CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on April 07, 2019, 10:58:02 PM
-
Just going to put this here:
1992-1995 Dallas Cowboys offensive line:
T - Mark Tuinei.........undrafted (Hawai'i)
G - Nate Newton.......undrafted (Florida A&M)
C - Mark Stepnoski.....3rd round (Pitt, as an All-American)
G - Kevin Gogan........8th round (Washington)
T - Erik Williams........3rd round (Central St (NAIA))
These guys weren't exactly world-beaters until they had Aikman-Smith-Irvin around them, were they? Only one legit, valued prospect (Stepnoski). Newton was a journeyman USFL fatty. Tuinei was arrested for assault in college. Williams had to go NAIA because of grades. Gogan moved all around the line, not carving out a spot for himself, really, ever.
These guys get a lot of credit, and much of it is probably warranted, but I think the Herschel Walker trade warrants much of it as well. Isn't it possible that the Dallas dynasty was mainly due to great skill position talent and a great defense as much as it was an all-time great OL? What if it was merely a good OL? Crazy talk?
-
The Central St Marauders in Ohio?
-
no one ever called them that- The Great Wall of Dallas back in the 90s when they were actually playing. I have no idea where the NFL Network even got that from. Just pulled it out of a hat maybe. Or one of the producers of that football life shows ass maybe.
Doesn't really matter where someone was drafted, matters how they played really. I think what kind of made that group special is that those guys had ridiculous size for that era for the most part- aside from Stepnoski who was smallish. The rest of them were enormous and kind of really started the trend of seeing people that big up front.
Stepnoski should probably be in the HOF some day, he was an elite center for that or any era really. I think he was a 4x All-Pro and 6x Pro Bowler. Regardless, he was arguably the very best center in the game for a good 5 year stretch.
Erik Williams 100% absolutely would've been a HOF LOCK had he never gotten into that crazy car accident. It was a miracle he lived let alone went on to play NFL football again. He was just never the same after that accident.
Larry Allen by the way was a starter for the Cowboys most of 1994 and an all of 1995- and he's 1st ballot HOF'er and that is the baddest dude to EVER play any OL position and the best guard to ever play the game if you ask me.
That's 3 HOF caliber OL's right there.
-
Mkay, but only 1 is in the HOF, as as soon as Lomas Brown is inducted in the next few years, Sanders will have had as many HOF OL blocking for him as Smith did.
-
The Central St Marauders in Ohio?
Yes, in Ohio.
-
Mkay, but only 1 is in the HOF, as as soon as Lomas Brown is inducted in the next few years, Sanders will have had as many HOF OL blocking for him as Smith did.
Ummmm, what? I doubt Lomas Brown will ever be inducted into the HOF. Hall of Very Good. Hall of Fame? Nah. Nate Newton made a bunch of Pro Bowls like Lomas Brown too, and not sure he's a HOFer either. Kevin Glover was the Lions best OL during that era. Brown had the bigger name recognition as he was a 1st round pick and played the premier OL position in LT, but Glover was the better offensive linemen. Regardless, an OL is more than just 1 or 2 guys. And Glover at his best wasn't as good as Stepnoski at his best. And Brown at his best wasn't as good as Erik Williams or Larry Allen at their best. Erik Williams would've went down in history as one of the GOAT OLs like Larry Allen did if not for the car accident which just destroyed his body. He was never the same. He used to be the baddest OT in the NFL- he would routinely whip Charles Haley's ass in practice and then go whip Reggie White's and Bruce Smith's asses in the playoff. There were games he had against Reggie White where he just flat out bullied him. Reggie...White.
You are severely under-estimating the greatness of Erik Williams.
-
Just going to put this here:
These guys weren't exactly world-beaters until they had Aikman-Smith-Irvin around them, were they? Only one legit, valued prospect (Stepnoski). Newton was a journeyman USFL fatty. Tuinei was arrested for assault in college. Williams had to go NAIA because of grades. Gogan moved all around the line, not carving out a spot for himself, really, ever.
why not put this in the Draft thread?
An O-lineman that was arrested in College? probably a indicator of greatness. Bad grades in college or high school??? Big uglies don't need much education to line up and pile drive folks.
Yes, the Hershel Walker trade was what built the dynasty, along with Jimmy Johnson's need for speed.
Aikman wasn't the greatest QB in history, Irvin wasn't the greatest receiver, and Emmitt in my opinion wasn't the greatest running back, but together with moose Johnson and the O-line, plus the great defense, put the Cowboys on top for a long time
-
Agendas.
