Ryan Wendell re-signed

[50-yard-line]

It's so hard to judge. I just watched a couple of GiFs (tried to upload them, but they'll only come in as JPGs) for a pair of sacks on Brady that were likely attributed to Wendell.

Both were clearly NOT his fault. On one, he was supposed to kick over to get Vickerson, but Vickerson didn't take the play fake and blew past the pulling guard. There was no way Wendell or any other center gets that block. The other was a mirror image of the first play. Once again, the Pats were relying on a play fake to freeze a lineman who simply broke straight for Brady, moving upfield too quickly for any center to get in his way.

That's a scheme issue, or maybe the defense was simply set up to ignore the play fake on that side of the play, period...orders simply: go get Brady.

If I could upload the damned GiFs, I'd show you what I mean.

 

[BradyManny]

Pro Football Focus is useless, regardless of what version of analysis you are using.
Also one OL allowing 15% of the teams sacks is not a terrible thing.

The 6 sack stat Ken is citing also came from PFF, so you can disregard that one out too if you want. I agree PFF is largely useless, but for statistics such as sacks or hurries, it's hard to imagine they are terribly unreliable, or any different from any other sites (or if they even cull these stats themselves or pull it from scouts inc or whoever). In some horrifying twist, PFF has become the go-to site for these things (would a real scouting site please stand up?), and I'm not even sure who else is keeping track of and posting things like sacks allowed and hurries right now.

As for 15% not being a terrible thing - I didn't say it was, but you also can't say it's not bad. Like with Ken's stat, it's devoid of context. What is typical for a center (see below, Wendell led centers in sacks allowed)? How many sacks are from TE, RB, QB, etc.? It means nothing, and that was my objection to Ken's post.

However, if you do want to accept the 6 sack stat for Wendell, then note it was the worst among centers in the NFL.

If you want to throw out PFF entirely, that's fine by me. I think they are garbage, too. But Ken put the number out there, and he left out the important context that those 6 sacks were the most any center allowed, to go with the highest number of hurries for a center, per PFF (and per any site tracking those stats - again, where do they come from? Are they all pulled from the same place? I don't know.)

 

[NormZauchin]

I know that old adage of: "there are lies, big lies, and then there are statistics". This might be one of those times, but still its something we should consider when we get one our high horses and routinely judge players, without much more than our gut opinions.

Last season Tom Brady dropped back 628 times. That's 628 times our OL had to defend Brady's ability to make a pass. PFF excoriated Ryan Wendell and attributed 6 of the 40 sacks Brady took to him. Even though PFF relies on amateur analysts who have no idea whose responsibilities are whose, and are making judgements based usually on a TV feed, lets use their numbers for this case.

That would mean that over an entire season, just over 99% of the time, it WASN'T Ryan Wendell's fault Brady was sacked. But lets extend the notion even further to Hurries and hits that an OLman is responsible for. Now these stats are even more subjective than sacks, and even less reliable. I can't find a site which will give me Wendell's stats on this and I'd love it if someone could find them. However for this example lets assume that Wendell's number of allowing hits and hurries is 5X his poor sack record.

If this number is even close to accurate it would mean that in 627 pass attempts Wendell was responsible for 36 hits, hurries or sacks. That would meant that in over 94% of the times Brady dropped back, Wendell DID NOT give up a hit, hurry or sack.

Think about it. Here we have Wendell, who is perceived as the worst of the worst, and yet he has a 94% success rate. Even if we DOUBLED his hits and hurries allowed, he'd STILL show a success rate of over 90%

This is my conundrum. We all want to flail an offensive performer who routinely is successful 90-95% of the time he's required to protect the passer. Yet using the same stats would praise and elevate a pass rusher who fails 80% of the time he tries to sack hurry or hit a QB

Think about it, again. We all love CJones. There is not a single voice here that would not love it he got an extension some time this year. Yet if we assume that over the course of the season Jones rushed the passer 300 times (which might be low given how often he was on the field) that would mean he failed to sack the QB 96% of the time.

If we also give him credit for having 5 times more hits and hurries (for a total of around 66 hits, hurries or sacks) That would mean our BEST pass rusher failed completely to even affect the passer 78% of the times he rushed

But even though my numbers are mostly approximations, I think even when we do get the "real numbers", the basic premiss will hold true. It does seem rather ironic that we laud a DE who completely fails to even affect the passer around 80%, while we loathe a C who likely has a complete success rate of over 90%.

