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

I guess it's not reasonable to be disappointed anymore when John Jenkins continues to underperform, but I still am.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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%?
 

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

    Back
    Top Bottom