+- International Simulation Football League (https://forums.sim-football.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Media (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Graded Articles (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+---- Thread: Ranking the Road-Graders: A look at the NSFL's OLs (/showthread.php?tid=1870)
Ranking the Road-Graders: A look at the NSFL's OLs - Deusolis - 07-08-2017
[div align=\\\"center\\\"]Ranking the Road-Graders: A Look at the NSFLs Offensive Lines[/div]
This is the first article in a five-part series ranking the positional groups in the NSFL. Of course, there is no better place to start than the heart of an offense, the offensive line. If you’re familiar with snap counts, you’d know that, aside from the QB, offensive linemen play more snaps than any other position on a team. That play count serves as a solid measure of importance, as there is no position group as important. A bad offensive line means that your 99-overall quarterback is picking his ass up off the ground every play or your league-MVP rusher is getting hit 3-yards deep. Conversely, an elite offensive line makes even average offensive players look good, and the merely talented ones look like superstars (re: DeMarco Murray).
Despite all that importance, measuring offensive line play is incredibly difficult for a couple of reasons. First, it can be incredibly difficult to separate the play of skill players from offensive-line play. Without film, there’s no way of knowing whether the back carried 3 guys for a four-yard gain or if the rushing lane was wide open. For this analysis, I’m erring on the side of crediting the offensive line for rushing stats. Additionally, I’m judging pass-blocking efficiency by dividing the number of team passing attempts by the number of sacks allowed. Obviously, allowing three sacks on 500 passing attempts is better than three sacks on 50, so I measured that. I also tallied tackle-for-loss numbers for each offensive line (with a small margin of error, feel free to count yourself and correct me). Without further ado, the first of five positional group rankings: offensive line edition.
1st - San Jose SaberCats
Analysis: Anchored by the trio of Ben Longshaw, Tim Tebow and Daniel Robicheaux, the San Jose SaberCats boasted the best pass-blocking unit in the NSFL. Period. They tied with the Orange County Otters for fewest sacks allowed with twenty-eight (28), but did so while blocking for forty-five (45) more passing attempts. When broken down into ratio form, the Cats allowed a sack for every 17.46 passing attempts, which was the top mark in the league. Of course, pass-blocking is only half the battle, as the SaberCats were no slouches on the run-blocking end either. The team’s averaged 3.8 yards per rushing attempt, which was a tenth of a yard out of 3rd place. Although the rushing efficiency was nothing special, the Cats were remarkably good at avoiding negative runs. The team allowed only thirty-five (35) tackles-for-a-loss, which placed them in second. The combination of elite pass-blocking and solid run-blocking are enough to give the San Jose SaberCats the best offensive line in the league, at least for NSFL Season 1.
2nd - Orange County Otters
Analysis: Coming in second place is the Orange County Otters offensive line, led by league best lineman Angus Winchester, who has as astonishing 65-0 pancakes-to-sacks-allowed ratio. The Otters tied the SaberCats for fewest sacks allowed and, from an efficiency standpoint, allowed one sack for every 16.21 passing attempts, good for the runner-up spot. However, where this unit truly shined was run-blocking. The Otters rushing attack was peerless, with a league-leading 1978 rushing yards and a league-high 4.1 yards-per-carry. To contextualize those numbers a bit, the difference between the Otters’ rushing total and second place was larger than the difference between 2nd and last (317 vs. 292); and only one other team in the league broke the four yards-per-carry barrier.
Make no mistake, the Orange County Otters have a very, very good offensive line and have a legitimate case for the number one spot. I can hear the argument now, “How can we be No. 2 if we had fifty more pancakes than the SaberCats?” Well, because pancakes don’t matter, at least not very much. On an offensive possession, an offensive-lineman’s job is to either protect the quarterback or create a lane for the ball-carrier. That description, just like the game of football or sports at-large, is results-oriented. Whether the OL knocks a linebacker to the ground (a pancake) or stonewalls an opposing defensive tackle (not a pancake), the result is the same. Pancakes are the only process-oriented stat in a world where process means nothing. Secondly, the Otters allowed an astonishing 51 (+/-2 because tally marks are difficult) tackles-for-a-loss, the only team to allow more than fifty.
3rd - Yellowknife Wraiths
With all due respect to the Wraiths and the three teams below them, the SaberCats and Otters are in a class all their own regarding offensive line play. From here on out, the lines have far more warts than our leading two. Beginning with the flaws, the Yellowknife Wraiths allowed forty-three sacks total, and one sack for every 10.74 passing attempts, the latter of which ranked second-worst in the league. They also allowed forty-five tackles-for-a-loss, which was also second worst in the league. However, while they ranked poorly in pass-blocking (even though the difference between their numbers and the remaining teams wasn’t so large), they were one of the elite run-blocking units in the NSFL. They were the only other team to break the 4 yards-per-carry barrier as their offensive line cleared the way for presumptive league-MVP Bubba Nuck. Although they didn’t record many rushing attempts, and thus ranked fifth in terms of total rushing yards, their sparkling efficiency suggests they could have posted far more rushing yards if they so chose.
4th - Baltimore Hawks
The Baltimore Hawks represent the natural counterpart to the Wraiths; an elite pass-blocking squad that struggles to create lanes for rushers. The Hawks ranked 3rd in total sacks allowed with thirty-nine and posted the same ranking in terms of pass-blocking efficiency, allowing one sack for every 11.12 passing attempts. On the virtue of those stats alone, the Hawks should be locked into the third-spot, and had they put forth even a so-so effort run-blocking, they would have been. Baltimore wasn’t just bad in that regard, they were awful. The team rushed for a putrid 3.4 yards-per-carry, the worst mark in the league and were also dead-last in total rushing yards (1369) even though they boasted a fairly healthy rush attempt total. They were just as bad when it came to preventing negative rushes, as the team allowed forty-five TFLs, “good” for 2nd-highest in the league (in a tie with the Colorado Yeti)
5th - Arizona Outlaws
For many people, it is the Arizona Outlaws, not the Colorado Yeti, who should have the distinction of being the league’s worst offensive line. The Outlaws allowed a league-high forty-eight sacks, a full five sacks more than the next worst team. And with a rate of 9.416 passing attempts per sack, they were the only team to post a single digit total (If you’ve forgotten, that’s really bad). While I put very little stock in pancake totals, it is worth mentioning that the Outlaws also had the fewest pancakes in the league with two-hundred and sixteen (216). However, there were several mitigating factors that kept the Outlaws from occupying the bottom spot. They were a solid run-blocking unit, with the league’s third-highest rushing efficiency, coming in at 3.9 yards-per-carry. They also were the league’s best team in preventing negative plays, allowing a league-low thirty-three (33) tackles-for-a-loss. Finally, the Outlaws had the best offense in the league by [yardage/points], which made it awfully difficult to rank them as the dead-last offensive line.
6th - Colorado Yeti
The Colorado Yeti are not in last place by virtue (I suppose vice would be more appropriate) of being notably awful in one particular stat. Rather, the Colorado offensive line takes the last place spot because they are good at absolutely nothing. Pass-blocking? The Yeti were 4th in the league with forty-one sacks allowed and they posted a pass-blocking efficiency ratio of 10.878, which puts them functionally in a tie for 5th place. And when it came to run-blocking, the Yeti were again almost the worst. The team ranked 5th in rushing efficiency, with 3.6 yards-per-carry and they allowed forty-three (43) tackles-for-a-loss, which nearly put them in a three-way tie for 2nd-worst in the league (the Hawks and Wraith both allowed forty-five). While there were worse run-blocking teams and worse pass-blocking teams, the Yeti were unique in their capability to be bad at both. And when you consider the fact that those are your only two options on a given offensive possession, that’s a pretty awful position to be in.
Wordcount: 1405 words
Those mentioned: @`BenLongshaw`@Electraspace@.wahala.@timeconsumer@NUCK
Ranking the Road-Graders: A look at the NSFL's OLs - DELIRIVM - 07-08-2017
Doesn't matter, in championship game.
Ranking the Road-Graders: A look at the NSFL's OLs - adam2552 - 07-08-2017
(07-08-2017, 09:17 AM)incitehysteria Wrote:Doesn't matter, in championship game.
Weird that 5th and 6th are the teams in the championship.
Ranking the Road-Graders: A look at the NSFL's OLs - theFlock - 07-08-2017
(07-08-2017, 08:29 AM)adam2552 Wrote:Weird that 5th and 6th are the teams in the championship.Defense wins championships
Ranking the Road-Graders: A look at the NSFL's OLs - timeconsumer - 07-08-2017
Take out the bots.
Clegane, Boyd, Hamilton, and Winchester allowed 12 sacks in 454 passing attempts for a per player average of 0.6 sacks allowed per passing play.
Robicheaux, Longshaw, Tebow, and MacManus allowed 14 sacks in 489 passing plays for a per player average of 0.7 sacks allowed per passing play.
Ranking the Road-Graders: A look at the NSFL's OLs - Deusolis - 07-08-2017
(07-08-2017, 01:36 PM)timeconsumer Wrote:Take out the bots.
Clegane, Boyd, Hamilton, and Winchester allowed 12 sacks in 454 passing attempts for a per player average of 0.6 sacks allowed per passing play.
Robicheaux, Longshaw, Tebow, and MacManus allowed 14 sacks in 489 passing plays for a per player average of 0.7 sacks allowed per passing play.
This is definitely a solid way of looking at it. However, a good-performing bot is a good-performing bot. You could rightly make the argument that the Otters 4 is better than the Cats 4, but lines aren't made up of 4 players. I also wanted to be consistent and there's no way to separate bots from players when looking at rushing or TFLs allowed
Ranking the Road-Graders: A look at the NSFL's OLs - kckolbe - 07-08-2017
Just wanted to add that I really enjoyed this, and that this led to more research which THEN led to me nominating Winchester for the top 50.
Ranking the Road-Graders: A look at the NSFL's OLs - Valtookan - 07-08-2017
(07-08-2017, 01:36 PM)timeconsumer Wrote:Take out the bots.
Clegane, Boyd, Hamilton, and Winchester allowed 12 sacks in 454 passing attempts for a per player average of 0.6 sacks allowed per passing play.
Robicheaux, Longshaw, Tebow, and MacManus allowed 14 sacks in 489 passing plays for a per player average of 0.7 sacks allowed per passing play.
Don't let timeconsumer taking out BOTS distract you from the fact that Angus Winchester gave up a sack to Blaster Blade.
@Blaster
Ranking the Road-Graders: A look at the NSFL's OLs - dropbear - 07-09-2017
Great article man! I also think we get the edge because unlike OC, I'm the only play on the offensive live active and updating
)