Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
OL Stats
- Thread starter Number19
- Start date
T
trijcomm
Guest
>Originally Posted by infantrycak
Chester Pitts
2002 15.5 sacks allowed, 9 penalties including 3 false starts and 5 holds
2003 5.75 sacks allowed, 17 penalties including 8 false starts and 7 holds
2004 4 sacks allowed, 12 penalties including 7 false starts and 3 holds
Seth Wand
>2004 11.50 sacks allowed, 3 penalties--1 false start and 2 holds
I think it's ridiculous to think that you can hang stats like this on offensive linemen. Defensive linemen stunt all the time, the defensive secondary blitzes -- who gets the blame for those sacks? And where are the stats for good run blocks and pass protection? Fact is, you can't single these guys out. They must be looked at as a unit, not by themselves.
Chester Pitts
2002 15.5 sacks allowed, 9 penalties including 3 false starts and 5 holds
2003 5.75 sacks allowed, 17 penalties including 8 false starts and 7 holds
2004 4 sacks allowed, 12 penalties including 7 false starts and 3 holds
Seth Wand
>2004 11.50 sacks allowed, 3 penalties--1 false start and 2 holds
I think it's ridiculous to think that you can hang stats like this on offensive linemen. Defensive linemen stunt all the time, the defensive secondary blitzes -- who gets the blame for those sacks? And where are the stats for good run blocks and pass protection? Fact is, you can't single these guys out. They must be looked at as a unit, not by themselves.I'm pretty sure that Stats Inc. is the source of those stats.
T
trijcomm
Guest
aj. said:
Those stats are pretty irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. That's like rating a QB depending on how many delay of game penalties he picks up.
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
trijcomm said:
Now I will buy that stats on CB's are virtually meaningless. Stats on other players have to be taken into perspective, but OL stats as above aren't all that bad. Wand either did or did not get called for holding and false starts. Compare Pitts in his 1st year at 9 and Wand at 3--that is meaningful--just ask the they aren't coached well because they commit false starts crowd. As for the sacks given up, you will notice they share responsibility for sacks where appropriate, hence the .5's in places. You can add up the accredited sacks for any team and find they also lay some on the TE's and RB's. Bottom line, I will trust this source less than my personal review of the DVR and less than gut instinct.
T
trijcomm
Guest
infantrycak said:
Individual stats on sacks allowed and penalties don't address the real problem the Texans have, and that's pass protection and rush blocking. After all, perhaps it was Carr's fault that he got sacked because he held the ball too long. Or maybe the play was a designed rollout and he got caught for a loss. Can't blame the line on that necessarily. Or maybe the fullback missed the pickup. Or maybe there was a blitz and nobody was assigned to pick up the guy blitzing. The point I'm making is this is a problem with the unit and cannot be broken down into a "this guy's good, this guy's bad" situation. These guys have to learn to function as a unit and until they do that, they will continue to struggle. I personally see it as more of a coaching problem than anything else. Capers is a defensive guy and he needs good help coaching the offensive line. If this thing doesn't start to gel by next year, then they should bring in a new offensive line coach who can get these guys to come together.
ledzeppelin229
Hall of Fame
I don't think the "capers is a defensive guy" thing holds up with the line. I have a feeling Palmer and Pendry play a much larger role.
And while the stat line above may have it's flaws, it's the closest thing to stats that you can measure them by. They don't gain yards or make tackles to give a real number to go by. (Of course tackles can be overrated as well)
And while the stat line above may have it's flaws, it's the closest thing to stats that you can measure them by. They don't gain yards or make tackles to give a real number to go by. (Of course tackles can be overrated as well)
T
trijcomm
Guest
ledzeppelin269 said:
My whole point is that there are NO relevant individual stats that can be used to judge an OL, so the "closest thing" isn't good enough to use in this case. After all, who gets the blame when a CB blitz sacks the QB? And what about stunts? Who gets the blame there? And what about the infamous R. Johnson -- the Sad Sack of the NFL who held the ball for about two minutes every snap waiting for five yards of separation between he and his receiver before throwing the ball? Who gets the blame for that? The OL plays as a unit and no individual can be singled out and graded as easily as a back who gains 1300 yards and scores 10 TDs. "Skill position" players are much easier to assess than linemen. And you can't expect Capers to be a jack of all trades. He has his expertise and must rely on others to whip other departments into shape. After all, you could blame the departed Sam Walton if you don't get serviced properly at the local Walmart, but in reality it's the manager of the department who is responsible.
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
trijcomm said:
Ummm, whoever was responsible for picking up the blitzer or guy stunting.
Seemed to me watching the games it was obvious Pitts made a dramatic improvement from 2002 to 2003 but that part of the improvement came from trying to get a jump on the snap when facing speed rushers and holding in desperation--funny how the stats show exactly that as well. Seemed to me watching the games that Wiegert had a much better season in 2003 than he had in 2004--funny how the stats coincide with that impression as well--1.5 sacks 2003, 4.5 sacks 2004. No stats don't tell the whole story, but IMO they far from as useless as you make them out.
IMO, if you couldn't base anything on one guy as far as how good or bad he is in part to his stats and you had to consider the whole line as a unit and not as individuals then you would have the whole OL of a team going to the pro bowl and not a particular person. To act like the stats of an o lineman are meaningless is......well meaningless.
T
trijcomm
Guest
Doug said:
Um, the whole line of a team that is successful DOES go to a bowl game.
It's called the Super Bowl -- the only bowl game in the NFL that really counts. Nobody goes there without stellar team line play.
As far as the Pro Bowl goes, it's considered a joke. The method of voting is a joke, the players chosen are a joke, and the participants themselves see it as a joke. The Pro Bowl is hardly an example to use to prove that line play is an individual rather than a unit enterprise since it isn't any kind of indicator whatsoever. Players were canceling out of the Pro Bowl game all the time until they moved it to Hawai. Don't you remember Barry Switzer eating a hot dog on the sidelines when he was coaching in one of those Pro Bowls?
T
trijcomm
Guest
MichaelMC said:
Like AJ is going to get in front of the media and say, "This whole thing is a laugher. It really isn't that big of a deal." Of course it means something to him as well as it does to everybody else that gets chosen since they can take it into negotiations and demand a nice big slice of cap pie. In all honesty, they could take big portions of the offensive line from one team since OL success comes as a unit, but they have made it an individual honor rather than a true reward for success. Plus, if they did that, a lot of teams would have no reps at all -- thereby killing interest in the game even further.
T
trijcomm
Guest
Doug said:I don't understand your whole thought process, you go from one extreme to the next then say the pro bowl and everything around it and in it is a joke.
What don't you understand about the statement that it's too much to expect a third-year 7-9 team that just got trounced at home by one of the worst teams in the league to make the playoffs next year?
T
trijcomm
Guest
Doug said:That's what I'm talking about........One minute your talking stats , then Gelling, there's no I in the O line, the pro bowls a joke and now you're talking about the teams record and playoffs.
Um, that's because I'm discussing a lot of different topics. None of my views are hard to grasp.
The 3rd year 2004 Houston Texans will not make the playoffs. You are correct, sir.trijcomm said:
But the Texans haven't gone through the free agency period. Or the draft. Or training camp. Or the preseason. When they do, they'll no longer be the 3rd year 2004 Houston Texans. They'll become the 2005 (drop the expansion tag, please) Houston Texans. And we can't really make an informed prediction on what the Texans will look like until the team goes through those phases. Let's at least get through that before we start making blanket statements like "The Texans can't..."
T
trijcomm
Guest
Lucky said:
Fact is, whether you drop the expansion tag or not, they ARE just three years removed from being an expansion team. That's not very long. And I don't believe I ever made a statement that said, "The Texans can't ... " do anything. I have said that it's too much to expect them to achieve playoff status when they've never even had a .500 season under their belts in their brief history. And no matter what the draft, free agency, training camp or the preseason will bring, the bulk of this team will still be the same. And at this time, that team -- as well as any newcomers -- will need at least another year of seasoning before they are playoff contenders.
No, they won't be the same. The young players already on the team will have had another year of experience, another year in the weight room, another round of mini camps, another training camp, another preseason. Not the same players, not the same team.trijcomm said:
T
trijcomm
Guest
Lucky said:
Like I said, the bulk of the team will be the same. And it remains to be seen if another year of experience, in the weight room, in training camp etc. will make a difference anyway. Somebody once told me that four years of experience don't mean anything if it's the same year's worth of experience that is just repeated four times. There will be some face changes -- there always are on every team. But if you think there is going to be a huge overhaul to the point where this squad "is not the same team" then I think you will be sadly mistaken.
So are the young players more likely or less likely to get better? David Carr has gotten better every year. So has Andre Johnson. Domanick Davis. So have guys like Faggins, Peek, & Gaffney. I think Jason Babin will improve. I'll venture that even Dunta Robinson's play will rise. If weight programs, mini camps, & training camps didn't make a difference, they wouldn't bother with them. The Texans are not in a static mode. There is absolutely no reason, real reason, that the Texan can't improve to the point where they're playoff contenders in '05.trijcomm said:
T
trijcomm
Guest
Lucky said:
Nobody knows if they will get better. Did Gary Walker get better? How about Billy Miller? Kris Brown? Chuck Staley? You are only guessing that Robinson will get better -- many rookies declined after a great first season. Ever hear of the sophomore curse? And do you think that the other 31 teams are going to sit back and not go to the weight programs, mini-camps, etc. and just let "The Team" get better without getting better themselves? There are MANY reasons to be patient with "The Team" and have realistic expectations. This team has some obstacles to clear before they should even be considered a playoff contender. I am sure most fans outside this town don't see the Texans as much of a threat to be in the playoffs. Capable of winning a game here and there, yes. But not the playoffs. I agree with them. They are still at least a year away. Get back to me in 2006.
Nobody "knows" anything about the future. If they did, they'd start their own psychic hotline. But if you plotted out the Texans record vs. years as a linear line:trijcomm said:
y(Years) = m(slope of line)X(Win %)
Year 4 = 6.22 x (Win %)
Year 4 Win % = 64%
64% x 16 games = 10 wins!
Now does that mean it's going to happen, or more likely to happen. No. But, its an equally valid argument to "The Texans won't win next year because they lost to the Browns."