- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,213
- Reaction score
- 269
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.
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.
