Bears OL Ranked #11

MikeDitkaPolishSausage

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 12, 2013
Posts:
7,191
Liked Posts:
5,914
Location:
Black Rainbow’s Grandma’s house.
As long as those who’ve tried sticking up for poles admit they were wrong if the offense look like shit, I’m ok waiting. Problem is…
I think the majority of posters here sticking up for Poles know the team is going to struggle this year. I myself wish Poles did more, but understand his approach. I want to see what Poles does next offseason with real money to spend and better draft picks.
 

MikeDitkaPolishSausage

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 12, 2013
Posts:
7,191
Liked Posts:
5,914
Location:
Black Rainbow’s Grandma’s house.
During OTAs, the offensive line was #32. After one week of training camp, the offensive line is #11. They are bound to be the #1 offensive line by the time the season opener comes along (green text).
So by week 8 they will have already received their Super Bowl rings?
 

FozzyBear

Token CCS Minority
Joined:
Apr 22, 2021
Posts:
3,775
Liked Posts:
2,442
Location:
Fozzie Land, Muppet City, USA
theyll be top 5 once Jones and Carter crack the starting lineup
 

JoJoBoxer

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
8,665
Liked Posts:
6,069
So by week 8 they will have already received their Super Bowl rings?
That is crazy talk. We are talking about the offensive line rankings, not team results.

By week 8, there will be a statue of the starting 5 offensive linemen erected outside of Soldier Field or was it in Arlington Heights?

By week 17, all 5 starters and the two backups will have their busts in the Hall of Fame.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
35,622
Liked Posts:
18,767
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
I don’t think he’s the hiding type tbh. When he was otherworldly wrong about Mitch he was still here posting. But if you mention how someone he supported failed, he’ll tell you to get a life and move on. Just your average homer who always thinks the next guy is up the right guy and he isn’t then there’s no point dwelling on the past. Time to hype the next guy.
I don't mind guys being fans until they start holding on to to the past.
 

bears51/40

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
3,265
Liked Posts:
2,325
By ESPN - Poles for exec of year if this materializes

11. Chicago Bears

Projected starters: Riley Reiff, Cody Whitehair, Lucas Patrick, Michael Schofield III, Larry Borom

Predicted pass block rank: No. 13
Predicted run block rank: No. 11

This is a pretty stunning rank for the Bears' offensive line, but they have a few things going for them. Reiff and Schofield -- late additions just before training camp -- help bolster the line. Borom, a fifth-round pick a year ago, posted a very solid 90% PBWR last season in 10 games, 21st among tackles. And Patrick should be an asset in the ground game after ranking third in RBWR among centers last season with the Packers.
If the Bears OL ends up with this high a rating Justin Fields should be much improved.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
12,946
Liked Posts:
3,585
You started it bro. This is all of CCS now just waiting for @nc0gnet0 to arrive

View attachment 21469
I said that the Bears Oline got markedly better with the recent additions.
But to think they are #11 is delusional.

#21 maybe.

Reif is still a downgrade from Peters


Shofield is still a downgrade from Daniels



But both are marked improvements from the scrubs the Bears had prior, so congrats on that.
 

Zvbxrpl

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 3, 2014
Posts:
1,616
Liked Posts:
1,455
So is ESPN inferring that because the bears' OL last year had a great pass-blocking win rate, the fact that they gave up the most sacks and pressures in the league is Justin Fields' fault? Because if they did their jobs, it can't be their fault? Or is this where fans will lazily pivot to Matt Nagy and his scheme when he's not on the field, taking the snap, executing blocking assignments, running routes, or progressing through the reads?

More importantly, ranking them 11 when the two biggest contributors to the PBWR aren't on the roster this year? Think ESPN wants Chicago fans to feel more engaged about their soon-to-be bad rebuilding team having a full season.

But then again, everybody can find one metric to make something bad not look so bad. See it all the time in baseball.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
51,300
Liked Posts:
30,994
So is ESPN inferring that because the bears' OL last year had a great pass-blocking win rate, the fact that they gave up the most sacks and pressures in the league is Justin Fields' fault? Because if they did their jobs, it can't be their fault? Or is this where fans will lazily pivot to Matt Nagy and his scheme when he's not on the field, taking the snap, executing blocking assignments, running routes, or progressing through the reads?

More importantly, ranking them 11 when the two biggest contributors to the PBWR aren't on the roster this year? Think ESPN wants Chicago fans to feel more engaged about their soon-to-be bad rebuilding team having a full season.

But then again, everybody can find one metric to make something bad not look so bad. See it all the time in baseball.

Combination. Fields took to long sometimes. Sometimes WRs were not open. Sometimes the scheme led to a lot of 5 and 7 step stops which naturally take longer. And sometime the OL did just suck.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
12,946
Liked Posts:
3,585
ESPN is shit.
We ranked all 32 teams' lines by combining our predicted pass block win rates (PBWR) and run block win rates (RBWR) for this season, which are based on the past performance of each projected starter -- according to Mike Clay -- over the past two seasons. Rookie starters are assumed to be below average because that is historically what they usually are, even the first-rounders. Players who have played but only in small amounts have their previous win rates regressed toward a below-average level.

Then we averaged those pass and run block ranks with a 60/40 split favoring the passing game, based approximately on how much PBWR and RBWR correlate with a team's expected points added per play. RBWR has a higher impact on running EPA per play than PBWR does on passing EPA per play, but the passing game is more important overall. That weighted average produces our overall offensive line rankings. Let's jump in, starting with two teams with Super Bowl aspirations.



1) Rookie starters are assumed to be below average because that is historically what they usually are, even the first-rounders.
2) Players who have played but only in small amounts have their previous win rates regressed toward a below-average level. )ie a returning vet coming off injury)
3) Then we averaged those pass and run block ranks with a 60/40 split favoring the passing game, (the more you pass the higher you are)
4) based on the past performance of each projected starter -- according to Mike Clay -- over the past two seasons.

What you end up with is an almost meaningless stat. It highly favors O Lines comprised of 2+ year vets that have not amassed any loss of time due to injury. It assumes aging Vets will maintain their level of play, yet does not assume that a 2nd year player will see improvement. It fails to account for players switching teams, possibly playing a new position, in a new scheme, with 0 O-line cohesiveness.
 

Starion

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 29, 2012
Posts:
3,878
Liked Posts:
2,421
Location:
Fort Myers, FL
We ranked all 32 teams' lines by combining our predicted pass block win rates (PBWR) and run block win rates (RBWR) for this season, which are based on the past performance of each projected starter -- according to Mike Clay -- over the past two seasons. Rookie starters are assumed to be below average because that is historically what they usually are, even the first-rounders. Players who have played but only in small amounts have their previous win rates regressed toward a below-average level.

Then we averaged those pass and run block ranks with a 60/40 split favoring the passing game, based approximately on how much PBWR and RBWR correlate with a team's expected points added per play. RBWR has a higher impact on running EPA per play than PBWR does on passing EPA per play, but the passing game is more important overall. That weighted average produces our overall offensive line rankings. Let's jump in, starting with two teams with Super Bowl aspirations.



1) Rookie starters are assumed to be below average because that is historically what they usually are, even the first-rounders.
2) Players who have played but only in small amounts have their previous win rates regressed toward a below-average level. )ie a returning vet coming off injury)
3) Then we averaged those pass and run block ranks with a 60/40 split favoring the passing game, (the more you pass the higher you are)
4) based on the past performance of each projected starter -- according to Mike Clay -- over the past two seasons.

What you end up with is an almost meaningless stat. It highly favors O Lines comprised of 2+ year vets that have not amassed any loss of time due to injury. It assumes aging Vets will maintain their level of play, yet does not assume that a 2nd year player will see improvement. It fails to account for players switching teams, possibly playing a new position, in a new scheme, with 0 O-line cohesiveness.
Thanks for this. I honestly was having trouble comprehending that ESPN stat about pass blocking win rate being that high. Simply watching games (ie CLE), the tape contradicts that high protection rating. Fields 100% needed to improve also, but other fail factors were listed above also, beyond OL who were clearly subpar in their own right. Mustipher for one.


Agreed that new vets are no world-beaters and probably just average.


That said, I'd be very happy if this year's OL can be all the way up to just average. So would Fields. So would Monty.


Top 11 seems like rosy sunshine shock-value clickbait honestly. More likely to be 11th worst than 11th best, and I'm one of the bigger optimists this year. WTH knows though. Regardless let's all 🤞🤞 and 🙏🙏 to avoid major injuries so we can see what develops.
 

knoxville7

I have the stride of a gazelle
Joined:
Jul 12, 2013
Posts:
12,307
Liked Posts:
7,720
Location:
The sewers
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Tennessee Volunteers
11th best if they were in the Big 10 or??
 

Top