Supposedly The O-Line & the Offense Was Terrible

[Andy]

I haven't been on much recently, but I felt the need to post this topic, just as an informative one.

 

Watching the Colts game yesterday, I thought that one of the main reasons they were able to have an efficient and productive day on offense was because of the stellar play of the offensive line. Luck was not sacked, rarely pressured and I think I saw him on the ground once or twice. That may have been their best performance in the Luck era, as they faced Demarcus Ware and Von Miller, two of the best pass rushers in football. They were outstanding. 

 

However, after going on Pro Football Focus this morning, I saw that they disagreed with the general consensus of most football fans and analysts. They gave the Colts offensive line a combined grade of -12.7 and the offense received a grade of -13.0 (including the offensive linemen). 

 

I like Pro Football Focus; I'll quote them in my articles and they give insight of some areas that other places would not. However, if you take everything they say as fact (which I see too often around here) and believe that everything they do is 100% correct, then you're wrong.

 

Another prime example of why you shouldn't always listen to the site is because of how they graded Luck a couple of years ago. Luck's rating in the 2012 Lions game was worse than the rating Ryan Lindley received in the Panthers playoff game a couple of weeks ago. Every Colts fan can tell you that Luck had an outstanding finish in that Lions game and was the main reason why they won. Lindley didn't break 100 yards and there's argument to be made that he may be the worst QB to start a game in the last few years. 

 

Again, I'm not trying to bash the site, because I do use it and I do LIKE it, but again, I usually don't base my opinions around the site and I take some of what they say with a grain of salt, like yesterday's ratings. 

 

This was just my way of saying to everyone here, who state PFF grades as if they were facts, that you should not always rely on the site for completely accurate information.

 

I don't want to turn this into a thread just about PFF. Let me know what you guys thought about the game, and specifically how you thought the O-line played. Personally, I thought it was their best performance of the year against a stout Broncos front 7 with two outstanding pass rushers. 

 

 

[The Fish]

Stats can be used to make incorrect conclusions in sports. Got it.

[pgt_rob]

I don't buy into that website very much. That grade is almost a matter of opinion anyway. What matters is that the line held up, Luck was not sacked, and he stayed in the pocket almost untouched. I'm happy.

[Dustin]

The run blocking was awful. 

[Superman]

Stats can be used to make incorrect conclusions in sports. Got it.

 

PFF grades aren't stats, but both can be used to make incorrect conclusions, so, yeah.

[Superman]

They graded the Colts offense at -13.0, and the Broncos offense at -12.1. They graded the Colts defense at +10.9, and the Broncos defense at +18.6. 

 

Wow.

 

Their charting is great. Their grades? Very subjective.

[Mitch Connors]

They graded the Colts offense at -13.0, and the Broncos offense at -12.1. They graded the Colts defense at +10.9, and the Broncos defense at +18.6. 

 

Wow.

 

Their charting is great. Their grades? Very subjective.

Makes sense to me. Scoring points is bad and receives a poor grade. Not allowing the other team to score is even worse. Clear as crystal.

[Superman]

Here's a better look at the offensive line, with some charting, rather than grades:

 

On 45 dropbacks (includes scrambles), the Colts allowed 3 hits and 12 hurries, with 0 sacks. That's a pressure percentage of 40%, third worst this week (Ravens were 48.9%, Panthers were 45%. There's no weighting toward sacks, just raw percentages. (I also have a nitpick with "hits," as some hits come late and shouldn't be counted against the line.)

 

Counter that with the time to throw stats, though. On average, Luck had 2.96 seconds to throw, third best this week, behind Flacco and Rodgers. Also, Luck had 2.6 seconds or more on 62.2% of his dropbacks, tied with Rodgers for third, behind Flacco and Newton. (These stats don't give any extra credit for plays when the QB throws before he gets pressured, but they show the average amount of time the QB has to make a decision before he throws, runs or gets sacked. So these numbers come down naturally when the QB throws quickly, like Brady and Manning did this week.)

 

Since we all know that pass protection is partially dependent on the QB being decisive in the pocket (for instance, the Panthers gave up a ton of pressures, but they also gave Newton a ton of time; he's slow and indecisive with the ball at times), it's good to look at all these numbers in tandem. And watching the game last night, it was obvious that Luck did a great job of navigating the pocket, but the line also did just enough to keep him clean. In tandem, the protection was pretty good, but a lot of credit goes to Luck for moving well and not holding the ball too long.

[crazycolt1]

I don't pay much attention to PFF grades. These are men who play these games, not robots. Stats can be twisted or omitted to say anything you want them to say. Every year it seems like there are more and more stats being thrown around. Just like the Manning stat that has him 9 zero's and out. The stat don't cover the amount of games Manning had a lead in those games and a poor defense or a bad special teams play cost him the game. I just use that as an example, not the tell all. Really, the eye test is pretty hard to beat. What you see with your own eyes tells more than anything. Football is a fickle game with so much going on during a game it's hard to base what happens in black and white. JMO.

[pgt_rob]

They graded the Colts offense at -13.0, and the Broncos offense at -12.1. They graded the Colts defense at +10.9, and the Broncos defense at +18.6. 

 

Wow.

 

Their charting is great. Their grades? Very subjective.

 

Because this makes sense...........

[Mitch Connors]

Because this makes sense...........

Slightly off topic.....

I remember a few years ago CBS preseason fantasy draft rankings/projections went something like this:

Steve smith - 1400 yards

Hakeem nicks - 1200 yards

Mario manningham - 1000 yards

Jeremy Shockey - 800 yards

Eli manning - 3700 yards passing

The numbers need to make sense in order to be valuable. Same applies here.