Orton's Arm Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 This time around, I looked at how many offensive line starters each team had obtained by using its draft picks in rounds 1 - 3. It turns out that teams which obtained their starting offensive linemen through first-day draft picks tended to do better than teams that obtained them in other ways. On average, each additional starting offensive lineman you obtained via a first-day pick equaled one extra win. I know this conclusion seems to contradict the last thread I started on the topic. Here's how I did the analysis differently: - I looked at all the early-round offensive linemen a team drafted, not just those drafted since 2001. - I ignored offensive linemen who were allowed to leave via free agency, as well as those who weren't starters. - I included third round picks. My other analysis showed (sort of) that simply throwing high round picks at your offensive line doesn't necessarily equate to wins. This analysis--which is more rigorous in my view--demonstrates that when teams succeed in building an offensive line through first day picks, they tend to win more games than teams which find their linemen in other ways. The Bills are a good example of this. In 2004, two of the starting linemen were first-day picks. The offensive line played pretty well, and the team went 9-7. By the midpoint of 2005, zero starting offensive linemen were first-day picks. The line's play got a lot worse, and the team went 5-11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 This time around, I looked at how many offensive line starters each team had obtained by using its draft picks in rounds 1 - 3. It turns out that teams which obtained their starting offensive linemen through first-day draft picks tended to do better than teams that obtained them in other ways. On average, each additional starting offensive lineman you obtained via a first-day pick equaled one extra win. I know this conclusion directly contradicts the last thread I started on the topic. Here's how I did the analysis differently: - I looked at all the early-round offensive linemen a team drafted, not just those drafted since 2001. - I ignored offensive linemen who were allowed to leave via free agency, as well as those who weren't starters. - I included third round picks. 754469[/snapback] But does it make a difference over obtaining the line through later rounds/free agency? Look at the Broncos: Matt Lepsis - Rookie Free Agent Ben Hamilton - Round 4 Tom Nalen - Round 7 Cooper Carlisle - Round 4 George Foster - 1st round One of their starters on the O-line was drafted in the first round. Denver is considered one of the best lines in football as well. How how bout Indy: LT - Glenn 1st round pick LG - Claimed off waivers C - Saturday free agent (from Bal who signed him as a UDFA) RG - Scott 5th round RT - Diem 4th round Sorry, but I don't buy your thinking that lineman in the first rounds = good line, others = bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 28, 2006 Author Share Posted August 28, 2006 Sorry, but I don't buy your thinking that lineman in the first rounds = good line, others = bad. On average, teams which build their lines through first day picks tend to do better than teams which build their lines through other means. Denver is obviously an exception. As for Indy, I remember that problems with their line were one of the main causes for their playoff loss. I'm not saying their line is a disaster, just that it's not as good as advertised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 As for Indy, I remember that problems with their line were one of the main causes for their playoff loss. I'm not saying their line is a disaster, just that it's not as good as advertised. 754498[/snapback] You are right, and I will take it a step further. Indy drafted offensive tackles in the 1st and 2nd rounds (Glenn and Meadows) the year before they got Manning. By the time Peyton got there, they both had a year of playing time under their belts. In 04 and 05, they did draft linemen, but with late round picks. This makes sense, whereas Dungy is really a defense guy. It will be interesting to see how it works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted August 28, 2006 Share Posted August 28, 2006 Take a look at successful teams over the years: Philadelphia, Carolina, Atlanta, Denver, Indianapolis, New England They spend premium draft pics (e.g. first day picks) on their lines. Take laughingstocks such as Buffalo: They spend premium picks (e.g. first day picks) on such sill positions as tight end, wide receiver, and quarterback. This time around, I looked at how many offensive line starters each team had obtained by using its draft picks in rounds 1 - 3. It turns out that teams which obtained their starting offensive linemen through first-day draft picks tended to do better than teams that obtained them in other ways. On average, each additional starting offensive lineman you obtained via a first-day pick equaled one extra win. I know this conclusion seems to contradict the last thread I started on the topic. Here's how I did the analysis differently: - I looked at all the early-round offensive linemen a team drafted, not just those drafted since 2001. - I ignored offensive linemen who were allowed to leave via free agency, as well as those who weren't starters. - I included third round picks. My other analysis showed (sort of) that simply throwing high round picks at your offensive line doesn't necessarily equate to wins. This analysis--which is more rigorous in my view--demonstrates that when teams succeed in building an offensive line through first day picks, they tend to win more games than teams which find their linemen in other ways. The Bills are a good example of this. In 2004, two of the starting linemen were first-day picks. The offensive line played pretty well, and the team went 9-7. By the midpoint of 2005, zero starting offensive linemen were first-day picks. The line's play got a lot worse, and the team went 5-11. 754469[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Dude, just change your user name and get it over with. Those straws you are reaching for to defend our point will continue to be out of reach until you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 With New England actually being the exception. They spend picks on their DL not the OL. They have even had free agent rookies and 6th/7th round picks come in and fill in well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 29, 2006 Author Share Posted August 29, 2006 With New England actually being the exception. They spend picks on their DL not the OL. They have even had free agent rookies and 6th/7th round picks come in and fill in well. 754776[/snapback] New England is sort of an exception. They've used first day picks to find two offensive line starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Take a look at successful teams over the years: Philadelphia, Carolina, Atlanta, Denver, Indianapolis, New England They spend premium draft pics (e.g. first day picks) on their lines. Take laughingstocks such as Buffalo: They spend premium picks (e.g. first day picks) on such sill positions as tight end, wide receiver, and quarterback. 754589[/snapback] Um, the Falcons...Not a solid example Dawgg 1995 9-7 1996 3-13 1997 7-9 1998 14-2 1999 5-11 2000 4-12 2001 7-9 2002 9-6 2003 5-11 2004 11-5 2005 8-8 Falcons Drafts If we drafted as the Falc did, Donohoe would have been linched long before last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 This time around, I looked at how many offensive line starters each team had obtained by using its draft picks in rounds 1 - 3. It turns out that teams which obtained their starting offensive linemen through first-day draft picks tended to do better than teams that obtained them in other ways. On average, each additional starting offensive lineman you obtained via a first-day pick equaled one extra win. I know this conclusion seems to contradict the last thread I started on the topic. Here's how I did the analysis differently: - I looked at all the early-round offensive linemen a team drafted, not just those drafted since 2001. - I ignored offensive linemen who were allowed to leave via free agency, as well as those who weren't starters.- I included third round picks. My other analysis showed (sort of) that simply throwing high round picks at your offensive line doesn't necessarily equate to wins. This analysis--which is more rigorous in my view--demonstrates that when teams succeed in building an offensive line through first day picks, they tend to win more games than teams which find their linemen in other ways. The Bills are a good example of this. In 2004, two of the starting linemen were first-day picks. The offensive line played pretty well, and the team went 9-7. By the midpoint of 2005, zero starting offensive linemen were first-day picks. The line's play got a lot worse, and the team went 5-11. 754469[/snapback] IMO this(bold) point virtually kills the usefulness of the statistics. My interpretation of it is..... When a team drafts a player in the the first round who pans out well, it reflects in the win/loss record. Well....at the sake of sounding rude....no shiit Sherlock Teams usually draft a position high because they are sorely lacking in that area. It is only logical that if the draftee succeeds, the upgrade for the team is noticeable. Add to that the fact that a higher percent of early picks(that succeed) will be 'very' good & the upgrade will be very noticeable to the team. I would bet that your criteria would pan out for pretty much all positions, not just the OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 On average, teams which build their lines through first day picks tend to do better than teams which build their lines through other means. Denver is obviously an exception. As for Indy, I remember that problems with their line were one of the main causes for their playoff loss. I'm not saying their line is a disaster, just that it's not as good as advertised. 