Article Inside the trenches: How Sheldon Rankins is adding value to the Saints defensive line [Film Study] (1 Viewer)

[RevDeuceWindham]

The DT position can be hard to get a feel for failure/success by just looking at the box score. One thing I focus on when grading lineman is won/loss/stale reps. Too often we get caught up in pancakes/sacks/pressures/etc., but too often these individual stats fail to provide context (such as, what was the player's assignment?) I talk about that here. Is Saints DT Sheldon Rankins providing value? Let's take a look at the tape.

Notes:
-Rankins came out swinging in the 1st half against Cleveland and found a lot of success. So much so, they started targeted him with double teams.
-When grading lineman, the focus should be on won/loss reps based on assignment and not on pancakes/pressures/sacks/etc. (though those are great).
-Won reps don't always show up on the box score

Inside the trenches: How Sheldon Rankins is adding value to...

 

[bobad]

Rev, any time an interior lineman draws a double, can you say it's really a win?

 

[RevDeuceWindham]

Rev, any time an interior lineman draws a double, can you say it's really a win?

Certainly! From several aspects, and depending on the situation, this can be a big win. For example, take the run game. If a team attacks a DT with an Ace block, and that DT is able to anchor/split with good technique, even if he doesn't get the tackle, that's a big win. He's effectively negated 2 blockers. From a numbers standpoint the offense just went from 10 to 8 blockers (the runner being the 11th player) while the defense still has 10 to attack with. it's a numbers game.

The same can be said along the offensive line. If you're playing in a four man front and Rankins is forcing teams to double team him to avoid interior pressure, that means Cam Jordan, Onyemata, Okafor, Davenport, etc. all have one on one matchups. If you're having a game like Rankins was in the 1st half against the Browns where they are then forced to double you, coach is going to be a very very happy man.

 

[ThrowbackSaintXXL]

IMO they should keep Rankins @ 5 tech. Especially since Bromley is back for the NT role & half the D has experience in 3 man fronts

 

[RevDeuceWindham]

IMO they should keep Rankins @ 5 tech. Especially since Bromley is back for the NT role & half the D has experience in 3 man fronts

That would be taking some of your best players off the field though (Okafor/Davenport/Onyemata) and putting more of a burden on your LBs. I don't think that's a good idea. It's good for dime situations though. (they actually use Rankins as the 0 there)

 

[ThrowbackSaintXXL]

That would be taking some of your best players off the field though (Okafor/Davenport/Onyemata) and putting more of a burden on your LBs. I don't think that's a good idea. It's good for dime situations though. (they actually use Rankins as the 0 there)

Okafor came in the league playing OLB (which Davenport arguably should be playing). Onyemata could still backup Rankins & Jordan. Te'o has experience in it. Davis just came out of a 3 man front D. I think it could work & is probably in consideration seeing that they're trying to find a way to keep Davenport on the field

 

[RevDeuceWindham]

Okafor came in the league playing OLB (which Davenport arguably should be playing). Onyemata could still backup Rankins & Jordan. Te'o has experience in it. Davis just came out of a 3 man front D. I think it could work & is probably in consideration seeing that they're trying to find a way to keep Davenport on the field

Okafor was a LB in name only. Spent most of his time as a 2 point stance pass rusher on the line. I think a 4 man front puts the Saints best players in the best positions to succeed in base/nickel.

 

[MSUSousaphone]

Okafor came in the league playing OLB (which Davenport arguably should be playing). Onyemata could still backup Rankins & Jordan. Te'o has experience in it. Davis just came out of a 3 man front D. I think it could work & is probably in consideration seeing that they're trying to find a way to keep Davenport on the field

I mean that's really just semantics. If the OLB in the three man front is rushing on almost every down, it's really just a four man front maybe slightly shifted a little or a two point stance instead of three. Especially if the same people who would be the rushing OLBs are the same people who would be the 43 DEs.

