OL hate.
- Thread starter KurtRambis4
- Start date
Our offense is
built to handle 3 & 4 a lot better than 3 & 6 or 7...
Look, I get it. There's no changing your mind.
You thought our OL looked like absolute dogshit, despite the YPC, sack, and penalty #s that were similar (or better) to most other SEC teams vs FCS teams.
I thought they looked ok and have a chance of getting better.
We'll just agree to disagree.
built to handle 3 & 4 a lot better than 3 & 6 or 7...
Look, I get it. There's no changing your mind.
You thought our OL looked like absolute dogshit, despite the YPC, sack, and penalty #s that were similar (or better) to most other SEC teams vs FCS teams.
I thought they looked ok and have a chance of getting better.
We'll just agree to disagree.
I'l concede your point in general about Rb's needing to "see the hole", but we all saw the same game. I didn't see many instances of the RB's "missing the hole". I saw an FCS d-line giving our o-line everything they wanted and more on a lot of plays until they got tired.
There is no reason to be the one to start with personal insults. It's counter-productive...does nothing to advance your POV, and 9-times-out-of-10 results in a back & forth pissing match that pits Bulldog against Bulldog. Intelligent debate is fun...disagreements are indicative of a fanbase that "thinks for itself" as opposed to the ones up North who march lock-step, kool-aid in hand. But when we decide to start with the insults, we are inviting the kind of BS that can ruin a board for a lot of good Bulldogs.
I'm not going for "holier-than-thou" status here, as I readily acknowledge I sometimes slip, and often retaliate just as hard or harder. But I do try to not be the first to throw a punch. I'd much rather get along with and enjoy my fellow Bulldogs...even in disagreement, than to get nasty and attack them personally.
It's literally why I left the "other board" a couple of months ago. Plenty of really good posters over there, but enough ******** to make it not worth the grief.
There is no reason to be the one to start with personal insults. It's counter-productive...does nothing to advance your POV, and 9-times-out-of-10 results in a back & forth pissing match that pits Bulldog against Bulldog. Intelligent debate is fun...disagreements are indicative of a fanbase that "thinks for itself" as opposed to the ones up North who march lock-step, kool-aid in hand. But when we decide to start with the insults, we are inviting the kind of BS that can ruin a board for a lot of good Bulldogs.
I'm not going for "holier-than-thou" status here, as I readily acknowledge I sometimes slip, and often retaliate just as hard or harder. But I do try to not be the first to throw a punch. I'd much rather get along with and enjoy my fellow Bulldogs...even in disagreement, than to get nasty and attack them personally.
It's literally why I left the "other board" a couple of months ago. Plenty of really good posters over there, but enough ******** to make it not worth the grief.
Overall conversion rate of around 50% is very good. But that's overall, and factors in everything from 3rd & inches to 3rd and forever. If you are routinely in a lot of 3rd & 4's on a drive, you will not sustain very many vs good defenses, because multiple "50% or less" situations on a drive will usually result in failure.
If you want to have a productive debate, don't engage in hyperbole. It makes it more difficult to take you seriously.
Hyperbole?
Bulldog1 and I are the only ones that showed facts (stats).
You came back with "they should do better against FCS teams!1!"
Bulldog1 and I are the only ones that showed facts (stats).
You came back with "they should do better against FCS teams!1!"
Didn't say best since 99 said it's the most excited I've been since 99. Again you can read it word for word here.
It's not a complicated sentence for most. I inserted the video cause maybe somebody wanted to watch it. I am nice like that. Not sure what your problem is tho.************************
You just don't get it & don't seem particularly interested in actually reading or comprehending what some are posting. Arguing with you is a waste of time I could spend having fun, and I don't want to get into a pissing match with you.
You have clearly misrepresented what I have posted, and appear to me to be quite hypocritical...but if it makes you feel better, pat yourself on the back until the cows come home.
At least I've learned who not to attempt logical debate with.
You have clearly misrepresented what I have posted, and appear to me to be quite hypocritical...but if it makes you feel better, pat yourself on the back until the cows come home.
At least I've learned who not to attempt logical debate with.
Then you also must acknowledge all the yards after contact our RBs got. Which was quite a lot. Specifically from Hill and Gibson.
They were "okay" for the most part, against a team they should have manhandled and didn't. We actually had to pass the ball a good bit out of necessity. That's highly discouraging when you see what kind of competition is left on the schedule.
What logic
are you using? You're argument rests on some hypothetical/mythical 90% success rate???
ETA: UGA had 25 bad rushes (2yds or <) from 44 carries, with a couple of sacks and multiple penalties, against App State. I guess they suck too.
are you using? You're argument rests on some hypothetical/mythical 90% success rate???
ETA: UGA had 25 bad rushes (2yds or <) from 44 carries, with a couple of sacks and multiple penalties, against App State. I guess they suck too.
Last edited:
You should have known better than even attempting to have this discussion...
It was like I stole a baby from a handful of folks on here last year when I showed where FootballOutsiders, arguably the top statistical analysis site out there for football, developed multiple methods to "rank" offensive lines. It goes well beyond the eye test -- and they objectively ranked our OL highly in every stat category they do. Last year. OL. Top 1/3 in the country by objective measure and elite in several. Overall. On all snaps played. And people thought that line sucked because of the ridiculous penalties and game-costing mistakes early in the season + Holloway/Shump. Given that, I decided I wouldn't even try again this year...
For the record, I'm still a bit in favor of going a different direction in that coaching slot -- and personally believe that coach has been served notice by us hiring an OL coach to take over for Dan's college roommate at the TE position who has proceeded to set the woods on fire on the recruiting trail and has the TEs looking good overall.
I did see some stuff that wasn't great in game one, for sure, but I'm not marking it as a concern until we see it again this week and going forward. That line still only has ONE senior on it.
<tbody>
</tbody>Run-blocking stats
It was like I stole a baby from a handful of folks on here last year when I showed where FootballOutsiders, arguably the top statistical analysis site out there for football, developed multiple methods to "rank" offensive lines. It goes well beyond the eye test -- and they objectively ranked our OL highly in every stat category they do. Last year. OL. Top 1/3 in the country by objective measure and elite in several. Overall. On all snaps played. And people thought that line sucked because of the ridiculous penalties and game-costing mistakes early in the season + Holloway/Shump. Given that, I decided I wouldn't even try again this year...
For the record, I'm still a bit in favor of going a different direction in that coaching slot -- and personally believe that coach has been served notice by us hiring an OL coach to take over for Dan's college roommate at the TE position who has proceeded to set the woods on fire on the recruiting trail and has the TEs looking good overall.
I did see some stuff that wasn't great in game one, for sure, but I'm not marking it as a concern until we see it again this week and going forward. That line still only has ONE senior on it.
| Mississippi State | 118.6 | 9 | 3.32 | 17 | 4.17 | 5 | 44.8% | 12 | 72.5% | 39 | 16.4% | 26 | 171.5 | 12 | 2.4% | 11 | 5.6% | 32 |
