ESPN SEC Offensive Unit Ranking Average

#26
#26
livefaith said:
#1 Yeah, were this strategy to be accurate, then each position groups importance would have to be identical. Who knows what that value is for each group?

#2 The second issue I see with this type of ranking is that it as a "ranking". #1 could be 40% better than #4, or it could just as well be 1.25% better than #4. One would mean "drastically better" while the other means "statistically equal". So, just looking at the rankings might naturally distort ones opinion of actual value.

That being said, if your going to be listed in a ranking, #1 is the place to be. Happy as heck that somebody actually thinks so. Maybe just maybe they know what they are talking about. :pepper:
Click to expand...

This.
 
#28
#28
with the weakest being the OL

11. Tennessee: This is a group that could move up these rankings. The Volunteers had a rough go in 2014 (allowing an SEC worst 43 sacks) but showed a lot of growth as the season went on. The Vols bring back four starters from last season’s unit, and Butch Jones signed two of the top 10 offensive tackles in the 2015 recruiting class: Drew Richmond and Jack Jones.
 
#29
#29
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
List looks about right. I expect Tennessee and Auburn to play in the SEC championship game. I think Alabama is in for a down year (9-3).
Click to expand...

Bama has had a top 5 recruiting class every year since 08. . .a 9-3 season would be a huge disappoint for Bama fans
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#33
#33
Volinnooga said:
That assumes all 5 rankings are equally weighted. That's an erroneous assumption. OL is far more important than WR andiMO more important than RB.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

Skill positions are more important than O-line. If you have the size and athleticism on the O-Line commensurate with your peers (we do) then it's all about coaching and working as a unit.

NFL salary distributions will tell you all you need to know about which positions are more in demand. O-line probably deserves the most respect, but an RB who can outrun the secondary or make people miss and a WR who can get open and get YAC > O-line.
 
#34
#34
Eddie Vol Halen said:
NFL salary distributions will tell you all you need to know about which positions are more in demand. O-line probably deserves the most respect, but an RB who can outrun the secondary or make people miss and a WR who can get open and get YAC > O-line.
Click to expand...

Actually, the book Blindside noted that Left Tackle is the second-highest-paid position in pro football, after only the QB. I've read that other places, as well. No reason to believe it's not true.
 
#35
#35
Volinnooga said:
That assumes all 5 rankings are equally weighted. That's an erroneous assumption. OL is far more important than WR andiMO more important than RB.
Click to expand...

There is only 4 and I did weight them evenly. I say QB should be weighted most then ol. Rb and wr/the no weight.
 
#36
#36
We deff need the oline to improve and the wrs to stay healthy. On a side note, ut has to play 6 of the bottom 8 in average ranking, could mean good things if the d continues to improve
 
#37
#37
Volinnooga said:
That assumes all 5 rankings are equally weighted. That's an erroneous assumption. OL is far more important than WR andiMO more important than RB.
Click to expand...

OK so I totally changed the formula for everyone and will continue to update it as ESPN releases the rankings.

Here is what I am doing now.

I am giving 14 points for 1st place down to 1 point for last point in their rankings. Then I am multiplying the points by 2 for QB and 1.5 of OL and DL.

I think everyone can agree those are the three most important positions in the SEC. I think RB, WR, LB and DB are all pretty equal and just left those with no extra weight. That acceptable for everyone?

I think I may weight special teams by 1.5 but would love feedback.

SO FAR with ESPN giving QB, RB, WR/TE, OL and DL rankings only the list looks like this with point totals. LB, DB and ST still to come, maybe they'll even do coaching as well and if so I'll probably give that a double weight like QB.

1 - Tennessee - 74 points
2 - Auburn - 73 points
3 - Alabama - 64 points
3 - Miss St - 64 points
5 - Texas A&M - 62 points
6 - Georgia - 60.5
6 - Arkansas - 60.5
8 - Missouri - 59.5
8- LSU - 59.5
10 - Ole Miss - 46
11 - Florida - 42
12 - South Carolina - 32
13 - Kentucky - 30
14 - Vandy - 8 (Ouch)

So that is what it looks like so far with LB, DB, ST and maybe coaching to come.

Not trying to rustle any jimmies just thought it would be interesting to look at and this is about all we have to talk about right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#38
#38
Ericvol2096 said:
OK so I totally changed the formula for everyone and will continue to update it as ESPN releases the rankings.

Here is what I am doing now.

I am giving 14 points for 1st place down to 1 point for last point in their rankings. Then I am multiplying the points by 2 for QB and 1.5 of OL and DL.

I think everyone can agree those are the three most important positions in the SEC. I think RB, WR, LB and DB are all pretty equal and just left those with no extra weight. That acceptable for everyone?
Click to expand...

jmo... but I think this formula is still questionable as per my prior post. In this case, you are essentially saying that 1 QB is more valuable than 5-6 OL/DL (or 10 - 12 OL/DL?). That is not the same thing as saying a single QB is more valuable than a single OL/DL. And I can assure you... any NFL team would be willing to trade a single QB for the equivalent 5-6 OL/DL without hesitating. That's why I suggested weighting the scores based more so on the number of players on the field... and then you can take a true average of the values.
 
#39
#39
IBlvNTmWrk said:
jmo... but I think this formula is still questionable as per my prior post. In this case, you are essentially saying that 1 QB is more valuable than 5-6 OL/DL (or 10 - 12 OL/DL?). That is not the same thing as saying a single QB is more valuable than a single OL/DL. And I can assure you... any NFL team would be willing to trade a single QB for the equivalent 5-6 OL/DL without hesitating. That's why I suggested weighting the scores based more so on the number of players on the field... and then you can take a true average of the values.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. No position is more important than QB in the NFL.
 
#40
#40
IBlvNTmWrk said:
jmo... but I think this formula is still questionable as per my prior post. In this case, you are essentially saying that 1 QB is more valuable than 5-6 OL/DL (or 10 - 12 OL/DL?). That is not the same thing as saying a single QB is more valuable than a single OL/DL. And I can assure you... any NFL team would be willing to trade a single QB for the equivalent 5-6 OL/DL without hesitating. That's why I suggested weighting the scores based more so on the number of players on the field... and then you can take a true average of the values.
Click to expand...

OK for our OL and DL weighted folks here it is.

OL and DL got x2 and QB x1.5 and rest 1.

SO FAR

1 - Auburn - 78.5
2 - Tennessee - 75.5
3 - Bama - 73.5
4 - Georgia - 71
5 - LSU - 66.5
6 - Ark - 65
7 - A&M - 64
8 - Miss St - 62
9 - Missouri - 58
10 - Ole Miss - 53.5
11 - Florida - 46
12 - South Carolina - 38
13 - Kentucky - 27.5
14 - Vandy - 8.5
 
#42
#42
Vol8188 said:
No they wouldn't. No position is more important than QB in the NFL.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said, and not what his weighting formula says. It says that 1 QB is more important than the entire OL/DL combined. Do you agree with this?
 
#44
#44
IBlvNTmWrk said:
That's not what I said, and not what his weighting formula says. It says that 1 QB is more important than the entire OL/DL combined. Do you agree with this?
Click to expand...

But it's not based on position. It's based on function. The OLine serves one main function: blocking.

I notice you didn't object to the Wide Receivers and Tight Ends being counted as one. Even though there can be as many as five of them on the field, too.

So, in a functional sense, yes, one QB function (field general distributing the ball) can be as important to the team's success as one OLine function (blocking).

It's really not meant as disrespect to the OLine, they're important dudes too. They just all contribute together to that single (very important) function.
 
#45
#45
VFL-82-JP said:
But it's not based on position. It's based on function. The OLine serves one main function: blocking.

I notice you didn't object to the Wide Receivers and Tight Ends being counted as one. Even though there can be as many as five of them on the field, too.

So, in a functional sense, yes, one QB function (field general distributing the ball) can be as important to the team's success as one OLine function (blocking).

It's really not meant as disrespect to the OLine, they're important dudes too. They just all contribute together to that single (very important) function.
Click to expand...

Did you see the weighted line ranking I posted?
 
#46
#46
IBlvNTmWrk said:
And I can assure you... any NFL team would be willing to trade a single QB for the equivalent 5-6 OL/DL without hesitating.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm saying no to. Finding a qb is the most difficult challenge for any NFL team. The ones who find one win. The ones who don't find one lose.
 
#48
#48
Ericvol2096 said:
Did you see the weighted line ranking I posted?
Click to expand...

Yeah I did, I liked it. I actually responded about it in your other thread. In the note you quoted, I was responding to the fellow who seemed unhappy that the 5 OLinemen weren't getting even heavier weighting.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top