The OL Has Been Terrible For Years Narrative...

[engie]

I can't believe I haven't seen this posted elsewhere**
Obviously this is last year's (2016) OL -- which had a couple of very costly breakdowns early -- which skewed the perception of what it really was.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol

Per the link:
Run Blocking Stats:
#9 NATIONALLY in Adjusted Line Yards. This is yardage adjusted for competition seen.
#17 in Standard Down Line Yards. Unadjusted for competition.
#5 in Pass Down Line Yards. Unadjusted for competition.
#12 is Opportunity Rate. This is the percentage of carries where the line does it's job. UA4C
#39 in Power Success Rate. This is a run where you need two yards in 3rd or 4th down. Skewed by Holloway IMO. UA4C
#26 in Stuff Rate. This is where a RB is TFL. Also not helped by Holloway IMO. UA4C

Pass Blocking Stats:
#12 in Adjusted Sack Rate. This is sacks allowed adjusted for the competition seen.
#11 in Standard Down Sack Rate. This is UA4C.
#32 in Passing Down Sack Rate. Also AU4C.

So our offensive line last year, in the two stats adjusted for competition, was #12 nationally in passing situations and #9 nationally in running situations. In NO CATEGORY, adjusted or otherwise, were we outside of the top 30% of D1.

 

[Hoover Dawg]

I look at advanced stats too. A common Bill Connolly phrase is, "Well, they were good until they weren't" and all variants thereof. Unfortunately for us, we play a lot of top defenses, so saying we will have a good line really depends on what you think our record will be.

 

[johnson86-1]

I can't believe I haven't seen this posted elsewhere**
Obviously this is last year's (2016) OL -- which had a couple of very costly breakdowns early -- which skewed the perception of what it really was.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol

Per the link:
Run Blocking Stats:
#9 NATIONALLY in Adjusted Line Yards. This is yardage adjusted for competition seen.
#17 in Standard Down Line Yards. Unadjusted for competition.
#5 in Pass Down Line Yards. Unadjusted for competition.
#12 is Opportunity Rate. This is the percentage of carries where the line does it's job. UA4C
#39 in Power Success Rate. This is a run where you need two yards in 3rd or 4th down. Skewed by Holloway IMO. UA4C
#26 in Stuff Rate. This is where a RB is TFL. Also not helped by Holloway IMO. UA4C

Pass Blocking Stats:
#12 in Adjusted Sack Rate. This is sacks allowed adjusted for the competition seen.
#11 in Standard Down Sack Rate. This is UA4C.
#32 in Passing Down Sack Rate. Also AU4C.

So our offensive line last year, in the two stats adjusted for competition, was #12 nationally in passing situations and #9 nationally in running situations. In NO CATEGORY, adjusted or otherwise, were we outside of the top 30% of D1.

Our Oline wasn't terrible last year, but it was terrible early. I would say the performance against USA and BYU were pretty ******. And then it didn't look good in the bowl game. No doubt our much bigger problem was Defense last year. And our OL has been made to look worse than it is by Mullen's stubborness over Holloway in 2015 and 2016.

Another issue is most fans don't care about being in the top 30% of DI when we really need a top 25 quality OL minimum to be able to perform against LSU, Auburn, and Bama most years. If we were in the East or another conference, our OL's outside of 2011 would probably only put one or two games out of reach each year. In the SECW, it usually puts 3 games out of reach and makes a couple more extremely challenging.

 

[engie]

I look at advanced stats too. A common Bill Connolly phrase is, "Well, they were good until they weren't" and all variants thereof. Unfortunately for us, we play a lot of top defenses, so saying we will have a good line really depends on what you think our record will be.

Read the stats, Goat. The two highlighted account for the quality of the defenses we saw.

 

[Hoover Dawg]

Another issue is most fans don't care about being in the top 30% of DI when we really need a top 25 quality OL minimum to be able to perform against LSU, Auburn, and Bama most years. If we were in the East or another conference, our OL's outside of 2011 would probably only put one or two games out of reach each year. In the SECW, it usually puts 3 games out of reach and makes a couple more extremely challenging.

Concur. That's our cross to bear in this conference, and what separates us from other equally challenged schools such as Kansas State, Washington State and Iowa State. Of course, those have challenges too, that we do not. Locally available talent comes to mind.

 

[engie]

Another issue is most fans don't care about being in the top 30% of DI when we really need a top 25 quality OL minimum to be able to perform against LSU, Auburn, and Bama most years.

I think those stats show that we were in fact a top 25 OL last year over the cumulative whole, and certainly by the end of the season. You could argue that Fitz skewed the numbers in our favor, which he certainly did, both is pass down sack rates and in run success, but there is a lot of air between what those adjusted numbers said we were -- and dropping all the way to #25. And you've got a little bit of skew from Holloway taking it back the other way.

This is going to be one of Mullen's better OLs if we can get/remain healthy and fill the one hole at RT. Then we will just have to fill the one hole at LT next year, which should lead to an his best ever unit there in 2018 IMO. One of Reese/Eiland are going to be hell on wheels, it's just whether or not they can be ready this season.

 

[thatsbaseball]

Yea well none of them could kick field goals obviously **

 

[Hoover Dawg]

My problem with this is that the cumulative effect isn't accurate. Alabama, LSU and Auburn (and this year, Georgia very likely) are incredibly different from the rest. It's almost like we begin with 3 losses because it's so difficult to overcome those.

 

[engie]

You can't translate a single position to wins and losses for the most part. I'm not willing to call any of those but Bama losses on the front end, either.

 

[57stratdawg]

A 'bad OL' was a self fulfilling prophecy in 2016. People expected it to be awful, and it basically took 9 games before people began to move away from it. There were only 4 games last year where we averaged less than 5.5 YPC: LSU, BYU, Auburn & Alabama. I would admit our OL was a bit outmanned against LSU, Auburn and Bama.

Keep in mind, we also shifted ball carriers halfway through the season. Williams reached double digit carries in 6 games last year. 5 of them were in November & December with BYU being the lone exception.

 

[johnson86-1]

I think those stats show that we were in fact a top 25 OL last year over the cumulative whole, and certainly by the end of the season. You could argue that Fitz skewed the numbers in our favor, which he certainly did, both is pass down sack rates and in run success, but there is a lot of air between what those adjusted numbers said we were -- and dropping all the way to #25. And you've got a little bit of skew from Holloway taking it back the other way.

This is going to be one of Mullen's better OLs if we can get/remain healthy and fill the one hole at RT. Then we will just have to fill the one hole at LT next year, which should lead to an his best ever unit there in 2018 IMO. One of Reese/Eiland are going to be hell on wheels, it's just whether or not they can be ready this season.

As you note, a lot goes into it, with Fitz and A Williams making our OL look better and Holloway making it look worse, and I know teams have bad games, but I have trouble seeing an offense with a QB like Fitz struggle against USA, BYU, and Miami of OH and then saying they're a top 25 OL.

Maybe the inconsistencies are driven by something other than the OL. Or maybe we benefited from catching a reeling UM, a struggling A&M, and then having three games against LSU, Bama, and Auburn where basically nobody did much against them, so those made our stats look better than the on field results. Or maybe the perspective from watching the SEC is just incredibly skewed and a middle of the pack to slightly below middle of the pack SEC OL really is solidly within the top 25 OL.

 

[Drebin]

I think those stats show that we were in fact a top 25 OL last year over the cumulative whole, and certainly by the end of the season. You could argue that Fitz skewed the numbers in our favor, which he certainly did, both is pass down sack rates and in run success, but there is a lot of air between what those adjusted numbers said we were -- and dropping all the way to #25. And you've got a little bit of skew from Holloway taking it back the other way.

This is going to be one of Mullen's better OLs if we can get/remain healthy and fill the one hole at RT. Then we will just have to fill the one hole at LT next year, which should lead to an his best ever unit there in 2018 IMO. One of Reese/Eiland are going to be hell on wheels, it's just whether or not they can be ready this season.

My issue with those stats are as follows:

- You aren't comparing apples to apples. Teams run offensive schemes that can mask deficiencies on the offensive line. It's not an absolute to say that we had a top 25 OL last year based on rushing efficiency or sacks allowed, or whatever.
- Run stats can be skewed by explosive plays. Fitz had a number of explosive runs...some of them were credit to the OL, but some of them were credit to QB misdirection or a great individual effort.
- Sack stats can be skewed by offensive scheme. We are less likely to see our QB get sacked more because of our offensive scheme and QB escapability than because of our offensive line.

The OL was a white hot mess for the first few games last year but improved as the season went along. We have some useful pieces, but there's a lot of room for improvement. I trust that Mullen is running the best scheme possible to get the most out of the line. But I'm not going to call our offensive line a top-25 unit because that is a devastatingly retarded thing to say.

 

[T-TownDawgg]

I missed the metric for "Give a Damn Consistency " or "Fundamental Integrity".

Interesting numbers. Surprised they ranked so highly, which tells me this group has talent. Just saw too many times a QB on his *** or a RB sidestepping a DT while O linemen standing there observing the chaos with defeated, WTF postures.

That said, those numbers have nothing to do with this year. I expect to see much more chemistry for '17 sake

 

[engie]

Fair post. All could be true.

What I see in Fitz and the OL in front of him is a lot like I saw in Dak and the OL in front of him in 2013, where he/we struggled to score through the middle of the season as he was learning on the job, with a scat back behind him. I think it was the aTm game before we punched one in in the second half against anyone with a pulse that year.

Here was my thoughts then. Obviously -- we now know how 2014 went http://forums.sixpackspeak.com/show...ine-Been-the-Problem&highlight=offensive+line

 

[engie]

My issue with those stats are as follows:

- You aren't comparing apples to apples. Teams run offensive schemes that can mask deficiencies on the offensive line. It's not an absolute to say that we had a top 25 OL last year based on rushing efficiency or sacks allowed, or whatever.

Ok -- so define and quantify it. That's my problem with contrarian arguments to what I'm presenting. They may, in fact, be correct. But they need context and supporting evidence. A couple of idiotic whiffs that cost us games early in the season, while extremely meaningful to perception, were just another play out of a thousand, when defining the OL as a whole.

- Run stats can be skewed by explosive plays. Fitz had a number of explosive runs...some of them were credit to the OL, but some of them were credit to QB misdirection or a great individual effort.

Go read the metrics provided in the analysis. None of the ones posted have anything to do with explosive plays. An absolute nonfactor in this.

- Sack stats can be skewed by offensive scheme. We are less likely to see our QB get sacked more because of our offensive scheme and QB escapability than because of our offensive line.

And they would then not be skewed the other way by facing 4 of the 10 best DLs in football last year? That's the beauty of adjustedstats -- the normalizing of all that out. We are not a quick pass team like Ole Miss to avoid high sack numbers that way, but Fitz' escapability is certainly a factor there.

But I'm not going to call our offensive line a top-25 unit because that is a devastatingly retarded thing to say.

Good. No one did. Just showed where last year's was statistically. In the best/most extensive OL measuring tools for college football stats that I've yet found. If other, similarly advanced metrics are out there that paint an entirely different picture, I'd love to see them and discuss them. They would go a long way toward changing my mind, just as finding these did. Prior to looking them up, I would have said we were a top 40ish slightly above average OL. This points otherwise -- and makes sense -- when you consider it likely that both tackles are our first NFL draftees from the OL in a number of years.

 

[kired]

My biggest complaint is that we fail to sign that All-SEC type guy that you don't have to worry about. In my opinion it makes a huge difference in the overall OL play when you have just one guy like that --- a Sherrod or Gabe Jackson that you can plug in every play, every game, and expect him play nearly perfect. We get two of those guys at the same time... combined with the fact that we're now developing quality college QBs, we have a legitimate shot at an SEC title.

I'd say our overall OL play has been average under Mullen. But an average college OL gets destroyed when you play a handful of top 15 defenses every year.

 

[Hoover Dawg]

Yes. TALENT. It's not that we don't sign the high level guys, we don't even sign the mid level guys. Every single one of our high school signees under Mullen have been projects with CUSA offers until T-Buck got here last year and signed the one from Florida.

Kudos to them for finally discovering the top JUCO prospects.

 

[Drebin]

This is nonsense. You throw out that we were a top 25 OL last year and throwout some ******** metrics that mean nothing because they aren't true representations of conditions on the field, all while ignoring what your eyes and common sense tell you, and when someone calls you on your ********, you challenge them to "define it". I know what I saw. I have no interest entering the engie vortex. You're gonna be hard pressed to find many people who agree with your take on this.

 

[engie]

This is nonsense. You throw out that we were a top 25 OL last year and throwout some ******** metrics that mean nothing because they aren't true representations of conditions on the field, all while ignoring what your eyes and common sense tell you, and when someone calls you on your ********, you challenge them to "define it". I know what I saw. I have no interest entering the engie vortex. You're gonna be hard pressed to find many people who agree with your take on this.

"Many people" don't have to agree. Although it seems like everyone does, in the context of the OP, other than my two faceless fanboys. I think it's funny that you jump on my approach to posting -- but when I present something in the form of a discussion -- you approach it the exact same way you flip out on me about. "I'm right and I don't give a damn what the stats say".

I just want to plant the seed of the idea that maybe, just maybe, eyes deceived on what was actually seen on the field last year. And that many of the issues were somewhere other than where everyone thought they were. No great number of people agreed when I made the same post in 2013, which I linked, either. But it bore itself out in 2014. The fact is, statistically, the offensive line last year was pretty damn good.

 

[the dog is on the loose]

I don't need a bunch of metrics or bedazzled stats to know that we haven't had an OL worth a crap. Just watch the games where we played against the big boys and even a blind man can see this. Mullen and co. never get good OL cruits to come here. Maybe there's a reason for that**. That being said, Maybe just maybe we can turn the corner somewhat this year. I'm trying to optimistic about this.

 

[Drebin]

"Many people" don't have to agree. Although it seems like everyone does, in the context of the OP, other than my two faceless fanboys. I think it's funny that you jump on my approach to posting -- but when I present something in the form of a discussion -- you approach it the exact same way you flip out on me about. "I'm right and I don't give a damn what the stats say".

No, the only approach you take is trying to show how much you know in just about every thread. You would argue the other side of this thing just as quickly, and I'm sure there could be posts found to reflect as such...but I'll let you spend your time looking for them. I will stay out of the engie vortex.

 

[CookieMonster.sixpack]

We're entering Hevesy's 9th season

Ok -- so define and quantify it.

and without question the two best offensive linemen to start for him were recruited by Sylvester Croom. I don't need many more stats than that.

 

[Hoover Dawg]

and without question the two best offensive linemen to start for him were recruited by Sylvester Croom. I don't need many more stats than that.

And their best OL was a walk-on - Ben Beckwith.

 

[LilSebastian]

My issue with those stats are as follows:

- You aren't comparing apples to apples. Teams run offensive schemes that can mask deficiencies on the offensive line. It's not an absolute to say that we had a top 25 OL last year based on rushing efficiency or sacks allowed, or whatever.
- Run stats can be skewed by explosive plays. Fitz had a number of explosive runs...some of them were credit to the OL, but some of them were credit to QB misdirection or a great individual effort.
- Sack stats can be skewed by offensive scheme. We are less likely to see our QB get sacked more because of our offensive scheme and QB escapability than because of our offensive line.

The OL was a white hot mess for the first few games last year but improved as the season went along. We have some useful pieces, but there's a lot of room for improvement. I trust that Mullen is running the best scheme possible to get the most out of the line. But I'm not going to call our offensive line a top-25 unit because that is a devastatingly retarded thing to say.

1. If you look at the way we block on read options/veers, we're pulling 2 linemen to get an extra body in front of a runner hoping to bust out a long run, but leaving us vulnerable to get stuffed. You say the explosive runs skew the numbers, I say that it simply reflects the all-or-nothing nature of how we run the ball.

2. You're overestimating Nick's elusiveness in the pocket. He's fine at it, but I'm not aware of evidence that he's bailing out the o-line or shedding tackles all over the field.

I think you're underestimating how bad Fitzgerald was at running veer/inverted veer/ZRO plays, especially when he should have recognized the defense had the numbers to put an extra defender behind the DL he's reading in the backfield, and he can't hold onto the ball. Hell, I'm watching the LSU game, and Nick was making one bad read after the next. On 1st & 10 @ 8 min left in the 3rd, he keeps it, Aeris runs 5 yards up the middle, and Nick gets hit from behind -- lots of that type of thing, or at least keeping the ball when the RB has a good matchup.

I don't mean to say our OL is a worldbeater, but they're not getting help from Fitz or the running scheme,

 

[BiscuitEater]

Obviously this is last year's (2016) OL -- which had a couple of very costly breakdowns early -- which skewed the perception of what it really was.

Translation .. Look at last year's defense and special teams as the main weakness for the 2016 MSU FB team, NOT the OL.

 

[Snog]

You did this SAME **** with Chris wilson's defense. Gtfo

 

[mcdawg22]

This is nonsense. You throw out that we were a top 25 OL last year and throwout some ******** metrics that mean nothing because they aren't true representations of conditions on the field, all while ignoring what your eyes and common sense tell you, and when someone calls you on your ********, you challenge them to "define it". I know what I saw. I have no interest entering the engie vortex. You're gonna be hard pressed to find many people who agree with your take on this.

How dare you question metrics in football! Engie will get you!View attachment 6511

 

[MSU601Dawg]

Translation .. Look at last year's defense and special teams as the main weakness for the 2016 MSU FB team, NOT the OL.

Not just the D, but the OL was the best individual unit in the team in 2016 and it wasn't really close.

On D we couldn't stop the run or pass and we were very average to below average in the passing game on offense which should've made teams key on the run.

But we were borderline dominant in the run game vs OM, A&M, UK, ARk, USC, USA, Samford, & UMass.

Hell case in point the USA game, Dam Williams completes about 72% of his passes but we only avg 5 yards per pass attempt. That's awful for that high of a comp pct. Our WR's and QB's were pretty bad in the pass game except for a few games last yr