You must have missed my previous post where I listed numerous other stats such as pass blocking win rate, time to throw, etc.
No.. GRYPHONK didn't miss iI. It just doesn't help your case.
Context is important.
For instance.
2.6 secs to throw
2.5 secs to throw
However, the Bengals did not utilize 6 or 7 blockers as much as Miami needed to. When you take into account the glaring diferrence of 6 or 7 blockers needed for Tua to get 2.5 ecs. Than compare it to the 5 standard blockers Burrow needed to get 2.6 secs.
Simply put, on average, it took 6 blockers to afford .1 second less for Tua than 5 blockers for Burrow.
So again....context.... is it still clear to claim the O lines were similar or the Bengals were equal to Miamis when you add context.
Additionally..... people like to use PFF for stats.
Out of 83 tackles
Liam-80th
Davis- 81st
Put in perspective, they didn't rank in the top 64 meaning Miami did not deploy a starting quality tackle all season. As a matter of fact, 18 backup or rotational tackles were better than Miamis starters.
Out of 83 guards, Jackson rated 76th. Again not even starter quality. 13 backups rated better.
3 out of our 5 starters didn't rate at starter quality. None even ranked top 10 of the backups.
Dieter? 29th put of 40. Dieter atleast rated starter quality, but he also ranked as the 4th worst starter.
Hunt? 37 out of 64
Finally we have a starter quality
But not even top tier. He was second level, didn't rank top 32.
GRYPHONK is curious.... where do you think the Bengals starters ranked? GRYPHONK doesn't know. Maybe GRYPHONK would be surprised.
But any rational, common sense observer would understand not 1 team came close to having as bad a line as the Phins.
See GRYPHONK can use stats too. Only diferrence is GRYPHONK'S stats actually supports GRYPHONK'S stance.
Also... all those cute stats you used were calculated into the overall values that GRYPHONK presented.
As a whole... you stats mean little
Carry on though