1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Big Announcement Coming for 2015 Football Season!!

    Be on the look out for a big Packer Forum announcement when the schedule is released. Full details coming soon... Update: Announcement to be released on MONDAY!

Differences are small between elite, average linemen

Discussion in 'All Other Team Discussions' started by Pack93z, Mar 26, 2008.

  1. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Interesting read from a former lineman.. not sure I am buying all that he is selling, but still a interesting read. One could make the $ debate at almost all positions...

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ross_tucker/03/26/oline.salaries1/index.html?eref=T1

    Differences are small between elite, average linemen
    Posted: Wednesday March 26, 2008 11:20AM; Updated: Wednesday March 26, 2008 2:58PM

    Alan Faneca, a five-time all-pro, is now the highest paid offensive lineman in the league.
    Aaron Josefczyk/Icon SMI


    As a former offensive lineman, I am thrilled with the increased value the position has been given over the past couple of years. The multi-million dollar contracts once reserved for skill-position players have slowly made their way into the trenches, with players like Alan Faneca, Steve Hutchinson, Eric Steinbach and others setting a new bar for the importance placed on the interior linemen in the NFL. My enthusiasm, however, is tempered by a painful reality that I cannot escape:

    I do not think they are worth that money.

    As much as I love my big-bellied brethren and enjoy the increase in salary they have been given, I cannot honestly say I would pay a lineman these types of contracts. I just am not convinced the amount of cap room they eat up is equal to their ability to go a long way towards definitively determining the outcome of a game. I think there is a much greater likelihood that a cornerback or wide receiver, not to mention a quarterback or kicker, will ultimately have a greater impact on the final score.

    • Value Added?

    Earlier this month, Faneca received a five-year, $40 million contract, including $21 million in guaranteed money, to play left guard for the Jets. Rick DeMulling, another left guard and former starter for the Colts and Lions who finished last season with the Redskins, is still a free agent drawing sparse interest. He is likely to sign a one-year deal for the veteran minimum, if he is even offered a contract by a team. What is the difference between Faneca and DeMulling, other than their bank accounts? About one or two plays a game.

    One of the things I tell fans that often blows them away is how minute the differences are between average players and great players. Teams have clearly shown a willingness to pay a premium for that increased performance, but the question often becomes how much that performance increase is really worth to them.

    I believe NFL teams put too much emphasis on a player's reputation and their desire to "upgrade" a certain position and not nearly enough time trying to quantify what that increased performance will provide in terms of value to their team. Football is not a purely statistical game -- there are intangible qualities a player can bring to a team in addition to his on-field production that need to be considered. That being said, there is room in the NFL for a more Moneyball-type quantitative analysis of what a given player's value will be to a franchise, especially at some of the positions like the line, where numbers are not a huge part of the equation.

    In 2004, I started eight games and played most of two others at left guard for the Bills. In assessing my performance, Buffalo coaches credited me with giving up 1.5 sacks and five pressures during that time. For argument's sake, let's round up and prorate my performance over the course of a 16-game slate and assume I would have given up three sacks and 10 pressures over the course of the season. I was fairly solid in the running game, and typically there is not that much separation among lineman in the running game in terms of actual production. The greatest separation among offensive linemen is typically related to their work in the passing game.

    As a matter of comparison, an elite player like Hutchinson may go through an entire season and only give up one sack and five pressures, assuming he has an outstanding season. In addition, let's factor into the equation the reality that Hutchinson may be able to use his talent to make one more block in the running game every other Sunday than I would have.

    Strictly by the numbers, that means that an upper echelon player would give up two fewer sacks and five fewer pressures, and probably make one more block in the running game in eight games over the course of the season. That means the difference between one of the highest paid guards in the league like Hutchinson and a journeyman interior backup like me is approximately 15 plays over the course of the season, give or take a few.

    Let's take similar numbers and project them on the more current example of Faneca and DeMulling. Offensive linemen are often given grades by their position coaches after games -- plusses for good plays, minuses for bad plays. A guy like Faneca might have four minuses a game out of 65 plays. DeMulling would likely have five or six.

    Every NFL team would prefer to have Faneca as their starting left guard, that much is clear. What is significantly less clear is how much more a team should be willing to pay to have Faneca. How much is 10-15 plays over the course of the season worth?

    To the Jets, the number is $21 million in guaranteed money.

    • It could be the difference. Or not.

    It is up for debate how much of a difference those plays could make over the course of a season. DeMulling could give up a sack or pressure at a critical time and cost his team a game or two. Or, those plays could be inconsequential and not have any major impact on the outcome of a game the entire season. Could the Jets be paying a guy $8 million a year to not make a significant difference between wins and losses?

    It is not difficult to quantify how many more productive plays a given player will give you over another player when evaluating their body of work over the years. It is difficult to attempt to gauge when those plays might take place and the impact they will have on a game or season. Theoretically they could have a decided influence on several games. My gut tells me they actually make the difference in very few.

    Most teams currently evaluate all of the potential free agents and assign arbitrary grades to them based on film study. They subsequently identify positions of need and make attempts to fill that position with the best player possible at that position based on their previous evaluations. Market conditions determine the compensation that player commands as multiple suitors drive up the price necessary to get a deal done.

    If personnel people around the league could somehow determine the probability that one of those 10-15 plays over the course of a season definitively determines the outcome of a game or two, they would have a much greater idea of what exactly they are paying for when they dole out the big free-agent dollars.

    • More than just numbers.

    Even though I firmly believe that NFL teams could incorporate a more quantitative analysis in assessing players, football remains a team game in which there is an intrinsic value that must be placed on a player's intangibles, such as leadership, intelligence and work ethic. These qualities are vital to a team's success and cannot be overstated. It is much more ambiguous, however, what the value of those intangibles are.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Faneca's durability and locker room reputation had a big impact on the Jets decision to pay him as well as they did. They are surely thrilled to place him between the first-round investments they made two years ago in Nick Mangold and D'Brickashaw Ferguson. His presence will hopefully add additional value by improving their performance as well.

    Looking strictly at the on-field numbers does not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that this is money well spent. The Jets are hoping Faneca's intangibles create the real value proposition for the 2008 season and beyond.

    So, no pressure, Alan. The Jets only have $40 million riding on it.
     
  2. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm surprised no one commented on this article.

    The thing is, a line really gets judged as a whole. If you have the best LT in the NFL and the worst RT in the NFL, you'll have a bad OL.
     
  3. arrowgargantuan

    arrowgargantuan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,645
    Ratings:
    +4
    i once heard a director of player personel for an NFL team say relatively the same thing...that there was a pretty fine line between the elite and the journeymen.

    i still have a hard time believing that, but considering the source it's hard not too.
     
  4. PackFanInSC

    PackFanInSC Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    563
    Ratings:
    +0
    Coincidentally, Shaun Alexander went from league MVP to on the bubble in the 2 years since Steve Hutchinson left for Minnesota. I believe he sees more than just a little difference up front.


    The author says that the difference between the elite and the journeyman linemen could be as little as 2 sacks and 5 pressures over the course of a season. That would translate to 10 sacks and 25 pressures a season if you look at the whole 5 players on the line.

    Translating that out to the 253 games that Brett started as the Packer QB, that would mean that his 438 sacks would increase to 596 (253 games / 16 games a year = 15.8 games a year average times 10 sacks a year - 158 additional sacks). In addition to that, his total number of times being pressured would be increased by 395 times.

    Could even the indestructible Brett Favre withstand a 36% increase in sacks? At that rate, he would have reached the 438 sacks midway through the 2002 season. More than the sheer number of hits, how many games may he have missed? How many of those extra 395 pressures would have wound up in the wrong hands? How many sacks would have ended sustained drives?

    Even as disappointing the 2005 season was, our 4-12 record could very well have been very different as we won one of the 4 wins by 3 points and another by 6. Our losses that year included losses of 2, 1, 3, 3, 7 ,3 ,5, and 7 points. A drive-ending sack or pressure leading to an ill-advised throw could very well have led to the record that we had.

    The article really sounds to me like an ex-player is having sour grapes because he did not cash in like he felt he should when he played. In light of the numbers and the value of the player that the O-line is protecting, I say that you pay the money to get the best.
     

Share This Page