This honestly might be my favorite post in this entire thread so far.

it's looking more and more like i will have to take the guy i really do not want to take

Sterling > Harrison in this format.

Bobbo,

Maybe that is a good point, but maybe he has it backwards? Offensive linemen, due to our lack of stats, are judged completely based on how they are perceived to perform, thats it. They do or don't let a DE get by them. They do or don't create holes for the RB. They do or don't get lots of penalties.

When judging/voting for a QB the decisions mostly are based on stats which are very high variance and dependent on the coaches, receivers, blocking, etc.

/edit how were NFL pro-bowl rosters determined before they started doing fan voting?

Except that's not even the argument, the argument was that u thought they weren't the best ever. Name another oline better than them please.

As someone who came into this draft thinking that Marvin was clearly better than Sharpe, I think you've done a great job of defending your guy and you've caused me to reconsider.

If I were you I'd also point out league average stats for WRs in the two time periods which would suggest that Marvin's numbers advantage isn't nearly as big(if an advantage at all).

Bobbo, can you give me a link to that article please?

SL - thats a really good point. that said, does anyone track how many sacks allowed a particular player ON the offensive line let up? how many penalties/year? I would love to just look at ANY metric that lists ANY sort of tangible data.

the only thing i can do for this draft is go by pro-bowls; other then that im somewhat lost. i think needle probably has a wider knowledge of OL, but his strat has been to go for the elite ones first, so he probably wont even get an opp. to make use of that knowledge. i also don't think going by pro-bowls is a bad strat, but it is my only strat.

Denver of the late 90s.

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomi...otball/page/2/

Ok I disagree we will obv have to wait til all the players are drafted to discuss further

actually another good point here....has Needle not negated his biggest strength(evaluating o-linemen) by going for the obvious ones first?

for example, id love for statisticians to record how often a WR is "thrown to". i know IN GAME this is done alot (like last night Pats vs Chargers they showed moss was throw to 3 times but only had 1 rec) but i can't seem to find any site that shows passes dropped per year, thrown to, etc. this is more useful then just the raw "rec".

well done zoidberg

The only decent O-Line stats I know of are Football Outsiders "Offensive line" stats which are team, not player, stats and are only available (freely) for this year.

I would assume FOs game charting data has some more great info, but again that costs money and is only for the last few years.

The other guy would be a bad pick for me considering who I took in the first round, so the fact that he is available still shouldn't be held against my pick at all.

I think Aikman and him are close, pretty much comes down to what type of offense you want to run imo.

I'm still curious as to what the negatives of Aikman are, besides the fact that he played on a loaded team that didn't ask him to put up gawdy numbers.

I just found this:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/flas...HIC/index.html

Which is really awesome, but only for 2005?

Faneca is a good pick, I definitely considered him.
Hutch is solid too I think.

yeah, that's the problem, most OL stats concern the OL as a whole rather than the individual. meh

I'm pretty sure Aikman is acknowledged as one of the most accurate passers of all time. He certainly didn't lack for arm strength either; I think someone mentioned his ability to throw the deep in/corner or something like that. If you watch video of him you can see he throws a really tight ball with super-high revolutions.

What does this mean? Nothing really. But I think its stupid to penalize the guy qualitatively because he played with the all time-leading rusher, an arguably top-10 or 15 receiver, and a ridiculous O-line. He had a lot of tools with or without the help he had in Dallas.

Agree 100%. This isn't an average guy who luckboxed into a good situation. This is a super talented guy with all the tools who luckboxed into a good situation. But he was as much a part of the situation in Dallas as anyone.

I guess my main point is he had all the tools. He is one of the most accurate QB's ever, had a strong arm, good build, was tough as hell, and was a great leader. Plus this format helps him.

can you elaborate? as far as I can tell this format seems to reward big years and punish consistency

1. I think he was much better and talented than his numbers show. Not many QB's played on teams as loaded as those Cowboys teams to where they could have a super talented QB and win with him throwing it 20 times. He had games where he threw for 350 yards+ when they needed a big performance out of him, they were just committed to the run to the point where he couldn't put up 4500 yard seasons.

2. He can be effective in different types of systems (You don't have to go with one offense just to make it work with him).

3. He played QB on those Dallas teams, filled with an immense amount of ego, and was a very strong leader. A guy like that is going to be needed for these teams since it will basically be teams full of all stars, having a QB who has dealt with that is a pretty big positive imo.

Yep, I had a feeling the guard run was coming. Considered Faneca or Hutchinson but decided in the end to go with Dawson. I think all 3 are fine picks.

Umm...edit? Seriously what's with all the outing of names?