Orton's Arm

This is a potentially confusing issue, so I'll try to make things clear. For each OL starter you obtain via a first day draft choice, your expected number of wins increases by one. Individual results will vary. Let me put this another way: suppose you were going to meet someone for the first time, and were asked to guess that person's height in advance. If you're told that person is a seventh grader, the expected value of that person's height is going to be lower than if you're told that the person is an eighth grader. Likewise, if you were asked to blindly guess a team's winning percentage, your guess should be higher if you know that team obtained its starting offensive line via the first day of the draft. While I'm at it, I may as well address that whole correlation/causation issue that's been raised. Ramius gave a good example of ice cream being positively correlated with drowning deaths. In that case, both the ice cream consumption and drowning deaths were driven by some third factor (hot weather). You raised a different type of correlation/causation issue: the 4th overall pick tending to get more Pro Bowl appearances than the 1st overall pick. This, I believe, is caused by random chance; and by the excellent play of Mike Williams. Or at least by random chance. Is the correlation I've observed driven by some third factor? Those who suggest it might be would do well to articulate what they feel this third factor might be. As for the random chance possibility, that can be tested with a nice F test. My knowledge of stats is a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure we're looking at 30 degrees of freedom for X and for Y. I obtained an F value of 3.72; which means my findings are significant at alpha levels of both 0.05 and 0.01. In English, this means I'm more than 99% sure the results I obtained aren't due to random chance.

It seems we're not on the same page here. My regression was intended to answer a very specific question: "Do teams which build their starting offensive lines through first day picks tend to win more games than teams that don't?" The answer is a strong yes. You suggest various tools that I should be using: control groups, a definition of a good offensive lineman, means of controlling for other variables, etc. While these tools aren't required to answer the question I asked, they may be needed to answer a different question you have in mind. What specific question is it you would like to see answered?

I know the outcome of the second regression may seem obvious in hindsight. But without the regression, could you really say for certain if it was better to fill your offensive line via first-day picks, second-day picks, or free agents? Teams have found successful offensive linemen through each of these three methods; so it's not immediately obvious that finding one's OL starters through the first day of the draft would correlate so strongly with winning. But the correlation is there, which is what the regression shows.

This is just a pet peeve of mine, so bear with me. But you should have written, "when a team does well," not "when a team does good." Nothing personal, it's just that that particular thing bugs me. I admit I sowed a little confusion about the role high draft picks play in determining a team's success. The first regression I ran sort of showed that simply using high draft choices on offensive linemen won't do much good. The second regression showed that when you actually succeed in filling starting OL positions with early draft choices, it helps a lot. At least on average. On average, men are taller than women. But you could find plenty of examples where an individual woman was taller than a specific man. Likewise, you could find examples where a team that built its offensive line through free agency or lower round draft choices had a better OL and a more successful team than a team which found its OL starters via high round draft picks. But if your intention is to build an offensive line through free agency or lower round draft picks, the odds are stacked against you. Teams typically don't let their best offensive linemen hit free agency. Orlando Pace is a Ram for life. Or when a good offensive lineman does hit free agency; it's often late in his career. Chris Villarrial is a good example of this, as is our own Ruben Brown. As for lower round picks, there was a thread about the topic a while ago. Apparently the last 15 or so day 2 offensive linemen the Bills drafted contributed very little to the team. (The initial post excluded anyone drafted more recently than 2004.)

No. According to the regression I ran, each time you fill a starting OL spot with a first day pick, it's worth one extra win. Assuming the Bills experienced this in an average way, the transition from Jonas Jennings to Mike Gandy cost the team one win, and the transition from the healthy, great run-blocking Mike Williams of 2004 to the mediocre run blocking of Jason Peters in 2005 cost the team another win. So just based on those two changes, you'd expect the Bills' record to go from 9-7 to 7-9. The fact the actual decline was larger is due to the defensive decline you mentioned, and to other factors.

The data were gathered according to the methodology I described in the part II thread. That is, I looked at each team's starting offensive linemen, and counted how many had been obtained via that team's own first day draft picks. As for the other questions you asked, you are a most greedy person! That said, I'm tempted to at least do the QBs, because it would be a little easier than some of that other stuff, and because QB is such an important/controversial position.