| Missouri | 92.4 | 105 | 3.06 | 56 | 2.95 | 93 | 40.9% | 55 | 74.2% | 27 | 18.1% | 55 | 170.6 | 13 | 2.9% | 23 | 3.8% | 9 |
| Navy | 129.8 | 3 | 3.43 | 6 | 3.80 | 16 | 42.9% | 23 | 79.8% | 7 | 13.1% | 3 | 53.1 | 127 | 12.3% | 128 | 11.9% | 116 |
| NC State | 105.9 | 50 | 2.86 | 88 | 3.37 | 57 | 38.2% | 84 | 61.7% | 103 | 18.4% | 59 | 199.3 | 10 | 3.6% | 36 | 3.7% | 8 |
| Nebraska | 94.9 | 100 | 2.82 | 95 | 2.75 | 107 | 39.0% | 76 | 78.0% | 9 | 21.7% | 107 | 185.0 | 11 | 2.8% | 18 | 4.3% | 17 |
| Nevada | 100.2 | 79 | 3.22 | 30 | 3.46 | 47 | 42.1% | 36 | 85.0% | 1 | 16.4% | 26 | 95.1 | 78 | 5.6% | 83 | 7.3% | 55 |
| New Mexico | 106.7 | 46 | 3.42 | 8 | 3.30 | 65 | 43.6% | 18 | 70.3% | 49 | 16.0% | 17 | 103.1 | 55 | 4.3% | 50 | 6.7% | 48 |
| New Mexico State | 107.1 | 43 | 2.93 | 77 | 4.20 | 3 | 45.6% | 7 | 64.3% | 85 | 21.2% | 100 | 71.1 | 110 | 6.8% | 103 | 9.8% | 98 |
| North Carolina | 107.4 | 41 | 3.02 | 63 | 3.14 | 79 | 41.8% | 39 | 52.0% | 127 | 22.0% | 111 | 158.6 | 17 | 4.0% | 43 | 5.5% | 29 |
| North Texas | 87.3 | 115 | 2.53 | 116 | 3.41 | 50 | 39.3% | 73 | 63.6% | 89 | 25.3% | 125 | 68.7 | 114 | 6.9% | 105 | 12.5% | 119 |
| Northern Illinois | 104.5 | 53 | 3.13 | 46 | 3.31 | 63 | 41.6% | 43 | 73.1% | 37 | 17.6% | 47 | 257.9 | 2 | 2.4% | 11 | 1.9% | 1 |
| Northwestern | 101.8 | 68 | 2.74 | 102 | 2.88 | 98 | 33.6% | 118 | 66.7% | 74 | 22.7% | 115 | 87.0 | 93 | 5.5% | 82 | 10.1% | 101 |
| Notre Dame | 113.5 | 18 | 2.74 | 102 | 4.09 | 8 | 41.4% | 46 | 76.2% | 16 | 16.6% | 30 | 86.2 | 95 | 9.0% | 120 | 5.4% | 25 |
| Offense | Adj. LY | Rk | Std. Downs Line Yards | Rk | Pass. Downs Line Yards | Rk | Opp. Rate | Rk | Power Success Rate | Rk | Stuff Rate | Rk | Adj Sack Rate | Rk | Std. Downs Sack Rate | Rk | Pass. Downs Sack Rate |
<tbody>
</tbody>
- Adjusted Line Yards: One of only two opponent-adjusted numbers on the page, this aligns with the ALY figure FO tracks for the NFL and is presented on a scale in which 100.0 is perfectly average, above 100 is good, below 100 is bad.
- Standard Downs Line Yards per Carry: The raw, unadjusted per-carry line yardage for a team on standard downs (first down, second-and-7 or fewer, third-and-4 or fewer, fourth-and-4 or fewer).
- Passing Downs Line Yards per Carry: The same unadjusted averages for rushing on passing downs.
- Opportunity Rate: The percentage of carries (when five yards are available) that gain at least five yards, i.e. the percentage of carries in which the line does its job, so to speak.
- Power Success Rate: This is the same as on the pro side -- percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown.
- Stuff Rate: Same as STUFFED on the pro side -- percentage of carries by running backs that are stopped at or before the line of scrimmage.
- Adjusted Sack Rate: An opponent-adjusted version of a team's sack rate -- sacks divided by (sacks plus passes), presented on a scale in which 100 is perfectly average, above 100 is good, below 100 is bad.
- Standard Downs Sack Rate: Unadjusted sack rate for standard downs pass attempts.
- Passing Downs Sack Rate: Unadjusted sack rate for passing downs pass attempts.
Last edited:
"I did see some stuff that wasn't great in game one"
Agreed. They have plenty to clean up after the CSU game. I think / hope they get it done.
Agreed. They have plenty to clean up after the CSU game. I think / hope they get it done.
Yes they do, and I'd feel much much better if Jenkins were playing anywhere but center. He does so much at G/T that we miss with him at center. If we only had a center comeback and either Williams or Reese didn't have to start this year, but would remain in the rotation.