 

[sammymvpknight]

That would be taking some of your best players off the field though (Okafor/Davenport/Onyemata) and putting more of a burden on your LBs. I don't think that's a good idea. It's good for dime situations though. (they actually use Rankins as the 0 there)

Completely agree there. Adding LBs to the field is NOT a winning strategy.

I’d like to get your opinion on Davison. I think the biggest concern about Rankins is that he has an even more bland player next to him, in Davison. Rankins is NOT a game-changing talent that can beat double teams, so the Saints really could use more help next to him to divert attention away from him. It just feels that the Saints RARELY get any push from the inside. Cam Jordan frequently applies pressure from the outside and there is absolutely nobody to clean it up. With as good as Jordan is...you’d assume that the other guys would at least occasionally luck into sacks, but it rarely happens. I think that reinforces just how mediocre the rest of the DL is. I do think that Davenport has potential...but boy the rest of the line just looks like a bunch of solid fringe starter types. I watch a defense like the Rams, Eagles, and Jags and I see a significant difference between the Saints front line and those types of teams.

 

[SaintJ]

I am prepared for the negreps, but....

We can break this down all we want, but this was a slightly below-average defense last year, and this year we've opened with one of our worst defensive games in my memory (which is saying something) and then almost let Cleveland's pedestrian group beat us late, and they would have but for a BUNCH of missed kicks.

Surely a number of these players must be grading out below average, and some well below average. Last year we had amazing secondary play, and were still 18th, at least by the PFR metric. If you're telling me that secretly Rankins, taken 14th overall two years ago, is now a difference-maker like he should be, it's a pretty condemnatory indictment on a lot of the rest of these players.

 

[Slaw]

I am prepared for the negreps, but....

We can break this down all we want, but this was a slightly below-average defense last year, and this year we've opened with one of our worst defensive games in my memory (which is saying something) and then almost let Cleveland's pedestrian group beat us late, and they would have but for a BUNCH of missed kicks.

Surely a number of these players must be grading out below average, and some well below average. Last year we had amazing secondary play, and were still 18th, at least by the PFR metric. If you're telling me that secretly Rankins, taken 14th overall two years ago, is now a difference-maker like he should be, it's a pretty condemnatory indictment on a lot of the rest of these players.

The defense played pretty well last week. They were shredded by the Bucs in their first game, but they did the same thing last week vs Philly. Last year the defense was above average (top 10 scoring defense). I think both the Saints and Eagles will be fine on defense.

 

[RevDeuceWindham]

Completely agree there. Adding LBs to the field is NOT a winning strategy.

I’d like to get your opinion on Davison. I think the biggest concern about Rankins is that he has an even more bland player next to him, in Davison. Rankins is NOT a game-changing talent that can beat double teams, so the Saints really could use more help next to him to divert attention away from him. It just feels that the Saints RARELY get any push from the inside. Cam Jordan frequently applies pressure from the outside and there is absolutely nobody to clean it up. With as good as Jordan is...you’d assume that the other guys would at least occasionally luck into sacks, but it rarely happens. I think that reinforces just how mediocre the rest of the DL is. I do think that Davenport has potential...but boy the rest of the line just looks like a bunch of solid fringe starter types. I watch a defense like the Rams, Eagles, and Jags and I see a significant difference between the Saints front line and those types of teams.

Well first let me say that I think the Saints DL is better than you're giving them credit for. You rattled off some elite DLs and with just about any position group there is a drop off after the top units to the "above average" units where the Saints reside. They certainly aren't bad though. A lot of teams are much worse off.

That said, you bring up some valid points. Defeating double teams has not been a strength of Rankins to this point in his career. I do think he benefits from someone helping take the load off of him. I was really surprised to see Davison get so many snaps in Week 1 (52) as that placed him in a lot of passing situations. This is simply not his forte' and he will generally lose one on ones. I've always liked the Onyemata/Rankins interior pairing with each playing either 3 Techs or Rankins the 3 and Onyemata a 1/2i. They seem to have success there as both are just dangerous enough to draw doubles, but you can't target both.

New Orleans has only 1 star (Jordan), but they have some really good pieces (Rankins/Okafor/Davenport?) and it's quietly one of the better, and more underrated, units in the league. New Orleans isn't anywhere near as bad alone the line as say the Raiders or the Giants are. that's just my take and .02 though

I am prepared for the negreps, but....

We can break this down all we want, but this was a slightly below-average defense last year, and this year we've opened with one of our worst defensive games in my memory (which is saying something) and then almost let Cleveland's pedestrian group beat us late, and they would have but for a BUNCH of missed kicks.

Surely a number of these players must be grading out below average, and some well below average. Last year we had amazing secondary play, and were still 18th, at least by the PFR metric. If you're telling me that secretly Rankins, taken 14th overall two years ago, is now a difference-maker like he should be, it's a pretty condemnatory indictment on a lot of the rest of these players.

Personally, I like to use points allowed as the measuring mark for a defenses' total "ranking". New Orleans was 10 in that regard. They also finished 11th in DVOA and 6th in Weighted DVOA Defense (Weighted puts less value in earlier games in order to judge how a team has improved towards the end of the season).

I felt the Saints defense was very good last year, not below average.

 

[superchuck500]

Damn right he is!

 

[SaintJ]

Personally, I like to use points allowed as the measuring mark for a defenses' total "ranking". New Orleans was 10 in that regard. They also finished 11th in DVOA and 6th in Weighted DVOA Defense (Weighted puts less value in earlier games in order to judge how a team has improved towards the end of the season).

I felt the Saints defense was very good last year, not below average.

Running down a bunch of defensive rankings in various categories from 2017:

Opponent passer rating (very very important IMO): 7th
Opponent yards per carry: 28th
Opponent yards per play: 23rd
Opponent yards per game: 17th
Takeaways: T9-11th
Points allowed per game: 10th
Average league rank of opposing offenses: 16.3 (note: this is just about average, but some of the best ones we played, Atl (8th, 2x) and TB (9th, 2x) are teams we're real familiar with, while on the other hand we fattened our numbers against real bottom feeders like NYJ, Chi, and GB w/o Rodgers)

To me, these are the numbers that count -- against slightly below average opposition, we did a nice job against the pass, primarily because of 20 INTs, which is not to be ignored, but otherwise we were average to below average.

Now, to that "points against" stat -- yes, it's important, but you need context.

First, we had among the fewest drives to defend against, as we were only 26th in number of drives against. Now, our offense was about the same in number of drives, but was fourth in average drive time (think time of possession), and you combine this with our opponents starting with the 30th worst average field position out of 32 teams. In other words, because we protected the ball so well, and have a great punter, and so many kickoffs out of the end zone, our opponents' average offenses had far fewer chances, and had to go further, to score, than most other defenses in the league had to face. It stands to reason you're going to give up fewer points than defenses that are on the field more times per game, and with shorter fields to defend.

The most important number might be points allowed, but to really judge your defense, you have to look at it in context. For that matter, the reductio ad absurdam is you just look at your won-lost record and don't look at any stats at all.

Also, we didn't finish too strong -- 455 yards and 31 points (18 in Q4!) in a season-ending loss to the Bucs in a game we really wanted to win, 413 yards and 26 points (14 in Q4!) to the Panthers in round one, and then 403 yards and 29 points (12 in Q4!) to the Vikings, in a game we fell behind 17-0 (and really should have been blown out in, but Zimmer choked and shut down his offense).

I'll give you OPR, and points allowed, and a decent number of takeaways. But we were not in the top five in any single category, and below average in a bunch of them. Given all the above, and I don't think I am cherry-picking, I don't see how on earth anyone calls this a "very good defense" last year. They were average, and pretty beat up and fading at the end. I have no idea how this adds up to "very good."

 

[jboss]

We really tend to overlook just how often he gets doubled or is playing more of a contain role. I think he's been an underrated part of our line, although I do wish we'd let him off the leash more often.