CJ Spiller with different offensive lines

[BuffalothruMyVeins]

Hey, I has this idea and I can make this into a 3 page post but I'll instead keep it short. CJ Spiller would obviously run better behind a line whose strength was run blocking, as every running back would. However, is it actually better to have someone like Spiller play behind an offensive line whose strength was actually PASS blocking because it would allow him to stay on the field a little more on 3rd downs? Spiller is weak in blitz pickup even though he has obviously improved, so if he played with a stout pass blocking OL who could be counted on to handle their business with blocking blitzers, his shortcomings would not be as exposed and could slip out in passing routes (where he is an electric receiver) or HB delay runs (where he would be running against 7 men in the box). He is skilled enough at eluding tacklers (I believe I heard a stat last year where he lead the league in broken tackles but can't prove it) so he could make up for the lack of elite run blocking, but that's just a theory and can't really be proven. What do you guys think?

[3rdand12]

Hey, I has this idea and I can make this into a 3 page post but I'll instead keep it short. CJ Spiller would obviously run better behind a line whose strength was run blocking, as every running back would. However, is it actually better to have someone like Spiller play behind an offensive line whose strength was actually PASS blocking because it would allow him to stay on the field a little more on 3rd downs? Spiller is weak in blitz pickup even though he has obviously improved, so if he played with a stout pass blocking OL who could be counted on to handle their business with blocking blitzers, his shortcomings would not be as exposed and could slip out in passing routes (where he is an electric receiver) or HB delay runs (where he would be running against 7 men in the box). He is skilled enough at eluding tacklers (I believe I heard a stat last year where he lead the league in broken tackles but can't prove it) so he could make up for the lack of elite run blocking, but that's just a theory and can't really be proven. What do you guys think?

Start thinking west coast offense to figure how Fred and CJ might be used. We know Cj can line up as receiver tight or wide.

He has also improved his skills protecting the QB. I think they can do almost anything with CJ regardless of the type of blocking .

The playbooks should be wide open this year for Fred and Spiller. can't wait If we havea deep ball threat and i think we will whoever is chucking the game plan opens up as compared to the last 3 years or so. Some respect from defenses would be nice

[MaineMoxie]

I'd love to see them open it up more, especially with CJ and Fred. Chan totally mis-used those guys.

[Bill from NYC]

Hey, I has this idea and I can make this into a 3 page post but I'll instead keep it short. CJ Spiller would obviously run better behind a line whose strength was run blocking, as every running back would. However, is it actually better to have someone like Spiller play behind an offensive line whose strength was actually PASS blocking because it would allow him to stay on the field a little more on 3rd downs? Spiller is weak in blitz pickup even though he has obviously improved, so if he played with a stout pass blocking OL who could be counted on to handle their business with blocking blitzers, his shortcomings would not be as exposed and could slip out in passing routes (where he is an electric receiver) or HB delay runs (where he would be running against 7 men in the box). He is skilled enough at eluding tacklers (I believe I heard a stat last year where he lead the league in broken tackles but can't prove it) so he could make up for the lack of elite run blocking, but that's just a theory and can't really be proven. What do you guys think?

 

I think that for the first time in well over a decade, the Bills fielded a good offensive line last season. Glenn has room to grow, and there are two payers who can at least hold their own at RT. Wood, when healthy, is a good center. However, this OL lost a guard who was a great pass protectior in Andy Levitre. He was also good on running downs, as well as durable.

It will be virtually impossible for the Bills to replace a blocker of this magnitude. We can hope as we wish, but the chances of doing so are all but non-existant imo. Keep in mind, our QB is a rookie.

 

When Losman was a young qb, the Bills drafted Whitner, McCarco, and two other useless defensive backs with their first 4 draft selections. To do this, they actually traded away a pick. Forgive me for seeing a similar situation.

 

And btw, in the new NFL, runing backs and defensive backs do NOT win football games. If you doubt me, look at who the Bills spent the bulk of their early draft picks on, and of course their record.

[OCinBuffalo]

I think that for the first time in well over a decade, the Bills fielded a good offensive line last season. Glenn has room to grow, and there are two payers who can at least hold their own at RT. Wood, when healthy, is a good center. However, this OL lost a guard who was a great pass protectior in Andy Levitre. He was also good on running downs, as well as durable.

It will be virtually impossible for the Bills to replace a blocker of this magnitude. We can hope as we wish, but the chances of doing so are all but non-existant imo. Keep in mind, our QB is a rookie.

 

When Losman was a young qb, the Bills drafted Whitner, McCarco, and two other useless defensive backs with their first 4 draft selections. To do this, they actually traded away a pick. Forgive me for seeing a similar situation.

 

And btw, in the new NFL, runing backs and defensive backs do NOT win football games. If you doubt me, look at who the Bills spent the bulk of their early draft picks on, and of course their record.

http://audio.wgr550....t-kc-joyner.htm

 

KC Joyner, the football scientist, says you are wrong in terms of Levitre. In fact, he says the Bills were the #1 "good blocking" line in the league last, year, and, as such, they will not miss Levtire as much as you suggest. "Moving from 1 to 3 is no big deal".

 

My KC Joyner Disclaimer:

Now, if you remember, historically I have been extremely critical of KC's past attempts at the job. That's because doing analytics is not for amateurs, or those without above average scores in IQ, wisdom, and common sense. It also requires guile, because while you tell the truth for a living, few like hearing it, so you have to be careful how you tell it.

 

If anybody could do it, then we wouldn't see the amount of $ that goes to those that can do it. I've spent almost all of my project time fixing somebody else's failures, rather than starting these projects properly, directly due to one or more people "disagreeing" with, or just not liking, the realities I've outlined above.

 

KC Joyner's previous attempts were pathetic, and nowhere near an example of how the job is done, to standard. Often times his work was rife with dependent variables being treated as independent, and the inverse, or worse, his raw data being collected, compiled and delivered in such a manner that no rational person is able to tell which is which. He had a lot of baked in correlations and assumptions that, by error, have a 100% chance of "proving" the expected causation, and 0 chance of being falsified. If there's already a 100% chance of your hypothesis being right, then what is the point of doing analytics on it?

However, with the inclusion of the grain of salt above, it appears Joyner has responded to the criticism, and, he has not only refined his methods, but also put in the work and the thinking(the most important ingredients), and derived new methods, and metrics, to produce intelligence that some of his critics said was "impossible" to create. Incidentally, they were idiots as well.

 

Specifically, and responding to one of my chief complaints(I am sure not mine, personally , and his response to my others remains to be seen), he has accounted for offensive line play, on every single play for the entire season. Not using the dopey, subjective, and often irrelevant individual lineman averages he used before.

 

He's done this by creating an objective standard: "good" vs. "bad" blocking. This is defined in terms of whether the line achieved the desired outcome via the play's design, not necessarily whether each lineman's technical play was perfect. This is a sound standard, because it is both easy to measure, and, consistent because it doesn't have too many moving parts that will introduce false dependencies, error, or too much variance to be predictive and/or reliable.

 

I would think you Bill, of all people, would recognize the line as a unit first, individuals, second.

 

I see this as a reasonable metric, because while it is possible, and useful, to measure an individual lineman's technical execution, when we are comparing lineman to lineman, it is useless when we are trying to compare one RB to another. The context changes, because the O line, as a unit, is what affects the RB, WR, QB etc. It is a dependent variable, but this time: properly defined. The RB's play is affected based on whether the play is being executed by the line, by design, as a whole. Put simply: it largely doesn't matter what the RT does on off tackle run to the left, but, it does matter if the line produces "bad blocking" on every play to the left.

 

Trying to link the individual lineman to the RB was a problem in Joyner's earlier work. Now, it is not.

 

As such, the Bills are the #1 "good blocking" team in the league. It's interesting, given the fact that we haven't drafted LT in round 1 every year. This suggests that O line play, or drafting RBs and DBs, has little causation WRT to our record.

Edited June 5, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[uncle flap]

http://audio.wgr550....t-kc-joyner.htm

 

KC Joyner, the football scientist, says you are wrong in terms of Levitre. In fact, he says the Bills were the #1 "good blocking" line in the league last, year, and, as such, they will not miss Levtire as much as you suggest. "Moving from 1 to 3 is no big deal".

 

 

However, with the inclusion of the grain of salt above, it appears Joyner has responded to the criticism, and, he has not only refined his methods, but also put in the work and the thinking(the most important ingredients), and derived new methods, and metrics, to produce intelligence that some of his critics said was "impossible" to create. Incidentally, they were idiots as well.

 

Specifically, and responding to one of my chief complaints(I am sure not mine, personally , and his response to my others remains to be seen), he has accounted for offensive line play, on every single play for the entire season. Not using the dopey, subjective, and often irrelevant individual lineman averages he used before.

 

He's done this by creating an objective standard: "good" vs. "bad" blocking. This is defined in terms of whether the line achieved the desired outcome via the play's design, not necessarily whether each lineman's technical play was perfect. This is a sound standard, because it is both easy to measure, and, consistent because it doesn't have too many moving parts that will introduce false dependencies, error, or too much variance to be predictive and/or reliable.

 

I would think you Bill, of all people, would recognize the line as a unit first, individuals, second.

 

I see this as a reasonable metric, because while it is possible, and useful, to measure an individual lineman's technical execution, when we are comparing lineman to lineman, it is useless when we are trying to compare one RB to another. The context changes, because the O line, as a unit, is what affects the RB, WR, QB etc. It is a dependent variable, but this time: properly defined. The RB's play is affected based on whether the play is being executed by the line, by design, as a whole. Put simply: it largely doesn't matter what the RT does on off tackle run to the left, but, it does matter if the line produces "bad blocking" on every play to the left.

 

Trying to link the individual lineman to the RB was a problem in Joyner's earlier work. Now, it is not.

 

As such, the Bills are the #1 "good blocking" team in the league. It's interesting, given the fact that we haven't drafted LT in round 1 every year. This suggests that O line play, or drafting RBs and DBs, has little causation WRT to our record.

 

Nice post!

[Mango]

I'd love to see them open it up more, especially with CJ and Fred. Chan totally mis-used those guys.

 

I've long thought that when Chan used to claim that CJ was either winded or that it was just Fred's turn to run the ball, it was just him trying not throw CJ under the bus. CJ is a HUGE LIABILITY on passing plays where he is asked to pick up a rusher. It explains 3rd downs and red zone defenses that have their ears pinned back and CJ is on the bench. Fitz also had the freedom to call plays at the line, CJ on the field would be a liability.

 

I could be wrong but we will find out this year.

 

 

http://audio.wgr550....t-kc-joyner.htm

 

KC Joyner, the football scientist, says you are wrong in terms of Levitre. In fact, he says the Bills were the #1 "good blocking" line in the league last, year, and, as such, they will not miss Levtire as much as you suggest. "Moving from 1 to 3 is no big deal".

 

 

However, with the inclusion of the grain of salt above, it appears Joyner has responded to the criticism, and, he has not only refined his methods, but also put in the work and the thinking(the most important ingredients), and derived new methods, and metrics, to produce intelligence that some of his critics said was "impossible" to create. Incidentally, they were idiots as well.

 

Specifically, and responding to one of my chief complaints(I am sure not mine, personally , and his response to my others remains to be seen), he has accounted for offensive line play, on every single play for the entire season. Not using the dopey, subjective, and often irrelevant individual lineman averages he used before.

 

He's done this by creating an objective standard: "good" vs. "bad" blocking. This is defined in terms of whether the line achieved the desired outcome via the play's design, not necessarily whether each lineman's technical play was perfect. This is a sound standard, because it is both easy to measure, and, consistent because it doesn't have too many moving parts that will introduce false dependencies, error, or too much variance to be predictive and/or reliable.

 

I would think you Bill, of all people, would recognize the line as a unit first, individuals, second.

 

I see this as a reasonable metric, because while it is possible, and useful, to measure an individual lineman's technical execution, when we are comparing lineman to lineman, it is useless when we are trying to compare one RB to another. The context changes, because the O line, as a unit, is what affects the RB, WR, QB etc. It is a dependent variable, but this time: properly defined. The RB's play is affected based on whether the play is being executed by the line, by design, as a whole. Put simply: it largely doesn't matter what the RT does on off tackle run to the left, but, it does matter if the line produces "bad blocking" on every play to the left.

 

Trying to link the individual lineman to the RB was a problem in Joyner's earlier work. Now, it is not.

 

As such, the Bills are the #1 "good blocking" team in the league. It's interesting, given the fact that we haven't drafted LT in round 1 every year. This suggests that O line play, or drafting RBs and DBs, has little causation WRT to our record.

 

My thought is, couldn't you combine the two? I understand the concept, but say the goal of the play is to complete a pass for a first down, and that happens, and this system is binary, good and bad. The oline did a good job? What I the QB hangs in a collapsing pocket and takes a shot to the chin, still a plus? This way of measurement seems to account for other positions moreso then it does the OLine

[vincec]

I thought Gailey's over commitment to Fitzpatrick stifled his offense, but he and Nix knew how to find decent offensive linemen and run a linemen friendly system. Spiller had some good holes last season. Personally, I'd be surprised and encouraged if the Bills OL and Spiller played as well this season as last.

[eball]

I've long thought that when Chan used to claim that CJ was either winded or that it was just Fred's turn to run the ball, it was just him trying not throw CJ under the bus. CJ is a HUGE LIABILITY on passing plays where he is asked to pick up a rusher. It explains 3rd downs and red zone defenses that have their ears pinned back and CJ is on the bench. Fitz also had the freedom to call plays at the line, CJ on the field would be a liability.

 

I could be wrong but we will find out this year.

 

Mango, I hear ya, but that does absolutely nothing to explain keeping CJ on the bench when the Bills got down to the red zone. I also believe CJ did need to work on his blitz pickups but that was more a problem from two years ago, not last year. The guy is putting in so much work and is so in tune with wanting the team to win that I can't believe he's not willing and able to fill that role. I just don't think this is the issue -- for whatever reason, Chan simply didn't use CJ the way he should have.

 

Thankfully, I do not have that same concern with respect to Hackett/Marrone.

[OCinBuffalo]

My thought is, couldn't you combine the two? I understand the concept, but say the goal of the play is to complete a pass for a first down, and that happens, and this system is binary, good and bad. The oline did a good job? What I the QB hangs in a collapsing pocket and takes a shot to the chin, still a plus? This way of measurement seems to account for other positions moreso then it does the OLine

The difficulty for many is in establishing the proper granularity of what you are measuring, or, metrics. Not setting them too high, or too low. They have to be able to be truly informative, and how they inform you must be objective. What you describe: "complete a pass for a first down", involves all 11, and conflates O line play with QB play. It does so improperly, from an analytical perspective. The granularity is set too high. We have to measure the O line as a unit, and QB/RB play individually, but measure both, separately. The QB play, or "hanging in the pocket" says nothing about the O line.

 

Conversely, a QB who gets less than 3 seconds to throw a ball from the snap, 4 out of 5 times, over a game, says either a whole lot about the O line, or, a whole lot about the opposing D line, or, a whole lot about the coaching staff, or some combination of the 3.

 

Stating that we don't "know" which of those last three it is, and we won't know, until we create metrics for them as well, is how this job is done: properly. This is why you won't see a Football Outsiders ranking of offenses, without a dependency included that accounts for the defenses they've played against. The other part of doing it properly: throwing so much data at a model...like QBR does, by including every single QB play for the last 30 years, or whatever it is, ensures that you've standardized the data out to the point that outliers have little chance of skewing your results.

 

Setting the granularity at: O line play as a unit, is not only practical in terms of creating useful intelligence, it is in line with our definition of what an O line actually is. The entire point of an O line is to operate a unit, not individually. It's therefore correct that we measure their results in terms of the unit, relative to the design of the play.

 

Without doing it properly, we end up concluding things like: the RT is partially responsible for the RB not running well on plays to the left.

 

Those are the kind of results Joyner used to produce. And, the emails I sent him said as much.

 

The real skill is creating models who can adjust their granularity on the fly, as business, threats, opportunities, and risks change, but that is unnecessary in football.

[Braedenstearns]

I'd love to see them open it up more, especially with CJ and Fred. Chan totally mis-used those guys.

 

I was surprised that Chan didn't use CJ as much as he used Fred. CJ was definitely doing better.