Clary, why is he still here???

[Steve]

Wait, you re-watched the Tennessee game?

Yep.

A couple times during the season, but specifically I started rewatching the games again, focusing on the OL and Clary over the weekend. Although I often download the torrents, so I can't recall if I was watching the torrent or NFL rewind. But either way.

The big thing is, when you watch the games live, it is always very emotional. If you want to be objective, I don't think you can be. I certainly can't watching it live. So, if I really want to know what is going on, and I always like to understand things, so I go back and watch. I have Charger games dating back to Marty's first season on my server at home.

[Yubaking]

No it is your complete nonesense and lack of reason that does it.

And backside pursuit was a big, big problem in our running game. Most fans focus playside. I do too watching games live. Which is why you go back and watch the games again. You can't see the whole field, and running game is a coordinated activity. You have to block everyone for the plays to work.

And if we use praise for a player as a reason to assume that they did everything correctly, why only for Dunlap, and not for Clary, who was praised by McCoy on numerous occasions?

It was such a "big, big problem" that most observers were incapable of seeing it. Got it. Now, you were saying something about nonsense and logic.

Could it possibly be that nobody noticed that backside pursuit was such a "big, big problem" because it was not such a big, big problem?

Again, you make it sound like Dunlap was primarily to blame for the problems we had running to the right. Trust me, if players crashing down the line of scrimmage from Dunlap's side were making play after play against us, I think most of us would have noticed that. But that's simply not what happened last year, at least not to the point that it was even that noticeable, much less pronounced as you would have us all believe. This isn't Star Wars and the Jedi mind trick isn't going to work today in the face of Clary's struggles at the point of attack.

Finally, you have completely misunderstood my comments regarding how we all liked Dunlap's play. I have said at least twice already that I do not doubt that there was occasional backside pursuit. But it was not a noticeable problem at all in terms of it being unusually pronounced when compared to my other 35+ years of watching football. The words I would use to describe it would be "normal" and "average". You make it sound like backside pursuit made every play. It made a few plays.

If it were a significant problem, then it would be readily observable and it wasn't. So, we all praised Dunlap because nobody felt that he was guilty of this backside BS that are now pushing on us. The lack of it being observed really does undercut your position. We weren't as uniform or pronounced in our praise for Clary. That doesn't mean that Clary never made a good play, but rather that he made plenty of bad ones too, which we have all come to expect from Clary by now. Your discussion is revisionist in that it does not correspond to people's actual reactions to the players at the time.

Also, to the extent observers look to the playside as you suggest, they should be able to see what is happening playside. We did. We saw Clary not run blocking very well. It was readily apparent. It is not difficult to see the many times when there is no hole present for the RB to run through on the right side when Clary is responsible for blocking at the point of attack and fails to block effectively.

[Panama]

It was such a "big, big problem" that most observers were incapable of seeing it. Got it. Now, you were saying something about nonsense and logic.

A couple (few?) weeks ago, someone posted a very enlightening article, written by a former NFL lineman, about precisely this. Yes, most observers are incapable of seeing it, because they have no clue what to look for. Even former NFL O-linemen who have played in similar schemes can't be absolutely certain they're seeing it, because they don't know what each player's actual assignment is. OL is the most difficult position to grade out because most of us are working in the dark.

I (try to) respect you as a fan, but I think sometimes you have to acknowledge that someone might know something about it from more than just a fan's perspective. I played DL on a very good HS team and was recruited and offered scholarship to play in college, and I've picked up a few rudimentary things about OL from playing against them (and taking a few practice reps on the OL). I don't pretend to be an expert on OL play, though. I don't know Steve's credentials, but he seems to have had more involvement with the actual game (as opposed to just being a fan) and actually knows what to look for; most "observers" lack that insight, but if you listen to those who do you'll notice they say similar things.

No one is saying y'all have to agree with each other, but you have to acknowledge that some people might actually know more about a subject than you do, and you have to be willing to listen with an open mind. Nothing is accomplished by simply trying to win every argument. Put it this way: What would you think if one of us tried to convince you repeatedly on a point of legal procedure that you knew from experience was wrong? In that case, you are the one with insight and experience in that field that the other person lacks, and yet the other person keeps hammering on. You wouldn't think very highly of that person, and it's not just a matter of disagreeing with their opinion. Same sort of thing here. You can disagree all you want, but you're not coming from a place of authority.

[Yubaking]

I think part of Steve's frustration this time is that you fail to recognize that we run a zone-blocking scheme, and the points you repeatedly make about point-of-attack simply aren't valid in this context, where the aim is not to crush the defenders but to guide them out of the way in an intricately choreographed maneuver. It's not a matter of a backside pursuer making the tackle as much as it is closing off a running lane. Then the RB often has nowhere to run to because the cutback lanes have not been properly sealed off. But you (and, admittedly, others) insist on assessing the OL using power-blocking principles or looking at stats, which indicate the what (such as "we had less success running to the right") but not the why.

I think to get past this particular hurdle you need to leave your preconceived ideas about what run blocking ought to be at the door and be open to new ideas.

Panama, you are assuming that I do not understand ZBS theory and you are mistaken in that respect. When I say that Clary has not effectively blocked, I do not necessarily mean that he has not blasted his man to the ground, but rather that he has not done his part in creating a lane because he has not succeeded in his individual assignment. He often does not succeed in sealing off a defender and that defender is often in position to make a play against us.

I think Clary is primarily to blame and King Dunlap is much less to blame. That's why I stated that I did not disagree with Steve's statement as a theoretical explanation, but it just wasn't the reality that I watched. It's Clary that is not getting a seal and thus there is no clear hole for Mathews to run through on the right side whether it is to be cut back or the play goes to Clary's right. That's the big problem that I have seen--the infamous Clary non-block.

[Yubaking]

A couple (few?) weeks ago, someone posted a very enlightening article, written by a former NFL lineman, about precisely this. Yes, most observers are incapable of seeing it, because they have no clue what to look for. Even former NFL O-linemen who have played in similar schemes can't be absolutely certain they're seeing it, because they don't know what each player's actual assignment is. OL is the most difficult position to grade out because most of us are working in the dark.

I (try to) respect you as a fan, but I think sometimes you have to acknowledge that someone might know something about it from more than just a fan's perspective. I played DL on a very good HS team and was recruited and offered scholarship to play in college, and I've picked up a few rudimentary things about OL from playing against them (and taking a few practice reps on the OL). I don't pretend to be an expert on OL play, though. I don't know Steve's credentials, but he seems to have had more involvement with the actual game (as opposed to just being a fan) and actually knows what to look for; most "observers" lack that insight, but if you listen to those who do you'll notice they say similar things.

No one is saying y'all have to agree with each other, but you have to acknowledge that some people might actually know more about a subject than you do, and you have to be willing to listen with an open mind. Nothing is accomplished by simply trying to win every argument. Put it this way: What would you think if one of us tried to convince you repeatedly on a point of legal procedure that you knew from experience was wrong? In that case, you are the one with insight and experience in that field that the other person lacks, and yet the other person keeps hammering on. You wouldn't think very highly of that person, and it's not just a matter of disagreeing with their opinion. Same sort of thing here. You can disagree all you want, but you're not coming from a place of authority.

Panama, Steve is not an authority that I am prepared to recognize when his view conflicts with every other expert that I have read and with what I have personally witnessed. Nobody except him is blaming Dunlap. I am not going to do that. Dunlap earned my respect by playing good football and Telesco did for adding him to our team when he had a checkered history. I am not going to undermine that respect now by buying into some unseen BS.

I will reach my own conclusions and will be happy to see them supported by actual publicly recognized experts. If you want to admire the emporer's clothes, then go ahead. I think the emporer is naked and his clothes are nothing but BS.

[Beerman]

There's really no need to ever take it to a personal level. Simply state you disagree and move on.

[Steve]

Most observers tend to point to PFF as their evidence. If you keep using flawed data, you keep getting the same wrong answer.

Plus, most people soured on Clary a long time ago, and as far as fans go, most will never be converted.

[Beerman]

I soured on Clary as a RT, but I thought he was much better at RG, not perfect, but significantly better. To me Clary is a solid OG, he's just not worth the OT money he's being paid. That's where I think most people's contention with him start. If he was getting paid what Rinehart is getting paid, it's not even a point of contention.

[Beerman]

Most observers tend to point to PFF as their evidence. If you keep using flawed data, you keep getting the same wrong answer.

Plus, most people soured on Clary a long time ago, and as far as fans go, most will never be converted.