That looks like a 'no'.
Anywho, I spent a lot from time defending the 2016 OL. Doesn't change the fact they came up short of expectations last Saturday against CSU.
Anywho, I spent a lot from time defending the 2016 OL. Doesn't change the fact they came up short of expectations last Saturday against CSU.
I don't think they release those OL measurments until Oct-Nov each year. They cant adjust it very well without several games worth of a sample size.
don't we all think our OL would have looked way better if Fitz had ran the ball more. We were just OK dog, but we did it with a vanilla offense and our main weapon mostly unused. We gave up 0 sacks--that is a plus. the 2 false starts were the fault of the center (so says Dan). How about let's quit the 17ing crying and wait for Sat. I think then we will have a true picture. La Tech has 2 really good DE, let's see how they do.
Don't think anyone here is declaring the season lost for the O-line. It is way too early, and the first game can always look bad due to guys learning how to work together, etc.
This debate is more about whether the performance was good and encouraging, or not so good and concerning. Most of the posters who have been more critical are taking the position that, considering the opponent and other factual matters, we have reason to be concerned, and reason to believe the performance was not that good CONSIDERING THE OPPONENT.
A couple of guys on here are relying on YPC as the basis for their belief that the performance was good. That is a terrible stat to use, as it is unduly influenced by such things as great plays by the RB after getting through the hole, or a great play where they got hit early, yet still broke it for a good gain.
What is more telling, IMO is that, of the 29 run plays for our first team (not counting scoring plays of less than 3 yards), 11 of those were held for 2 yards or less vs a much smaller, less athletic FCS team. 10 of those runs were for 1 yard or less.
How anyone can realize we let an FCS d-line stuff us for 1 yard or less 10 times out of 29, and think that was a good performance is beyond me. I can understand those who say we shouldn't place much emphasis on that because it was the first game, they will get better, etc. But we have people here who think the performance was actually good.
This debate is more about whether the performance was good and encouraging, or not so good and concerning. Most of the posters who have been more critical are taking the position that, considering the opponent and other factual matters, we have reason to be concerned, and reason to believe the performance was not that good CONSIDERING THE OPPONENT.
A couple of guys on here are relying on YPC as the basis for their belief that the performance was good. That is a terrible stat to use, as it is unduly influenced by such things as great plays by the RB after getting through the hole, or a great play where they got hit early, yet still broke it for a good gain.
What is more telling, IMO is that, of the 29 run plays for our first team (not counting scoring plays of less than 3 yards), 11 of those were held for 2 yards or less vs a much smaller, less athletic FCS team. 10 of those runs were for 1 yard or less.
How anyone can realize we let an FCS d-line stuff us for 1 yard or less 10 times out of 29, and think that was a good performance is beyond me. I can understand those who say we shouldn't place much emphasis on that because it was the first game, they will get better, etc. But we have people here who think the performance was actually good.
No, it's not. I very clearly said the 1st team. I counted the drives while the starters were all in, and did not count any TD runs that were less than 3 yards.
Backup lineman played in the first half as well, in case you didn't notice.
I'm not changing your mind and your not changing mine. Agree to disagree and move the 17 on. Good lord.
You are really splitting hairs. Think what you want. You're one who insists on believing YPC are the gold standard for an O-line. You refuse to acknowledge that, after the RB breaks through the line, those yards are not much about how well the O-line did. The o-line does well on running plays if they open holes, whether it is for no gain because the RB missed the hole or 99. When an RB gets a hole and turns it into a 19 yard gain, the actual value the O-line provided was the same as opening the hole that got him 3.5 on the other.
It just does not make sense for the o-line to get "extra credit" for all those yards the RB got after the hole.
It just does not make sense for the o-line to get "extra credit" for all those yards the RB got after the hole.
Last edited:
This is how you say it with class to a fellow Bulldog:
"I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine. Agree to disagree."
This is how you do it when you want to go out of your way to be an ***:
"I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine. Agree to disagree."
This is how you do it when you want to go out of your way to be an ***: