Some people factor offensive lines into their player projections. The idea is that an RB running behind a terrible o-line is risky (think Todd Gurley in 2016), while an RB running behind a fantastic o-line is a great draft target (think Zeke Elliott in 2016). It largely makes sense. Better o-lines generally are more capable of creating more/bigger holes and keeping defenders away from the ball. So why don't we simply draft RBs on teams with the best offensive lines and avoid RBs on teams with the worst?
Recently I tested this question using very limited stats, based on Pro Fooball Focus's preseason offensive line rankings. Objectively, PFF is a well-regarded and highly impressive data gatherer reportedly used by every NFL team. The following limited findings aren't meant to address the question fully; they're merely a snapshot to help us understand what else might be at play.
I grouped PFF's 2016 preseason o-line rankings into four groups: those ranked 1-5, those ranked 6-10, those ranked 21-26, and those ranked 27-32. Then I tabulated the average offensive yards for each team in each group. It resulted in differentiations I expected to see: the top-5 OLs averaged 6,053 offensive yards, while the top 6-10 came in at 5,849. And sure enough, the top 21-26 averaged only 5,280 yards, while the top 27-32 produced slightly more: 5,340. "Good," I'm thinking. "Offensive line projections have some correlation with fantasy output, at least when it comes to yardage . . . at least for one season."
Then I looked at 2017 to see if the results could be replicated. Each team in the top 1-5 OL group averaged 5,293 offensive yards in 2017. The next best (top 6-10 OLs) group was a little worse, averaging 5,213 yards. Interestingly, the lower-tier top 21-26 group averaged 5,163 yards -- just a hair worse than the two upper tiers. And the worst group -- the top 27-32 OLs -- averaged an impressive 5,221 yards, or more than the 6-10 and 21-26 groups.
So in 2017, PFF's offensive line projections had virtually no bearing on each tier of teams' offensive yardage. And it's not just PFF. These were consensus upper-tier and lower-tier o-lines. Some upper-tiered teams thrived, such as the Eagles and Steelers. But others underperformed, like the Falcons, Titans, Raiders, and Bills. Green Bay was a unique case, as their top-10 offensive line couldn't compensate for Aaron Rodgers' long-term absence. Meanwhile, the Browns' lack of talent couldn't make up for having the second-best o-line.
Among the lowest-tier OLs, the Chargers and Lions certainly showed few ill effects, while Russell Wilson and the Seahawks (two straight years as a preseason-ranked bottom-3 OL) continued to execute effectively. Even the 29th-ranked Texans looked unstoppable until Deshaun Watson went down.
A review of offensive touchdowns comes out a little more as expected, with the top 5 and top 6-10 OLs averaging 34.4 and 35 offensive scores, respectively. Farther down the scale, the top 21-26 OLs averaged 31.7, while the bottom tier averaged 32.5. Still, those gaps are relatively small translating into less than one fantasy point per game between the top OL teams and the bottom OL teams. All told, all of this is barely enough to factor into our draft strategy.
So I decided to look at this a little differently, tabulating o-line ranking movement from 2016 to 2017, breaking up teams into six categories: 15+ jumps in o-line ranking, 8-14 jumps, 0-7 jumps, 1-7 drops, 8-14 drops, and 15+ drops. In other words, Arizona's offensive line was ranked 17th in the summer of 2016 and 27th the following summer. So that's a 10-spot drop. Conversely, San Francisco shifted from 27th in the preseason of 2016 to 16th last preseason, marking an 11-spot jump.
Essentially, I wanted to know whether strengthened and weakened o-lines had a bigger correlation with offensive prowess. My thinking for years has been that, all things being equal, RB-A has an advantage if his offensive line improves from one season to the next, while RB-B is at a disadvantage if his o-line gets worse.
The results are more interesting, although with one big hiccup, as you can see in the charts below. The Bears, Browns, and Titans were the biggest jumpers with respect to offensive line ranking (advancing 15+ spots from the previous preseason's rankings). Yet the first two had rookie QBs and limited receiver options; consider that Cleveland's top three receivers (in yards) were an RB and two TEs. No o-line was going to turn these two teams into offensive juggernauts.
But the remaining tiers of jumpers tell us more than the rankings-in-a-vacuum do. Positive ranking shifts of 8 to 14 spots correlated with huge yardage and scoring advantages. These were the Chargers, Jaguars, Rams, and Steelers. There are plenty of good reasons why the Jags' and Rams' offensives took huge leaps between 2016 and 2017. But objectively, Gurley would not have been an all-world fantasy star if his o-line hadn't dramatically improved. The same goes for Jacksonville, the NFL's top rushing team. Also consider these four teams lost 922 yards on 140 sacks in 2016. In 2017 it was 589 lost yards on 94 sacks. Again, many reasonable reasons for those shifts. But it's hard to deny the impact of their improved offensive line.
So which teams' o-lines are markedly worse or better since last year, according to Pro Football Focus? The Bills (minus-19 spots, from 10th last summer to 29th this summer), are the biggest droppers, followed by the Vikings (minus-14), Jets (minus-11), and Cardinals (minus-10). It's entirely conceivable the Bills and Jets will have bottom-third offenses this year, and not just because of conceivably worse offensive lines. Minnesota and Arizona are more interesting cases, as each has a young marquee running back expected to thrive.
On the flip side, the Lions' offensive line leads the way among upward movers (+16 spots since last summer, climbing to 8th this summer). The 49ers (+11) and Saints (+10) are close behind. Should we change our conceptions of Kerryon Johnson, Jerick McKinnon, and Alvin Kamara? Probably not at this point. As with most sets of stats, this is just scratching the surface. More research needs to be done, and more seasons need to be tested. But if we can gain a competitive edge by understanding how to interpret offensive line projections, it's worth digging deeper.
SUBSCRIBE: Preaseason Top 300 Rankings
www.fantasyfootballforwinners.com (Big Blue Box registration form)
JOIN: 4th Annual Survivor Pool
officepoolstop.com/JoinLeague.aspx
League ID: 20432
Password: mariota
Recently I tested this question using very limited stats, based on Pro Fooball Focus's preseason offensive line rankings. Objectively, PFF is a well-regarded and highly impressive data gatherer reportedly used by every NFL team. The following limited findings aren't meant to address the question fully; they're merely a snapshot to help us understand what else might be at play.
I grouped PFF's 2016 preseason o-line rankings into four groups: those ranked 1-5, those ranked 6-10, those ranked 21-26, and those ranked 27-32. Then I tabulated the average offensive yards for each team in each group. It resulted in differentiations I expected to see: the top-5 OLs averaged 6,053 offensive yards, while the top 6-10 came in at 5,849. And sure enough, the top 21-26 averaged only 5,280 yards, while the top 27-32 produced slightly more: 5,340. "Good," I'm thinking. "Offensive line projections have some correlation with fantasy output, at least when it comes to yardage . . . at least for one season."
Then I looked at 2017 to see if the results could be replicated. Each team in the top 1-5 OL group averaged 5,293 offensive yards in 2017. The next best (top 6-10 OLs) group was a little worse, averaging 5,213 yards. Interestingly, the lower-tier top 21-26 group averaged 5,163 yards -- just a hair worse than the two upper tiers. And the worst group -- the top 27-32 OLs -- averaged an impressive 5,221 yards, or more than the 6-10 and 21-26 groups.
So in 2017, PFF's offensive line projections had virtually no bearing on each tier of teams' offensive yardage. And it's not just PFF. These were consensus upper-tier and lower-tier o-lines. Some upper-tiered teams thrived, such as the Eagles and Steelers. But others underperformed, like the Falcons, Titans, Raiders, and Bills. Green Bay was a unique case, as their top-10 offensive line couldn't compensate for Aaron Rodgers' long-term absence. Meanwhile, the Browns' lack of talent couldn't make up for having the second-best o-line.
