• Facebook StumbleUpon
• Email

1. Gene Claude said:

   May 13th, 2009 at 10:00 am

   My biggest beef with the study and its conclusions are that you would need to control for experience with other units to determine if “experienced o-line” has more, less or the same correlation with winning. In other words, I imagine that “team experience” has some correlation with increased winning, although (as my Bruno article argued), I suspect the correlation is not nearly as strong as people think. To make this article really interesing, you would need to isolate for the o-line experience to determine if it is more correlated with winning than say, skill positions. A difficulty would obviously be that when you talk about o-line experience, you are talking about 5 players. So, in reality, what you might actually be saying is that “if a team loses 4 experienced players, it will likely be worse.” That sort of falls in the duh category.

   All that said, I really do think this is a hidden indicator for success. O-line talent is easy to overlook when you have guys like Reesing, Briscoe, etc. The flip side is that Nebraska returns a lot of talent on both sides of the trench, which is somewhat alarming.

2. Phenomenal Smith said:

   May 13th, 2009 at 10:30 am

   Nearly half the offense resides on the line so you’re right, this “study” may just be an overall experienced v. inexperienced thing. Like I said, it seems intuitive that an experienced line is a good thing. My intuit tells me that the o-line has to work well together so individual performance isn’t as important (unlike QB or WR). My intuit could be wrong.

3. Gene Claude said:

   May 13th, 2009 at 11:03 am

   I agree that intuitively experience at some positions would have more value than at others. I would hypothesize that QB is most important, then o-line, then maybe safety, LB, WR? I don’t know.

4. hiphopopotamus said:

   May 13th, 2009 at 4:48 pm

   I read this too and although I don’t put too much stock into a sample size that consists of one year, it’s pretty tough to argue that OL experience could be anything but a good thing.

   But really, it’s not like Georgia and Missouri didn’t live up to their pre-season hype because they couldn’t score points. Their OL play may have struggled here and there, but each team’s inherent downfall was their lack of a defense. It just so happened that their OL starters weren’t experienced. And I think we all know what Clemson does every time they have any sort of expecations.

   All of that aside, I’d be lying if I said that OL play wasn’t a worry of mine. Our schemes and skill players can play with just about anyone, but unless we can protect with five on offense and pressure with four on defense, we’ll be no better than “good.”

5. Gene Claude said:

   May 14th, 2009 at 9:29 am

   Hiphop, you are buying what the media is selling. Missouri lost the games it “should” have won (OSU, KU) as much due to offensive failings as defense. And the games we “should” have lost (OU, UT) were, um, unimpressive offensive performances. Missouri’s defense and offense, when context adjusted, were similar last year. Every single Big 12 defense, when measured by historical standards, looked awful last year.

   The larger point–that inexperience on the o-line was to blame–is questionable at best. The line struggled against OSU and UT, but played well against everyone else. The failure to meet expectations last year can mostly be traced to unreasonable expectations, a huge year in the Big 12, and Chase Daniel not really being as good as the hype. The only truly disappointing loss was against KU, and as I argued before the game, the talent gap between the two teams was much less than generally perceived.

   The silver lining for KU is that Reesing is probably at his best improvising. Assuming he does not actually get dismembered, you guys can afford some leaky line play. I would be worried about the linebacker situation also, why don’t you fill us in on that?

6. hiphopopotamus said:

   May 14th, 2009 at 3:26 pm

   Trust me, I’m not buying anything from the media (even if I’m wrong). But 37 points should always be enough to win. The OL disappointed at times, but the defense is what got them run off the field twice and beat once.

   And I’m right there with you on the underwhelming performance of the offense and how much of that was due to line play. But to me, that has nothing to due with being inexperienced and a lot to do with the talent gap. Daniel, Maclin, Coffman and the spread in general can level the playing field, but it’s still OU and Texas getting the athletic prodigies in the trenches – and that’s the inherent difference between the level they’re at and the level Missouri and/or Kansas is at.

   As to your question, linebacker is a worry because it’s unknown. But between Wright, Springer, Schermer and Quigley we’ve got backers that can fill that role nicely. There’s almost surely not a game changer like Holt in the group, but I’m plenty confident in their ability to make the plays they need to…IF the four guys in front of them can clog the running lanes and put some pressure on the passer. And that’s a big if. Because like my point above, I get as mad at our defense as anyone when I wathc them, but if the teams like OU and Texas that are getting the best athletes available can’t stop the spread, how in the world are we supposed to? The obvious answer is to get pressure on the QB, but unfortunately, it’s a solution that’s not easily accomplished.

   I need a nap.

7. Atomic Teeth » Blog Archive » Missouri Offense – Yo Gabbert Gabbert said:

   August 31st, 2009 at 5:30 pm

   [...] in the North and won’t be challenged by elite defensive lines game in and game out.  This offensive line has 54 starts between them, so while there are two new starters and a lot of youth, the experience is [...]

Leave a Reply