Rating the Starting O-lines (1 Viewer)

[chris1969]

Ok I started by ranking all the starting O-lineman by position in these threads...

LT's

LG's

C's

RG's

RT's

Team Depth Charts

Now it's time to put it all together. Keep in mind that this isn't considering injury risk, back-ups or cohesion at this point. That will come later.

Team

1 New England Patriots

2 Cleveland Browns

3 Indianapolis Colts

4 Denver Broncos

5 Cincinnati Bengals

6 Pittsburgh Steelers

7 Washington Redskins

8 San Diego Chargers

9 Atlanta Falcons

10 New York Jets

11 Minnesota Vikings

12 Carolina Panthers

13 Arizona Cardinals

14 New York Giants

15 Tampa Bay Buccaneers

16 Detroit Lions

17 Dallas Cowboys

18 Chicago Bears

19 Philadelphia Eagles

20 San Francisco 49ers

21 Green Bay Packers

22 Kansas City Chiefs

23 Seattle Seahawks

24 Houston Texans

25 Jacksonville Jaguars

26 New Orleans Saints

27 St Louis Rams

28 Tennessee Titans

29 Buffalo Bills

30 Baltimore Ravens

31 Oakland Raiders

32 Miami Dolphins

 

[BigSteelThrill]

At this point, I say with confidence, the Chargers have a better OLine then the Steelers.

Swapping them would be appropriate.

 

[rascal]

i don't know if I would put the Raiders that low. Their offseason moves, and getting rid of Shell should account for something no?

 

[TheLastDispatch]

Eagles at 19?



I'm also surprised to see Chicago down at 18.

ETA: Especially surprising to see Philly there since you ranked two of their linemen in the top 3 at their position.

 

[Zigg]

So the #1 offense in the NFL, with it's OLine returning 100% in tact, only has the 26 ranked line? Wouldn't that render this whole exercise pointless?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So the #1 offense in the NFL, with it's OLine returning 100% in tact, only has the 26 ranked line? Wouldn't that render this whole exercise pointless?

I didnt even see notice, what an injustice for a line that was splendid last year. Wow. They have to be top 10-12.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

i don't know if I would put the Raiders that low. Their offseason moves, and getting rid of Shell should account for something no?

You have to put them that low. If they look anything similar to what they have the past two years, it could be even lower.Optimism is fine, but thats not what this list is about I dare say. As most people would be optimistic about their teams always improving.

 

[rascal]

Also your RG link goes to your LG thread.

 

[rascal]

i don't know if I would put the Raiders that low. Their offseason moves, and getting rid of Shell should account for something no?

You have to put them that low. If they look anything similar to what they have the past two years, it could be even lower.Optimism is fine, but thats not what this list is about I dare say. As most people would be optimistic about their teams always improving.

But when the Vikings added Hutchinson, etc they generally got a substantial bump. And while Carlisle and their other additions aren't on Hutchinson's level they were big improvements over what the had. I'm not saying they should be ranked higher then say 25, but I think they should be ranked higher then where they are. And I'm a Broncos fan.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

i don't know if I would put the Raiders that low. Their offseason moves, and getting rid of Shell should account for something no?

You have to put them that low. If they look anything similar to what they have the past two years, it could be even lower.Optimism is fine, but thats not what this list is about I dare say. As most people would be optimistic about their teams always improving.

But when the Vikings added Hutchinson, etc they generally got a substantial bump. And while Carlisle and their other additions aren't on Hutchinson's level they were big improvements over what the had. I'm not saying they should be ranked higher then say 25, but I think they should be ranked higher then where they are. And I'm a Broncos fan.

Basing an improvement by the addition of Steve top 2 guard Hutchinson isnt based on optimism.

 

[rascal]

Well I'm not being optimistic about their o-line being better. I'm being realistic IMO. Time will tell.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Well I'm not being optimistic about their o-line being better. I'm being realistic IMO. Time will tell.

I agree in the "any change has to be better then the last two years" sense.

 

[redman]

So the #1 offense in the NFL, with it's OLine returning 100% in tact, only has the 26 ranked line? Wouldn't that render this whole exercise pointless?

I think the Saints line is better than this, but for argument's sake the '99 Rams had a very average o-line but dominated statistically. Why are you presuming line ranking based upon offensive rank as opposed to, for example, yards per carry or number of sacks?

 

[redman]

chris1969,

did you derive these rankings directly from some cumulative mathematical analysis of your position rankings, or from some other way?

 

[chris1969]

All this is, is a an average rating of the starters at all the positions. There isn't any consideration for depth, scheme, injury risk, cohesion, ect... You'll see a lot of teams move up and down based on that.

Thanks for letting me know about the bad link.

If you guys think I'm off on any rankings go to the right position thread and post your analysis. After all the whole point is to get feedback from you guys. Try to post more than how many pro-bowls a guy has been to, or how much he's being paid. I refuse to put Dockery in my top 5.

 

[chris1969]

i don't know if I would put the Raiders that low. Their offseason moves, and getting rid of Shell should account for something no?

You have to put them that low. If they look anything similar to what they have the past two years, it could be even lower.Optimism is fine, but thats not what this list is about I dare say. As most people would be optimistic about their teams always improving.

But when the Vikings added Hutchinson, etc they generally got a substantial bump. And while Carlisle and their other additions aren't on Hutchinson's level they were big improvements over what the had. I'm not saying they should be ranked higher then say 25, but I think they should be ranked higher then where they are. And I'm a Broncos fan.

Basing an improvement by the addition of Steve top 2 guard Hutchinson isnt based on optimism.

McKinnie is the key there. Also it wouldn't hurt if they nixxed all the zone blocking. They have the wrong guys for that.

 

[Zigg]

So the #1 offense in the NFL, with it's OLine returning 100% in tact, only has the 26 ranked line? Wouldn't that render this whole exercise pointless?

I think the Saints line is better than this, but for argument's sake the '99 Rams had a very average o-line but dominated statistically. Why are you presuming line ranking based upon offensive rank as opposed to, for example, yards per carry or number of sacks?

I don't think the Saints have the best line in the league, but 26 is ridiculous. Brees was only sacked 18 times and while the run blocking struggled at times, they put up some huge running games at the end of the year. Despite the rankings by the original poster, there is a lot of individual talent on the line. Brown and Faine are 1st round picks and Stinchcomb was a 2nd rounder. Evans was a 4th rounder and a 1st team all-rookie.

 

[Moldy Potato]

I think a lot of the problems with these rankings (like the Saints at 26, which is WAY off) can be attributed to the fact that the sum of the parts does not necessarily equal the whole.

 

[chris1969]

So the #1 offense in the NFL, with it's OLine returning 100% in tact, only has the 26 ranked line? Wouldn't that render this whole exercise pointless?

I think the Saints line is better than this, but for argument's sake the '99 Rams had a very average o-line but dominated statistically. Why are you presuming line ranking based upon offensive rank as opposed to, for example, yards per carry or number of sacks?

I don't think the Saints have the best line in the league, but 26 is ridiculous. Brees was only sacked 18 times and while the run blocking struggled at times, they put up some huge running games at the end of the year. Despite the rankings by the original poster, there is a lot of individual talent on the line. Brown and Faine are 1st round picks and Stinchcomb was a 2nd rounder. Evans was a 4th rounder and a 1st team all-rookie.

You can help their ranking by posting in the individual position threads.

 

[Jason Wood]

LOL at the Eagles ranking 19th...they have no worse than the 2nd best starting five in the NFC (New Orleans being in the running). They have all five starters returning, Andrews is coming off an All Pro season, Runyan and Thomas are both multiple Pro Bowlers, and they delivered a #2 offense last season.

 

[Biabreakable]

LOL at the Eagles ranking 19th...they have no worse than the 2nd best starting five in the NFC (New Orleans being in the running). They have all five starters returning, Andrews is coming off an All Pro season, Runyan and Thomas are both multiple Pro Bowlers, and they delivered a #2 offense last season.

Jason,1st of all lets try to look at this for what it is. A work in progress that through discussion and refinement could become a useful tool if enough people are willing to participate in it. I have some questions about the criteria that Chris is using for each individual lineman in the linked threads. What is this (1.0-9.0 ) ranking based upon? It may be important to distinguish individual linemen's abilities as run blockers and pass blockers.It may be useful to look at sacks allowed and rushing YPC. If this could be broken down by sides to isolate individual blockers then even better. A unbiased joint ranking such as this might be more objective and result based place to begin ranking each idividual before combining each part into the whole. And it is very important to consider scheme, depth and continuity of the oline group working together as has allready been mentioned above. The sum can be greater or less than its individual parts as allready mentioned.So I look forward to Chris's feedback on that and how he is approaching this and I am glad he is ambitious enough to try to bring this all together.Now with that being said what makes Philly's and the Saints Oline better than others?Is it the pro bowls? Is it the high level of investment through the draft/free agency/trading? Is it based off of how the offesne performed last year? For the last 3 years? Perhaps a factor to consider adding to each Olinemans ranking should be how high the player was drafted? I do not have any research to back this up and good Olinemen can be groomed from later round picks as well.. but I do think there is somthing to be said for how high of a priority a team puts on building thier Oline. Of course then you have teams like Denver who have consistently built good Olines for thier scheme using lower draft picks. Although I happen to think Denvers Oline is not what it used to be right now.Following the same type of thinking you have a team like Cleveland who has finaly put a very high priority in improving its Oline personel. Yet I do not think we have seen the results of those efforts in thier performance yet. Maybe we will.. Just offering some things to consider here. If enough posters here bring what they know to a thread like this we can all learn somthing from it. And that could be a useful tool in refining projections or even possibly for building projections from the inside out..

 

[Wadsworth]

I'd think that the Jaguars having one of the top rushing attacks in the NFL with 2 RBs over 5 ypc might warrent better than the 25th best O-line. Oh, and they added Tony Pashos.

 

[Biabreakable]

I'd think that the Jaguars having one of the top rushing attacks in the NFL with 2 RBs over 5 ypc might warrent better than the 25th best O-line. Oh, and they added Tony Pashos.

I do think that using some performance based ranking is an important factor to use here.That being said what do you think of the Jags linemen as pass blockers? I also happen to think they are one of the better Oline groups in the league but they seem to be imbalanced as far as thier run blocking and pass blocking abilities.

 

[Q-Bert]

While I have disagreements with some of the individual rankings of players and teams, I have to say overall that this is one of the better efforts I have seen in the pool for a while. Getting the collective insight of the pool on the relative merits of the individual and team offensive lines would be an incredibly valuable tool.

I would like to see a breakdown of passing vs. rushing ranks and also the scouting reports for each player/team that you have put together.

Nice effort.

 

[Phlash]

My question is why is D'Brickashaw Ferguson the 3rd best LT in the league and Nick Mangold the 2nd best center in the league. I get the feeling that Mangold at BEST is bottom of the top 10 at this point in time and DBrick is about 10-15th best...

 

[Chris Smith]

My question is why is D'Brickashaw Ferguson the 3rd best LT in the league and Nick Mangold the 2nd best center in the league. I get the feeling that Mangold at BEST is bottom of the top 10 at this point in time and DBrick is about 10-15th best...

These are two good comments here...Mangold is closer than Ferguson at this point in becoming an elite player but neither are there yet. Perhaps in a dynasty type of ranking, Ferguson would slot into the top five but in terms of the present, he is nowhere near that mark yet...Very ambitious threads started in regards to the OLs which is clearly one of the more difficult areas to grade well. There are so many variables that come into play...1) Individual linemen talent2) Experience3) Quarterback4) Scheme5) Coaching6) Cohesiveness7) durability8) depth9) potential10) football smartsand with the camera usually following the ball and not the offensive line, it is difficult to gain the knowledge to properly break these units down... I feel I have as good of a handle on the OLs as I ever have after a few seasons of really focusing in on them... If you have our magazine, my thoughts are in there and I'll have a subscriber article on the subject later in the summer....Here were my rankings about 2 months ago...ChicagoNew EnglandPhiladelphiaPittsburghSan DiegoJacksonvilleIndianapolisSan FranciscoCincinnatiMinnesotaDenverTennesseeGreen BayNew OrleansNY JetsCarolinaWashingtonBaltimoreDallasTampa BayNY GiantsSt. LouisClevelandArizonaAtlantaHoustonBuffaloSeattleKansas CityDetroitMiamiOakland

 

[Chris Smith]

This will probably look crappy in here but I'll try to show the comparison of my rankings with Chris 1969 and then I'll work on the format and see if I can improve it...

I created a web page with the following info so it's easier to read...

http://www.fbgsmith.com/olgradecompare.html

Here goes nothing...