New England is sort of an exception. They've used first day picks to find two offensive line starters.

I happen to have the data nicely typed in with which to answer a similar question to the one you asked. According to the regression I just ran, each time you succeed in finding an offensive line starter through the first round, you will win nearly two more games each year. On the other hand, each time you succeed in filling a starting OL position with a 2nd or 3rd round pick, you'll increase the expected number of wins by only half a game each year. Probably the first effect is so strong because of people like Orlando Pace, Jonathan Ogden, and other very successful first round OL picks.

On average, teams which build their lines through first day picks tend to do better than teams which build their lines through other means. Denver is obviously an exception. As for Indy, I remember that problems with their line were one of the main causes for their playoff loss. I'm not saying their line is a disaster, just that it's not as good as advertised.

This time around, I looked at how many offensive line starters each team had obtained by using its draft picks in rounds 1 - 3. It turns out that teams which obtained their starting offensive linemen through first-day draft picks tended to do better than teams that obtained them in other ways. On average, each additional starting offensive lineman you obtained via a first-day pick equaled one extra win. I know this conclusion seems to contradict the last thread I started on the topic. Here's how I did the analysis differently: - I looked at all the early-round offensive linemen a team drafted, not just those drafted since 2001. - I ignored offensive linemen who were allowed to leave via free agency, as well as those who weren't starters. - I included third round picks. My other analysis showed (sort of) that simply throwing high round picks at your offensive line doesn't necessarily equate to wins. This analysis--which is more rigorous in my view--demonstrates that when teams succeed in building an offensive line through first day picks, they tend to win more games than teams which find their linemen in other ways. The Bills are a good example of this. In 2004, two of the starting linemen were first-day picks. The offensive line played pretty well, and the team went 9-7. By the midpoint of 2005, zero starting offensive linemen were first-day picks. The line's play got a lot worse, and the team went 5-11.

If you read my sig, you'll see I feel TD neglected the offensive line. I ran the analysis thinking there would be a correlation between the number of offensive linemen taken and the number of wins. Well, there wasn't; at least not the way I analyzed the data. I would gleefully have posted my analysis had it turned out the way I thought it would. It didn't, but I figured I'd put it out there anyway in hopes people would shoot it down. But I want it definitively shot down, in a way which clearly and quantitatively shows the relationship between taking offensive linemen early and winning football games.

Let me address the objections that were made to my analysis Valid Objections - Too short a timespan was covered. Agreed. A good offensive lineman lasts a long time. - Offensive linemen drafted in 2005 shouldn't have been included. Agreed. I watched Orlando Pace get schooled as a rookie. - R^2 cannot be negative. True. It was very late when I posted that. I meant to write that the correlation was very slightly less than zero. Borderline Objections - Only first and second round offensive linemen were looked at. It's possible that the difference between a good and bad offensive line is taking linemen (especially interior linemen) in the third round. My analysis didn't address the effect of any round after the second. Invalid Objections - The success or failure of each offensive lineman taken was ignored. The point of my analysis was to see if the simple act of taking more offensive linemen in the early rounds would increase a team's winning percentage. - Other factors were ignored, such as the quality of the defense, etc. The beauty of statistics is that you can isolate one particular factor and test for significance; while ignoring everything else. For instance, let's say you wanted to test to see if ninth graders were, on average, taller than eighth graders. Many factors go into height, including diet, heredity, gender, etc. But assuming you use good random sampling techniques and large enough sample sizes, all that other junk will cancel itself out, and the height difference between the two grade levels will shine through.

