much. He has struggled throughout the season.

Summary: The line does seem to be getting better, and the play of Matt Paradis can be considered a success. But with so much invested on defense, there is a feeling that Denver may have neglected this unit.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blo...tering-week-5/

These statistics really mask the putrid play of the Denver OL this season because they ignore several key points:

1. Peyton Manning has one of the quickest releases in football. If a QB like Brock who has a slower release were in there, there would be a lot more sacks, fumbles and interceptions that would make these stats look a lot worse.

2. Peyton has been in the shot-gun virtually the entire time, which makes it much easier for him to see the rush, and get rid of the ball quickly. That helps his OL look better than they are.

If a QB like Peyton is getting sacked in 2 seconds while he's in the shot-gun, that's just a horrible play by the OL. That should never happen.

Elway refused to go out in FA and shore up the piss-weak OL in free agency. Instead he insisted on relying on rookies, and re-treads. All offseason it looked terrible and fans and reporters were saying "how can this possibly work? They are starting a rookie at LT!"

And the line of B.S. out of Dove Valley was "don't worry! We'll be just fine! We have complete confidence in our OL and Ty Sambrailo!"

Well, that was complete bull-shit and the critics were right. This OL has been terrible and all the jolly talk from the crew of the Titanic about how "no need to panic! We have everything under control" has been exposed for exactly what it was - total and complete corporate ass-covering.

They flat screwed up. They didn't go out and get a stud veteran FA RT, which was a huge need. Instead they're using a career backup in Ryan Harris. Then Ryan Clady goes down for the season.

Well, he's done that repeatedly the last 3 years, so it's not actually a huge surprise. They might have anticipated something like that could happen and be prepared instead of just throwing in a rookie LT! But, no!

And while the signing of Evan Mathis was a coup - it was both unexpected and not the result of planning. Chip Kelly is a moron who is shipping all the talented players out of Philly, including Mathis, and bringing in "his players" - exactly as McMoron did here in Denver. Kelly's going to be fired, probably after this season.

Mathis missed the entire off-season and is trying to get into football shape during the regular season. It's been a struggle. But, at least we can expect him to get better. It's difficult to imagine either Paradis or Harris, let alone Micheal Schofield ever becoming good OL. They are at best mediocre.

Mathis and Vasquez are All Pros but STILL look like crap: That suggests the deficiency is familiarity (with both each other and the complex new playbook) not talent. Harris when we drafted him, in Houston and in KC; not stellar, but he wouldn't be a career starter if he sucked, and, as I recall, what got kept him off the field and then cut in Denver was his inability to stay healthy, not play.

I wanted more aggressive FA and draft moves on the line, too, as I always do, but the group we had was awful, and even the best GM and coaches can only do so much with a single seasons draft picks and cap space, especially when an All Pro blindside protector and road grader goes down in preseason. This is why I wish we'd brought in Kubiak and Dennison last year; if we had, we'd have at least a decent line by now, and pretty much everyone would know the playbook. As it is, we're doing all that learning and mending THIS year, and I doubt Manning has another season left to wait for that.

Originally Posted by Joel

Mathis and Vasquez are All Pros but STILL look like crap: That suggests the deficiency is familiarity (with both each other and the complex new playbook) not talent. Harris when we drafted him, in Houston and in KC; not stellar, but he wouldn't be a career starter if he sucked, and, as I recall, what got kept him off the field and then cut in Denver was his inability to stay healthy, not play.

I wanted more aggressive FA and draft moves on the line, too, as I always do, but the group we had was awful, and even the best GM and coaches can only do so much with a single seasons draft picks and cap space, especially when an All Pro blindside protector and road grader goes down in preseason. This is why I wish we'd brought in Kubiak and Dennison last year; if we had, we'd have at least a decent line by now, and pretty much everyone would know the playbook. As it is, we're doing all that learning and mending THIS year, and I doubt Manning has another season left to wait for that.

You keep talking about Kub and Rico like they're some kind of OL gurus.