Offensive Line Starts

[Flattop]

The Wall Street Journal had a great article a year or so ago on offensive line starts. The article concluded that the higher the number a team's offensive line has collectively, the better it's season is likely to be. Conversely, the lower the number, the less good the season is likely to be.

So, what are the collective number of offensive line starts for BYU and Utah entering 2010?

Utah = 98
BYU = 64

The starts for some opposing teams:

TCU has 78
Pitt has 39
FSU has 142

Link to the WSJ article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ...891223207.html

Source for OL start stats (David Locke, I had to scroll down to find it):

http://twitter.com/lockedonsports

[falafel]

Isn't this just a way of saying the more experienced your OL, the better off you'll be? Not exactly ground breaking stuff.

[beelzebabette]

TEAMS TO WATCH O-LINE STARTS
NotreDame 100
Va Tech 100
Texas 91
Florida St. 86
Michigan 75

TEAMS TO WORRY ABOUT O-LINE STARTS
Oregon 20
W Virginia 25
Oklahoma 29
PennState 39
Alabama 50

I'm not quite ready to jump on the bandwagon yet.

[Jacob]

The Wall Street Journal had a great article a year or so ago on offensive line starts. The article concluded that the higher the number a team's offensive line has collectively, the better it's season is likely to be. Conversely, the lower the number, the less good the season is likely to be.

So, what are the collective number of offensive line starts for BYU and Utah entering 2010?

Utah = 98
BYU = 64

The starts for some opposing teams:

TCU has 78
Pitt has 39
FSU has 142

Link to the WSJ article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ...891223207.html

Source for OL start stats (David Locke, I had to scroll down to find it):

http://twitter.com/lockedonsports

The article disproves its own theory with a tidy graphic to start the whole thing off, because it was written a year ago. With the advantage of hindsight, we can look at their predictions:

TEAMS TO WATCH	O-LINE STARTS	TEAMS TO WORRY ABOUT	O-LINE STARTS
NotreDame	100	Oregon	     20
Virginia Tech	100	West Virginia	25
Texas	         91	Oklahoma	29
Florida St.	86	PennState	39
Michigan	75	Alabama	       50

Of the 5 "teams to watch" because of all their O-line experience, Notre Dame and Fl St. were 6-6 and Michigan was 5-7.

Of the teams to worry about, Bama won the NC, Oregon won the PAC-10, W Virginia went 9-3, and Penn St. went 10-2.
OK had a bad year, but still went 7-5 and I'd say that was much more due to their QB injury and OL injuries even after the linked article.

[Indy Coug]

Well, 0 starts is a bad thing, but I think the law of diminishing value kicks in pretty quick after a few team starts.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The Wall Street Journal had a great article a year or so ago on offensive line starts. The article concluded that the higher the number a team's offensive line has collectively, the better it's season is likely to be. Conversely, the lower the number, the less good the season is likely to be.

So, what are the collective number of offensive line starts for BYU and Utah entering 2010?

Utah = 98
BYU = 64

The starts for some opposing teams:

TCU has 78
Pitt has 39
FSU has 142

Link to the WSJ article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ...891223207.html

Source for OL start stats (David Locke, I had to scroll down to find it):

http://twitter.com/lockedonsports

What the stats are really indicating are that teams win more when their o-linemen don't blow assignments. Sacks and TFLs kill drives and you only have something like 10 drives a game. You can recover more easily from a receiver running the wrong route (unless the ball's already in the air) and even a RB hitting the wrong hole.

I'd be more interested in seeing the stats for the first half of the season juxtaposed with the o-line starts. It seems like o-lines solidify as the year wears on and there are less blown assignments. So the o-line starts figure becomes less of an indicator as the year goes on.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The article disproves its own theory with a tidy graphic to start the whole thing off, because it was written a year ago. With the advantage of hindsight, we can look at their predictions:

TEAMS TO WATCH	O-LINE STARTS	TEAMS TO WORRY ABOUT	O-LINE STARTS
NotreDame	100	Oregon	     20
Virginia Tech	100	West Virginia	25
Texas	         91	Oklahoma	29
Florida St.	86	PennState	39
Michigan	75	Alabama	       50

Of the 5 "teams to watch" because of all their O-line experience, Notre Dame and Fl St. were 6-6 and Michigan was 5-7.

Of the teams to worry about, Bama won the NC, Oregon won the PAC-10, W Virginia went 9-3, and Penn St. went 10-2.
OK had a bad year, but still went 7-5 and I'd say that was much more due to their QB injury and OL injuries even after the linked article.

I'm not sure why they pointed out Alabama. 50 can either mean one three year starter and one year starter returning, or it could mean that your entire o-line is coming back. I think a simple returning starter figure would be better.

Also, I can see this stat having some significance at the beginning of the season and not having much at all in the second half of the season. BYU beat Oklahoma because of OU's o-line missing blocking assignments.

[Jacob]

Also, I can see this stat having some significance at the beginning of the season and not having much at all in the second half of the season. BYU beat Oklahoma because of OU's o-line missing blocking assignments.

I suppose we can agree that is ONE of the reasons.

[U-Ute]

I suppose we can agree that is ONE of the reasons.

Not all reasons are created equal. Getting your QB sidelined is a pretty big reason.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Not all reasons are created equal. Getting your QB sidelined is a pretty big reason.

I don't know, in Jacob's world getting off the bus and walking into the stadium is also important- right up there with sidelining the future #1 NFL pick.

[Jacob]

Not all reasons are created equal. Getting your QB sidelined is a pretty big reason.

I don't know, in Jacob's world getting off the bus and walking into the stadium is also important- right up there with sidelining the future #1 NFL pick.

Do you guys even bother to read what you are responding to?

OK had a bad year, but still went 7-5 and I'd say that was much more due to their QB injury and OL injuries even after the linked article.

[Top Ute]

The Wall Street Journal had a great article a year or so ago on offensive line starts. The article concluded that the higher the number a team's offensive line has collectively, the better it's season is likely to be. Conversely, the lower the number, the less good the season is likely to be.

So, what are the collective number of offensive line starts for BYU and Utah entering 2010?

Utah = 98
BYU = 64

The starts for some opposing teams:

TCU has 78
Pitt has 39
FSU has 142

Link to the WSJ article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ...891223207.html

Source for OL start stats (David Locke, I had to scroll down to find it):

http://twitter.com/lockedonsports

The WSJ has done this for a couple years, and I'm always interested in reading it, but I remember CSU had a ton of starts returning last year as well, and it landed them in the MWC cellar.

It's a decent indicator when looking ahead, but turnover margin in hindsight is far more telling when it comes to expected W-L.

[Indy Coug]

It's a decent indicator when looking ahead, but turnover margin in hindsight is far more telling when it comes to expected W-L.

Which is not nearly as telling as pass efficiency differential.

[beefytee]

It's a decent indicator when looking ahead, but turnover margin in hindsight is far more telling when it comes to expected W-L.

Which is not nearly as telling as pass efficiency differential.

Are these stats really that telling when they come from previous seasons?

[Indy Coug]

Are these stats really that telling when they come from previous seasons?

Oh, from previous seasons? Not really.