None of this makes) Wendell a better C, or Jones a bad DE. Its just one of those things that make you go HMMMM!!!!!!....or at least should. OK fun with numbers time is over, You can go back to your usual *****ing and moaning.

BTW- I'd feel better about this analysis if I actually had the REAL numbers for the following Chandler Jones and Ryan Wendell's stats

1. The number of times he rushed the passer
2. The number of hits and hurries he was credited with.
3. The numbers of hits and hurries Wendell was given responsibility for.

Any help would be appreciated

I am one of your biggest fans, Ken, but here I will have to take exception. Success for defensive and offensive linemen is asymmetrical. It is much easier to stop a defensive lineman from sacking or hurrying the QB, than it is for the defensive lineman to make those plays. In a similar fashion, we think a baseball player who is successful one-third of the time is an excellent hitter. A pitcher who gets two-thirds of the batters he faces out would be released or sent to the minors in short order. (I think the Sox have had a few over the years.) I agree with another poster who said that the valid comparison is with others in the league who play the same position.

 

[supafly]

Thats what I meant, I want to see an interior OL, either G or C added round 3 the latest and if there is someone they like at 29 I would not be upset. Though honestly I expect them to trade back and pick up an extra 2nd. Someone like Indy or Washington who doesn't have a first might be willing to trade up.

The rumor from several GMs is that just about every team would be more than happy to trade down to accumulate additional picks, due to the extreme depth that the 2014 draft class holds.

I agree with you that I suspected a good chance of trading down/out of the 1st round in the past several months, but I wasn't taking this consideration into account when projecting that.

One may argue that it's always more difficult to trade down and that all it takes is one team to do so, and they'd have a perfectly reasonable argument just the same. It will be fun to see how it plays out.

 

[patfanken]

I think people are missing the most important aspect of my hypothesis. Its not the failures that's interesting but the huge percentage of SUCCESSFUL plays a so called bad player can make and STILL Be considered bad.

The irony is that even if Ryan Wendell is the worst center in the league, if you take the PFF stats (which I recognize as probably being specious) and add the 6 sacks to the 24 hurries attributed to Wendell as being legitimate, then his SUCCESS rate at keeping Brady clean is just over 95%. In other words 95% of the 627 times Brady dropped back to pass, Ryan Wendell did his job in making sure no one touched or "hurried him".

Remember these are the "numbers" that his critics are using to indict him as being among the worst C's in the league. SO....you can understand how one may find it rather ironic that we pillory and damn a player because he's ONLY has a 95% SUCCESS rate, while at the same time, we honor a player like our best pass rusher for maintaining ONLY an 80% FAILURE rate.

I'm not making any judgements here. I'm not defending or castigating anyone. I just find in interesting that we have these dichotomous perceptions about what is, and is not success for different players. Perceptions that seem inordinately unfair to offensive linemen, because evidently being successful 95 times out of 100 is grounds for dismissal.
Kind of makes you go hmmmmmm

 

[supafly]

I think people are missing the most important aspect of my hypothesis. Its not the failures that's interesting but the huge percentage of SUCCESSFUL plays a so called bad player can make and STILL Be considered bad.

The irony is that even if Ryan Wendell is the worst center in the league, if you take the PFF stats (which I recognize as probably being specious) and add the 6 sacks to the 24 hurries attributed to Wendell as being legitimate, then his SUCCESS rate at keeping Brady clean is just over 95%. In other words 95% of the 627 times Brady dropped back to pass, Ryan Wendell did his job in making sure no one touched or "hurried him".

Remember these are the "numbers" that his critics are using to indict him as being among the worst C's in the league. SO....you can understand how one may find it rather ironic that we pillory and damn a player because he's ONLY has a 95% SUCCESS rate, while at the same time, we honor a player like our best pass rusher for maintaining ONLY an 80% FAILURE rate.

I'm not making any judgements here. I'm not defending or castigating anyone. I just find in interesting that we have these dichotomous perceptions about what is, and is not success for different players. Perceptions that seem inordinately unfair to offensive linemen, because evidently being successful 95 times out of 100 is grounds for dismissal.
Kind of makes you go hmmmmmm

Personally, I am absolutely fine with Wendell being a 6th/7th OL if someone else shows more promise at the position this year. His knowledge of the system and rapport with Brady shows us that we could do a lot worse for active gameday backups.

However....the "95% success rate" doesn't really matter that much, if everyone else is having 97-98-99% success rates on a much more regular basis. We all recognize Wendell's obvious weaknesses as a starting center, and when you go by the exact same ranking system that you yourself bring up, Wendell rated as the 33rd best center in the NFL last year with that "95% success rate."

 

[patfanken]

I am one of your biggest fans, Ken, but here I will have to take exception. Success for defensive and offensive linemen is asymmetrical. It is much easier to stop a defensive lineman from sacking or hurrying the QB, than it is for the defensive lineman to make those plays.

I agree to a certain extent, especially when a team uses a 3 or 4 man rush. However it becomes more difficult when teams blitz or rush more that 4.

In a similar fashion, we think a baseball player who is successful one-third of the time is an excellent hitter. A pitcher who gets two-thirds of the batters he faces out would be released or sent to the minors in short order. (I think the Sox have had a few over the years.) I agree with another poster who said that the valid comparison is with others in the league who play the same position.

I won't dispute what you said on its merits, Norm. Though I'd love the chance to argue it over a beer, it would be just too difficult and time consuming to do it, this late at night, and in this format, simply because I believe there isn't a right or wrong answer. I'm thinking that its an apples to oranges metaphor. I just found it interesting how such oddly different levels of what is perceived as success and failure can differ to such a wide degree depending on where you play.

BTW- here's a question you SHOULD know the answer to, given your user name: (weird what pops into your head this late at night)

Put these 3 players in the order of when they played first base for the Red Sox:
Norm Zauchin, **** Gernett, and **** Stuart. And no looking up on the internet. You are Norm Zauchin and you should know. Good Luck and thanks for being a fan.

 

[patfanken]

The rumor from several GMs is that just about every team would be more than happy to trade down to accumulate additional picks, due to the extreme depth that the 2014 draft class holds.

I agree with you that I suspected a good chance of trading down/out of the 1st round in the past several months, but I wasn't taking this consideration into account when projecting that.

One may argue that it's always more difficult to trade down and that all it takes is one team to do so, and they'd have a perfectly reasonable argument just the same. It will be fun to see how it plays out.

Its really a buyers market this year, Sup. There is a very good chance that the Pats will WANT to trade down and pick up some additional picks. The problem is, who is going to want to trade up and give up any picks. There are going to be many more sellers than buyers this year, especially at the bottom third of the round

In a year of such a deep draft, no one is going to want to give up picks. The trading down option gets even tougher because the only teams likely to be willing to trade up will be those teams who more than 10 picks. So the field of potential buyers is even smaller that usual.

Also I would be surprised that any of the teams looking to move down, especially those in the bottom half of the draft, are going to be offered as much as they would get ordinarily because of the tight market. For example if Texas is going to move down, they shouldn't expect the kind of riches the Rams got from Washington when they moved up to get Griffin.

BOTTOM LINE: If the Pats are going to move down, a lot of stars are going to have to align properly for them to pull this off. They are going to have to get lucky and find that some team's favorite binky has fallen to them, AND they have enough extra picks to be willing to part with a couple. Even if they were lucky enough to have that all happen, they'd be even luckier if they got face value for the pick.

 

[patfanken]

However....the "95% success rate" doesn't really matter that much, if everyone else is having 97-98-99% success rates on a much more regular basis. We all recognize Wendell's obvious weaknesses as a starting center, and when you go by the exact same ranking system that you yourself bring up, Wendell rated as the 33rd best center in the NFL last year with that "95% success rate."

It might not matter and I guess everything is relative. I just thought it was and odd and interesting dichotomy of what is and isn't success at different positions.

But we also have to factor in the same rating system rated him somewhere in their top 10 just one season ago (IIRC). Did he somehow forget to play last year. I wonder if the fact that he played more offensive snaps than any other player in the league had something to do with it. More snaps meant more chances to get beat. I also think that Mankins' sub par year (relative to him), and Connolly's general mediocrity has something to do with it as well.

At any rate we really won't have any idea about Wendell's future until September, so we have many more months to debate and speculate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Pats OL.

 

[supafly]

It might not matter and I guess everything is relative. I just thought it was and odd and interesting dichotomy of what is and isn't success at different positions.

But we also have to factor in the same rating system rated him somewhere in their top 10 just one season ago (IIRC). Did he somehow forget to play last year. I wonder if the fact that he played more offensive snaps than any other player in the league had something to do with it. More snaps meant more chances to get beat. I also think that Mankins' sub par year (relative to him), and Connolly's general mediocrity has something to do with it as well.

At any rate we really won't have any idea about Wendell's future until September, so we have many more months to debate and speculate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Pats OL.

I think some of these questions may be unknown even to Belichick, Ken. That may explain some of his thinking in bringing him back on the kind of deal that he did. Then again, we're not 100% certain what's going to happen with Connelly just yet either. I was always under the impression that Connelly would either be extended to lower his cap hit, or cut. It's possible that maybe we're waiting to see what happens in the draft next month, who knows?

I would imagine that he may be thrown in the mix with a handful of others, and if he rises to the top we'll have our answer. If not, he can provide adequate depth for an OL that by all accounts, should be improved from last year--or at least on par.

One thing I wonder is how much the lack of receiving options and inconsistency had on the OL? The thought of that extra .5 second or so may have played a role, and just that aspect alone may be improved upon enough to see Brady's 40 sacks back down to the high 20's or better.

 

[supafly]

I think along with the lack of receiving option aspect that I brought up in the previous post (not that I mean to suggest that was "the" problem, but more so "a" problem), we can bring up some other topics as well:

--the future of Connelly and his rather large 2014 cap hit. Is he staying, is he going?

--the draft, and how it shakes out in terms of our assumed addition at interior OL. Will we draft a guy that offers instant starting capability?

--Marcus Cannon and any potential that he may have of starting at RG

--some of the down the pipe prospects such as Kline, Cave, etc

I think any/all of these could have an impact when assessing our entire OL situation for 2014

 

[BradyManny]

I think people are missing the most important aspect of my hypothesis. Its not the failures that's interesting but the huge percentage of SUCCESSFUL plays a so called bad player can make and STILL Be considered bad.

The irony is that even if Ryan Wendell is the worst center in the league, if you take the PFF stats (which I recognize as probably being specious) and add the 6 sacks to the 24 hurries attributed to Wendell as being legitimate, then his SUCCESS rate at keeping Brady clean is just over 95%. In other words 95% of the 627 times Brady dropped back to pass, Ryan Wendell did his job in making sure no one touched or "hurried him".

Remember these are the "numbers" that his critics are using to indict him as being among the worst C's in the league. SO....you can understand how one may find it rather ironic that we pillory and damn a player because he's ONLY has a 95% SUCCESS rate, while at the same time, we honor a player like our best pass rusher for maintaining ONLY an 80% FAILURE rate.

Ken, these statements mean nothing. I'm sorry, but this is just completely meaningless. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Players are judged based upon their performance RELATIVE to appropriate comps. Comparing the success rate of a center preventing sacks to a rush end creating sacks is truly devoid of any meaning. It provides nothing of value. There's nothing ironic about it. Players are evaluated against things worth evaluating them against. A measurement, and that's what these statistics are, that is not relative to something else has no meaning.

As for using stats to indict Wendell, I wasn't the one who posted them, you were. I didn't even know how those stats. I watched the games, realized Wendell was struggling in pass-pro, and decided he wasn't worth $8 million. I freaked out when it seemed like the Patriots felt otherwise; that turned out not to be the case. Now we have him on cheap terms, and have the luxury of trying to find a better player. If not, so be it, he'll be adequate. But you don't have to continue to try and justify the $8 million contract that never existed.

 

[mgteich]

You set the issues well.

Wendell didn't do well last year because Brady needed so much extra time. He just wasn't up to the additional need. Hopefully, this year's receiver will know the reads. Wendell is one the best run blockers in the NFL. What we need is either much better pass blockers, or receivers with a clue.

We are set on the left side with Solder, Mankins and Kline. Mankins is the backup LT.