[code=

 

[Chris Smith]

This will probably look crappy in here but I'll try to show the comparison of my rankings with Chris 1969 and then I'll work on the format and see if I can improve it...Here goes nothing...

Teams - Alpha	Smith	Chris 1969Arizona	                  24	13Atlanta	                  25	9Baltimore	             18	30Buffalo	                  27	29Carolina	             16	12Chicago	                   1	18Cincinnati	              9  	5Cleveland	              23	2Dallas	                  19	17Denver	                  11	4Detroit	                  30	16Green Bay	                  13	21Houston	                 26	24Indianapolis	7	3Jacksonville	6	25Kansas City	29	22Miami	              31	32Minnesota	              10	11New England	2	1New Orleans	14	26NY Giants	                21	14NY Jets	                15	10Oakland	                32	31Philadelphia 	3	19Pittsburgh	                4	6San Diego               	5	8San Francisco	8	20Seattle	               28	23St. Louis	               22	27Tampa Bay	20	15Tennessee	                12	28Washington	17	7

Biggest difference...Atlanta... my ranking 25th... Chris1969's is 9thAtlanta has marginal talent and is going away from the zone blocking scheme that helped them over the past few years. They will be hard pressed to approach the success of previous seasons...Chicago... my rankings 1st ... his ranking 18th...Experienced, talented and a well-oiled machine... I suggest you re-appraise this team...Cleveland... my ranking 23rd ... his ranking 2nd...I agree that their upside is great but this unit made up of new players will take awhile to gel... perhaps a top-ten unit by 2008.Jacksonville... my ranking 6th... his ranking 25th....They didn't run the ball at will without a reason last season.. This unit is a very good group and should be even stronger this season with improved competition for playing time.New Orleans... my ranking 14th... his ranking 26th...The Saints surprised everyone last season thanks in part to strong OL play. If the depth was stronger here they would be top-ten.Philadelphia... my ranking 3rd ... his ranking 19th...This is a very strong unit. No weak spots, proven veterans and great young talent on the bench just waiting for their opportunity... Clearly a top-five group.San Francisco... my ranking 8th... his ranking 20th...Excellent talent and depth along the OL in San Francisco... Should be much higher than 20th...

 

[redman]

I like this system. I'll break down the 'Skins line using it.

1) Individual linemen talent - Above average.2) Experience - Excellent, no lineman has played in the NFL for fewer than six years, and most more than that, though Wade is learning a new position.3) Quarterback - Campbell has to be considered average or below at this point, but I expect an uptick; he showed abilty to get rid of the ball last year and did not contribute to sacks.4) Scheme - Excellent: Saunders' and Gibbs' scheme emphasizes run blocking and QB protection.5) Coaching - Excellent: Joe Bugel is still among the best in the business.6) Cohesiveness - Excellent: Aside from a new LG, all other lineman will be in their third year together, and Samuels, Jansen and Thomas will be in their fifth year. 7) Durability - Above average: Thomas and Rabach are work horses, always in the lineup; Samuels tends to get niggling leg injuries that affect his play, as has Jansen; Jansen and Wade have both suffered season ending knee injuries in recent years.8) Depth - Average: they have an adequate mix of young and old between Pucillo, Whitticker, Lefotu, Fabini, Whitley & Tucker.9) Potential - Below average: Absent a surprise at LG, we've probably seen the best this line has to offer.10) Football Smarts - Excellent: these are all veterans who are well-schooled in the mental part of the game.

Overall this is a line that is solidly above average and could even creep into the Excellent range (top quarter of the league) assuming Wade works out as hoped at LG.

 

[Chris Smith]

I like this system. I'll break down the 'Skins line using it.

1) Individual linemen talent - Above average.2) Experience - Excellent, no lineman has played in the NFL for fewer than six years, and most more than that, though Wade is learning a new position.3) Quarterback - Campbell has to be considered average or below at this point, but I expect an uptick; he showed abilty to get rid of the ball last year and did not contribute to sacks.4) Scheme - Excellent: Saunders' and Gibbs' scheme emphasizes run blocking and QB protection.5) Coaching - Excellent: Joe Bugel is still among the best in the business.6) Cohesiveness - Excellent: Aside from a new LG, all other lineman will be in their third year together, and Samuels, Jansen and Thomas will be in their fifth year. 7) Durability - Above average: Thomas and Rabach are work horses, always in the lineup; Samuels tends to get niggling leg injuries that affect his play, as has Jansen; Jansen and Wade have both suffered season ending knee injuries in recent years.8) Depth - Average: they have an adequate mix of young and old between Pucillo, Whitticker, Lefotu, Fabini, Whitley & Tucker.9) Potential - Below average: Absent a surprise at LG, we've probably seen the best this line has to offer.10) Football Smarts - Excellent: these are all veterans who are well-schooled in the mental part of the game.

Overall this is a line that is solidly above average and could even creep into the Excellent range (top quarter of the league) assuming Wade works out as hoped at LG.

That's the $million dollar question with the Redskins is the left guard position and why they've dropped a number of slots in my rankings... I don't believe Wade is a bonafide starter at the NFL level and an OL is usually only as strong as the weakest link...The depth is Washington is also pretty terrible and they cannot afford for the starters to fall to injury. If Wade does step in and do a good job however the Skins will leap back into the top-ten where I've had them for three seasons.

 

[Chris Smith]

Here is my overall chart...

http://www.fbgsmith.com/olgrade_smith07.htm

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Steelers are WAY too high. Faneca is the best player on the line and losing effectiveness. The other guard position, center, and right tackle are all unsettled.

 

[tomarken]

This discussion is awesome, but can I ask a stupid question? Is this intended to relate to fantasy in any way, or is it just general NFL talk? Because if it's supposed to be related to fantasy success I'm not sure I see the point. I mean, look at RB's for example, and compare them to where you have their OL's ranked:

Westbrook (19)

Gore (20)

LJ (22)

SA (23)

MJD (25)

Saints (26)

SJax (27)

There's a bunch of the best RB's in fantasy, and all of their OL's are ranked very low here. So what's the correlation?

 

[Chris Smith]

Steelers are WAY too high. Faneca is the best player on the line and losing effectiveness. The other guard position, center, and right tackle are all unsettled.

I still look at this starting five as well as the depth guys...Projected Starters: LT Marvel Smith, LG Alan Faneca, C Sean Mahan / Okobi, RG Kendall Simmons, RT Max StarksKey Backups: Chris Kemoeatu, Willie Colon, Cameron StephensonI see a top-ten unit...Smith Faneca, Mahan/Okobi and Simmons are a strong foursome and Starks is not a bad right tackle...What am I missing here Mr. Bloom. Fill me in.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Steelers are WAY too high. Faneca is the best player on the line and losing effectiveness. The other guard position, center, and right tackle are all unsettled.

I still look at this starting five as well as the depth guys...Projected Starters: LT Marvel Smith, LG Alan Faneca, C Sean Mahan / Okobi, RG Kendall Simmons, RT Max StarksKey Backups: Chris Kemoeatu, Willie Colon, Cameron StephensonI see a top-ten unit...Smith Faneca, Mahan/Okobi and Simmons are a strong foursome and Starks is not a bad right tackle...What am I missing here Mr. Bloom. Fill me in.

Instability.Starks has not panned out. My belief is that the team wants Willie Colon to step up and win the job. Simmons may end up in the mix at center if Okobi/Mahan doesn't work out, and he has never lived up to his first round pick pedigree. Losing Hartings is a BIG blow. And then you have Faneca, who is falling off in pass blocking and seems to not even want to be a Steeler any more. Notice that the Steelers had very few classic "boa constrictor" games last year, where the line and defense just demoralize the opponent, beating them into submission by the 4th quarter.Needless to say, I'm not optimstic about the Steelers prospects in 2007.

 

[Biabreakable]

Nice to see Chris Smith adding to this as he has some very solid work put into evaluating Olines.

In reference to how this can be used, I think it is helpful for team projections. How much of a bump up or down you might want to use is a bit arbitrary and you do have some chicken and egg going on here. For example LT was able to overcome a sub-standard offensive line in his early years which could lead one to conclude that the blocking may not matter as much as the RB. However with solid coaching and personel upgrades on the Oline over time we saw LT smash records last year. I do think it matters. How much? 5% 10% or possibly even higher modifiers on previous team performance in ones projections would be up to the user. And I don't really have a scientific method for such application.

However I do think it is somthing worth looking at especialy with new skill players. For example last year things looked promising for Leinart and his WR group. But most of us knew that the Cardinal Oline was below average and that has to be taken into account. I think that hurt him last year and the offense will probobly still have some struggles because of it. This comes in terms of sacks, hurried throws and not having enough time for recievers to get open. The Cardinal Oline did seem to improve as a run blocking unit as the season went on. Now with new coaching staff with some solid credentials in coaching up Olines as well as 1st round pick in the 07 draft being used on tackle Brown to protect Leinarts blind side I would expect to see some improvement. I think it is still a work in progress but some reason for optimism is there for both Edge and Leinart and subsequently the WRs.

Another example is the Vikings Oline. Almost everyone is expecting the Viking offense to be one of the worst in the league and that may be so. However the Viking offense was able to produce a efficent running game with Chester Taylor last year and now I will not be suprised to see some improvement in YPC now that the line has a year in the system under thier belts and the addition of AD. I think this Oline is a bit better at pass protection than it is a run blocking unit as well. So that may give Jackson enough of a comfort level to play better than people think.

The Bears Oline is a veteran unit and has played well. At the same time it is an aging group and I do have some concerns about that age starting to show especialy with thier key players LT Tait. Maybe it wont this year but I cannot help but recall the last time the Bears made it to the playoffs.. largely on the play of a veteran Oline at that time also.. but then that unit fell apart with key players getting too old and quickly fading. I think this had a negative effect on Anthony Thomas's career and I have some concerns about the same thing happening again. Tait is a very key player to the Bears offensive success imho.

As had been talked about earlier this offseason is the retirement of Shield and what effect this will have on LJ and the KC offense. I don't think anyone can argue that the strength of that Oline had much to do with thier success over the past 5 years or so and many of those players are gone now.

In any case just trying to give some examples of how one might use this information. A good Oline can make average skill players perform better relative to thier peers than they would with an average one. And on the flip side even some of the best skill players may not do as well if they have problems with thier Oline. This happened to Portis in his 1st year with the Redskins when they had several injuries to key players on thier line. The Panthers had a lot of injuries on thier Oline last year and that really hurt thier performance as well.

 

[gump]

Great work, Chris.

However, you still have some errors in your BUCS data:

- I'm not sure why you think Davis will start at LG...I haven't even heard him mentioned as a possibility? It's the rookie Sears all the way.

- Wade will most like not start at C either....looking like either Lehr or Beunning from word out of camp.

Maybe you are getting info I haven't seen?

 

[BigRed]

OK I Haven't read all the replies or links in the OP, but I can't believe I'm the only one who didn't blink at CLE the #2 rank and CHI that far down, among a few others..?

 

[chris1969]

LOL at the Eagles ranking 19th...they have no worse than the 2nd best starting five in the NFC (New Orleans being in the running). They have all five starters returning, Andrews is coming off an All Pro season, Runyan and Thomas are both multiple Pro Bowlers, and they delivered a #2 offense last season.

Jason,1st of all lets try to look at this for what it is. A work in progress that through discussion and refinement could become a useful tool if enough people are willing to participate in it. I have some questions about the criteria that Chris is using for each individual lineman in the linked threads. What is this (1.0-9.0 ) ranking based upon? It may be important to distinguish individual linemen's abilities as run blockers and pass blockers.It may be useful to look at sacks allowed and rushing YPC. If this could be broken down by sides to isolate individual blockers then even better. A unbiased joint ranking such as this might be more objective and result based place to begin ranking each idividual before combining each part into the whole. And it is very important to consider scheme, depth and continuity of the oline group working together as has allready been mentioned above. The sum can be greater or less than its individual parts as allready mentioned.So I look forward to Chris's feedback on that and how he is approaching this and I am glad he is ambitious enough to try to bring this all together.Now with that being said what makes Philly's and the Saints Oline better than others?Is it the pro bowls? Is it the high level of investment through the draft/free agency/trading? Is it based off of how the offesne performed last year? For the last 3 years? Perhaps a factor to consider adding to each Olinemans ranking should be how high the player was drafted? I do not have any research to back this up and good Olinemen can be groomed from later round picks as well.. but I do think there is somthing to be said for how high of a priority a team puts on building thier Oline. Of course then you have teams like Denver who have consistently built good Olines for thier scheme using lower draft picks. Although I happen to think Denvers Oline is not what it used to be right now.Following the same type of thinking you have a team like Cleveland who has finaly put a very high priority in improving its Oline personel. Yet I do not think we have seen the results of those efforts in thier performance yet. Maybe we will.. Just offering some things to consider here. If enough posters here bring what they know to a thread like this we can all learn somthing from it. And that could be a useful tool in refining projections or even possibly for building projections from the inside out..

I tried to scout individual players using a combination of other peoples scouting reports and what I saw on game tapes. I'll admit that a lot of these rankings are based on brief looks and The AFC North teams players probably got more looks than the rest because I watched more of those games. The whole point in all of this is to solicit feedback from the rest of you and make adjustments.I was hoping for more comments like "He's a beast as a run blocker but really needs work on his pass blocking.". Telling me that they're paying him 26 mil so he has to be better than 21st doesn't do much.The team rankings are extremely raw and don't include all the things that I mentioned in the first post. After I get solid player ratings together, I'm planning on adjusting for the run and the pass. I've got to get the data right first so it isn't garbage-in, garbage-out though.

 

[chris1969]

Great work, Chris.However, you still have some errors in your BUCS data: - I'm not sure why you think Davis will start at LG...I haven't even heard him mentioned as a possibility? It's the rookie Sears all the way.- Wade will most like not start at C either....looking like either Lehr or Beunning from word out of camp.Maybe you are getting info I haven't seen?

I know I read somewhere that the Bucs were planning on having Davis compete with Sears for the Guard spot, since he was a starter last year and also because I had game tape to go by I gave him the nod. I did hear that Beunning would compete at center, but did not know Lehr was is the mix. Again I gave the nod to the starter. I know once training camp hits I'll have to make adjustments, but if your sure Wade is out of the running I can adjust it now.

 

[chris1969]

Steelers are WAY too high. Faneca is the best player on the line and losing effectiveness. The other guard position, center, and right tackle are all unsettled.

I still look at this starting five as well as the depth guys...Projected Starters: LT Marvel Smith, LG Alan Faneca, C Sean Mahan / Okobi, RG Kendall Simmons, RT Max StarksKey Backups: Chris Kemoeatu, Willie Colon, Cameron StephensonI see a top-ten unit...Smith Faneca, Mahan/Okobi and Simmons are a strong foursome and Starks is not a bad right tackle...What am I missing here Mr. Bloom. Fill me in.

Instability.Starks has not panned out. My belief is that the team wants Willie Colon to step up and win the job. Simmons may end up in the mix at center if Okobi/Mahan doesn't work out, and he has never lived up to his first round pick pedigree. Losing Hartings is a BIG blow. And then you have Faneca, who is falling off in pass blocking and seems to not even want to be a Steeler any more. Notice that the Steelers had very few classic "boa constrictor" games last year, where the line and defense just demoralize the opponent, beating them into submission by the 4th quarter.Needless to say, I'm not optimstic about the Steelers prospects in 2007.

While I agree that the line is going down hill, I don't think Faneca has slipped a bit. At least not in the games I watched. Now the fact that he doesn't want to be a Steeler will probably effect things, but that's not reflected in these raw numbers.

 

[gump]

Great work, Chris.However, you still have some errors in your BUCS data: - I'm not sure why you think Davis will start at LG...I haven't even heard him mentioned as a possibility? It's the rookie Sears all the way.- Wade will most like not start at C either....looking like either Lehr or Beunning from word out of camp.Maybe you are getting info I haven't seen?

I know I read somewhere that the Bucs were planning on having Davis compete with Sears for the Guard spot, since he was a starter last year and also because I had game tape to go by I gave him the nod. I did hear that Beunning would compete at center, but did not know Lehr was is the mix. Again I gave the nod to the starter. I know once training camp hits I'll have to make adjustments, but if your sure Wade is out of the running I can adjust it now.

You're right about Davis, but the last I saw from Gruden was that he expects Sears to start. Davis will provide versatility as a backup to several spots....including LG (my mistake earlier).Wade, Lehr, and Buenning are all "in the mix" at C...so you may be correct with Wade at starter...the only real info I have seen is that Gruden hopes to have Buenning healthy by camp to get an early start at C. Wade was pretty bad last year, IMO.