Offensive Optimism: They might be better than you think...
Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 3:26 pm
I had posited in the thread about Reusse’s pathetic “Zimmer sucks” column that it might be a fun exercise to look at the depth chart and consider levels of improvement and what that might mean for the 2017 season.
So I found some time and did it.
This is all my own work, and probably not complete, but I reached what I think is a provocative conclusion.
First a few assumptions:
1.) IMO the WR / TE group is most likely a push with last year. In most cases they did very well, so expecting 5% or 10% improvement seems like a stretch to me. We had what basically amounted to two 1000 yard receivers and a good TE. IMO, this performance from a yardage basis is not as likely to improve. (10% improvement for Diggs / Theilen would = two 1200 yard seasons. That seems like a stretch goal to me. Feel free to argue. Admittedly, I mostly went with this view to keep the analysis conservative.
2.) This is a big one. Reilly Reiff is a substantial upgrade over Matt Kalil due to his better overall average performance and his established history of proven durability. Kalil MIGHT have a higher ceiling that Reiff, but outside of his rookie campaign he has never been the better player. In the case of 2016 the difference between an even average Reiff and what we got from Clemmings is GIGANTIC. Key stat: Clemmings sabotaged 40% of the Vikings Offensive Drive with sacks, blown blocks and penalties. I would argue that a repeat performance at that level is statistically remote.
3.) Mike Remmers, even if he plays league below average at RT is an ENORMOUS improvement over TJ Clemmings in 2015 and a decent improvement over Sirles in 2016.
4.) Despite points 2 and 3, Remmers and Reiff are coming into a new OL, which typically equals a learning curve as the new guys acclimate to one another. In my view this is offset by the fact that we had so many injuries at tackle last year that this scenario was also present in 2016, but with worse players at the two positions.
So on to the fun stuff.
In 2016 the Vikings Rushing Game yielded a pathetic 1200 yards during the regular season. I took it upon myself to try and project what it would look like in 2017 with two new tackles, but no Adrian Peterson. I settled on looking back to 2014 which was a year where we had better OL play, but no #28. In that season we managed to produce 1800 yards of rushing. Literally a 600 yard improvement over 2017 with backup RBs and what most regarded as a suspect OL. So in keeping things conservative I think a fair estimate would be that we get back to slightly above league average and reap the 600 yards. That is a 37.5 YPG improvement.
More on the yardage. If you extrapolate out McKinnon’s 2017 numbers he would have produced ~575 yards in 16 games. If you do the same thing to 2017 Murray, the figure is 900 yards. That accounts for 325 of the 600 yards. I think we are safe to expect the rest of the roster to make up the 275 yards to get to 600. Again, feel free to opine.
On the scoring side, that 2014 unit managed 12 TDs. The woeful 2017 group produced 9 TDs. Latavius Murray on his own scored 12 TDs in 2016 with the Raiders. So I think we can reasonably expect a 3 TD improvement form the rushing game.
The X-Factor here is Dalvin Cook. If he can get on the field and be NFL ready, he has big play ability that the Vikings lacked from this position in both 2016 and 2104. (Murray is not a big play RB.) So there is potential for this group to over achieve.
Passing Game:
I am going to keep the yardage flat which is VERY conservative considering what should be improvements at OT. I am going to add 3 TD due to additional opportunities afforded by the running game. That would mean going from 20TD to 23TD. A 15% improvement, which is statistically large, but modest in light of the increased rushing yardage.
Kicking Game:
Two major factors at play here. Blair Walsh’s inaccuracy with FG (75% rate) and lack of opportunities due to offensive woes. In this case, I split the different. Walsh hit 75% of his FH, Forbath made 100%. I used a number of 90%. On PAT, sadly, Forbath was as inaccurate as Walsh at 79%. I gave a modest improvement and bumped it to 80%. Attempts are where we see improvement, due to what should be a better rushing game providing more opportunities. In 2016 we had 31 FG attempts. League average was upper 30s. So I increased the expectation to 38 based on increased opportunities from the running game, just as with the passing game. I increased the PAT by the 6 additional TD I added in the Rushing / Passing work above. This nets to 27 points of additional scoring.