PFF grades aren't even data to be honest. I prefer Football outsiders who actually use actual raw data when making an argument. I do like how PFF grades specific aspects like run blocking, pass blocking, penalties, etc. There's value in seeing that breakdown, but the overall grades mean little to me.

[Steve]

PFF grades aren't even data to be honest. I prefer Football outsiders who actually use actual raw data when making an argument. I do like how PFF grades specific aspects like run blocking, pass blocking, penalties, etc. There's value in seeing that breakdown, but the overall grades mean little to me.

I have mixed feelings. I agree with PFF on the point that there are a lot of things in football that could be counted that would give better insights into football, and players performances. And some of those things could be counted. Pass defense and pass rush, for example, may help to describe parts of the game.

I like some of what Football outsiders does, and their program/spreadsheet from parsing the game logs is really interesting. But outsiders does some really hard core stats, and I think goes overboard sometimes. A lot of their stats are much more useful in terms of ranking and comparing relative strength (who is better then who), and I don't think that really tells anyone much. Sure, it's fun to debate, but I don't think it tells you where a team is really strong or weak.

I do think some of the things that PFF counts probably have some value in counting them. I think some of the pass rushing things match some observations I have made, and some that my brother made. And you have to be impressed with the effort they put in.

The thing I am not really struggling with is i heard a guy from PFF do an interview with the Giants radio network (or whatever it is called), and something that he said (and is on their web site) is that they make no effort to provide context in how their numbers are being made, meaning they leave in what biases are there, and leave it to the user to provide context. But then they don't provide people the means to add context, because they don't want to share. And, the kicker is that "it makes them mad some times because of how people misuse their data". Who the hell is to blame for that?

But the thing that got me on this latest kick is Chris Cooley, the former TE and HBack for the Redskins. He got on a rant a few weeks ago, and really tore PFF a new one. Unfortunately, I got stuck at work a lot, and then when I went back to find the podcast, I couldn't, and now it is off their web site. But he disagree violently with their grades of players, and really went off on their grades of a lot of players. He focused mostly on NFC east teams, and then used his own NFL rewind subscription to critique the PFF games, and got really different grades. My grade for Clary's first half against the Raiders (1st game) was something like +4.5 in run blocking (mostly just consistently locking onto his man and keeping him away from the runner). PFF, for the whole game had Clary at -1.9, and we spent most of the 2nd half passing to try and come back, so there is a big, big difference between those scores. The real issue was that Troutman and Harris (Dunlap was out with a concussion) had a really hard time with their coordination on the backside of the running plays, and there was a lot of penetration, although we did OK moving the ball.

Like I said, my brother, who is a zone blocking convert (he has used zone schemes on the teams he coached the last 4 or 5 seasons), and I sat down and went through some of the guys he thinks are the better zone blocking OG in football and looked at their grades were all way out of wack with where we would have guessed they were at. Not conclusive, but it does suggest something is wrong.

The other thing I think they ought to do is not to just add all the grades. Somehow they need to normalize them all (either by play or game), because right now it seems like 1 bad game really ruins a guys season.

[Fleet]

I think what Clary brings to the table in pass protection is extremely undervalued. The pressure up the middle was a huge problem in 2012 that helped us earn the title of worst OL in pass protection. He may need help in the run blocking game but he makes up for it in pass protection. The Denver game should show his importance. Rivers was under duress all game. You want a complete OG expect to pay 7-8 a year. Contract that Clary is under is bad and based on being a starting OT. I think he can be extended at a reduced rate but i do think he has a place on this OL and his teammates respect him greatly. Hes going into his 2nd year at OG and i think with our coaching he might be able to get a little better there. But hes in there to keep Rivers inside pocket clean. And i think its one of the reasons why Rivers was so good last year.

Rivers is confident in his protection up the middle of the OL. I wouldn't want to change that at this point unless i knew we had a suitable replacement. Rivers trusts Clary.

[Yubaking]

There's really no need to ever take it to a personal level. Simply state you disagree and move on.

If this post is directed my way, I have not done so. I have criticized 1) Steve's theory as unsupported by actual evidence and 2) Panama's apparent adherence to Steve's theory because of Steve's asserted knowledge of the football even though Steve's theory is unsupported by evidence.

Taking it to a personal level would be like someone calling me a "shithead" (even though the post was later edited to omit that reference) or calling me "fucking stupid". Those are the only personal attacks that have occurred in this thread in my view.