PFF ranks our O-line 31st in the league

[RolandDeschain]

Not that it's a surprise with Unger and Okung out, but still, it kind of hurts. Even before the season started, I wanted to see us draft a high O-lineman in the next draft. Hope we do it.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... t-quarter/

 

[The Dirty Truth]

LOL at people who actually take stock in this crap.

 

[pehawk]

I guess it makes sense that's what they're rated. But, I still don't see any variables compensating for; Wilson's aversion to turnovers, Pete/Wilson's longing for long-balls, etc. It's slightly misleading without that, IMO. Plus, I'll take 31st in the league if they're still able to rush at will, like the Hawks we're able to do in the 1st half.

Advanced statistics will never be able to fully grade football, or any sport, really. That's not to rip on them, they're shiny and cool. But, they should never be leaned upon to grade any aspect, without a pinch or two of salt.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Shock horror.... offensive line with only one starter in his intended position ranks poorly.

PFF don't take into account opponent (unlike FO), which for me renders the whole thing a waste of time.

 

[twisted_steel2]

Not that it's a surprise with Unger and Okung out, but still, it kind of hurts. Even before the season started, I wanted to see us draft a high O-lineman in the next draft. Hope we do it.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... t-quarter/

I have a feeling that C/S will throw big resources at o-line this off-season. Kind of like pass rushing last off-season. They always seem to identify a weakness and then throw draft picks, free agents, etc at it, shotgun approach.

Just seems like o-line is due ya know?

To let Wilson play behind an inadequate line is a tragedy.

 

[jdblack]

Not that it's a surprise...

I'm surprised, thought it would be 32nd.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Another thread fascinated with rankings.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Boy, do I regret starting this thread.

 

[hawkfan68]

There are too many "what if" players on the line. With Okung and Unger the line significant improves but it really masks the line's weak players such as Sweezy, MCQ, and Carp. Now these are in the forefront thus the inconsistent and subpar play at the OL. I think this review is spot on. To be 4-1 with a bad OL is something to be said. It shows how the team is being lifted by it's defense, ST, Wilson, and Lynch.

 

[rsm650]

Heh, according to that, our current best player is a 7th round rookie who is barely above average. I believe it.

Obviously without Okung and Unger, Wilson is smoked.

 

[Hawknballs]

For everyone complaining about 'yet another rankings' system, it doesn't change the fact that when analytics are applied equally to every team in the league, we come up second to last in one of the most important parts of a successful team. It's not like the analysis was done by a hawks fan who was just trying to skew the numbers to prove a point. Not sure why so many people want to willfully be in denial of how bad the line is.

 

[The Dirty Truth]

It is absolutely amazing to me how some of you come on here and talk like you actually have a clue. You claim to be fans and watch games but have ZERO knowledge on what you are trying to talk about. Its comical really.

 

[AvengerRam]

PFF is about as reliable a source as... well, as a fan message board.

 

[pehawk]

It is absolutely amazing to me how some of you come on here and talk like you actually have a clue. You claim to be fans and watch games but have ZERO knowledge on what you are trying to talk about. Its comical really.

Really?

 

[Hawknballs]

PFF is about as reliable a sources as... well, as a fan message board.

sooooo what is a reliable analytic source then?

Because the O-line doesn't pass the eye test, either. It's bad.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

4-1

 

[The Dirty Truth]

Yes really. Its the same crap over and over. One person says so and so sucks, then another person reads that and says "he must suck because someone said he did" and it rolls on from there. Very very few of you pay any attention to the OL during the course of a game. That's a fact. Why don't any of you talk about our WR corps that absolutely suck or the fact Wilson holds on to the ball too long? The reason why is because you don't understand what you are looking at and why things happen the way they do.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

:snack:

 

[AvengerRam]

PFF is about as reliable a sources as... well, as a fan message board.

sooooo what is a reliable analytic source then?

Because the O-line doesn't pass the eye test, either. It's bad.

Its a simple formula:

If you take objective data, and then conduct an analysis of that data to draw a conclusion, you are acting in a scientific manner.

If you take your subjective views and assign numbers to them (as if that somehow converts it into objective data), then you're not acting in a scientific manner.

Guess which one of those is a description of PFF's method?

PFF's problem is particularly acute when it comes to evaluating O lines. For example, they attempt to attribute sacks to a particular lineman, when they may be completely unaware of the blocking scheme (i.e. a DE may be the responsibility of a TE or RB, rather than the OT who lines up opposite him).

In the end, the "eye test" is usually pretty much on point, particularly when its consistent with true objective data (i.e. yards/carry, sacks/pass attempt).

You don't need PFF and its "rankings" (available for the low low price of $$$) to determine whether a player, unit or team is succeeding or failing.

 

[13thMan]

Not that it's a surprise...

I'm surprised, thought it would be 32nd.

LOL... This.