Defense:
IMO, if we are seeing the return to normalcy for our rushing attack, then we should see our opponents afforded less opportunities with the ball. However, our defense is already great. Our Points Against in 2016 was 19.2. Given the above, I will lower by 1 point to 18.2, due to greater offensive TOP as a result of improved rushing efficacy and more pressured on opponents to be 1 dimensional to our having more points on the board. (+6TD, +7 more FG opportunities)
Summary:
Rushing:
600 yard improvement on the season or 37.5 YPG
+ 3 TD
Passing:
Flat Yardage
+3 TD
Kicking:
6 More PAT attempts
7 More FG Attempts
Net 27 additional Points based on accuracy and total attempts.
In 2016 we scored 327 points. If I add the above I increase by 63 points to a new offensive production of 390 PF. As reasonability test, that would make us a top 15 offense, or slightly better than average. Note this is built in part on the performance of the passing game last year. Bradford had a very good season despite the OL mess.
Our defense gave up 307 points. If I reduce by 16 points for the improvement above that equals 293 PF.
So let’s wrap it up:
In 2016 our point differential was 1.25 points per game. For 2017, based on my estimates, the point differential would be 6.1875! (390-291) / 16
This assumed only a return to league average for the rushing game. If the passing game benefits and improves over 2016, which it likely should, then my PF estimate is probably too conservative, which is very significant. If it gets much higher, that means we are averaging wins by over 7 points. That likely would drive our PA number down further since teams would then be truly one dimensional. In this respect, I think you reach a point where scoring numbers stop being incremental to players and more incremental to the team as a whole.
My major reason to bring this up is that I wanted to articulate how little I think it will take, performance wise to balance this team out given the greatness of the defense. It also points to just how bad the 2016 offense was and thus the tremendous upside even being average could produce. Given the 2014 results it probably also shows, at least to me, just how much impact the tackle play had on the 2016 season. We had a better QB and better WR in 2016 than we had in 2014, yet we rushed for 600 fewer yards with same RB as we had in 2014.
Anyways, feel free to comment. I’ve been wanting to have a talk about the smaller pieces vs. just focusing on the W/L record. My view remains that this team is a lot closer to 13-3 than it is 7-9, assuming it stays healthy. SKOL!
So I found some time and did it.
This is all my own work, and probably not complete, but I reached what I think is a provocative conclusion.
First a few assumptions:
1.) IMO the WR / TE group is most likely a push with last year. In most cases they did very well, so expecting 5% or 10% improvement seems like a stretch to me. We had what basically amounted to two 1000 yard receivers and a good TE. IMO, this performance from a yardage basis is not as likely to improve. (10% improvement for Diggs / Theilen would = two 1200 yard seasons. That seems like a stretch goal to me. Feel free to argue. Admittedly, I mostly went with this view to keep the analysis conservative.
2.) This is a big one. Reilly Reiff is a substantial upgrade over Matt Kalil due to his better overall average performance and his established history of proven durability. Kalil MIGHT have a higher ceiling that Reiff, but outside of his rookie campaign he has never been the better player. In the case of 2016 the difference between an even average Reiff and what we got from Clemmings is GIGANTIC. Key stat: Clemmings sabotaged 40% of the Vikings Offensive Drive with sacks, blown blocks and penalties. I would argue that a repeat performance at that level is statistically remote.
3.) Mike Remmers, even if he plays league below average at RT is an ENORMOUS improvement over TJ Clemmings in 2015 and a decent improvement over Sirles in 2016.
4.) Despite points 2 and 3, Remmers and Reiff are coming into a new OL, which typically equals a learning curve as the new guys acclimate to one another. In my view this is offset by the fact that we had so many injuries at tackle last year that this scenario was also present in 2016, but with worse players at the two positions.
So on to the fun stuff.
In 2016 the Vikings Rushing Game yielded a pathetic 1200 yards during the regular season. I took it upon myself to try and project what it would look like in 2017 with two new tackles, but no Adrian Peterson. I settled on looking back to 2014 which was a year where we had better OL play, but no #28. In that season we managed to produce 1800 yards of rushing. Literally a 600 yard improvement over 2017 with backup RBs and what most regarded as a suspect OL. So in keeping things conservative I think a fair estimate would be that we get back to slightly above league average and reap the 600 yards. That is a 37.5 YPG improvement.
More on the yardage. If you extrapolate out McKinnon’s 2017 numbers he would have produced ~575 yards in 16 games. If you do the same thing to 2017 Murray, the figure is 900 yards. That accounts for 325 of the 600 yards. I think we are safe to expect the rest of the roster to make up the 275 yards to get to 600. Again, feel free to opine.
On the scoring side, that 2014 unit managed 12 TDs. The woeful 2017 group produced 9 TDs. Latavius Murray on his own scored 12 TDs in 2016 with the Raiders. So I think we can reasonably expect a 3 TD improvement form the rushing game.
The X-Factor here is Dalvin Cook. If he can get on the field and be NFL ready, he has big play ability that the Vikings lacked from this position in both 2016 and 2104. (Murray is not a big play RB.) So there is potential for this group to over achieve.
Passing Game:
I am going to keep the yardage flat which is VERY conservative considering what should be improvements at OT. I am going to add 3 TD due to additional opportunities afforded by the running game. That would mean going from 20TD to 23TD. A 15% improvement, which is statistically large, but modest in light of the increased rushing yardage.
Kicking Game:
Two major factors at play here. Blair Walsh’s inaccuracy with FG (75% rate) and lack of opportunities due to offensive woes. In this case, I split the different. Walsh hit 75% of his FH, Forbath made 100%. I used a number of 90%. On PAT, sadly, Forbath was as inaccurate as Walsh at 79%. I gave a modest improvement and bumped it to 80%. Attempts are where we see improvement, due to what should be a better rushing game providing more opportunities. In 2016 we had 31 FG attempts. League average was upper 30s. So I increased the expectation to 38 based on increased opportunities from the running game, just as with the passing game. I increased the PAT by the 6 additional TD I added in the Rushing / Passing work above. This nets to 27 points of additional scoring.
Defense:
IMO, if we are seeing the return to normalcy for our rushing attack, then we should see our opponents afforded less opportunities with the ball. However, our defense is already great. Our Points Against in 2016 was 19.2. Given the above, I will lower by 1 point to 18.2, due to greater offensive TOP as a result of improved rushing efficacy and more pressured on opponents to be 1 dimensional to our having more points on the board. (+6TD, +7 more FG opportunities)
Summary:
Rushing:
600 yard improvement on the season or 37.5 YPG
+ 3 TD
Passing:
Flat Yardage
+3 TD
Kicking:
6 More PAT attempts
7 More FG Attempts
Net 27 additional Points based on accuracy and total attempts.
In 2016 we scored 327 points. If I add the above I increase by 63 points to a new offensive production of 390 PF. As reasonability test, that would make us a top 15 offense, or slightly better than average. Note this is built in part on the performance of the passing game last year. Bradford had a very good season despite the OL mess.
Our defense gave up 307 points. If I reduce by 16 points for the improvement above that equals 293 PF.
So let’s wrap it up:
In 2016 our point differential was 1.25 points per game. For 2017, based on my estimates, the point differential would be 6.1875! (390-291) / 16
This assumed only a return to league average for the rushing game. If the passing game benefits and improves over 2016, which it likely should, then my PF estimate is probably too conservative, which is very significant. If it gets much higher, that means we are averaging wins by over 7 points. That likely would drive our PA number down further since teams would then be truly one dimensional. In this respect, I think you reach a point where scoring numbers stop being incremental to players and more incremental to the team as a whole.
My major reason to bring this up is that I wanted to articulate how little I think it will take, performance wise to balance this team out given the greatness of the defense. It also points to just how bad the 2016 offense was and thus the tremendous upside even being average could produce. Given the 2014 results it probably also shows, at least to me, just how much impact the tackle play had on the 2016 season. We had a better QB and better WR in 2016 than we had in 2014, yet we rushed for 600 fewer yards with same RB as we had in 2014.
Anyways, feel free to comment. I’ve been wanting to have a talk about the smaller pieces vs. just focusing on the W/L record. My view remains that this team is a lot closer to 13-3 than it is 7-9, assuming it stays healthy. SKOL!