We now have a starting center, who may or may not be beaten out by a draftee or Connolly (I think that this is doubtful, but no matter). In any case, Wendell can start if needed, and can be a backup through 2015. Hopefully, we will draft our future starting center. However, I don't know why this year will be any different than the past. We say that every year, and Belichick disagrees every year.

The right side of the line is a bit of a mess. Vollmer is injured every year. Cannon is his able backup, and in his contract year. Connolly is being paid starting salary and is in his contract year.

IMHO, we need a backup RT who can play RG (another Cannon). If this player is starting material at RG (not likely as with Cannon), then fine. Otherwise, we need our future starting RG.

So, we have THREE needs on the OL: a center, a RG, and a backup RT/RG. IMHO, none of these three need to start in 2014. The OL will improve from last year with more able receivers.

I think along with the lack of receiving option aspect that I brought up in the previous post (not that I mean to suggest that was "the" problem, but more so "a" problem), we can bring up some other topics as well:

--the future of Connelly and his rather large 2014 cap hit. Is he staying, is he going?

--the draft, and how it shakes out in terms of our assumed addition at interior OL. Will we draft a guy that offers instant starting capability?

--Marcus Cannon and any potential that he may have of starting at RG

--some of the down the pipe prospects such as Kline, Cave, etc

I think any/all of these could have an impact when assessing our entire OL situation for 2014

 

[The Brandon Five]

To me the issue with Wendell last year was not pass protection, it was that he had the most obvious snap "tell" in the league.

 

[ripatsfan91]

My question: How did Wendell fall off so much? It seems like in 2012 he played at an above average level and was a very good run blocker. However, come 2013 he was being pushed around pretty easily and is a huge liability?

 

[patfanken]

My question: How did Wendell fall off so much? It seems like in 2012 he played at an above average level and was a very good run blocker. However, come 2013 he was being pushed around pretty easily and is a huge liability?

Good question. There are several possible explanations.

1. He continued to be an positive factor in the run game in both seasons. The problem was more in the passing game

2. He's obviously undersized, so it could have been that defenses saw him as a match advantage. So if they had a big powerful NT/DT, they matched up on him more than they did in 2012

3. When Connolly looked so good at C in 2011, he had 2 G's who where playing at elite levels on either side of him. In 2013 Mankins wasn't playing to previous levels, and Connolly was simply mediocre. Since Wendell is at best slightly above average, he isn't going to look good if the guys around him aren't playing well.

4. Or, perhaps it was a simple matter that he had a bad year.

Remember the statistical margin between determining whether a player is viewed as a success or failure on the OL is RAZOR thin. Think about it. If you take just 10 bad plays out of a total of 627 pass plays (1.5%) that Wendell made last year, and turned them into good plays, his rating would have drastically improved. In other words all Wendell has to do is to do better on just one more play a game, and everyone will love him again.

BTW- while we rail on our OL, the fact is (according NFL.com) there were 20 other teams in the league who did worse than the Pats in pass protection.

BTW-2 I found this stat to be even more ironic. 6 of the top 10 rated OL's didn't make it to the playoffs. In fact the Champion Seahawks allowed 4 more sacks and 14 more QB hits, DESPITE having one of the most mobile QB's in the league.

 

[Sicilian]

Good question. There are several possible explanations.

1. He continued to be an positive factor in the run game in both seasons. The problem was more in the passing game

2. He's obviously undersized, so it could have been that defenses saw him as a match advantage. So if they had a big powerful NT/DT, they matched up on him more than they did in 2012

3. When Connolly looked so good at C in 2011, he had 2 G's who where playing at elite levels on either side of him. In 2013 Mankins wasn't playing to previous levels, and Connolly was simply mediocre. Since Wendell is at best slightly above average, he isn't going to look good if the guys around him aren't playing well.

4. Or, perhaps it was a simple matter that he had a bad year.

Remember the statistical margin between determining whether a player is viewed as a success or failure on the OL is RAZOR thin. Think about it. If you take just 10 bad plays out of a total of 627 pass plays (1.5%) that Wendell made last year, and turned them into good plays, his rating would have drastically improved. In other words all Wendell has to do is to do better on just one more play a game, and everyone will love him again.

BTW- while we rail on our OL, the fact is (according NFL.com) there were 20 other teams in the league who did worse than the Pats in pass protection.

BTW-2 I found this stat to be even more ironic. 6 of the top 10 rated OL's didn't make it to the playoffs. In fact the Champion Seahawks allowed 4 more sacks and 14 more QB hits, DESPITE having one of the most mobile QB's in the league.

Overall I agree with your post, but wanted to point out that sometimes sack/hurry numbers go up on mobile QBs, because rather than get rid of the ball quickly they have a tendency to move or run. The numbers in and of themselves paint an incomplete picture in that regard.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think people are missing the most important aspect of my hypothesis. Its not the failures that's interesting but the huge percentage of SUCCESSFUL plays a so called bad player can make and STILL Be considered bad.

The irony is that even if Ryan Wendell is the worst center in the league, if you take the PFF stats (which I recognize as probably being specious) and add the 6 sacks to the 24 hurries attributed to Wendell as being legitimate, then his SUCCESS rate at keeping Brady clean is just over 95%. In other words 95% of the 627 times Brady dropped back to pass, Ryan Wendell did his job in making sure no one touched or "hurried him".

Remember these are the "numbers" that his critics are using to indict him as being among the worst C's in the league. SO....you can understand how one may find it rather ironic that we pillory and damn a player because he's ONLY has a 95% SUCCESS rate, while at the same time, we honor a player like our best pass rusher for maintaining ONLY an 80% FAILURE rate.

I'm not making any judgements here. I'm not defending or castigating anyone. I just find in interesting that we have these dichotomous perceptions about what is, and is not success for different players. Perceptions that seem inordinately unfair to offensive linemen, because evidently being successful 95 times out of 100 is grounds for dismissal.
Kind of makes you go hmmmmmm

I think the point that most people are getting at is that, put on this line, there's a whole lot of centers that should be readily available who would do better. You also need to consider:

1. The degree to which Mankins was relied on to cover for Wendell's mistakes
2. The times when Brady took hits or was hurried when throwing because Wendell did a poor job in pass protection

I can't quantify it, but I'm pretty sure that the Pats' offensive line has become significantly more susceptible to interior pressure, whether or not it results in a sack, in each of the last two seasons. They were excellent in 2011, When Connolly was playing center and Waters was at RG. They were adequate in 2012, and then by last season it was a clear weak point that opponents were attacking.

Even the above analysis isn't particularly meaningful to me unless it's compared against other C's around the league, and even after that comparison, there would still be a ton of other things that need to be accounted for, starting with Brady's quick release and pocket presence. He makes his pass blockers look better than they are; it's one of my favorite things about him.

 

[BradyFTW!]

BTW- while we rail on our OL, the fact is (according NFL.com) there were 20 other teams in the league who did worse than the Pats in pass protection.

BTW-2 I found this stat to be even more ironic. 6 of the top 10 rated OL's didn't make it to the playoffs. In fact the Champion Seahawks allowed 4 more sacks and 14 more QB hits, DESPITE having one of the most mobile QB's in the league.

The Seahawks' pass blocking was probably the closest thing that team had to a genuine weakness, especially after Okung went down (it was either that or WR). They also played in a division with the 49ers, Rams, and Cardinals - three of the best pass rushing teams in the NFL. Put anyone in a division with those three teams and they're going to surrender a lot more sacks and hits.

Re: the Patriots' rank in pass protection, again, a whole lot of that comes down to Brady. If interior pressure forces him to sidestep and make a hurried, off-balance throw, then I'm going to consider that a failure of pass protection, even if the stats don't reflect it.

Also, FWIW, the Pats were 17th in the NFL in QB hits surrendered:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...fensiveStatisticCategory=null&qualified=false

 

[mgteich]

Yes, think about it.

Wendell could have been voted to pro-bowl and "everyone" here would NOT "love him again".

At least, the majority of those on the board would have the same negative opinion as they did after 2012, when Wendell was a better than average center and we had a top 5 offensive line.

Think about it. If you take just 10 bad plays out of a total of 627 pass plays (1.5%) that Wendell made last year, and turned them into good plays, his rating would have drastically improved. In other words all Wendell has to do is to do better on just one more play a game, and everyone will love him again.