754498[/snapback] Its humerous that you account O-line to wins, but when a team does good, you discount their O-line because it doesn't match your theory as not being the key for a good winning percentage. Teams that made the playoffs in the AFC last year: - Denver - One 1st rounder - Indy - One 1st rounder - New England - One 2nd rounder, One 1st rounder - Cincinnati - One 1st rounder, One 2nd rounder - Pittsburgh - One 3rd rounder, One 1st rounder, One 2nd rounder - Jacksonville - Three 2nd rounders, One 3rd rounder As you can tell, there are a lot of different strategies for building the O-line, from having very few first round picks (Denver, Indy), all the way through having 4/5 players on your O-line being one. On average, teams that made the playoffs have .83 starters from the first round on their O-line. If you take a look at when the starters were drafted, they were all toward the bottom of the first round, after they had already been winning. In contrast, a team like the Raiders has Gallery (1st round), Grove (2nd round), Paul McQuistan (3rd round this year), Langston Walker (2nd round). Yet, they're still considered a crappy offensive line. Once again it boils down to not being so much WHERE you acquire the players from, but rather WHO you acquire (as well as your QB, RB, the teams you play against, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 - Denver - One 1st rounder - Indy - One 1st rounder - New England - One 2nd rounder, One 1st rounder - Cincinnati - One 1st rounder, One 2nd rounder - Pittsburgh - One 3rd rounder, One 1st rounder, One 2nd rounder - Jacksonville - Three 2nd rounders, One 3rd rounder 755297[/snapback] Cincinnati: LT Levi Jones #1 CIN 2002 LG Eric Steinbach #2 CIN 2003 C Rich Braham #3 AZ 1994 RG Bobbie Williams #2b PHI 2000 RT Willie Anderson #1 CIN 1996. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JinWPB Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 weak as in,well you know. the trouble with statistical analysis is you can make them reflect anything you want depending on what parameters you use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Cincinnati: LT Levi Jones #1 CIN 2002 LG Eric Steinbach #2 CIN 2003 C Rich Braham #3 AZ 1994 RG Bobbie Williams #2b PHI 2000 RT Willie Anderson #1 CIN 1996. 755328[/snapback] First, he wasn't counting free agent signings (meaning being drafted by a different team). Willie Anderson is a 1st rounder though by Cincy, you're right, the site I saw incorrectly listed him as a free agent signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 This time around, I looked at how many offensive line starters each team had obtained by using its draft picks in rounds 1 - 3. It turns out that teams which obtained their starting offensive linemen through first-day draft picks tended to do better than teams that obtained them in other ways. On average, each additional starting offensive lineman you obtained via a first-day pick equaled one extra win. I know this conclusion seems to contradict the last thread I started on the topic. Here's how I did the analysis differently: - I looked at all the early-round offensive linemen a team drafted, not just those drafted since 2001. - I ignored offensive linemen who were allowed to leave via free agency, as well as those who weren't starters. - I included third round picks. My other analysis showed (sort of) that simply throwing high round picks at your offensive line doesn't necessarily equate to wins. This analysis--which is more rigorous in my view--demonstrates that when teams succeed in building an offensive line through first day picks, they tend to win more games than teams which find their linemen in other ways. The Bills are a good example of this. In 2004, two of the starting linemen were first-day picks. The offensive line played pretty well, and the team went 9-7. By the midpoint of 2005, zero starting offensive linemen were first-day picks. The line's play got a lot worse, and the team went 5-11. 754469[/snapback] This might help... http://www.buffalobills.com/ read news item #1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 The Bills are a good example of this. In 2004, two of the starting linemen were first-day picks. The offensive line played pretty well, and the team went 9-7. By the midpoint of 2005, zero starting offensive linemen were first-day picks. The line's play got a lot worse, and the team went 5-11. 754469[/snapback] This is one of the biggest lines of sh-- i have heard in a long time. You are telling me the biggest difference in the bills going 9-7 and 5-11 from 2004 to 2005 ws the fact we had no 1st rounders on the line? Perhaps you didnt see the difference in our defense last year. But according to you, we would have been better off keeping mike williams this year, because he was a first rounder. It would have meant more wins You use statistics like a lot of people, you use them to make your point, and ignore the data that disproves your point. Also, in numerous threads by you, you forget 1 main point. Correlation does NOT mean causation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Take a look at successful teams over the years: Philadelphia, Carolina, Atlanta, Denver, Indianapolis, New England They spend premium draft pics (e.g. first day picks) on their lines. Take laughingstocks such as Buffalo: They spend premium picks (e.g. first day picks) on such sill positions as tight end, wide receiver, and quarterback. 754589[/snapback] To somewhat Discount what you are saying, lets look at that group that has been successful and look at other early picks for them Philly - Drafted a QB early that has been an important part of the team's success (even though I believe he is overrated, he is still good) Atlanta - Drafted a QB early and had success with that QB (also someone I see as overrated but still good) Denver - Traded up in the draft to get a QB early (and looks like they got a good one) Indy - They drafted a RB and a QB early and they have been huge to their success It doesn't matter what position you draft early, As long as the players you draft turn out to be GOOD PLAYERS. MW was a lineman drafted early (and a highly regarded pick) and he turned into a bust. The draft is a crap shoot and there is no formula to building a successful team except drafting and signing the best players (at any position) that fit your system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 First, he wasn't counting free agent signings (meaning being drafted by a different team). Willie Anderson is a 1st rounder though by Cincy, you're right, the site I saw incorrectly listed him as a free agent signing. 755401[/snapback] Ah. That would eliminate Bobbie Williams. Braham...odd case. He was drafted in the 3rd by AZ, but was traded to CIN before he ever played a down for them. FWIW, all the B'gal reserve linemen are current or former draftees, along with a couple of this year's UDFAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 To somewhat Discount what you are saying, lets look at that group that has been successful and look at other early picks for them Philly - Drafted a QB early that has been an important part of the team's success (even though I believe he is overrated, he is still good) Atlanta - Drafted a QB early and had success with that QB (also someone I see as overrated but still good) Denver - Traded up in the draft to get a QB early (and looks like they got a good one) Indy - They drafted a RB and a QB early and they have been huge to their success It doesn't matter what position you draft early, As long as the players you draft turn out to be GOOD PLAYERS. MW was a lineman drafted early (and a highly regarded pick) and he turned into a bust. The draft is a crap shoot and there is no formula to building a successful team except drafting and signing the best players (at any position) that fit your system. 755459[/snapback] Bingo. You hit the nail right on the head. Its the quality of who you draft, not what you draft. Ah. That would eliminate Bobbie Williams. Braham...odd case. He was drafted in the 3rd by AZ, but was traded to CIN before he ever played a down for them. FWIW, all the B'gal reserve linemen are current or former draftees, along with a couple of this year's UDFAs. 755536[/snapback] That is a strage case, haha. I don't know what that would count as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 29, 2006 Author Share Posted August 29, 2006 This is one of the biggest lines of sh-- i have heard in a long time. You are telling me the biggest difference in the bills going 9-7 and 5-11 from 2004 to 2005 ws the fact we had no 1st rounders on the line? No. According to the regression I ran, each time you fill a starting OL spot with a first day pick, it's worth one extra win. Assuming the Bills experienced this in an average way, the transition from Jonas Jennings to Mike Gandy cost the team one win, and the transition from the healthy, great run-blocking Mike Williams of 2004 to the mediocre run blocking of Jason Peters in 2005 cost the team another win. So just based on those two changes, you'd expect the Bills' record to go from 9-7 to 7-9. The fact the actual decline was larger is due to the defensive decline you mentioned, and to other factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts