Saints DL and OL Film Study - Week 1 (1 Viewer)

grammysweets

Kiss my Converse!
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
1,070
Reaction score
890
Offline
I guess it's not reasonable to be disappointed anymore when John Jenkins continues to underperform, but I still am.
 

ELLIASJWILLIAMS

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
17,109
Reaction score
30,538
Offline
I guess it's not reasonable to be disappointed anymore when John Jenkins continues to underperform, but I still am.
I don't get how PFF keeps grading him as doing an average to above average job.
 

Rugger

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
16,243
Reaction score
9,500
Age
39
Location
Las Vegas
Offline
Unfortunately, it seems Strief can only whiff on blocks in spectacular fashion; his first loss resulted in a sack-fumble on the opening possession, and his second loss got Drew Brees hit after the throw for his trouble.
I did not get to see all of the game, but I saw that first play on the sack/fumble. That is not a Strief loss. It was a coverage sack first and Drew getting greedy second.
 

JackDiesel

SR is my life!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
13,891
Reaction score
13,248
Location
Lafayette, LA
Online
Jenkins is a free agent at the end of the year. I hope we move forward with Davidson, Rankins, a re-signed Fairley, and Onyemata.
 

Hotdog_Skin

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,757
Reaction score
4,040
Offline
I did not get to see all of the game, but I saw that first play on the sack/fumble. That is not a Strief loss. It was a coverage sack first and Drew getting greedy second.
Yeah, every review I've seen agrees that that wasn't on Strief. Brees held on for too long.

And actually, Underhill was just saying Strief played well considering he lined up against Mack a bunch.
 

duckjr78

Look out, its FrankenBaby
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
6,140
Reaction score
6,009
Age
42
Location
Destin, Fl
Offline
Jenkins is a free agent at the end of the year. I hope we move forward with Davidson, Rankins, a re-signed Fairley, and Onyemata.
I don't think there is any doubt that is what will happen.

I guess it just comes down to whether the coaching staff feels like they need 2 NT's. In today's NFL, I'm just not so sure that you do, especially with talent at the 3 tech like Fairley (whom I hope they resign) and Rankins.
 

Zztop

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
5,304
Reaction score
7,339
Offline
curious about how these grades work. For example "winning 13 of his 43 attempts for a success rate of 80.8 percent" wouldn't 13 out of 43 only be 30% success? 80% would be winning 34 out of 43 snaps
 

JackDiesel

SR is my life!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
13,891
Reaction score
13,248
Location
Lafayette, LA
Online
I don't think there is any doubt that is what will happen.

I guess it just comes down to whether the coaching staff feels like they need 2 NT's. In today's NFL, I'm just not so sure that you do, especially with talent at the 3 tech like Fairley (whom I hope they resign) and Rankins.
Fairley came into this league as a 3-tech but I think at this point he's kind of a hybrid 3-tech/NT, especially in a 4-3 front.
 

rsmith2783

Specialist
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
7,315
Reaction score
5,824
Offline
I don't think there is any doubt that is what will happen.

I guess it just comes down to whether the coaching staff feels like they need 2 NT's. In today's NFL, I'm just not so sure that you do, especially with talent at the 3 tech like Fairley (whom I hope they resign) and Rankins.
I believe he's the only true NT we have.
 
OP
TBK

TBK

Pro-Bowler
Approved Blogger
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
655
Reaction score
1,430
Offline
curious about how these grades work. For example "winning 13 of his 43 attempts for a success rate of 80.8 percent" wouldn't 13 out of 43 only be 30% success? 80% would be winning 34 out of 43 snaps
Thanks for asking. I've laid it out in previous articles, but this is a good opportunity to explain for those who missed out:

I grade every snap as a Win, Loss, or Stall. A Stall is when a lineman neither gains nor gives up ground. If guys are basically just leaning on their opponent and it doesn't disrupt the play, they're stalling out.

My Success Rates divide the number of Wins plus the number of Stalls (which are weighted less than Wins) by the total number of snaps played. So if a guy wins 3 snaps, stalls out 5, and loses 2, his Success Rate is 67.5.

It's not a definitive or perfect system because it relies on my own subjective decisions on whether a guy won, lost, or just stalled out. But it's the best system I've found so far.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
53,902
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
Thanks for asking. I've laid it out in previous articles, but this is a good opportunity to explain for those who missed out:

I grade every snap as a Win, Loss, or Stall. A Stall is when a lineman neither gains nor gives up ground. If guys are basically just leaning on their opponent and it doesn't disrupt the play, they're stalling out.

My Success Rates divide the number of Wins plus the number of Stalls (which are weighted less than Wins) by the total number of snaps played. So if a guy wins 3 snaps, stalls out 5, and loses 2, his Success Rate is 76.5.

It's not a definitive or perfect system because it relies on my own subjective decisions on whether a guy won, lost, or just stalled out. But it's the best system I've found so far.
thanks for explaining the formula. I was a bit confused as well but figured something like that was how it worked out.
 

DSnfla

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
1,761
Reaction score
1,452
Offline
I did not get to see all of the game, but I saw that first play on the sack/fumble. That is not a Strief loss. It was a coverage sack first and Drew getting greedy second.
Thanks for asking. I've laid it out in previous articles, but this is a good opportunity to explain for those who missed out:

I grade every snap as a Win, Loss, or Stall. A Stall is when a lineman neither gains nor gives up ground. If guys are basically just leaning on their opponent and it doesn't disrupt the play, they're stalling out.

My Success Rates divide the number of Wins plus the number of Stalls (which are weighted less than Wins) by the total number of snaps played. So if a guy wins 3 snaps, stalls out 5, and loses 2, his Success Rate is 67.5.

It's not a definitive or perfect system because it relies on my own subjective decisions on whether a guy won, lost, or just stalled out. But it's the best system I've found so far.
I want to believe in your system , but when you say things like "Unfortunately, it seems Strief can only whiff on blocks in spectacular fashion; his first loss resulted in a sack-fumble on the opening possession" And you give high grades to guys that have 10 snaps and some where he was an eligible receiver really playing the TE spot , I just can't have faith in your system . The sack fumble was a coverage sack/fumble even DB said so.
 

Rugger

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
16,243
Reaction score
9,500
Age
39
Location
Las Vegas
Offline
TBK

I reread my post and i fear that it came across a bit more forward than I intended. I wanted to let you know that I really enjoy these articles and the time and effort that you obviously put into it. You also taking the time to post it here so we can enjoy it is awesome.

I understand that this is an impossible endeavor to perfect because, as you said, it is based on individual observations about plays and schemes that we, fans and media, are not privileged to.

I love the charts and the color coded system. It makes it easy for me to digest it. Sometimes my dyslexia makes reading articles, no matter how good, strenuous.

Overall I appreciate your observations and knowledge of the game. Offensive line can be hard to observe/grade and I think you are doing great. I think you have a good eye for how each player is preforming. Even though I disagree with your take on the Strief play, I can also understand that in the framework of your system, it would be considered a loss. Maybe it would be worthwhile to add a "pass" exemption to your analysis and charting. So in this case, although Strief was ultimately beat on the play, he gets a pass because he actually did a good job, but the play went on way too long.

Just a thought. Keep these coming. I look forward to them weekly.
 

Zztop

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
5,304
Reaction score
7,339
Offline
Thanks for asking. I've laid it out in previous articles, but this is a good opportunity to explain for those who missed out:

I grade every snap as a Win, Loss, or Stall. A Stall is when a lineman neither gains nor gives up ground. If guys are basically just leaning on their opponent and it doesn't disrupt the play, they're stalling out.

My Success Rates divide the number of Wins plus the number of Stalls (which are weighted less than Wins) by the total number of snaps played. So if a guy wins 3 snaps, stalls out 5, and loses 2, his Success Rate is 67.5.

It's not a definitive or perfect system because it relies on my own subjective decisions on whether a guy won, lost, or just stalled out. But it's the best system I've found so far.
in this formula is it possible for someone to have a score of over 100%?
 
OP
TBK

TBK

Pro-Bowler
Approved Blogger
Joined
Aug 6, 2013
Messages
655
Reaction score
1,430
Offline
I want to believe in your system , but when you say things like "Unfortunately, it seems Strief can only whiff on blocks in spectacular fashion; his first loss resulted in a sack-fumble on the opening possession" And you give high grades to guys that have 10 snaps and some where he was an eligible receiver really playing the TE spot , I just can't have faith in your system . The sack fumble was a coverage sack/fumble even DB said so.
Thanks for commenting. I don't mind if you doubt my process, I'll be the first to say that it's raw and has kinks to work out.

It's tough to penalize Strief for a play where Brees was at fault, but them's the breaks. You'll have plays like that and sometimes it works out, like it did for the Raiders late in the game on a throw where Carr had 4.5 seconds in the pocket. Other times it doesn't, like on that sack-fumble. You can put an asterisk next to that if you want but it doesn't change the fact that Strief's guy made a play. I'll be the first to stand up for Strief. He played a great game and was the highest-rated OL without missing a snap.

Not accounting for snaps played relative to success rate is a flaw if you don't think about it. I'm measuring efficiency, so if a guy plays nine snaps and wins four of them of course his rate of success will be high. I'm not going to penalize someone for not playing often if they did well when they were given opportunities.

Senio's 10th snap as a decoy TE getting included was an oversight, thanks for pointing it out. I noted that in my film notes but forgot when checking my charting against the official snap counts to make sure I wasn't missing anyone or had an inaccurate snap count. I'll have to be more diligent on that moving forward m.

Thanks for reading and giving constructive criticism. This is definitely an ongoing process as I continue to develop my methodology. If you'd like to demonstrate something better I would love the opportunity to observe and learn from it.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

Headlines

Top Bottom