Offensive line averages

[sportznut]

My view is that most LT's should be rated for G and T. Maybe that's just me. I'm fine with requiring everyone to have a center... But, the move from Tackle to Guard is not something that players struggle with. Some guards aren't fast enough to be tackles... but Tackles are good enough to be guards.


If Warmack and Cooper had both been tackles, they would've gone 1 and 2 overall.

Not if they were considered RT specs, and not good enough for LT, yet b/c they could play tackle they'd be treated like gold (even if it were below average RT), yet would be pigeon holed at guard despite the flexibility of every other position on the line.

[Adam K]

If I had the ability the end all arguments, which I don't.

I believe if you can find any evidence that someone on your line has played anywhere else on the line (besides what they are identified with) or have strong evidence that they can play that position (for example, they played in college or are listed at that position on the team's website or NFL.com) then contact Goodell and he can update that.

My point wasn't to say we should get rid of centers. But if you assume all tackles are good enough to play guard, then I assume every guard who doesn't weigh 350 pounds can play center. We can argue all day.

Again, if I had the power, I would say that every line has the typical starting NFL line. If you find instances where someone on your line has lined up at different position, then contact Goodell.

[Goodell]

And you still haven't addressed my question about it not being anywhere on the DCs or in the rules link.

YES I did. That is listed on the depth chart pages.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=935&start=10#p10532

[sportznut]

And you still haven't addressed my question about it not being anywhere on the DCs or in the rules link.

YES I did. That is listed on the depth chart pages.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=935&start=10#p10532

Its not on the DC page when I click on it.

One last question.

How is the top backup grade factored in? 100% of his grade, or something less?

[Goodell]

And you still haven't addressed my question about it not being anywhere on the DCs or in the rules link.

YES I did. That is listed on the depth chart pages.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=935&start=10#p10532

Its not on the DC page when I click on it.

One last question.

How is the top backup grade factored in? 100% of his grade, or something less?

It's showing up for me that way stating those positional requirements as indicated below. If not showing up for others let me know and I'll try to resolve, but for me it says this on the team depth chart page:

NOTE: If you believe a player should be eligible at a different position than listed, you just have to send Commish an email with links to verify that the player has either played that position previously or that there is a planned position switch with documentation via news articles or player statistics.

• Front 7 requires 2 DE, 1 DT/NT, 3 LB, flex DT/LB (for 3-4 or 4-3) starters and 1 backup from any of those positions;

• Secondary requires 2 CB, 2 Safety (either FS/SS/DB) starters and a backup;

• Receivers require 2 WR, 2 additional WR or TEWR and a backup;

• OL requires 2 tackles, 1 center, 1 guard and another flex spot starter to play guard and a backup (as well as a FB and/or blocking TE possibly if they improve your average). TEs are classified as either TEWR to apply to receiver grades or TE for blockers applying to OL grade.

• Starter grades count double while backup grades just once toward area average calculations.

When calculating an average, it takes all the starters grades and counts them twice. It then takes the backup grade and counts it once. For offensive line, that's 11 grades counted (assuming no TE/FB grades in there) for the always stated 5 starter spots along the offensive line. Everyone in the grade calculation (including backup) goes for at least 9% of the overall grade. Starting LT gets 18%, worst starting offensive lineman gets 18%.

If anything, a point toward future rules changes could be that we are severly under-valuing the worth of the teams best Tackle if he counts just as much toward the OL grade as the team's worst offensive lineman starer also. In some ways that's all-for-one and one-for-all teamwork, but another reason why in a world where LT is one of the most important and valued positions on the field that we've always had that Tackle requirement there and don't just let teams stock up on lower priced players and say everyone can play tackle. There is a little extra worth there in our setup. Not NEARLY as much importance as the NFL places on elite tackles meaning to the OL value, but always that tackle requirement there for every team of every league of every season we've ever played.

Many real NFL Guards who are even exclusively just Guards now are still very generously given Tackle eligibility, even if they've failed as high profile Tackles and had to be moved or if they were moved because of roster needs or whatever. For the most part, if they've been a Tackle at one time in the league we allow that flexibility still. Some have pointed out to me the opposite that we're too lenient in that regard and that these now-Guard's grades are based upon their strictly Guard play now and that high grade shouldn't apply if slotted at sim Tackle here just because they tried Tackle before and were moved inside. But for the most part we're OVERLY generous as far as allowing that Guard-to-Tackle or Guard-to-Center flexibility for individuals if they've been on NFL rosters as tackles or centers at any time giving that benefit of the doubt and additional flexibility. We've provide that beneficial flexibility when arguably we shouldn't -- so long as it's based upon something beyond a FamGM players own personal evaluation but instead what they've done on the field or what NFL coaches say about their positional eligibility or something documented. It can't just be I believe this Guard can be my starting Tackle on the edge. It can't be I'm going to build a great line with one center and 4 guards. It can't be I'm going to let others overpay for elite LT while I move my backup guard to tackle instead. It's what we've always stated as far as 5 starter OL positions. Most should read that as the standard NFL offensive line starting positions. Instead of restricting teams, I'd say we've probably overly generous as far as position flexibility while also trying to prevent extremes of not paying/playing actual real higher valued Tackles yet still manufacture elite OL grade boosting the QB even with a guard or center blocking on his blindside. Tackles are hugely valued in NFL and we've always had that requirement to the OL grade.

[sportznut]

I see the DC note now. I was looking strictly at OFFENSIVE LINE where it says 5 starters + backup.....Every other group on the DC specifies it right there. I didn't scroll down enough to see the fine print, and if that was always there, I apologize.

I still think its wrong to group both tackles together when the RT is clearly inferior to the LT, AND many times the weakest link on a line.

Nor do I agree that centers are so specialized either considering that most centers aren't drafted until the 3rd or later, and the NFL puts a premium on LTs first and foremost, but guards are drafted higher than center only players.

At this point though I'm just going to cut my losses, as its obvious I'm beating a dead horse, and getting nowhere here.

[Goodell]

I still think its wrong to group both tackles together when the RT is clearly inferior to the LT, AND many times the weakest link on a line.

I'd like to incorporate the LT/RT distinction into the mix too. I recall at the time setting this all up thinking about that. I mentioned above, perhaps sometime in the future could have rules change discussions about having the elite Tackle on a team count a bit more than every other OL starter to recognize that importance of a LT on our grades.

I'm generally all for movement that way, but creates complications too. Some QBs are left handed. Do some RTs get treated like LTs in that case since they are the blindside blockers for their QB? Some teams have elite LT already and draft what the rest of the NFL says is a LT but must start him at RT because of current roster, so does that elite player get discounted because of that? And I recently read about the Jags being good with a high draft pick moved to RT in part because of some recent studies equating similar values to RT and LT:
http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/20 ... mike-adams

The easiest way for us to approach that would be just letting grades designating the best Tackle on a team and giving him a little extra worth to the overall grade and not have to worry about the other complications of labeling every lineman for one side of the field or another eligibility. Something to think about in the future.

[sportznut]

Yeah, I wouldn't want to deal with that undertaking of labeling every single player's position. Some would actually have to say (LT, RT, LG, RG) in that case, and I think it would just be a pain in the ass. You'd have to keep adding eligibility as real life teams suffered injuries, or shuffled their lines for whatever reason.

If you were going that route (again, I think it would be an awful idea), you could conceivably keep going by designating outside and slot WRs, weakside and strongside LBs, and so forth.

Just letting the grades sort it all out is best case, and easiest to manage.

[Jared A]

My view is that most LT's should be rated for G and T. Maybe that's just me. I'm fine with requiring everyone to have a center... But, the move from Tackle to Guard is not something that players struggle with. Some guards aren't fast enough to be tackles... but Tackles are good enough to be guards.

Sport, this is the first time I have ever heard someone even hint that a guard is more important than a RT.

Here's an actual study on Matt Ryan... not proof, but the RT is probably the 2nd most important OL position. Since, some teams are actually moving their best DE to the opposite side to match up vs. the RT. His conclusion was that Clabo was actually the most important player on Ryan's offensive line.

http://www.thefalcoholic.com/2013/1/7/3 ... -success-a

"The overall takeaway is that, consistent with conventional wisdom, the LT position is incrementally important as it pertains to the QB's success. However, considering that the coefficient on RT_PBLK is slightly larger than the 1.79 coefficient on LT_PBLK, a question still remains as to which OL position is most important for Matt Ryan's success. To settle this, I use an F-test to determine whether the difference between the coefficients on LT_PBLK and RT_PBLK (b1 and b5) is significantly different from zero. If so, then we could conclude that the RT is actually the most important position on the Falcons OL as it relates to Ryan's success. The results from the F-test (not reported), however, suggest that the difference between b1 and b5 is indistinguishable from zero. That is, both the LT and RT positions are (statistically) equally vital to Matt Ryan's success. Nevertheless, both are incrementally more important to QB Matt Ryan's success than the other three OL positions."

[sportznut]

Jared, quite frankly, I'm done with this topic.

I'm not saying every guard is better than every RT, but on many offensive lines the RT is the worst player on the line, or the second worst next to the RG. Clearly it depends on the makeup of each team, and what type of offense they run the majority of the time as well. There are exceptions to every rule.

But, at this point, I'm not going to elaborate further. We'll agree to disagree.