-
just be thankful that you're Da Bear's fan
I would suppose the Bear's fans dislike the Vikings more than another team from out of the Black & Blue division.
Is this true?
I would also suppose that Da Bears have a bigger problem with Packers than Vikings.
-
I actually thought I'd find the opposite - that the DAL OL would be highly-drafted guys who fulfilled expectations. What I found was the opposite of that and I thought I'd share.
Silly me.
-
Draft position doesn't always dictate greatness. Dallas' line back then was sick.
I don't watch the NFL anymore so I don't really care, but I get he feeling that this thread stems from the discussion on great all-time RB's (yes, I read that).
And, despite that I no longer watch, the Packers still suck.
-
I actually thought I'd find the opposite - that the DAL OL would be highly-drafted guys who fulfilled expectations. What I found was the opposite of that and I thought I'd share.
Silly me.
Well, I think given a little bit of the context of the previous discussion, it was an important contribution.
A few of us were arguing that the way to build a team is to start with the lines and build out from there.
In this case, that obviously wasn't the strategy. I think the DAL OL was probably VERY good, but it certainly wasn't a group assembled from top draft picks who were expected to do what they did.
But when you look at them:
- T - Mark Tuinei - Pro bowl 94/95
- G - Nate Newton - All-pro 94/95, pro bowl 92/93/94/95/96/98
- C - Mark Stepnoski - Pro bowl 92/93/94
- G - Kevin Gogan (Only until 93) - Nothing with Dallas, but 2nd-team All-pro 98 (with SF), Pro bowl 94 (with Oakland), 95/96 (with SF) - So he was pretty good.
- G - Larry Allen (94 onward) - All-pro 96/97/98/99/00/01, pro-bowl 95/96/97/98/99/00/01/03/04/05
- T - Erik Williams - All-pro 93/96, pro bowl 93/96/97/99
So they weren't a bunch of no-talent hacks who were useless without Aikman/Smith/Irvin. They just didn't come from exactly the blue-chip pedigree you might have expected.
IMHO, it does help to suggest that having a great OL is a big part of having a great football team, which is what I was saying--that a great OL make the skill position guys around them MUCH better, and thus it's probably MORE important than the skill positions that everyone pays attention to.
Now, if you brought them up with the idea of suggesting that it was all about Aikman/Smith/Irvin, or as an indication that the Dallas OL was really not ALL that much better than the Detroit OL that Sanders ran behind? No, I don't think you've proven a point there.
Because when you look at Detroit's OL, only two players in that era had any of the same accolades:
- Kevin Glover: Pro bowl 95/96/97
- Lomas Brown: All-pro 95, pro bowl 90/91/92/93/94/95
Only two players, and they only had their accolades in one single overlapping year, 95.
Dallas, on the other hand, had at least one all-pro every year from 93-01, and multiple pro bowlers every year. You talked about them like they were a bunch of scrubs without the skill guys.
-
Man.. I was thinking about the lines (and QB's and WR) Walter Payton had to work with in his first 6-7 years. Makes Sanders' Detroit lines look like crew of perennial all-pros.
-
Man.. I was thinking about the lines (and QB's and WR) Walter Payton had to work with in his first 6-7 years. Makes Sanders' Detroit lines look like crew of perennial all-pros.
Yup Sweetness did a lot by himself,he use to run up some pretty steep hills everyday.Worked hard
-
IMHO, it does help to suggest that having a great OL is a big part of having a great football team, which is what I was saying--that a great OL make the skill position guys around them MUCH better, and thus it's probably MORE important than the skill positions that everyone pays attention to.
Ed Zachery,I remember the movie "North Dallas Forty" the the QB (Mac Davis) tells the receiver(Nick Nolte) "you keep me in the headlines but the O-line keeps me out of the obituaries".More than a grain of truth there
-
Ed Zachery,I remember the movie "North Dallas Forty" the the QB (Mac Davis) tells the receiver(Nick Nolte) "you keep me in the headlines but the O-line keeps me out of the obituaries".More than a grain of truth there
Yep. When you have a line that across the starting 5 has something like 5+ all-pro seasons and career-wise a dozen+ pro bowl seasons, it's going to be good.
-
And, despite that I no longer watch, the Packers still suck.
that's pretty crazy to me- how quickly and how hard that Packers team with McCarthy/Rodgers fell apart after all that success they had. After McCarthy's first year which was not bad at 8-8- they had a 10 year run where they went to the playoffs 9 of those years and won the NFC North 7 of those years. Then in 2017 and 2018 it just all went up in smoke. Poof.
Not sure it's going to get better either considering they just basically handed Aaron Rodgers $200 million. Not gonna have a lot of money to pay other guys when he's making $37 million a year.
-
The number of pro bowls isn't really valid data when rating offensive linemen, is it? OL are often anonymous, which makes me want to bet those most often voted into the pro bowl were on TV a lot. The best teams are on TV the most. What's to say a guard could be factually average as a player, but he's on an offense with a HOF QB, HOF RB, HOF WR, and the team is really good and on TV all the time - and that guy getting a Pro Bowl nod? Is it really that absurd?
I played OL, I'm quite stingy to compliment an OL unless he's doing his job well nearly every play. To accurately rate an OL, you need film study. As with voters of a great many other things in sports, the voting tends to be lazy. Okay, I'll pick the left tackle on the team with a 1800 yard rusher who won 13 games....then no one will criticize the choice - kind of thing.
We don't have stats of how OL grade out game to game, especially back into the 90s. So it's just reputation thing (ie - no data). Meh.
-
that's why you use your eyeballs
check the tape
if the back was running through lanes that you and I could get through, credit the O-line
if the back was breaking 3 tackles to get back to the LOS then discount the O-line and credit the back
-
The number of pro bowls isn't really valid data when rating offensive linemen, is it?
All-pro is the measuring stick. The pro bowl is a beauty contest like all the rest of the pro leagues have, and is just another "game" the NFL can put on TV.
-
Are we still going over a bunch of stuff to get to the point if Emmit was quite as not one of the 2-3 backs ever as the general consensus is, right?
-
The number of pro bowls isn't really valid data when rating offensive linemen, is it? OL are often anonymous, which makes me want to bet those most often voted into the pro bowl were on TV a lot. The best teams are on TV the most. What's to say a guard could be factually average as a player, but he's on an offense with a HOF QB, HOF RB, HOF WR, and the team is really good and on TV all the time - and that guy getting a Pro Bowl nod? Is it really that absurd?
I played OL, I'm quite stingy to compliment an OL unless he's doing his job well nearly every play. To accurately rate an OL, you need film study. As with voters of a great many other things in sports, the voting tends to be lazy. Okay, I'll pick the left tackle on the team with a 1800 yard rusher who won 13 games....then no one will criticize the choice - kind of thing.
We don't have stats of how OL grade out game to game, especially back into the 90s. So it's just reputation thing (ie - no data). Meh.
Yeah, I’ve been skeptical of OL Pro Bowls for a while for all the reasons you mention. I actually read or heard someone say years ago that once an OL gets the reputation for being good he will get Pro Bowl nods well past the time they should.
The writers vote the All Pro teams. Are they watching tape? If so, are they qualified? I don’t know the answers to those questions.
I was watching a lot of NFL in the early 90s. It always “seemed” to me that Smith had more room to run than Sanders. Maybe my perception was skewed. Idk.
-
Are we still going over a bunch of stuff to get to the point if Emmit was quite as not one of the 2-3 backs ever as the general consensus is, right?
No, we're just having a conversation about how to accurately rate OLs. Feel free to chime in.
-
Yeah, I’ve been skeptical of OL Pro Bowls for a while for all the reasons you mention. I actually read or heard someone say years ago that once an OL gets the reputation for being good he will get Pro Bowl nods well past the time they should.
The writers vote the All Pro teams. Are they watching tape? If so, are they qualified? I don’t know the answers to those questions.
I was watching a lot of NFL in the early 90s. It always “seemed” to me that Smith had more room to run than Sanders. Maybe my perception was skewed. Idk.
I see them like gold gloves in MLB - once you get a reputation, you're the default for years. We know a RB can have a down year, a QB can, a CF in baseball, or a first baseman....but why wouldn't OL have up and down years? We now know that defense in baseball ebbs and flows from year to year, it only makes sense that effective OL play does as well.
This isn't about any particular RBs, it's about how football is light years behind MLB in terms of diversity of statistics and smart people working to quantify that which is extremely hard to quantify.
-
We've learned a player in MLB won 8 gold gloves and maybe deserved 6, or he won 8 and deserved 8, but not in the 8 years he won. We don't have a clue when it comes to offensive line play.
Maybe Anthony Munoz was an all-time great, but that doesn't mean he was great in every season of his 10-year prime.
Looking at Aikman for DAL, in 93 and 94:
His sack % decreased...was that because of Larry Allen?
His rating went down because he threw twice as many INTs...
Switzer took over for Johnson, maybe a new offense?
Emmitt got worse from 93 to 94, but scored 21 rushing TD.
How could the offense relatively stink with an all-world beast like Larry Allen being inserted into the OL?
Or how about 1997? DAL ran 1,015 plays and Larry Allen was called for no holding penalties. Would anyone here, especially anyone who has played OL, like to suggest he didn't hold ONCE in over 1,000 offensive plays?
It's just a super murkey aspect of sports statistics that is sorely lacking. I'm simply pointing this out and wondering aloud if we could maybe work on it a little.
-
I was watching a lot of NFL in the early 90s. It always “seemed” to me that Smith had more room to run than Sanders. Maybe my perception was skewed. Idk.
bingo
mine might have been skewed cause I have a healthy amount of hate for the Cowboys
were you a huge Lions/Barry Sanders fan?
did you hate the Cowboys?
-
No, we're just having a conversation about how to accurately rate OLs. Feel free to chime in.
Depends my resources.
The first and best tool would be other offensive linemen/line coaches who grind film.
Next might be yards before contact if someone wants to track that. Some people like adjusted line yards, though I prefer just looking at how often a run gets five yards, mixed with short yardsage conversion rates.
Tracking pass blocking can be a nightmare, especially in the modern era because of how offenses have changed.
Also worth noting that wall pro bowls are at times not a great indicator, many very great players also go to a lot of pro bowls. Where the thread started talking about where these guys came from is just a reminder of how developmental that position is and hard to evaluate it is.
-
Larry Allen was a rookie in 94. I'm sure it took him time to adjust to the pro game.
-
Then if we link DAL's OL to Emmitt's success, his best years were pre-Allen......
-
1995 Emmitt career bests in a season - 1773 yards, 25 TDs, 110.8 YPG, 62 rec, 377 carries
-
this copied from Wikipedia, I didn't write it...................
Playing style
As a runner, Smith was consistently effective, though not dazzling in style. "(Smith) darted, slithered and followed his blockers, and squeezed yard after yard out of plays that didn't have any yards in them. He didn't look especially fast or powerful or blindingly deceptive, yet he couldn't be stopped."[14] Smith was noted for being a very durable back with excellent vision, tremendous leg strength, and great balance, and was known as one of the best second-effort runners ever.[40] Smith was also a reliable receiver and an excellent blocker in pass protection.[41]
During his career, he was often compared to Detroit Lions Hall of Fame running back Barry Sanders, as both men were extremely successful for their respective teams and combined for 8 rushing titles during the 1990s. Some give Smith the edge for his consistent "north-south" style that took full advantage of Dallas' talented offensive line, while some think Sanders' spectacular running style with sudden changes of direction made him a better back.[42] Observers agree, though, that both Smith and Sanders were among the best running backs in league history.[43][44][45]
-
bingo
mine might have been skewed cause I have a healthy amount of hate for the Cowboys
were you a huge Lions/Barry Sanders fan?
did you hate the Cowboys?
Indifferent to all of them
-
Then if we link DAL's OL to Emmitt's success, his best years were pre-Allen......
I thought we’re talking about grading O-lines?
-
pre-Allen, post-Allen, the great wall of Dallas graded very well.
-
why not put this in the Draft thread?
An O-lineman that was arrested in College? probably a indicator of greatness. Bad grades in college or high school??? Big uglies don't need much education to line up and pile drive folks.
Yes, the Hershel Walker trade was what built the dynasty, along with Jimmy Johnson's need for speed.
Aikman wasn't the greatest QB in history, Irvin wasn't the greatest receiver, and Emmitt in my opinion wasn't the greatest running back, but together with moose Johnson and the O-line, plus the great defense, put the Cowboys on top for a long time
Totally agree, it was just a pretty great combination that worked well together. I think people also understate how good TE Jay Novacek was, and underestimate his importance to that offense.
-
Houck's first pro coaching experience came with the Los Angeles Rams, where he coached the offensive line from 1983 to 1991.
Houck spent one season as offensive line coach for the Seattle Seahawks in 1992. Seahawks running back Chris Warren logged the first 1,000-yard rushing season of his career with Houck tutoring his blockers.
Houck spent the next nine years coaching the offensive line for the Dallas Cowboys. At times during Houck's tenure the Cowboys' line was one of the most dominant in the history of the game. The 203 sacks they allowed in nine years under Houck were the fewest of any NFL team in that span. Six offensive linemen earned 22 trips to the Pro Bowl under Houck, including Larry Allen (7), Nate Newton (5), Erik Williams (4), Ray Donaldson (2), Mark Stepnoski (2) and Mark Tuinei (2). Hall of Fame running back Emmitt Smith earned a pair of rushing titles during Houck's tenure, and rushed for over 1,000 yards every season. He was also the assistant head coach from 1994 to 1997.
After the firing of Chan Gailey in 2000, he was considered as one of the candidates to take over the head coaching duties of the Dallas Cowboys, which eventually went to Dave Campo.[2]
With the San Diego Chargers from 2002 to 2004, Houck transformed one of the league's worst offensive lines to one of the best. Running back LaDainian Tomlinson rushed for more than 1,300 yards in each of Houck's three seasons with the team. With five new starters on the line in 2004, the Chargers ranked tenth in total offense and sixth in rushing. The Chargers allowed fewer than 25 sacks per season under Houck.
Houck was hired to work for the Miami Dolphins head coach Nick Saban. During his first year with the Dolphins in 2005, Houck's offensive line ranked fourth in the NFL in fewest sacks allowed. In 2007, Houck was reunited[vague] with then Dolphins head coach Cam Cameron. Houck and Cameron worked together in San Diego when Cameron was offensive coordinator for the Chargers.
-
But I haven't heard the "he was good because of his OL" for Tomlinson, so....
It's all so variable and imo, largely unknown. It may be unknowable, but I'm not ready to just throw in the towel.
-
I thought we’re talking about grading O-lines?
We are, but I had previously been assured having Larry Allen to block for him made him look so good.
-
We are, but I had previously been assured having Larry Allen to block for him made him look so good.
Well, Emmitt's all-pro seasons (92-95) don't overlap with Allen's all-pro seasons (96-01). But Emmitt had pro bowl seasons during two of Allen's all-pro seasons.
And in Emmitt's '95 all-pro season, he had pro bowlers in Allen, Newton, Tuinei, and Ray Donaldson (C) who I missed. Not to mention Novacek at TE. So 5 of the 6 OL spots (including TE) were pro-bowlers.
So yeah, it's not all Larry Allen. He didn't arrive until midway through Emmitt's all-pro stretch.
But clearly he had a damn good line in front of him.
-
Also had a really good fullback in Daryl Johnston and a good deep threat (for a while) with Alvin Harper. Lots of weapons on that offense.
-
But I haven't heard the "he was good because of his OL" for Tomlinson, so....
It's all so variable and imo, largely unknown. It may be unknowable, but I'm not ready to just throw in the towel.
Was Tomlinson having seasons where 3 or 4 of his starting OL was making the Pro Bowl? Legitimately asking because my memory isn’t what is used to be but I if he did I don’t remember it.
The general consensus is that Smith was surrounded by better players so his numbers were a little easier to come by. It’s just that simple.
-
Was Tomlinson having seasons where 3 or 4 of his starting OL was making the Pro Bowl? Legitimately asking because my memory isn’t what is used to be but I if he did I don’t remember it.
The general consensus is that Smith was surrounded by better players so his numbers were a little easier to come by. It’s just that simple.
I'm just poking and prodding the general consensus because it was a consensus without any statistical support. It's nerdy and my not yield much, but it's more productive than bitching about how we should all just accept it based on faith.
:96:
We know good skill position players will help increase the stats. We also know good OL play will increase the stats. But we don't know what % either should get credit for. To compare it to baseball again, it's the age-old unknown of what % of defense is pitching, defense, and luck? Or what % of overall baseball is defense?
It's just something to work out and play around with....better than just shrugging and going back to playing with one's belly-button.
-
this thread screams desperation...
-
Or it's evolved into something larger, but no one wants to participate in questioning the general consensus. Lame.
-
Or it's evolved into something larger, but no one wants to participate in questioning the general consensus. Lame.
Well, I think we're all participating, but to some extent it's not the most easy thing to answer.
I agree with your point that great lines make skill positions look better and great skill position players make the line look better.
It's a team game.
- A QB who can quickly read defensive intent and can adjust a playcall at the line to get his offense in a better call will achieve more offensive success, reducing sacks and improving run performance, making his OL look better. Or one who is mobile enough in the pocket and scrambling to extend plays, avoid sacks, and occasionally run for yardage makes his OL look statistically better.
- An RB who can make people miss and turn nothing into something makes his OL look better.
- A WR or multiple WR who are able to get open reduce coverage sacks by giving the QB someone to throw to. WR who can block downfield help the RB and the OL stats look better if they can extend RB runs.
- A great OL also makes all those skill position players look better. They open holes for the RB. They block and give the QB more time to make his reads and go through progressions. That gives the WRs more time to get open.
Obviously my prior belief is that the OL is absolutely key. I don't watch as much NFL, but it's one of those things we see every year at Wisconsin. They produce "star" RB after star RB, every year. Then when those players go to the NFL, some are successful while others are complete busts. But they all produce in the Wisconsin system.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise. BUT, your original post in this thread was way off base. Here's what you said:
These guys weren't exactly world-beaters until they had Aikman-Smith-Irvin around them, were they? Only one legit, valued prospect (Stepnoski). Newton was a journeyman USFL fatty. Tuinei was arrested for assault in college. Williams had to go NAIA because of grades. Gogan moved all around the line, not carving out a spot for himself, really, ever.
So you complain about two guys who had off-the-field issues [and perhaps their draft stock suffered for that]. You call a two-time all-pro a "journeyman USFL fatty". You impugn one based on him moving all around the line, instead of perhaps crediting him for his versatility and ability to perform at multiple positions.
And I highlighted that Gogan never had an all-pro or pro bowl season with Dallas, but when he moved on, he did. It's not like those other teams he played for had Aikman/Smith/Irvin, right? He played from 1987 to 2000. That's a hell of a career for a guy who you act like was just some scrub who couldn't hold down any position on the line.
So if you want to question the general consensus, that's fine. But you have to come with actual stats if you want to change opinions.
-
Well, I think we're all participating, but to some extent it's not the most easy thing to answer.
I agree with your point that great lines make skill positions look better and great skill position players make the line look better.
It's a team game.
- A QB who can quickly read defensive intent and can adjust a playcall at the line to get his offense in a better call will achieve more offensive success, reducing sacks and improving run performance, making his OL look better. Or one who is mobile enough in the pocket and scrambling to extend plays, avoid sacks, and occasionally run for yardage makes his OL look statistically better.
- An RB who can make people miss and turn nothing into something makes his OL look better.
- A WR or multiple WR who are able to get open reduce coverage sacks by giving the QB someone to throw to. WR who can block downfield help the RB and the OL stats look better if they can extend RB runs.
- A great OL also makes all those skill position players look better. They open holes for the RB. They block and give the QB more time to make his reads and go through progressions. That gives the WRs more time to get open.
Obviously my prior belief is that the OL is absolutely key. I don't watch as much NFL, but it's one of those things we see every year at Wisconsin. They produce "star" RB after star RB, every year. Then when those players go to the NFL, some are successful while others are complete busts. But they all produce in the Wisconsin system.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise. BUT, your original post in this thread was way off base. Here's what you said:
So you complain about two guys who had off-the-field issues [and perhaps their draft stock suffered for that]. You call a two-time all-pro a "journeyman USFL fatty". You impugn one based on him moving all around the line, instead of perhaps crediting him for his versatility and ability to perform at multiple positions.
And I highlighted that Gogan never had an all-pro or pro bowl season with Dallas, but when he moved on, he did. It's not like those other teams he played for had Aikman/Smith/Irvin, right? He played from 1987 to 2000. That's a hell of a career for a guy who you act like was just some scrub who couldn't hold down any position on the line.
So if you want to question the general consensus, that's fine. But you have to come with actual stats if you want to change opinions.
Great post.
I’d just like to add- Larry Allen is the best guard to ever play football.
Erik Williams was on that same track to go down as perhaps the greatest RT to ever play football. His injuries sustained in a nearly fatal car crash- that honestly probably should’ve killed him-the accident was that bad- turned him from an amazing out of this world all-time great player to a still very good, above average starter. Shows you just how great he really was to come back from that accident and still be able to play at a reasonably high level. He’d g
Emmitt was great. No doubt about it. But so was most of that entire team. Offense and defense. They were ridiculously stacked.
-
So, if I go with the category of greatest "Career" NFL running backs. Emmitt is easily in my top 5 and perhaps #1 all-time
Regardless of his O-line or offensive system
Obviously, a great back such as Sayers had his career cut short and couldn't compare, along with possibly Sanders who retired just past his prime.
The list of single season rushing yards
1 Eric Dickerson+ (24) 2,105 1984 RAM
2 Adrian Peterson (27) 2,097 2012 MIN
3 Jamal Lewis (24) 2,066 2003 BAL
4 Barry Sanders+ (29) 2,053 1997 DET
5 Terrell Davis+ (25) 2,008 1998 DEN
6 Chris Johnson (23) 2,006 2009 TEN
7 O.J. Simpson+ (26) 2,003 1973 BUF
8 Earl Campbell+ (25) 1,934 1980 HOU
9 Ahman Green (26) 1,883 2003 GNB
Barry Sanders+ (26) 1,883 1994 DET
11 Shaun Alexander (28) 1,880 2005 SEA
12 Jim Brown+ (27) 1,863 1963 CLE
13 Tiki Barber (30) 1,860 2005 NYG
14 Ricky Williams (25) 1,853 2002 MIA
15 Walter Payton+ (23) 1,852 1977 CHI
16 Jamal Anderson (25) 1,846 1998 ATL
17 DeMarco Murray (26) 1,845 2014 DAL
18 Eric Dickerson+ (26) 1,821 1986 RAM
19 O.J. Simpson+ (28) 1,817 1975 BUF
20 LaDainian Tomlinson+ (27) 1,815 2006 SDG
21 Eric Dickerson+ (23) 1,808 1983 RAM
22 Larry Johnson (26) 1,789 2006 KAN
23 Emmitt Smith+ (26) 1,773 1995 DAL
24 Adrian Peterson (23) 1,760 2008 MIN
25 Marcus Allen+ (25) 1,759 1985 RAI
26 Terrell Davis+ (24) 1,750 1997 DEN
Larry Johnson (25) 1,750 2005 KAN
-
pre-Allen, post-Allen, the great wall of Dallas graded very well.
In what ways?
-
Great post.
I’d just like to add- Larry Allen is the best guard to ever play football.
Erik Williams was on that same track to go down as perhaps the greatest RT to ever play football.
You're really good at proclaiming things. Not so great at supporting them with evidence. Repeatedly making claims doesn't make them more true.
-
Well, I think we're all participating, but to some extent it's not the most easy thing to answer.
I agree with your point that great lines make skill positions look better and great skill position players make the line look better.
It's a team game.
- A QB who can quickly read defensive intent and can adjust a playcall at the line to get his offense in a better call will achieve more offensive success, reducing sacks and improving run performance, making his OL look better. Or one who is mobile enough in the pocket and scrambling to extend plays, avoid sacks, and occasionally run for yardage makes his OL look statistically better.
- An RB who can make people miss and turn nothing into something makes his OL look better.
- A WR or multiple WR who are able to get open reduce coverage sacks by giving the QB someone to throw to. WR who can block downfield help the RB and the OL stats look better if they can extend RB runs.
- A great OL also makes all those skill position players look better. They open holes for the RB. They block and give the QB more time to make his reads and go through progressions. That gives the WRs more time to get open.
Obviously my prior belief is that the OL is absolutely key. I don't watch as much NFL, but it's one of those things we see every year at Wisconsin. They produce "star" RB after star RB, every year. Then when those players go to the NFL, some are successful while others are complete busts. But they all produce in the Wisconsin system.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise. BUT, your original post in this thread was way off base. Here's what you said:
So you complain about two guys who had off-the-field issues [and perhaps their draft stock suffered for that]. You call a two-time all-pro a "journeyman USFL fatty". You impugn one based on him moving all around the line, instead of perhaps crediting him for his versatility and ability to perform at multiple positions.
And I highlighted that Gogan never had an all-pro or pro bowl season with Dallas, but when he moved on, he did. It's not like those other teams he played for had Aikman/Smith/Irvin, right? He played from 1987 to 2000. That's a hell of a career for a guy who you act like was just some scrub who couldn't hold down any position on the line.
So if you want to question the general consensus, that's fine. But you have to come with actual stats if you want to change opinions.
Of course I do, but we're early in the discussion.
Maybe DAL had a great OL coach, who knows? I haven't jumped in enough yet.
My initial idea to start to rank OLs by statistics would be ypc on running plays combined with some sort of sacks allowed %, but then I ran into a huge roadblock. I stated looking in the 80s, and one certain QB's team always allowed very few sacks - usually in the teens, but one year it was single digits! And this was by a very stationary QB. Another team led the league year after year in sacks allowed - in fact, one year, they allowed over 70! And this was with maybe the most mobile QB ever, at least pre-Vick.
So it seems sacks allowed is highly connected to who the QB is, much more so than who is blocking for him.
Those teams in the mid-late 80s?
Very, very few sacks allowed - Dolphins
Tons and tons of sacks allowed - Eagles
-
Great post.
I’d just like to add- Larry Allen is the best guard to ever play football.
I'm sure he's in the conversation but for posterity's sake you might want to add IMO,jut sayin'
-
Very, very few sacks allowed - Dolphins
Might be because Marino on top of having a quick release seemed to get the ball out faster than anyone including Elway.That just always seemed to be his M.O.I'm sure his line was stout but as long as they got in someone's way for 2-3-4 seconds the ball was launched
-
Of course I do, but we're early in the discussion.
Maybe DAL had a great OL coach, who knows? I haven't jumped in enough yet.
My initial idea to start to rank OLs by statistics would be ypc on running plays combined with some sort of sacks allowed %, but then I ran into a huge roadblock. I stated looking in the 80s, and one certain QB's team always allowed very few sacks - usually in the teens, but one year it was single digits! And this was by a very stationary QB. Another team led the league year after year in sacks allowed - in fact, one year, they allowed over 70! And this was with maybe the most mobile QB ever, at least pre-Vick.
So it seems sacks allowed is highly connected to who the QB is, much more so than who is blocking for him.
Those teams in the mid-late 80s?
Very, very few sacks allowed - Dolphins
Tons and tons of sacks allowed - Eagles
Yeah, I actually think your train of thought has merit but it’s going to be really hard to “prove.” Just like a back’s YPC is tied to line play a line’s YPC is tied to back play. QB’s who can read a blitz don’t get sacked often even if they are statues.
If you are telling me maybe Dallas’s line wasn’t quite as good as their reputation I wouldn’t think you were crazy for stating that but actually finding hard, statistical proof I think would be extremely difficult.
-
In what ways?
from wiki up thread.........
The 203 sacks they allowed in nine years under Houck were the fewest of any NFL team in that span.
Hall of Fame running back Emmitt Smith earned a pair of rushing titles during Houck's tenure, and rushed for over 1,000 yards every season.
-
from wiki up thread.........
The 203 sacks they allowed in nine years under Houck were the fewest of any NFL team in that span.
Hall of Fame running back Emmitt Smith earned a pair of rushing titles during Houck's tenure, and rushed for over 1,000 yards every season.
-
The response buttons are all messed up for me atm, I tried to quote, but the 'reply' field came up, then I post it and it's simply the quoted post and none of my long response. AARRRGH
-
Same
-
I think @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) might be tinckering. Maybe super glue or something.
-
I am.... I've got some javascript conflicts. it'll be right soon...
-
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.
-
I am.... I've got some javascript conflicts. it'll be right soon...
Thanks.
-
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...
-
You're really good at proclaiming things. Not so great at supporting them with evidence. Repeatedly making claims doesn't make them more true.
Listen to the people who played with and against Larry Allen and Erik Williams. Those are two of the greatest offensive linemen ever. Easily.
-
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.
-
Listen to the people who played with and against Larry Allen and Erik Williams. Those are two of the greatest offensive linemen ever. Easily.
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.
-
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.
-
I'd probably want to talk about Upshaw, Hannah and McDaniel in this.
Of course, I know nothing from the last decade or so, except that Joe Thomas and other UW linemen are really good.
-
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.
-
I'd love for someone to call me up and discuss the points I made in bold at the top of this page about the valuation of yards for a podcast segment.
Not sure why everyone is so hesitant, like 4 people on earth are going to hear it, lol.
-
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
-
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.
Lol. Here’s the thing. I’d probably agree with you that he’s the best Guard ever but it doesn’t make it a fact. Listing all his physical attributes doesn’t make it a fact. I could list a ton of backs bigger, stronger, and faster than Sanders and Smith.
Larry Allen being bigger and stronger than guys like Bruce Matthews, John Hannah, Gene Upshaw, and Randall McDaniel doesn’t necessarily mean he performed his job better than they did. Allen was great but he was human too. I have a vivid memory of a Thanksgiving Day game where Reggie White took one arm and clubbed Allen on his ass on his way to the QB. That isn’t going to make Allen’s highlight reel but those plays occasionally happened to him just like everyone else.