Here goes: Team, #linemen, winning percentage Arizona 1 0.312 Atlanta 0 0.5 Baltimore 1 0.375 Buffalo 1 0.312 Carolina 2 0.688 Chicago 1 0.688 Cincinnati 2 0.688 Cleveland 1 0.375 Dallas 3 0.562 Denver 1 0.812 Detroit 2 0.312 Green Bay 0 0.25 Houston 1 0.125 Indy 0 0.875 Jacksonville 3 0.75 KC 0 0.625 Miami 1 0.562 Minnesota 2 0.562 New England 2 0.625 New Orleans 3 0.188 NY Giants 1 0.688 NY Jets 0 0.25 Oakland 3 0.25 Philly 1 0.375 Pitts 1 0.688 San Diego 1 0.562 San Fran 3 0.25 Seattle 2 0.812 St. Louis 1 0.375 Tampa Bay 1 0.688 Tennessee 1 0.25 Washington 0 0.625

Is there a relationship between taking offensive linemen early and winning? Not according to my analysis. I looked at how many offensive linemen each team took in the first two rounds of the draft, from 2001 - 2005. I then compared that number with each team's winning percentage in the 2005 season. There was no meaningful relationship between the two (R^2= -0.015). This surprised me, because I'm firmly convinced a team needs a good offensive line if it's going to win games. Thoughts?

I saw Ronnie Brown wearing a dark visor last year. Maybe that's where Willis got the idea from.

As you point out, some of those incompletions will be the QB simply throwing the ball away. Others will be the DB or DL batting the ball down. And even good QBs make lousy throws from time to time. But when the ball is well thrown, the receiver needs to catch it. If he can't, there's no reason for him to be given a roster spot above all the other WRs we have.

Buddy, you were doing well up until this post. Gibson getting so little playing time and him not breaking into the second string are both valid concerns. But Boond had a convincing-sounding explanation for the lack of playing time at least. You know Villarrial won't last forever, so you want to use the preseason to see if his replacement is already on the roster.

Yes, JP has looked better this preseason. That said, if you take into account the time Nall missed due to injury, and the fact he didn't get to play as much as JP, it's not like he had the same chance to shine that JP had. I'd like it if the Bills gave Nall the lion's share of game 4 to really see what he can do.

It's funny how the same people who warn against the danger of writing Losman off after eight games are perfectly willing to write Nall off after a quarter or two of preseason play.

Current: Brett Favre All-time: Joe Montana, with Johnny Unitas in second Montana may be the closest thing to a perfect quarterback the NFL will ever see.

You may have watched the Ravens 2000 defense. That defense functioned as though the 11 men were fused into a single organism. There were no weaknesses; the organism would be present wherever the ball was present. Well . . . the Bills' defense I watched last night was nothing like that. Individual players would sometimes make good plays at random--a tackle for a loss here, a batted down pass there. But there was no cohesion, no consistency for the defense as a whole. It looked like 11 individuals playing the game as individuals, and not like any sort of unified whole. The defensive line couldn't generate a consistent pass rush, the secondary couldn't provide consistent coverage, and I wasn't too impressed with the linebackers as a group.

You bring up good points. Still, I wanted that game to go into overtime, because 1 1/2 quarters isn't enough time to really get a feel for Nall.

Glad you liked his post.

Ummm . . . how do I put this? In theory what you're saying sounds great. If you knew it was going to be exactly three yards a carry, every single time, you could go for it on 4th and 1 at your own 15. Then you'd go for it again on 4th and 1 at your own 27, and again on your own 39, and again . . . and the defense would never stop even one of those 4th down conversions. Yup, a running back who gets exactly three yards a carry every single time, absolutely guaranteed, could move the chains in this way. That hypothetical running back has absolutely nothing to do with Willis McGahee, but it's nice to imagine.

The Dallas offense was loaded with talent. You had the best offensive line in football, a real quarterback in Troy Aikman, a receiver who needed double coverage in Michael Irvin, a deep threat in Alvin Harper, a good blocking fullback in Moose Johnston, and a good tight end. No real weaknesses anywhere. If Emmitt couldn't get the running game going, the Dallas offensive line would give Aikman all day to throw, and he'd complete passes to the likes of Michael Irvin. In contrast, Sanders played on a team without much of an offensive line, without a real passing threat, without much of anything. If you stopped Barry Sanders, you stopped Detroit. Emmitt Smith finished his career with a 4.2 YPC average. Barry Sanders' average was 5.0. And before you blame that difference on the fact Smith played longer, bear in mind that there was only one year where Smith equalled or exceeded 5.0 YPC. Smith averaged 34 receptions a year; Sanders averaged 35. Both were great backs, but Sanders achieved more, with less help from his teammates.