Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I think @Drew4UTk might be tinckering. Maybe super glue or something.

In a nutshell, it's good to now allow many sacks, but the stats show it's more about your QB than it is about your OL.  So that's not a valid support for the claim.



As an aside, I was doing a though experiment as I walked my class to lunch.  People don't like the WAR stat in baseball, but it at least does a decent job of taking everything into account and producing one number.  Yes, it's an equation, but it got me thinking about different little truths in football.
Like....a yard of rushing is worth more than a yard of passing.  One could think a yard = a yard, but there's two reasons for this distinction:
1 - a yard of rushing takes more time off the clock.  So you've gained that plus outcome and gotten closer to the end of the game, so it's slightly more valuable., and
2 - teams always average more yards per pass attempt than per rush attempt, making passing yards more common per chance, so each yard of rushing is worth slightly more.


If you can handle that, we can move on to the next idea:
A yard prevented is worth more than a yard allowed.
Again, two reasons for this - one anecdotal (but I believe supported by evidence) and one theoretical-valid):
1 - teams with great defenses tend to beat teams with great offenses, at least in big games.  We mostly feel this to be true and there are many instances, but if we really researched it, I think we'd find it's the case, and
2 - the fact that if you don't give up any points, you can't lose the game.  Your offense can gain nothing and you score no points, and you'll usually lose, but sometimes you'll garner a tie.  But when you allow no yards and no points, you can't ever lose, the worst you can do is tie.  This is just a logical outcome to a radical "what if" scenario.



So where to go after these, I'm not sure.  Yes, you could break it down to this:
a rushing yard prevented  >  a passing yard prevented > a rushing yard gained > a passing yard gained


If anyone wants to dispute this or talk about it, let's do that before moving on.

In a nutshell, it's good to now allow many sacks, but the stats show it's more about your QB than it is about your OL.  So that's not a valid support for the claim.



As an aside, I was doing a though experiment as I walked my class to lunch.  People don't like the WAR stat in baseball, but it at least does a decent job of taking everything into account and producing one number.  Yes, it's an equation, but it got me thinking about different little truths in football.
Like....a yard of rushing is worth more than a yard of passing.  One could think a yard = a yard, but there's two reasons for this distinction:
1 - a yard of rushing takes more time off the clock.  So you've gained that plus outcome and gotten closer to the end of the game, so it's slightly more valuable., and
2 - teams always average more yards per pass attempt than per rush attempt, making passing yards more common per chance, so each yard of rushing is worth slightly more.


If you can handle that, we can move on to the next idea:
A yard prevented is worth more than a yard gained.
Again, two reasons for this - one anecdotal (but I believe supported by evidence) and one theoretical-valid):
1 - teams with great defenses tend to beat teams with great offenses, at least in big games.  We mostly feel this to be true and there are many instances, but if we really researched it, I think we'd find it's the case, and
2 - the fact that if you don't give up any points, you can't lose the game.  Your offense can gain nothing and you score no points, and you'll usually lose, but sometimes you'll garner a tie.  But when you allow no yards and no points, you can't ever lose, the worst you can do is tie.  This is just a logical outcome to a radical "what if" scenario.



So where to go after these, I'm not sure.  Yes, you could break it down to this:
a rushing yard prevented  >  a passing yard prevented > a rushing yard gained > a passing yard gained


If anyone wants to dispute this or talk about it, let's do that before moving on.

New page...

I'm sure he's in the conversation but for posterity's sake you might want to add IMO,jut sayin'

for opinions, sure. But Larry Allen being the GOAT OG is just fact. I honestly don't know who you could argue over him. John Hannah was almost 100 pounds lighter, less athletic and nimble on his feet, and nowhere near as strong as Larry Allen. Larry Allen is in a class all by himself when it comes to offensive guards.

Yeah, well, people who played with and against other players from other eras might throw out different names.  You do sort of have a habit of declaring your opinion a fact and then slamming a gavel down like it’s the end of the discussion.
Allen was great.  He might very well be the best guard of all time.  He is certainly on the short list, but it can be debated.

Sure. Anyone can debate it. And they'll lose that debate.

Larry Allen was listed at 330 pounds. He was probably really more like 350 pounds. He bench pressed 700 pounds for shits and giggles and ripped off like 50 reps of 225 pounds just for fun at one of those stupid pro bowl skills challenge things. Who can forget him hitting the jets and chasing down and tackling that defender who intercepted Aikman and preventing a pick 6 in the process. Larry Allen was freakishly big, freakishly strong, and freakishly light on his feet for a man his size. No one in any era could deal with him. IF he played in the eras before his time he'd have just dominated even more than he already did. Larry Allen literally scared defensive linemen, linebackers, and safeties and made them physically quit. They would just quit because they were so terrified of the punishment he was dishing out on them. There are clips of this guy launching 250 pound NFL linebackers 15 yards and tossing them around like they were rag dolls.
Anyone can debate anything. There is plenty of room for stupid debates. Debating that Larry Allen isn't the greatest guard to ever play the game is just a stupid debate.

for opinions, sure. But Larry Allen being the GOAT OG is just fact. 

Yeah, you don't know what a fact is.  
You're a slave to hyperbole and the like..."he was listed at 330 lb but was more like 350..."

Great, enjoy your childish corner of the fanboy internet and let the adults talk.

for opinions, sure. But Larry Allen being the GOAT OG is just fact. I honestly don't know who you could argue over him. John Hannah was almost 100 pounds lighter, less athletic and nimble on his feet, and nowhere near as strong as Larry Allen. Larry Allen is in a class all by himself when it comes to offensive guards.

Again your crossing over timelines.How would he have played years ago with out all the benefits of today,PEDs and physical conditioning - that is speculation and purely speculation on your part.And don't tell me they didn't use muscle enhancing supplements because you'll be flagged for excessive bullshit.Guy was great but so were those that surrounded him.They simply couldn't go around him as they would run into some one who had already lead them to two Super Bowl victories