In our
Week 5 article, we introduced the
Continuity Quotient + for offensive lines. Quite honestly, we did not
know what to expect. Creating an effective rating system—for any
position, much less a five-man unit—just is not that easy. So how do we
know if the time we’ve spent on this subject matter is worthwhile? Will
the seeds we are planting bear real fruit in the future?
Remember, our goals are fairly
simple. First, we want to see if the CQ+ can help better evaluate teams
and skill positions at the beginning of the season. Second, we hope the
CQ+ teaches us things that we did not expect.
While we’d love to create a rating
system filled with exacting algebraic formulas leading you to draft
precisely and only star players, while also enabling you to avoid all
duds, we don’t think that such goals are reasonable. If we are able to
provide the reader with a compass that offers correct readings more than
75% of the time, we’ll be very happy. We simply want to offer you
additional information that helps determine the chances of a potential
outcome. Two examples come to mind from the AFC East. At the beginning
of the season, the Patriots’ CQ+ (80) was one of the best in the league,
while the Dolphins’ (56) was on the wrong side of the bell curve. Had
you used this information to jump on Lawrence Maroney early while
avoiding Ronnie Brown, you would have been disappointed.
Injuries aside, Maroney has underperformed, while Brown was incredible.
Even so, every single other Patriot has over-performed, and every single
other Dolphin has underperformed. So here we have two teams that “in
general” have offered performances that correlate to their respective
CQ+s—albeit with singular and significant exceptions. (Subtle arguments
regarding Maroney’s hitherto unseen and unneeded potential only help
make our point: there are no certainties, and correlations are not
100%.)
Over the past five articles, we have
analyzed 13 teams (Pats, Cowboys, Rams, Hawks, Chargers, Dolphins,
Colts, Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings, Cardinals and 49ers). During
that stretch, we’ve used a fairly consistent format. Keep in mind, we
were learning as we went. Now we’ve got some experience, and can
benefit from hindsight. Our first thought is that thus far, it does
appear that we may have “something” that can be used in the future.
Next, we don’t think our sample is big enough. While it only takes
about 10 minutes to put together a CQ+ for a given team, there is other
analysis and writing to do. We believe an adequate sample is the most
obvious one of 32 teams. Third, the preseason CQ+ is obviously the only
number that will be useful for drafts. So while the “season to date” CQ+
has been interesting (see the 49ers), it really falls outside the scope
of our experiment. Injuries and changes are impossible to predict—even
if they are meaningful. As such, we’ll stop using it—which will save
some time. Finally, while our current sample is still inadequate, we
will offer four more CQ+s today, and then use our sample of 17 (more
than half the league) to make some broad generalizations about how
useful this tool really is.
To get over the halfway point, we
will very quickly take a look at four more teams’ CQ+ at the beginning
of the season:
Ravens: 57
In deference to our 17-team sample
analysis, we’ll bypass the usual team analyses.
It should be noted that we’re trying
to keep things simple—particularly since space runs at a premium in
these kinds of articles. Therefore, we will use only the CQ going
forward, and point the reader to the CQ+s of all the teams noted below
in their respective articles (Week 6 through Week 11). Using the CQ
below will allow for a much shorter and more simplified analysis.
We’ve sorted the below list in order
of total offensive yards. But other pertinent offensive category
rankings are also offered.
