Gregg Easterbrook on his Page 2 column on ESPN writes today that while the focus of the Final Four of the NFL Playoffs will be on the big name quarterbacks that remain, he will be "watching the offensive lines." He says, as we often hear, that "championships are won in the trenches," and we would probably all nod our heads in agreement with that statement. Easterbrook writes, "For my money, the Colts, Jets, Saints and Vikings made the championship round because they have the league's four best offensive lines."

Are they? That comment got me to thinking. Maybe he is right, but how do we measure the quality of an offensive line? I seem to recall that the Colts were the worst rushing offense in the NFL, so how could they possibly feature one of the four best O-lines in football? Do numbers not tell the whole story? No, that can't be.

So much of sports today is driven by the numbers. We know that Chris Johnson is really good because, among other things, he rushed for over 2,000-yards in 2009. We know Drew Brees is really good because, among other things, he threw for 34 touchdowns, just 11 interceptions and had a 109.6 QB Rating in 2009. We know Andre Johnson is really good because, among other things, he had over 1,500 receiving yards and 100+ receptions in 2009. Some might even argue that Charles Woodson was given the Defensive MVP in 2009 because of his better all-around statistics than Darrelle Revis, who shut down top receiver after top receiver throughout '09.

We measure a lot of sports today in this way because, among other things, many of us can not watch every team play week in and week out. In some cases we have a hard enough time trying to stomach our own team's play. When it comes to offensive line play, however, there seems to be no easy way to measure.

For example, we can assume, and probably would be correct in doing so, that the Packers offensive line was one of the poorer units in the NFL in 2009 because when we check the stat sheet we see 51 sacks allowed. I watched many of those games, and can attest to the early season struggles of that group. If you watched the Packers closely this season though, you would know that many of those sacks fall on Aaron Rodgers for simply holding on to the ball too long. The same can be said for Ben Roethlisberger, whose Steelers were second in the NFL in sacks allowed with 50. Either way, 50+ sacks in a season is an unacceptable number and a lot of it falls on the men up front.

If you watched the Chicago Bears this season, you saw Jay Cutler repeatedly running for his life, thus making more poor decisions than he might otherwise make. Emphasise the might. It did undoubtedly lead to a lot of interceptions and because the running game never got going, another sign of a poor line, the Bears were a mess on offense.

Speaking of the running game. A team's rushing statistics are often used to indicate whether or not a line is doing an adequate job. For example, the Jets led the NFL in rushing this season, followed by Johnson's Tennessee Titans and the Carolina Panthers. Tennessee, Dallas and Carolina all averaged over 4.8 yards per carry in 2009, so they must have had solid offensive lines, right? Maybe, or maybe they have outstanding running backs, or maybe a solid combination of both a talented offensive line and a talented running back or two or even three.

In doing the research for this post I found a formula on the interweb that attempts to measure offensive line play over at Cold, Hard Football Facts. It takes a team's yards per carry, the number of interceptions and sacks allowed on the season and the team's average time of possession. By ranking teams from 1-32 in these three categories and finding their average placement, they have developed a way to measure offensive line play. Their explanation is as follows:

Yards per rush: Any team can hand it off 40 times a game and amass yards, but that doesn't mean the line is opening holes. Yards per carry, however, is a solid indicator of the job an offensive line is doing to clear a path for its ball carriers.

Total sacks + interceptions: Quarterbacks with poor pass protection are more likely to be sacked. They're also more likely to be forced into making bad passes - passes that result in interceptions. We count both sacks and INTs as a measure of the overall quality of pass protection.

Time of possession: Keeping the offense on the field is like having an extra defensive back in the lineup who goes unnoticed by the refs. Time of possession can be a huge benefit to a team, and it's typically earned up front by the offensive line. Like the talking heads always say, the best defense is a good offense.

Here is what that same formula came up with for the 2009 season:

My excel form was not allowing me to show the rank for T.O.P., and in order for me to save the life of my laptop I stopped trying, but the ranks are included.

I'm not sure that it's the best way of determining how good or bad a team's offensive line is, as a lot of other factors come in to play, but it seems to be pretty solid. As for Easterbrook's claim that the four best offensive lines in the NFL are still alive in the post-season, the formula done by the guys at Cold, Hard Football Facts might disagree.

Thoughts?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Write comment

Name

Email

Website

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment