Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Offensive Line Stats (2004-Present)

[huskerator 5000]

Burkhead will be a solid mid-rounder and have a long and successful career in the league.

There were 15 RB's drafted in the first four rounds in the NFL draft last year. So being a mid-rounder doesn't really put you in the top 5-10 RBs in college football. Especially if you're a Jr and aren't evening declaring for the draft yet.

Having said that, I'm excited to see what Burkhead does this coming season. He's a great player, even if he may receive a little too much emphasis from NU fans.

 

[HuskerRedDread]

By your logic, Terrell Owens (UT Chattanooga) would have never gotten a call on draft day and nobody would know about the young man out of Mississippi Valley State who went on to become the best receiver in NFL history. Team rank and success over individual ability? Seriously? Good think the NFL, unlike yourself, can look past team performance. Burkhead will be a solid mid-rounder and have a long and successful career in the league.

Oh, please, Terrell Owens & Jerry Rice is your argument? That's like saying every kid that gets cut from his high school basketball team will be a hall of famer and use Michael Jordan as my argument. Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean that it is the norm. For every Terrell Owens & Jerry Rice, there are hundreds who are working regular 9-5's coming from those schools who were great athletes and valuable weapons to their teams yet didn't make it at the next level for whatever reason.

An I'm guessing you have some experience as an NFL scout being that you throw in the "unlike yourself" comment. So with that, how is it that you scout a player without looking at the production of the team because of that individual. That's just a silly statement. The teams performance will be effected by the individuals performance.

Example: Terrible QB, low #s in the passing game, WRs have less production................Terrible O-Line, low #s on the ground, RBs have less production...................Catch my drift?

So, if you don't agree with my logic, give me you, logic and "open my eyes" because basing you formula off the actions of a couple of the greatest players to play at their position as if it happens 9 times out of ten is very much flawed.

 

[Weinosker]

Well, thanks, at least you admit the facts...unlike some others out here. I do think it's huge, and, you are right...I think it unlikely that such improvement will happen under Bo. Hope is eternal though...I do hope to be wrong on Bo. Sorry, if I was too blunt.

I think that people are able to see that we need to improve on 3rd and 4th down. You twisted the stats to make it appear less attainable than reality and look more drastic than it really is to make your point.

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

I think that people are able to see that we need to improve on 3rd and 4th down. You twisted the stats to make it appear less attainable than reality and look more drastic than it really is to make your point.

Wow...I "twisted the facts" by calculating what the percent difference was? Sorry, W you must be practicing some fuzzy math, if you call quoting the facts as twisting them. And, you say i did it to "make it appear less attainable"? Are you kidding? I would always think that Nebraska was capable of achieving ANYTHING that Wisconsin can--I merely pointed out that this year it was a HUGE difference, and it was!! Move along.

 

[Weinosker]

Wow...I "twisted the facts" by calculating what the percent difference was? Sorry, W you must be practicing some fuzzy math, if you call quoting the facts as twisting them. And, you say i did it to "make it appear less attainable"? Are you kidding? I would always think that Nebraska was capable of achieving ANYTHING that Wisconsin can--I merely pointed out that this year it was a HUGE difference, and it was!! Move along.

Move along... Always cracks me up.

As someone else pointed out, your % of a % (which is something that any credible statistician would tell you to avoid) makes it appear as if there is a bigger gap than reality. We are talking about ONE MORE third down conversion per game to be at the same % as Wisconsin.

That's not a big gap, at all. Keep trying, this is fun.

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

Move along... Always cracks me up.

As someone else pointed out, your % of a % (which is something that any credible statistician would tell you to avoid) makes it appear as if there is a bigger gap than reality. We are talking about ONE MORE third down conversion per game to be at the same % as Wisconsin.

That's not a big gap, at all. Keep trying, this is fun.

Evidently, you aren't much for analytical thinking, but that's Ok the world needs all kinds of people. Facts are just that...facts. I've always found, and notice that even Bo frequently observes, that to be best at something you need to do the little things right all the time and develop consistency. A 20% gap in your performance is huge and screams that you aren't doing well. I was at a speach TO gave once where he talked about asking his team not to drink during the season and reasoned with the kids that that might give them a 2% edge over other teams...and he said that was the difference in winning NC's. Sorry you think improving 20% is so easy...it isn't or everyone would be doing it.

 

[Weinosker]

Evidently, you aren't much for analytical thinking, but that's Ok the world needs all kinds of people. Facts are just that...facts. I've always found, and notice that even Bo frequently observes, that to be best at something you need to do the little things right all the time and develop consistency. A 20% gap in your performance is huge and screams that you aren't doing well. I was at a speach TO gave once where he talked about asking his team not to drink during the season and reasoned with the kids that that might give them a 2% edge over other teams...and he said that was the difference in winning NC's. Sorry you think improving 20% is so easy...it isn't or everyone would be doing it.

Ah, yes, personal insults... The last resort of someone who clearly knows his point is not being made.

Again, no one is saying that improvement isn't needed. And, to the point of the Osborne story that you give - that it wouldn't help. The gap just isn't as big as you try to claim it.

Tell me if this is true:

You are 10% taller than someone and I'm 20% taller than that same person... Does that make me 100% taller than you?

 

[berryhusker]

Evidently, you aren't much for analytical thinking, but that's Ok the world needs all kinds of people. Facts are just that...facts.

I try my best to avoid threads that turn into arguments, but I think I realize the problem underlying this disagreement. I think it is a matter of semantics and what exactly GFOA means by "facts" which I don't think is as straight forward as he believes. He didn't clearly say what was meant by a 20% improvement so I don't agree that others would be at fault if he didn't convey his point well. Of course the blatant disrespectful tone and insults to others' "analytical abilities" doesn't help the discussion.

One of the oldest message board tactics is for a poster to provide a very limited explanation and then insult others for not understanding what was the original intent. Not saying with any certainty that was the case here, but maybe with more explanation the confusion could have been avoided. As Bo preaches to the football team, maybe it would be better to point the thumb first before the finger? Anyway, I'm no statistician but I've had a few graduate classes in research statistics. I'm by no means an expert but here's my attempt at a breakdown of what I see is a confusion of numbers.

Lol...wow...you really don't understand the significance of increasing your percentage of converting 3rd and 4th downs by more than 20%? You don't think that's huge? I won't even bother.

The problem in the discussion as I see it is what you meant by increasing the percentage by 20%. Did you mean 20% in each category, 10% in each of the 2 categories, or 20% of combined 3rd and 4th down conversion percentages? Those have very different statistical meanings. After looking at Husker Mort's post I think I see where you get the 20% numbers

Third Down Conversions
Wisconsin: 84/170 - 49.4%
Nebraska: 79/194 - 40.7%
Difference = 8.7%

Fourth Down Conversions
Wisconsin: 6/10 - 60.0%
Nebraska: 8/16 - 50.0%
Difference = 10.0%

Combining the separate percentage differences would be 18.7% which is where I think you get the 20% figure. However, taking the two statistics together for combined 3rd and 4th down conversion percentage would result in Wisconsin: 90/180 = 50% and NU 87/210 = 41.4% which is a difference of only 8.6%.

I agree that improving 20% in combined 3rd and 4th down conversion percentage would be huge, but you weren't exactly clear in your responses about what you were referring to as a 20% improvement. I think some people believed you were referring to a 20% improvement in 3rd down conversion percentage and 4th down conversion percentage separately, leading to what was believed to be a distortion of the facts? I don’t know, just guessing and I don’t want to speak for others.

Now, if you separate them two figures and add 10% to NU's 3rd down efficiency it would be 50.7 to Wisconsin's 49.4 and adding 10% to NU's 4th down efficiency would mean both teams would be at 60%. Hence the percentage values would be nearly equal, still a big improvement for NU that likely would have a significant impact on the number of W’s, but not as significant as in the case of 20% improvement in each category separately.

For argument's sake, if someone thought you meant a 20% increase in 3rd down conversion in addition to a 20% increase in 4th down conversion, that would make the numbers look like this:
NU 3rd down conversion = 60.7% Wisconsin = 49.4%
NU 4th down conversion = 70% Wisconsin = 60%
Now that would be a substantial improvement to say the least...

Have I confused anyone else besides myself? haha
Maybe this could have been avoided if GFOA stuck with “the factsâ€￾ and provided a thorough explanation before resorting to insults and negativity?

 

[Weinosker]

I try my best to avoid threads that turn into arguments, but I think I realize the problem underlying this disagreement. I think it is a matter of semantics and what exactly GFOA means by "facts" which I don't think is as straight forward as he believes. He didn't clearly say what was meant by a 20% improvement so I don't agree that others would be at fault if he didn't convey his point well. Of course the blatant disrespectful tone and insults to others' "analytical abilities" doesn't help the discussion.

One of the oldest message board tactics is for a poster to provide a very limited explanation and then insult others for not understanding what was the original intent. Not saying with any certainty that was the case here, but maybe with more explanation the confusion could have been avoided. As Bo preaches to the football team, maybe it would be better to point the thumb first before the finger? Anyway, I'm no statistician but I've had a few graduate classes in research statistics. I'm by no means an expert but here's my attempt at a breakdown of what I see is a confusion of numbers.



The problem in the discussion as I see it is what you meant by increasing the percentage by 20%. Did you mean 20% in each category, 10% in each of the 2 categories, or 20% of combined 3rd and 4th down conversion percentages? Those have very different statistical meanings. After looking at Husker Mort's post I think I see where you get the 20% numbers

Third Down Conversions
Wisconsin: 84/170 - 49.4%
Nebraska: 79/194 - 40.7%
Difference = 8.7%

Fourth Down Conversions
Wisconsin: 6/10 - 60.0%
Nebraska: 8/16 - 50.0%
Difference = 10.0%

Combining the separate percentage differences would be 18.7% which is where I think you get the 20% figure. However, taking the two statistics together for combined 3rd and 4th down conversion percentage would result in Wisconsin: 90/180 = 50% and NU 87/210 = 41.4% which is a difference of only 8.6%.

I agree that improving 20% in combined 3rd and 4th down conversion percentage would be huge, but you weren't exactly clear in your responses about what you were referring to as a 20% improvement. I think some people believed you were referring to a 20% improvement in 3rd down conversion percentage and 4th down conversion percentage separately, leading to what was believed to be a distortion of the facts? I don’t know, just guessing and I don’t want to speak for others.

Now, if you separate them two figures and add 10% to NU's 3rd down efficiency it would be 50.7 to Wisconsin's 49.4 and adding 10% to NU's 4th down efficiency would mean both teams would be at 60%. Hence the percentage values would be nearly equal, still a big improvement for NU that likely would have a significant impact on the number of W’s, but not as significant as in the case of 20% improvement in each category separately.

For argument's sake, if someone thought you meant a 20% increase in 3rd down conversion in addition to a 20% increase in 4th down conversion, that would make the numbers look like this:
NU 3rd down conversion = 60.7% Wisconsin = 49.4%
NU 4th down conversion = 70% Wisconsin = 60%
Now that would be a substantial improvement to say the least...

Have I confused anyone else besides myself? haha
Maybe this could have been avoided if GFOA stuck with “the facts” and provided a thorough explanation before resorting to insults and negativity?

Great post, exactly what I was talking about right there. Thank you BERRY much!!

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

I try my best to avoid threads that turn into arguments, but I think I realize the problem underlying this disagreement. I think it is a matter of semantics and what exactly GFOA means by "facts" which I don't think is as straight forward as he believes. He didn't clearly say what was meant by a 20% improvement so I don't agree that others would be at fault if he didn't convey his point well. Of course the blatant disrespectful tone and insults to others' "analytical abilities" doesn't help the discussion.

One of the oldest message board tactics is for a poster to provide a very limited explanation and then insult others for not understanding what was the original intent. Not saying with any certainty that was the case here, but maybe with more explanation the confusion could have been avoided. As Bo preaches to the football team, maybe it would be better to point the thumb first before the finger? Anyway, I'm no statistician but I've had a few graduate classes in research statistics. I'm by no means an expert but here's my attempt at a breakdown of what I see is a confusion of numbers.



The problem in the discussion as I see it is what you meant by increasing the percentage by 20%. Did you mean 20% in each category, 10% in each of the 2 categories, or 20% of combined 3rd and 4th down conversion percentages? Those have very different statistical meanings. After looking at Husker Mort's post I think I see where you get the 20% numbers

Third Down Conversions
Wisconsin: 84/170 - 49.4%
Nebraska: 79/194 - 40.7%
Difference = 8.7%

Fourth Down Conversions
Wisconsin: 6/10 - 60.0%
Nebraska: 8/16 - 50.0%
Difference = 10.0%

Combining the separate percentage differences would be 18.7% which is where I think you get the 20% figure. However, taking the two statistics together for combined 3rd and 4th down conversion percentage would result in Wisconsin: 90/180 = 50% and NU 87/210 = 41.4% which is a difference of only 8.6%.

I agree that improving 20% in combined 3rd and 4th down conversion percentage would be huge, but you weren't exactly clear in your responses about what you were referring to as a 20% improvement. I think some people believed you were referring to a 20% improvement in 3rd down conversion percentage and 4th down conversion percentage separately, leading to what was believed to be a distortion of the facts? I don’t know, just guessing and I don’t want to speak for others.

Now, if you separate them two figures and add 10% to NU's 3rd down efficiency it would be 50.7 to Wisconsin's 49.4 and adding 10% to NU's 4th down efficiency would mean both teams would be at 60%. Hence the percentage values would be nearly equal, still a big improvement for NU that likely would have a significant impact on the number of W’s, but not as significant as in the case of 20% improvement in each category separately.