Among the lowest-tier OLs, the Chargers and Lions certainly showed few ill effects, while Russell Wilson and the Seahawks (two straight years as a preseason-ranked bottom-3 OL) continued to execute effectively. Even the 29th-ranked Texans looked unstoppable until Deshaun Watson went down.
A review of offensive touchdowns comes out a little more as expected, with the top 5 and top 6-10 OLs averaging 34.4 and 35 offensive scores, respectively. Farther down the scale, the top 21-26 OLs averaged 31.7, while the bottom tier averaged 32.5. Still, those gaps are relatively small translating into less than one fantasy point per game between the top OL teams and the bottom OL teams. All told, all of this is barely enough to factor into our draft strategy.
So I decided to look at this a little differently, tabulating o-line ranking movement from 2016 to 2017, breaking up teams into six categories: 15+ jumps in o-line ranking, 8-14 jumps, 0-7 jumps, 1-7 drops, 8-14 drops, and 15+ drops. In other words, Arizona's offensive line was ranked 17th in the summer of 2016 and 27th the following summer. So that's a 10-spot drop. Conversely, San Francisco shifted from 27th in the preseason of 2016 to 16th last preseason, marking an 11-spot jump.
Essentially, I wanted to know whether strengthened and weakened o-lines had a bigger correlation with offensive prowess. My thinking for years has been that, all things being equal, RB-A has an advantage if his offensive line improves from one season to the next, while RB-B is at a disadvantage if his o-line gets worse.
The results are more interesting, although with one big hiccup, as you can see in the charts below. The Bears, Browns, and Titans were the biggest jumpers with respect to offensive line ranking (advancing 15+ spots from the previous preseason's rankings). Yet the first two had rookie QBs and limited receiver options; consider that Cleveland's top three receivers (in yards) were an RB and two TEs. No o-line was going to turn these two teams into offensive juggernauts.
But the remaining tiers of jumpers tell us more than the rankings-in-a-vacuum do. Positive ranking shifts of 8 to 14 spots correlated with huge yardage and scoring advantages. These were the Chargers, Jaguars, Rams, and Steelers. There are plenty of good reasons why the Jags' and Rams' offensives took huge leaps between 2016 and 2017. But objectively, Gurley would not have been an all-world fantasy star if his o-line hadn't dramatically improved. The same goes for Jacksonville, the NFL's top rushing team. Also consider these four teams lost 922 yards on 140 sacks in 2016. In 2017 it was 589 lost yards on 94 sacks. Again, many reasonable reasons for those shifts. But it's hard to deny the impact of their improved offensive line.
So which teams' o-lines are markedly worse or better since last year, according to Pro Football Focus? The Bills (minus-19 spots, from 10th last summer to 29th this summer), are the biggest droppers, followed by the Vikings (minus-14), Jets (minus-11), and Cardinals (minus-10). It's entirely conceivable the Bills and Jets will have bottom-third offenses this year, and not just because of conceivably worse offensive lines. Minnesota and Arizona are more interesting cases, as each has a young marquee running back expected to thrive.
On the flip side, the Lions' offensive line leads the way among upward movers (+16 spots since last summer, climbing to 8th this summer). The 49ers (+11) and Saints (+10) are close behind. Should we change our conceptions of Kerryon Johnson, Jerick McKinnon, and Alvin Kamara? Probably not at this point. As with most sets of stats, this is just scratching the surface. More research needs to be done, and more seasons need to be tested. But if we can gain a competitive edge by understanding how to interpret offensive line projections, it's worth digging deeper.
SUBSCRIBE: Preaseason Top 300 Rankings
www.fantasyfootballforwinners.com (Big Blue Box registration form)
JOIN: 4th Annual Survivor Pool
officepoolstop.com/JoinLeague.aspx
League ID: 20432
Password: mariota