Left Tackle and McIntosh | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Left Tackle and McIntosh

Fineas

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
2,085
Reaction score
0
The offensive line started the year off very badly. The running game was mediocre at best and Culpepper was sacked 21 times in 4 games. As chronicled in http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=181136, very few, if any, of those sacks were due to Culpepper holding onto the ball too long or due to a lack of mobility. The OL was just flat out bad. Actually, that’s not entirely fair, as some of the blame falls on the TEs and RBs who were staying in to block, but nevertheless failing to do so. For many people blame for the team’s poor start was on the OL.

After 4 weeks, Culpepper was replaced by Harrington and, one week later, the OL was shuffled, with Shelton moving over to RG and Damion McIntosh moving back to LT. The OL started playing dramatically better, giving up only 20 sacks over the final 11 games. The running game also improved significantly, with the team upping its ypc from 3.86 to 4.27.


Despite these improvements, many Fin Fans still believe upgrading the OL is the top priority this offseason. Many are frustrated at the lack of any big name OL acquisitions, either through the draft or in free agency. Left tackle is the “glamour” position on the OL and many people are convinced that we need to upgrade the LT position with a Walter Jones/Orlando Pace type blue chip LT. While I am not opposed to adding a great LT, if one is available, I don’t see the urgent need for an upgrade. That may sound strange, as Damion McIntosh is not the kind of blue chip, super-athletic LT that many fans dream about. Nonetheless, I don’t think an upgrade at LT will have a significant impact on the productivity or effectiveness of the offense.

Although LT is the glamour position on the OL, it is largely a “defensive” position, i.e., the LT’s primary role is to protect the pocket. Few LTs, even among the great ones, are truly dominant run blockers. An LT’s bread is buttered (and his paycheck signed) on the basis of pass protection. The first goal in pass protection is to prevent negative plays, i.e., prevent sacks. The secondary, but related goal, is to give the QB enough time to allow a receiver to get open and to get the ball to him. I say “enough” time because, at some point, there is a diminishing return on the additional time the LT gives the QB. The QB needs 3 seconds to make a reasonable play downfield; 4 seconds is better and 5 seconds is great. Beyond 5-6 seconds, however, there is no real benefit because the pass will generally have been thrown by then and, if it wasn’t, it is likely that one of the other OLs has finally been beaten by his man and given up a sack.

It would be great if there was a stat available for how long an OL keeps the pass rusher away from the QB. Unfortunately, none exists. STATS Inc. does track sacks allowed, for which it allocates “blame” based on a somewhat subjective evaluation of each sack given up. While this evaluation is somewhat subjective, there is no reason to think that this evaluation is done differently for different players. Accordingly, “sacks allowed” is at least one valid consideration for comparing the play and effectiveness of OLs. Sacks allowed is not everything, but it does reflect, in an imperfect way, how well a LT performs his No. 1 role – keeping the pass rusher off the QB.


When comparing OLs on different teams, one must also take into account the quality of the other OLs on each player’s own line. If the LT on one team plays with a bunch of stiffs, his sacks allowed numbers will look better, i.e., lower because even if he is being beaten by his man on a regular basis, one of his linemates’ men is getting to the QB even faster. In this respect, an OL is only as good as its weakest link.


On a given team, it is reasonable to assume that there is a relatively linear relationship between the number of sacks an OL allows and the number of “near sacks,” i.e., pressures he allows. One can’t simply do this same kind of direct comparison to compare the performance of OLs on different teams because what might be a “near sack” with one QB might be a sack with another QB in the game. This linearity probably also breaks down a little when talking about LTs because they usually protect the QB’s blind side, which means that the QB may be less likely to throw the ball away before the sack when the pressure is coming from LT than when it is coming from other parts of the line. For purposes of this analysis, this non-linearity is not a major concern because I am comparing LTs. Whatever bias there is for LT’s to have a higher sack-to-pressure ratio than other OL positions is not a factor here because all of the players I am comparing are LTs.


Of course, comparing sacks allowed can also be a bit misleading because some teams throw a lot more than others. Sack percentage, or number of pass attempts per sack, is a more relevant number for comparison purposes.


To try to get a handle on the benefits of having a great LT, I have compared Damion McIntosh’s performance with those of the elite LTs in the game over the last 2 years. While there may be others who warrant consideration, I have chosen Walter Jones, Orlando Pace, Jonathan Ogden, Chris Samuels and Bryant McKinnie as the elite LTs for purposes of comparing them to Damion McIntosh.


Sacks Allowed (2005-2006)

McIntosh 9.5
Ogden 12.75
WJones 13
Pace 10.5
Samuels 8
McKinnie 11.75

As indicated above, McIntosh’s numbers stack up very well against the elite LTs. While this does not mean that he is better than 4 of the 5 elite LTs, it does indicate that replacing McIntosh with an elite LT will not necessary result in a reduction of sacks. This is even clearer when you look at pass attempts per sack allowed:

Pass Attempts Per Sack Allowed (2005-2006)

McIntosh 106.6
Ogden 85.2
Jones 75.8
Pace 88.5
Samuels 118.9
McKinnie 89.4

Of course, sacks are not everything. It is also significant when the LT’s man pressures the QB. To try to get a handle on pressures allowed, I determined what percentage of each teams’ sacks each of these LTs allowed and then assumed that these LTs were responsible for an equivalent percentage of the non-sack pressures his team allowed. As above, for McIntosh (and for ease of calculation), I have based this on times that Harrington and Lemon were “under pressure” (excluding Culpepper because McIntosh was not starting at LT when Culpepper was playing).

Attributed Pressures (2006)

McIntosh 21.5 pressures
Ogden 23.67 pressures
Jones 19.3 pressures
Pace 6.7 pressures (in 8 games)
Samuels 19 pressures
McKinnie 19.7 pressures

Here, McIntosh’s number is slightly higher than the others (except Ogden), but not by a significant amount. The same holds true when viewed as pass attempts per pressure allowed:

Attributed Pressures as Pass Attempts Per Pressure (2006)

McIntosh 47.1
Ogden 22.09
Jones 51
Pace 49.25
Samuels 50.05
McKinnie 53.3


Again, McIntosh stacks up pretty well to the elite LTs.


Next, I looked at what percentage of these teams sacks were allowed by the LT. In some respects, this may be as much a measure of the quality of the rest of the teams’ OL as it is the LT, but I figured it would be worth looking at. Besides, I don’t think anyone is arguing that McIntosh’s sacks allowed numbers are low because the rest of the Dolphins OL is so fantastic.

Percentage of Teams’ Sacks Allowed (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 14.2%
Ogden (Ravens) 21.6%
Jones (Seahawks) 17.1%
Pace (Rams) 11%
Samuels (Redskins) 16%
McKinnie (Vikings) 12.1%


McIntosh comes in the middle of the pack among a pretty distinguished group.

Perhaps the explanation for McIntosh’s comparable performance is that he gets more help from RBs and TEs than the elite LTs, who are left out on an island. This explanation, however, is not borne out by my review of the games. Similarly, in reviewing the plays available on Crunch Time’s gif gallery, McIntosh got pass protection help fairly infrequently. Although not dispositive, some stats that bear a relation to the amount of blocking help is available to an OL are the frequencies the teams use a 2 TE set and/or a 4 WR set. A 2 TE set usually provides additional blocking help, while a 4 WR set does not allow for a lot of extra help for the OL.


Number of Pass Attempts with 2 TE Set (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 173
Ogden (Ravens) 174
Jones (Seahawks) 74
Pace (Rams) 184
Samuels (Redskins) 255
McKinnie (Vikings) 157

No real trend or explanation here. The Dolphins were around the middle of this pack in terms of how often they used a 2 TE set.

Pass Attempts from 4 WR Set (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 219
Ogden (Ravens) 213
Jones (Seahawks) 234
Pace (Rams) 375
Samuels (Redskins) 130
McKinnie (Vikings) 177

No real trend here either. The Fins are again in the middle of the pack in terms of how often they threw from a 4 WR set.


Some other splits that relate to the amount of blocking help there likely was on a given play is how often a team was blitzed and how often it threw against a 5 man (or more) rush.

Blitz Pass Attempts (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 410
Ogden (Ravens) 351
Jones (Seahawks) 242
Pace (Rams) 332
Samuels (Redskins) 282
McKinnie (Vikings) 371

The numbers above indicate that the Dolphins faced more blitzes than any of these others teams, and significantly more than some of them. This is significant, because blitzes generally do not allow for RBs, TEs or other OLs to offer a lot of help to the LT.

Pass Attempts Against 5+ Men on Line (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 409
Ogden (Ravens) 396
Jones (Seahawks) 307
Pace (Rams) 335
Samuels (Redskins) 334
McKinnie (Vikings) 354

Here, again, it looks like McIntosh faced more situations with 5+ men on the line than any of these other teams. As with blitzes, this makes it more difficult and unlikely for the LT to be getting significant help from RBs, TEs or other OLs.

Next, I looked at the number of receptions by each team’s RBs and TEs. The logic here is that teams who use their RBs and TEs more extensively in the passing game may tend to use them less frequently in pass protection. Of course, that may not be the case 100% of the time, but it likely has some truth as a generality.


Receptions by RBs and TEs (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 265
Ogden (Ravens) 301
Jones (Seahawks) 196
Pace (Rams) 262
Samuels (Redskins) 301
McKinnie (Vikings) 338

While, not surprisingly, some teams do throw more to RBs and TEs than others, this does not seem to indicate a trend that explains the pass protection numbers. Even if it did, the Dolphins fall in the middle of the pack here, so one can’t really say that the Fins use their RBs and TEs more for pass protection than these other teams.

Another popular explanation for why McIntosh stacks up so well statistically with the top LTs is the contention that the Dolphins had such a quick, short passing game after Culpepper went down that the OL did not have to hold their blocks for long. Statistically, however, the Fins threw downfield (more than 20 yards from scrimmage) more often than any of these other teams other than the Rams.


Passes Thrown Downfield (20+ yards from scrimmage) (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 140
Ogden (Ravens) 104
Jones (Seahawks) 127
Pace (Rams) 161
Samuels (Redskins) 118
McKinnie (Vikings) 117

I don’t think there is a tremendous difference in pass protection requirements for a short pass (behind line to 10 yards from scrimmage) as compared to an intermediate pass (11-20 yards from scrimmage). However, I looked at that just to see if there was something that might explain McIntosh’s pass protection numbers.

Passes Thrown 11-20 Yards from Scrimmage (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 235
Ogden (Ravens) 230
Jones (Seahawks) 213
Pace (Rams) 269
Samuels (Redskins) 198
McKinnie (Vikings) 184

No apparent trend there either. In addition to throwing more 20+ yard passes than 4 of these 5 other teams, the Fins also threw more 11-20 yard passes than 4 of the 5.

Pass protection is the main priority of an LT, but it obviously is not the only part of the job. Ideally, an LT, especially an elite one, will also be a great run blocker who consistently opens holes for the RB. Because NFL teams are so concerned about the protecting the QBs blindside, LTs are usually more athletic and nimble than other OLs, but are often weaker run blockers.


To evaluate run blocking, I am relying on Football Outsiders’ Adjusted Line Yards (“ALY”). A full explanation is available on their website, but it is basically a system that attempts to separate the success of a run due to the OL play from the success due to the RB himself. They track ALY on a directional basis, so I have focused on runs characterized as “left end” and “left tackle.” While an LT may have a significant impact as a puller on runs to the right and must also do his job on run to the middle, there is no way I know of to objectively compare OL performance on these types of plays. I have looked at the ALY numbers for the last 2 years and, since they are not broken down on an individual play or individual game basis, I have used all of 2006 even though McIntosh did not start at the beginning of the season.

Left End Adjusted Line Yards (2005; 2006)



McIntosh (5.0; 3.23)
Ogden (4.5; 3.1)
Jones (4.21; 3.97)
Pace (3.52; 2.7)
Samuels (4.45; 3.81)
McKinnie (4.86; 3.23)

On plays around left end, McIntosh’s numbers grade out as the best of the bunch in 2005 and middle-of-the-pack in 2006. It is not clear how much of the 2006 numbers are from the first 5 games, before McIntosh moved back to LT.

Left Tackle Adjusted Line Yards (2005-2006)



McIntosh (5.13; 4.93)
Ogden (3.72; 4.7)
Jones (3.76; 4.09)
Pace (4.16; 4.12)
Samuels (4.27; 5.39)
McKinnie (5.09; 4.8)

On runs over left tackle, McIntosh’s numbers grade out as the best of the bunch in 2005 and second-best in 2006. Again, it is not clear how much of the 2006 numbers are from the first 5 games, before McIntosh moved back to LT.


I also looked at penalties. Over the past 2 years, however, all six of these LTs had between 50 and 70 penalty yards. McIntosh was in the middle of this pack at 55.

I am not suggesting that McIntosh is as good as these elite LTs. What I am suggesting is that having an elite LT does not necessarily appear to result in fewer sacks, fewer pressures, fewer penalties or greater success running to the left. I don’t think McIntosh has cost the Fins any games over the last 2 years, nor do I think he prevented the Fins from playing the style of offense that it wanted to play. In short, I don’t see LT as a major priority (if we re-sign McIntosh). For the same reason, I think we should re-sign McIntosh, especially since I don’t think he will cost that much. Like many people, I am intrigued with Alabi and would like to see if he can develop into a very good LT. Whether he has or can I leave to the judgment of Hudson Houck. Even if Houck thinks Alabi is ready, I’d still like to keep McIntosh as insurance. In the draft, if a great player is available, then we should consider getting him just like at any other position, but I do not agree with those who say LT is our top priority.
 

jason8er

Shark Bait
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
1,779
Reaction score
0
Location
Hilton Head, SC
No more please... you convinced me! Remind me never to get into an argument with you. Oh my head...
 

Tigers2003

FinHeaven VIP
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
2,314
Reaction score
5
The offensive line started the year off very badly. The running game was mediocre at best and Culpepper was sacked 21 times in 4 games. As chronicled in http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=181136, very few, if any, of those sacks were due to Culpepper holding onto the ball too long or due to a lack of mobility. The OL was just flat out bad. Actually, that’s not entirely fair, as some of the blame falls on the TEs and RBs who were staying in to block, but nevertheless failing to do so. For many people blame for the team’s poor start was on the OL.

After 4 weeks, Culpepper was replaced by Harrington and, one week later, the OL was shuffled, with Shelton moving over to RG and Damion McIntosh moving back to LT. The OL started playing dramatically better, giving up only 20 sacks over the final 11 games. The running game also improved significantly, with the team upping its ypc from 3.86 to 4.27.


Despite these improvements, many Fin Fans still believe upgrading the OL is the top priority this offseason. Many are frustrated at the lack of any big name OL acquisitions, either through the draft or in free agency. Left tackle is the “glamour†position on the OL and many people are convinced that we need to upgrade the LT position with a Walter Jones/Orlando Pace type blue chip LT. While I am not opposed to adding a great LT, if one is available, I don’t see the urgent need for an upgrade. That may sound strange, as Damion McIntosh is not the kind of blue chip, super-athletic LT that many fans dream about. Nonetheless, I don’t think an upgrade at LT will have a significant impact on the productivity or effectiveness of the offense.

Although LT is the glamour position on the OL, it is largely a “defensive†position, i.e., the LT’s primary role is to protect the pocket. Few LTs, even among the great ones, are truly dominant run blockers. An LT’s bread is buttered (and his paycheck signed) on the basis of pass protection. The first goal in pass protection is to prevent negative plays, i.e., prevent sacks. The secondary, but related goal, is to give the QB enough time to allow a receiver to get open and to get the ball to him. I say “enough†time because, at some point, there is a diminishing return on the additional time the LT gives the QB. The QB needs 3 seconds to make a reasonable play downfield; 4 seconds is better and 5 seconds is great. Beyond 5-6 seconds, however, there is no real benefit because the pass will generally have been thrown by then and, if it wasn’t, it is likely that one of the other OLs has finally been beaten by his man and given up a sack.

It would be great if there was a stat available for how long an OL keeps the pass rusher away from the QB. Unfortunately, none exists. STATS Inc. does track sacks allowed, for which it allocates “blame†based on a somewhat subjective evaluation of each sack given up. While this evaluation is somewhat subjective, there is no reason to think that this evaluation is done differently for different players. Accordingly, “sacks allowed†is at least one valid consideration for comparing the play and effectiveness of OLs. Sacks allowed is not everything, but it does reflect, in an imperfect way, how well a LT performs his No. 1 role – keeping the pass rusher off the QB.


When comparing OLs on different teams, one must also take into account the quality of the other OLs on each player’s own line. If the LT on one team plays with a bunch of stiffs, his sacks allowed numbers will look better, i.e., lower because even if he is being beaten by his man on a regular basis, one of his linemates’ men is getting to the QB even faster. In this respect, an OL is only as good as its weakest link.


On a given team, it is reasonable to assume that there is a relatively linear relationship between the number of sacks an OL allows and the number of “near sacks,†i.e., pressures he allows. One can’t simply do this same kind of direct comparison to compare the performance of OLs on different teams because what might be a “near sack†with one QB might be a sack with another QB in the game. This linearity probably also breaks down a little when talking about LTs because they usually protect the QB’s blind side, which means that the QB may be less likely to throw the ball away before the sack when the pressure is coming from LT than when it is coming from other parts of the line. For purposes of this analysis, this non-linearity is not a major concern because I am comparing LTs. Whatever bias there is for LT’s to have a higher sack-to-pressure ratio than other OL positions is not a factor here because all of the players I am comparing are LTs.


Of course, comparing sacks allowed can also be a bit misleading because some teams throw a lot more than others. Sack percentage, or number of pass attempts per sack, is a more relevant number for comparison purposes.


To try to get a handle on the benefits of having a great LT, I have compared Damion McIntosh’s performance with those of the elite LTs in the game over the last 2 years. While there may be others who warrant consideration, I have chosen Walter Jones, Orlando Pace, Jonathan Ogden, Chris Samuels and Bryant McKinnie as the elite LTs for purposes of comparing them to Damion McIntosh.


Sacks Allowed (2005-2006)

McIntosh 9.5
Ogden 12.75
WJones 13
Pace 10.5
Samuels 8
McKinnie 11.75

As indicated above, McIntosh’s numbers stack up very well against the elite LTs. While this does not mean that he is better than 4 of the 5 elite LTs, it does indicate that replacing McIntosh with an elite LT will not necessary result in a reduction of sacks. This is even clearer when you look at pass attempts per sack allowed:

Pass Attempts Per Sack Allowed (2005-2006)

McIntosh 106.6
Ogden 85.2
Jones 75.8
Pace 88.5
Samuels 118.9
McKinnie 89.4

Of course, sacks are not everything. It is also significant when the LT’s man pressures the QB. To try to get a handle on pressures allowed, I determined what percentage of each teams’ sacks each of these LTs allowed and then assumed that these LTs were responsible for an equivalent percentage of the non-sack pressures his team allowed. As above, for McIntosh (and for ease of calculation), I have based this on times that Harrington and Lemon were “under pressure†(excluding Culpepper because McIntosh was not starting at LT when Culpepper was playing).

Attributed Pressures (2006)

McIntosh 21.5 pressures
Ogden 23.67 pressures
Jones 19.3 pressures
Pace 6.7 pressures (in 8 games)
Samuels 19 pressures
McKinnie 19.7 pressures

Here, McIntosh’s number is slightly higher than the others (except Ogden), but not by a significant amount. The same holds true when viewed as pass attempts per pressure allowed:

Attributed Pressures as Pass Attempts Per Pressure (2006)

McIntosh 47.1
Ogden 22.09
Jones 51
Pace 49.25
Samuels 50.05
McKinnie 53.3


Again, McIntosh stacks up pretty well to the elite LTs.


Next, I looked at what percentage of these teams sacks were allowed by the LT. In some respects, this may be as much a measure of the quality of the rest of the teams’ OL as it is the LT, but I figured it would be worth looking at. Besides, I don’t think anyone is arguing that McIntosh’s sacks allowed numbers are low because the rest of the Dolphins OL is so fantastic.

Percentage of Teams’ Sacks Allowed (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 14.2%
Ogden (Ravens) 21.6%
Jones (Seahawks) 17.1%
Pace (Rams) 11%
Samuels (Redskins) 16%
McKinnie (Vikings) 12.1%


McIntosh comes in the middle of the pack among a pretty distinguished group.

Perhaps the explanation for McIntosh’s comparable performance is that he gets more help from RBs and TEs than the elite LTs, who are left out on an island. This explanation, however, is not borne out by my review of the games. Similarly, in reviewing the plays available on Crunch Time’s gif gallery, McIntosh got pass protection help fairly infrequently. Although not dispositive, some stats that bear a relation to the amount of blocking help is available to an OL are the frequencies the teams use a 2 TE set and/or a 4 WR set. A 2 TE set usually provides additional blocking help, while a 4 WR set does not allow for a lot of extra help for the OL.


Number of Pass Attempts with 2 TE Set (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 173
Ogden (Ravens) 174
Jones (Seahawks) 74
Pace (Rams) 184
Samuels (Redskins) 255
McKinnie (Vikings) 157

No real trend or explanation here. The Dolphins were around the middle of this pack in terms of how often they used a 2 TE set.

Pass Attempts from 4 WR Set (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 219
Ogden (Ravens) 213
Jones (Seahawks) 234
Pace (Rams) 375
Samuels (Redskins) 130
McKinnie (Vikings) 177

No real trend here either. The Fins are again in the middle of the pack in terms of how often they threw from a 4 WR set.


Some other splits that relate to the amount of blocking help there likely was on a given play is how often a team was blitzed and how often it threw against a 5 man (or more) rush.

Blitz Pass Attempts (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 410
Ogden (Ravens) 351
Jones (Seahawks) 242
Pace (Rams) 332
Samuels (Redskins) 282
McKinnie (Vikings) 371

The numbers above indicate that the Dolphins faced more blitzes than any of these others teams, and significantly more than some of them. This is significant, because blitzes generally do not allow for RBs, TEs or other OLs to offer a lot of help to the LT.

Pass Attempts Against 5+ Men on Line (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 409
Ogden (Ravens) 396
Jones (Seahawks) 307
Pace (Rams) 335
Samuels (Redskins) 334
McKinnie (Vikings) 354

Here, again, it looks like McIntosh faced more situations with 5+ men on the line than any of these other teams. As with blitzes, this makes it more difficult and unlikely for the LT to be getting significant help from RBs, TEs or other OLs.

Next, I looked at the number of receptions by each team’s RBs and TEs. The logic here is that teams who use their RBs and TEs more extensively in the passing game may tend to use them less frequently in pass protection. Of course, that may not be the case 100% of the time, but it likely has some truth as a generality.


Receptions by RBs and TEs (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 265
Ogden (Ravens) 301
Jones (Seahawks) 196
Pace (Rams) 262
Samuels (Redskins) 301
McKinnie (Vikings) 338

While, not surprisingly, some teams do throw more to RBs and TEs than others, this does not seem to indicate a trend that explains the pass protection numbers. Even if it did, the Dolphins fall in the middle of the pack here, so one can’t really say that the Fins use their RBs and TEs more for pass protection than these other teams.

Another popular explanation for why McIntosh stacks up so well statistically with the top LTs is the contention that the Dolphins had such a quick, short passing game after Culpepper went down that the OL did not have to hold their blocks for long. Statistically, however, the Fins threw downfield (more than 20 yards from scrimmage) more often than any of these other teams other than the Rams.


Passes Thrown Downfield (20+ yards from scrimmage) (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 140
Ogden (Ravens) 104
Jones (Seahawks) 127
Pace (Rams) 161
Samuels (Redskins) 118
McKinnie (Vikings) 117

I don’t think there is a tremendous difference in pass protection requirements for a short pass (behind line to 10 yards from scrimmage) as compared to an intermediate pass (11-20 yards from scrimmage). However, I looked at that just to see if there was something that might explain McIntosh’s pass protection numbers.

Passes Thrown 11-20 Yards from Scrimmage (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 235
Ogden (Ravens) 230
Jones (Seahawks) 213
Pace (Rams) 269
Samuels (Redskins) 198
McKinnie (Vikings) 184

No apparent trend there either. In addition to throwing more 20+ yard passes than 4 of these 5 other teams, the Fins also threw more 11-20 yard passes than 4 of the 5.

Pass protection is the main priority of an LT, but it obviously is not the only part of the job. Ideally, an LT, especially an elite one, will also be a great run blocker who consistently opens holes for the RB. Because NFL teams are so concerned about the protecting the QBs blindside, LTs are usually more athletic and nimble than other OLs, but are often weaker run blockers.


To evaluate run blocking, I am relying on Football Outsiders’ Adjusted Line Yards (“ALYâ€Â). A full explanation is available on their website, but it is basically a system that attempts to separate the success of a run due to the OL play from the success due to the RB himself. They track ALY on a directional basis, so I have focused on runs characterized as “left end†and “left tackle.†While an LT may have a significant impact as a puller on runs to the right and must also do his job on run to the middle, there is no way I know of to objectively compare OL performance on these types of plays. I have looked at the ALY numbers for the last 2 years and, since they are not broken down on an individual play or individual game basis, I have used all of 2006 even though McIntosh did not start at the beginning of the season.

Left End Adjusted Line Yards (2005; 2006)



McIntosh (5.0; 3.23)
Ogden (4.5; 3.1)
Jones (4.21; 3.97)
Pace (3.52; 2.7)
Samuels (4.45; 3.81)
McKinnie (4.86; 3.23)

On plays around left end, McIntosh’s numbers grade out as the best of the bunch in 2005 and middle-of-the-pack in 2006. It is not clear how much of the 2006 numbers are from the first 5 games, before McIntosh moved back to LT.

Left Tackle Adjusted Line Yards (2005-2006)



McIntosh (5.13; 4.93)
Ogden (3.72; 4.7)
Jones (3.76; 4.09)
Pace (4.16; 4.12)
Samuels (4.27; 5.39)
McKinnie (5.09; 4.8)

On runs over left tackle, McIntosh’s numbers grade out as the best of the bunch in 2005 and second-best in 2006. Again, it is not clear how much of the 2006 numbers are from the first 5 games, before McIntosh moved back to LT.


I also looked at penalties. Over the past 2 years, however, all six of these LTs had between 50 and 70 penalty yards. McIntosh was in the middle of this pack at 55.

I am not suggesting that McIntosh is as good as these elite LTs. What I am suggesting is that having an elite LT does not necessarily appear to result in fewer sacks, fewer pressures, fewer penalties or greater success running to the left. I don’t think McIntosh has cost the Fins any games over the last 2 years, nor do I think he prevented the Fins from playing the style of offense that it wanted to play. In short, I don’t see LT as a major priority (if we re-sign McIntosh). For the same reason, I think we should re-sign McIntosh, especially since I don’t think he will cost that much. Like many people, I am intrigued with Alabi and would like to see if he can develop into a very good LT. Whether he has or can I leave to the judgment of Hudson Houck. Even if Houck thinks Alabi is ready, I’d still like to keep McIntosh as insurance. In the draft, if a great player is available, then we should consider getting him just like at any other position, but I do not agree with those who say LT is our top priority.

Whoa! you put a lot of effort into this. You make a good argument. But stats can be construed and interpreted in the eye of the beholder. The point I interpret you are making if I read correctly is that D-Mac ain't elite but not as bad as some may think.

His pass protection may in fact be a strength for him and your numbers point that way. However, in the games I saw this past year there were some obvious penetration coming on his watch that resulted in key plays for the opponents. Another way of putting it is that he may have recovered but whenever there were breakdowns in pass protection it just seemed more obvious the times when D-Mac was manhandled and subsequent hurries, pressures, and sacks were the result. Or, another way of saying it when he did fail to protect the QB it came at the worst times. Now I know this is general and not specific but without being as wordy (no offense) as you were and if someone who is better at details and less general than I am can point out specific plays and game time situations to add to the conversation please do so.

As far as run blocking that is where he is most lacking IMHO. Not enough holes on his side of the line whenever RB was running-simply put. Admit that despite D-Mac not being elite and there is worse out there. But, LT is an important position and we can definitely do better than Mc Intosh. I would not miss him if he was gone.
 

BLUESTIGIDY

Too many MC's not enough MICS!
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Location
SUR CAliFas
Now that's what i'm talking about!
Great analysis & read.....
Very Impressive :eek:
 

Lester

Can't help it. Born this way!
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
734
Reaction score
32
Location
Satellite Beach, Fl
great break down. It makes you think, we know where we would all like upgrades, but the real question is where would an upgrade make the most impact on others performance?
 

Crunkcore

The Crunk One
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
772
Reaction score
0
Good research.
I wouldn't mind him for depth and drafting a LT.
 

RenoFinFan

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
1,113
Reaction score
0
Although I 100% disagree about your analysis in the 1st paragraph the rest of the post was outstanding! Considering there are no elite LT available through FA this year I agree with your conclusion of re-signing him. However, he may cost more than his value due to the lack of LT on the market this off season.
 

finfan54

Active Roster
Joined
Aug 3, 2002
Messages
26,167
Reaction score
28
The offensive line started the year off very badly. The running game was mediocre at best and Culpepper was sacked 21 times in 4 games. As chronicled in http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=181136, very few, if any, of those sacks were due to Culpepper holding onto the ball too long or due to a lack of mobility. The OL was just flat out bad. Actually, that’s not entirely fair, as some of the blame falls on the TEs and RBs who were staying in to block, but nevertheless failing to do so. For many people blame for the team’s poor start was on the OL.

After 4 weeks, Culpepper was replaced by Harrington and, one week later, the OL was shuffled, with Shelton moving over to RG and Damion McIntosh moving back to LT. The OL started playing dramatically better, giving up only 20 sacks over the final 11 games. The running game also improved significantly, with the team upping its ypc from 3.86 to 4.27.


Despite these improvements, many Fin Fans still believe upgrading the OL is the top priority this offseason. Many are frustrated at the lack of any big name OL acquisitions, either through the draft or in free agency. Left tackle is the “glamour†position on the OL and many people are convinced that we need to upgrade the LT position with a Walter Jones/Orlando Pace type blue chip LT. While I am not opposed to adding a great LT, if one is available, I don’t see the urgent need for an upgrade. That may sound strange, as Damion McIntosh is not the kind of blue chip, super-athletic LT that many fans dream about. Nonetheless, I don’t think an upgrade at LT will have a significant impact on the productivity or effectiveness of the offense.

Although LT is the glamour position on the OL, it is largely a “defensive†position, i.e., the LT’s primary role is to protect the pocket. Few LTs, even among the great ones, are truly dominant run blockers. An LT’s bread is buttered (and his paycheck signed) on the basis of pass protection. The first goal in pass protection is to prevent negative plays, i.e., prevent sacks. The secondary, but related goal, is to give the QB enough time to allow a receiver to get open and to get the ball to him. I say “enough†time because, at some point, there is a diminishing return on the additional time the LT gives the QB. The QB needs 3 seconds to make a reasonable play downfield; 4 seconds is better and 5 seconds is great. Beyond 5-6 seconds, however, there is no real benefit because the pass will generally have been thrown by then and, if it wasn’t, it is likely that one of the other OLs has finally been beaten by his man and given up a sack.

It would be great if there was a stat available for how long an OL keeps the pass rusher away from the QB. Unfortunately, none exists. STATS Inc. does track sacks allowed, for which it allocates “blame†based on a somewhat subjective evaluation of each sack given up. While this evaluation is somewhat subjective, there is no reason to think that this evaluation is done differently for different players. Accordingly, “sacks allowed†is at least one valid consideration for comparing the play and effectiveness of OLs. Sacks allowed is not everything, but it does reflect, in an imperfect way, how well a LT performs his No. 1 role – keeping the pass rusher off the QB.


When comparing OLs on different teams, one must also take into account the quality of the other OLs on each player’s own line. If the LT on one team plays with a bunch of stiffs, his sacks allowed numbers will look better, i.e., lower because even if he is being beaten by his man on a regular basis, one of his linemates’ men is getting to the QB even faster. In this respect, an OL is only as good as its weakest link.


On a given team, it is reasonable to assume that there is a relatively linear relationship between the number of sacks an OL allows and the number of “near sacks,†i.e., pressures he allows. One can’t simply do this same kind of direct comparison to compare the performance of OLs on different teams because what might be a “near sack†with one QB might be a sack with another QB in the game. This linearity probably also breaks down a little when talking about LTs because they usually protect the QB’s blind side, which means that the QB may be less likely to throw the ball away before the sack when the pressure is coming from LT than when it is coming from other parts of the line. For purposes of this analysis, this non-linearity is not a major concern because I am comparing LTs. Whatever bias there is for LT’s to have a higher sack-to-pressure ratio than other OL positions is not a factor here because all of the players I am comparing are LTs.


Of course, comparing sacks allowed can also be a bit misleading because some teams throw a lot more than others. Sack percentage, or number of pass attempts per sack, is a more relevant number for comparison purposes.


To try to get a handle on the benefits of having a great LT, I have compared Damion McIntosh’s performance with those of the elite LTs in the game over the last 2 years. While there may be others who warrant consideration, I have chosen Walter Jones, Orlando Pace, Jonathan Ogden, Chris Samuels and Bryant McKinnie as the elite LTs for purposes of comparing them to Damion McIntosh.


Sacks Allowed (2005-2006)

McIntosh 9.5
Ogden 12.75
WJones 13
Pace 10.5
Samuels 8
McKinnie 11.75

As indicated above, McIntosh’s numbers stack up very well against the elite LTs. While this does not mean that he is better than 4 of the 5 elite LTs, it does indicate that replacing McIntosh with an elite LT will not necessary result in a reduction of sacks. This is even clearer when you look at pass attempts per sack allowed:

Pass Attempts Per Sack Allowed (2005-2006)

McIntosh 106.6
Ogden 85.2
Jones 75.8
Pace 88.5
Samuels 118.9
McKinnie 89.4

Of course, sacks are not everything. It is also significant when the LT’s man pressures the QB. To try to get a handle on pressures allowed, I determined what percentage of each teams’ sacks each of these LTs allowed and then assumed that these LTs were responsible for an equivalent percentage of the non-sack pressures his team allowed. As above, for McIntosh (and for ease of calculation), I have based this on times that Harrington and Lemon were “under pressure†(excluding Culpepper because McIntosh was not starting at LT when Culpepper was playing).

Attributed Pressures (2006)

McIntosh 21.5 pressures
Ogden 23.67 pressures
Jones 19.3 pressures
Pace 6.7 pressures (in 8 games)
Samuels 19 pressures
McKinnie 19.7 pressures

Here, McIntosh’s number is slightly higher than the others (except Ogden), but not by a significant amount. The same holds true when viewed as pass attempts per pressure allowed:

Attributed Pressures as Pass Attempts Per Pressure (2006)

McIntosh 47.1
Ogden 22.09
Jones 51
Pace 49.25
Samuels 50.05
McKinnie 53.3


Again, McIntosh stacks up pretty well to the elite LTs.


Next, I looked at what percentage of these teams sacks were allowed by the LT. In some respects, this may be as much a measure of the quality of the rest of the teams’ OL as it is the LT, but I figured it would be worth looking at. Besides, I don’t think anyone is arguing that McIntosh’s sacks allowed numbers are low because the rest of the Dolphins OL is so fantastic.

Percentage of Teams’ Sacks Allowed (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 14.2%
Ogden (Ravens) 21.6%
Jones (Seahawks) 17.1%
Pace (Rams) 11%
Samuels (Redskins) 16%
McKinnie (Vikings) 12.1%


McIntosh comes in the middle of the pack among a pretty distinguished group.

Perhaps the explanation for McIntosh’s comparable performance is that he gets more help from RBs and TEs than the elite LTs, who are left out on an island. This explanation, however, is not borne out by my review of the games. Similarly, in reviewing the plays available on Crunch Time’s gif gallery, McIntosh got pass protection help fairly infrequently. Although not dispositive, some stats that bear a relation to the amount of blocking help is available to an OL are the frequencies the teams use a 2 TE set and/or a 4 WR set. A 2 TE set usually provides additional blocking help, while a 4 WR set does not allow for a lot of extra help for the OL.


Number of Pass Attempts with 2 TE Set (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 173
Ogden (Ravens) 174
Jones (Seahawks) 74
Pace (Rams) 184
Samuels (Redskins) 255
McKinnie (Vikings) 157

No real trend or explanation here. The Dolphins were around the middle of this pack in terms of how often they used a 2 TE set.

Pass Attempts from 4 WR Set (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 219
Ogden (Ravens) 213
Jones (Seahawks) 234
Pace (Rams) 375
Samuels (Redskins) 130
McKinnie (Vikings) 177

No real trend here either. The Fins are again in the middle of the pack in terms of how often they threw from a 4 WR set.


Some other splits that relate to the amount of blocking help there likely was on a given play is how often a team was blitzed and how often it threw against a 5 man (or more) rush.

Blitz Pass Attempts (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 410
Ogden (Ravens) 351
Jones (Seahawks) 242
Pace (Rams) 332
Samuels (Redskins) 282
McKinnie (Vikings) 371

The numbers above indicate that the Dolphins faced more blitzes than any of these others teams, and significantly more than some of them. This is significant, because blitzes generally do not allow for RBs, TEs or other OLs to offer a lot of help to the LT.

Pass Attempts Against 5+ Men on Line (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 409
Ogden (Ravens) 396
Jones (Seahawks) 307
Pace (Rams) 335
Samuels (Redskins) 334
McKinnie (Vikings) 354

Here, again, it looks like McIntosh faced more situations with 5+ men on the line than any of these other teams. As with blitzes, this makes it more difficult and unlikely for the LT to be getting significant help from RBs, TEs or other OLs.

Next, I looked at the number of receptions by each team’s RBs and TEs. The logic here is that teams who use their RBs and TEs more extensively in the passing game may tend to use them less frequently in pass protection. Of course, that may not be the case 100% of the time, but it likely has some truth as a generality.


Receptions by RBs and TEs (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 265
Ogden (Ravens) 301
Jones (Seahawks) 196
Pace (Rams) 262
Samuels (Redskins) 301
McKinnie (Vikings) 338

While, not surprisingly, some teams do throw more to RBs and TEs than others, this does not seem to indicate a trend that explains the pass protection numbers. Even if it did, the Dolphins fall in the middle of the pack here, so one can’t really say that the Fins use their RBs and TEs more for pass protection than these other teams.

Another popular explanation for why McIntosh stacks up so well statistically with the top LTs is the contention that the Dolphins had such a quick, short passing game after Culpepper went down that the OL did not have to hold their blocks for long. Statistically, however, the Fins threw downfield (more than 20 yards from scrimmage) more often than any of these other teams other than the Rams.


Passes Thrown Downfield (20+ yards from scrimmage) (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 140
Ogden (Ravens) 104
Jones (Seahawks) 127
Pace (Rams) 161
Samuels (Redskins) 118
McKinnie (Vikings) 117

I don’t think there is a tremendous difference in pass protection requirements for a short pass (behind line to 10 yards from scrimmage) as compared to an intermediate pass (11-20 yards from scrimmage). However, I looked at that just to see if there was something that might explain McIntosh’s pass protection numbers.

Passes Thrown 11-20 Yards from Scrimmage (2005-06)


McIntosh (Dolphins) 235
Ogden (Ravens) 230
Jones (Seahawks) 213
Pace (Rams) 269
Samuels (Redskins) 198
McKinnie (Vikings) 184

No apparent trend there either. In addition to throwing more 20+ yard passes than 4 of these 5 other teams, the Fins also threw more 11-20 yard passes than 4 of the 5.

Pass protection is the main priority of an LT, but it obviously is not the only part of the job. Ideally, an LT, especially an elite one, will also be a great run blocker who consistently opens holes for the RB. Because NFL teams are so concerned about the protecting the QBs blindside, LTs are usually more athletic and nimble than other OLs, but are often weaker run blockers.


To evaluate run blocking, I am relying on Football Outsiders’ Adjusted Line Yards (“ALYâ€Â). A full explanation is available on their website, but it is basically a system that attempts to separate the success of a run due to the OL play from the success due to the RB himself. They track ALY on a directional basis, so I have focused on runs characterized as “left end†and “left tackle.†While an LT may have a significant impact as a puller on runs to the right and must also do his job on run to the middle, there is no way I know of to objectively compare OL performance on these types of plays. I have looked at the ALY numbers for the last 2 years and, since they are not broken down on an individual play or individual game basis, I have used all of 2006 even though McIntosh did not start at the beginning of the season.

Left End Adjusted Line Yards (2005; 2006)



McIntosh (5.0; 3.23)
Ogden (4.5; 3.1)
Jones (4.21; 3.97)
Pace (3.52; 2.7)
Samuels (4.45; 3.81)
McKinnie (4.86; 3.23)

On plays around left end, McIntosh’s numbers grade out as the best of the bunch in 2005 and middle-of-the-pack in 2006. It is not clear how much of the 2006 numbers are from the first 5 games, before McIntosh moved back to LT.

Left Tackle Adjusted Line Yards (2005-2006)



McIntosh (5.13; 4.93)
Ogden (3.72; 4.7)
Jones (3.76; 4.09)
Pace (4.16; 4.12)
Samuels (4.27; 5.39)
McKinnie (5.09; 4.8)

On runs over left tackle, McIntosh’s numbers grade out as the best of the bunch in 2005 and second-best in 2006. Again, it is not clear how much of the 2006 numbers are from the first 5 games, before McIntosh moved back to LT.


I also looked at penalties. Over the past 2 years, however, all six of these LTs had between 50 and 70 penalty yards. McIntosh was in the middle of this pack at 55.

I am not suggesting that McIntosh is as good as these elite LTs. What I am suggesting is that having an elite LT does not necessarily appear to result in fewer sacks, fewer pressures, fewer penalties or greater success running to the left. I don’t think McIntosh has cost the Fins any games over the last 2 years, nor do I think he prevented the Fins from playing the style of offense that it wanted to play. In short, I don’t see LT as a major priority (if we re-sign McIntosh). For the same reason, I think we should re-sign McIntosh, especially since I don’t think he will cost that much. Like many people, I am intrigued with Alabi and would like to see if he can develop into a very good LT. Whether he has or can I leave to the judgment of Hudson Houck. Even if Houck thinks Alabi is ready, I’d still like to keep McIntosh as insurance. In the draft, if a great player is available, then we should consider getting him just like at any other position, but I do not agree with those who say LT is our top priority.


You wasted so much of your own time. But not mine. I watch football. I for one do not think Mccintosh is any sort of long term answer at LT. Alabi is a dream that never seems to come into vision. How you cannot deem needed upgrades at OL when you started out with the Oline was horrible, is beyond my comprehension.


The Oline was horrible, and it got better, but we need future studs. Culpepper is somehow a scapegoat in all of this due to the Oline, but that was just a mirage i guess. I dont know, because after reading the first couple paragraphs, I really didnt need to read anymore. WE NEED STUD OLINEMEN! WE NEED 5 OF THEM!
 

TexanPhinatic

I Pity the Fool
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston
Thats the issue I see with Levi Brown as well, that hes a good run blocker but weaker against the pass. That he really wouldnt be a big upgrade from DMac.
A question for any salary cap guys, if you can figure out an approximate resigning salary for DMac, what would it compare to the price of a #9 pick? Would Brown be cheaper? Significantly? More expensive?

I dunno, I thought the line played well the longer the season went on. Part of the problem is we keep trying to get these minor upgrades and changes and that throws the whole thing off for half the season for really little noticeable difference.

I would much rather try and upgrade the WR spot (Ginn/Jarrett, or a non-first guy like Meachum or Gonzalez), the QB (Quinn if possible), and TE (Gregg Olsen perhaps) than blow our #9 on a guy who might not give us much of an upgrade

And props to the OP on a really nice post!
 

finfan54

Active Roster
Joined
Aug 3, 2002
Messages
26,167
Reaction score
28
Thats the issue I see with Levi Brown as well, that hes a good run blocker but weaker against the pass. That he really wouldnt be a big upgrade from DMac.
A question for any salary cap guys, if you can figure out an approximate resigning salary for DMac, what would it compare to the price of a #9 pick? Would Brown be cheaper? Significantly? More expensive?

I dunno, I thought the line played well the longer the season went on. Part of the problem is we keep trying to get these minor upgrades and changes and that throws the whole thing off for half the season for really little noticeable difference.

I would much rather try and upgrade the WR spot (Ginn/Jarrett, or a non-first guy like Meachum or Gonzalez), the QB (Quinn if possible), and TE (Gregg Olsen perhaps) than blow our #9 on a guy who might not give us much of an upgrade

And props to the OP on a really nice post!

I can gaurantee you this. If we get levi Brown in the draft, not only will he start at Left Tackle, but Ronnie Brown will look to hit off his backside every time. Levi Brown is moving up charts, not down. His pass blocking is weaker than his run blocking, but his run blocking is brutal. Something people fail to even acknowledge. Mark my words, Levi Brown will be an excellent LT. This poor pass blocking crap is out of whack. He is very well known for locking onto DE's and stopping them cold. Dont get this class in persuasion in not drafting a LT or any other linemen for that matter.

Its ludicrous. If we go another year without upgrading our Oline, you can expect more of the same crap year in and year out. Problem is, I do not think Cam Cameron will ignore getting Olinemen. He would not be that stupid IMO like Saban was.
 

jguig

Pro Bowler
☠️ Banned ☠️
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Messages
2,506
Reaction score
6
Your first premise is wrong. Some sacks were indeed due to Culpepper holding onto the ball for an eternity. He looked like he didn't know the playbook. He was wretched.

Mac has had time to prove himself. And prove himself he has. He has proven he isn't a top tier guy, unless we're talking about generating offsides penalties.
 

Tigers2003

FinHeaven VIP
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
2,314
Reaction score
5
I can gaurantee you this. If we get levi Brown in the draft, not only will he start at Left Tackle, but Ronnie Brown will look to hit off his backside every time. Levi Brown is moving up charts, not down. His pass blocking is weaker than his run blocking, but his run blocking is brutal. Something people fail to even acknowledge. Mark my words, Levi Brown will be an excellent LT. This poor pass blocking crap is out of whack. He is very well known for locking onto DE's and stopping them cold. Dont get this class in persuasion in not drafting a LT or any other linemen for that matter.

Its ludicrous. If we go another year without upgrading our Oline, you can expect more of the same crap year in and year out. Problem is, I do not think Cam Cameron will ignore getting Olinemen. He would not be that stupid IMO like Saban was.

You and I think alike. Cam has made it clear that he will NOT overlook the obvious deficiencies with the OL. I would not surprise if DMac is pushed further down the depth chart and eventually outta here. Levi Brown is indeed intriguing. And it is not only LT but get either a RG for depth or starting dependent if the smart thing is done - and that is for Rex to move back to the position where he belongs.

And, go ahead draft a true Center for now and the future. If we go FA route it better be a splash of some sort. I too am sick of getting 2nd hand retreads from losing programs. Yeah that is referring to LJ Shelton alright who did better as the season wore on but was awful for the first 5 or 6 games. Eventually we are going to have to get better than Shelton as well. Yeah I know we can't change everything in one year but a good start needs to happen.

On the positive side I am encouraged by Carey and James. Also, upbeat about getting Alabi and Fonoti more opportunities.
 

rdhstlr23

Go Fins!
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
2,063
Reaction score
0
Location
Jacksonville, Fl
You wasted so much of your own time. But not mine. I watch football. I for one do not think Mccintosh is any sort of long term answer at LT. Alabi is a dream that never seems to come into vision. How you cannot deem needed upgrades at OL when you started out with the Oline was horrible, is beyond my comprehension.


The Oline was horrible, and it got better, but we need future studs. Culpepper is somehow a scapegoat in all of this due to the Oline, but that was just a mirage i guess. I dont know, because after reading the first couple paragraphs, I really didnt need to read anymore. WE NEED STUD OLINEMEN! WE NEED 5 OF THEM!

You don't need 5 studs on the Oline. You need a cohesive unit that understands where they need to be and their roles. I didn't even need to read this whole post to know that this is wrong. You wasted your own time by replying to this and saying that we need 5 new OLineman and they all need to be studs. I watch football too, and know you don't need this.
 
Top Bottom