For argument's sake, if someone thought you meant a 20% increase in 3rd down conversion in addition to a 20% increase in 4th down conversion, that would make the numbers look like this:
NU 3rd down conversion = 60.7% Wisconsin = 49.4%
NU 4th down conversion = 70% Wisconsin = 60%
Now that would be a substantial improvement to say the least...

Have I confused anyone else besides myself? haha
Maybe this could have been avoided if GFOA stuck with “the facts” and provided a thorough explanation before resorting to insults and negativity?

Boy, the lack of mathmatical comprehension out here amazes me. Please note that I did a very simple explanation of this early in post #50 and, to his credit, huskerthill (whom I was discussing this with) easily understood the numbers...evidently, some of you need a bit more explanation. Here is the math as simple as it is, but so confounding for some of you. The facts are that Nebraska would need to improve its conversion percentage by over 20% to reach Wisconsin's numbers....YES, those are the mathmatical facts:

=================================
Third Down Conversions
Wisconsin: 84/170 - 49.4
Nebraska: 79/194 - 40.7

THE MATH:
49.4 divided by 40.7 = 1.21
Also known as a 21% higher third down conversion rate

For Nebraska to reach Wisco's level would require a 21% improvement (40.7 times 1.21%=49.4)

NOTE - a raw increase of 20% for Nebraska from 40.7% to 60.7 percent would amount to nearly a 50% improvement!!

=================================

Fourth Down Conversions
Wisconsin: 6/10 - 60.0
Nebraska: 8/16 - 50.0

THE MATH:
60.0 divided by 50.0 = 1.20
Also known as a 20% higher fourth down conversion rate

For Nebraska to reach Wisco's level would require a 20% improvement (50.0 times 1.20%=60.0)

NOTE - a raw increase of 20% for Nebraska from 50.0% to 70.0 percent would amount to a 40% improvement!!


================================

Combined 3rd and 4th down conversions:
Wisconsin: 90/180 - 50.0
Nebraska: 87/210 - 41.4

THE MATH:
50.0 divided by 41.4 = 1.21
Also known as a 21% higher combined third and fourth down conversion rate

For Nebraska to reach Wisco's level would require a 21% improvement (41.4 times 1.21% = 50.0)

NOTE - a raw increase of 20% for Nebraska from 41.4% to 61.4 percent would amount to nearly a 50% improvement!!

==========================================

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

Great post, exactly what I was talking about right there. Thank you BERRY much!!

That's what you thought, eh?

 

[Weinosker]

That's what you thought, eh?

See my previous post. I don't get why you don't understand this concept... Taking a percent of a percent is misleading, false, and inaccurate.

But, it's also entertaining, so please carry on.

In fact I'm interested to see your response to my example using height.

 

[huskerator 5000]

While I definitely disagree with GFoA's message of doom I think his use of percentages here is completely okay. What you guys are complaining about is that the conversion rate is also measured in percent, so it's confusing to say Wisc is 20% better than NU's 40%? Because you're not sure if that means Wisconsin got 50% or 60%? I agree that that's confusing but it's not especially misleading or suspicious in any way.

Here's another example. Say 2% of the US dies of a certain disease. The next year, 3% of the US dies. Now I say, well, the casualty rate only increased 1%, so I wouldn't worry about the disease. Now that's misleading. It would be much more accurate to say the rate increased by 50%.

The real problem with this comparison of conversion rate isn't the quoted % number but instead just the small number of samples involved. As others have said, a conversion or two a game easily changes the picture completely. Wisc was the best in the country in this particular stat, NU wasn't at that level, and should probably get better, but they will. And Barney rules, so we have that going for us.

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

While I definitely disagree with GFoA's message of doom I think his use of percentages here is completely okay. What you guys are complaining about is that the conversion rate is also measured in percent, so it's confusing to say Wisc is 20% better than NU's 40%? Because you're not sure if that means Wisconsin got 50% or 60%? I agree that that's confusing but it's not especially misleading or suspicious in any way.

Here's another example. Say 2% of the US dies of a certain disease. The next year, 3% of the US dies. Now I say, well, the casualty rate only increased 1%, so I wouldn't worry about the disease. Now that's misleading. It would be much more accurate to say the rate increased by 50%.

The real problem with this comparison of conversion rate isn't the quoted % number but instead just the small number of samples involved. As others have said, a conversion or two a game easily changes the picture completely. Wisc was the best in the country in this particular stat, NU wasn't at that level, and should probably get better, but they will. And Barney rules, so we have that going for us.

Thank you...

 

[coherbie]

aside from the myriad of percentages... I find it ironic how some folks hold wisconsin as a standard (given that Bielema is 60-19 ... reminiscent of 58-19)