Atlanta’S Ovie Mughelli

[falcon057]

Atlanta’s Ovie Mughelli also suffered a season-ending injury, but got in for 13.1 percent of the team’s offensive plays. Replacement Mike Cox was on the field for 11.9 percent of the Falcons’ offensive plays.

looks to be about 25%

[The Falcon Jedi Knight]

and...

[falcon057]

and...

LOL Just thought i would save space w/all the f-back % of plays. ignore thread and it will roll right off the board sorry if you were disappointed lol

it seems some were looking for this info (% of PLay) and was just sharing, I'm not planning on this lasting and will not bump!

[Knight of God]

Don't know what you mean boss, but most of these are pretty interesting. I hope this isn't another case against the power run. You know we don't have the QB for Brees/Saints type stuff right?

[kiwifalcon]

Well they give weapons for Ryan to succeed why would'nt they do the same for Turner I understand the cap implications here but Turner is a better back when Ovie is there so FO whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I say keep Ovie.

[SirCzah]

Well they give weapons for Ryan to succeed why would'nt they do the same for Turner I understand the cap implications here but Turner is a better back when Ovie is there so FO whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I say keep Ovie.

He's there to pick up the defenders that are in Turner's running lane mostly . . . . just unfortunately with our weak line's poor blocking we would probably need 4 more FBs to be effective. lol ^_^v

[FalconJim]

Well they give weapons for Ryan to succeed why would'nt they do the same for Turner I understand the cap implications here but Turner is a better back when Ovie is there so FO whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I say keep Ovie.

I would like keeping Ovie, too. Like you say, Turner is better with Ovie in there. Not sure what it is, unless Ovie knows how to spot the right holes, and Turner just follows.

So yeah, I hope we can keep Mughelli.

Oh, and Cox may come around, but right now he's not the back Mughelli is...

[kiwifalcon]

^^^^^^^^^

Boyz I think its just the fact that all these short yardage fails we had this year I no for a fact if Ovie was there we get them.Hence my frustration I have with letting Ovie hit the market.

[#1 pick]

Keep Ovie, at the worst restructure his contract. He is still too important to our team. You can't replace a top 3 FB impact he has on a team.

[neko]

these stats are quite interesting. although instead of adding them they need to be averaged, which is to say we use a FB between 12% &13% of the time depending on # of carries for Cox & Ovie. frankly i am a bit shocked the number is so low. it makes Ovie less necessary to retain because how can one justify $3.7m for a player used only 13.1% of the time, coming off season ending knee surgery, while moving to (hopefully) more of a spread formation? we obviously need a FB for a variety of reasons, but probably reasons that add up to even less than 13.1% usage considering our new offensive direction.

it is all the more why i feel Reece is a far more attractive option moving forward because he is someone that can potentially be on the field for a much higher % of snaps due to his versatility as well as explosive talent. Ovie has rocked it for us and been the unheralded force behind Turner carrying us (much of the way) the past 4 years. but 13.1% usage, for the top FB in the game? seriously? think about that from purely an economic perspective for a second. it's a bit ridiculous. then think about why we have the top FB if we only use him a little more than 1 out of every 10 plays.

that stat is starting to smell fishy.

pardon the ramble.

[falcon057]

these stats are quite interesting. although instead of adding them they need to be averaged, which is to say we use a FB between 12% &13% of the time depending on # of carries for Cox & Ovie. frankly i am a bit shocked the number is so low. it makes Ovie less necessary to retain because how can one justify $3.7m for a player used only 13.1% of the time, coming off season ending knee surgery, while moving to (hopefully) more of a spread formation? we obviously need a FB for a variety of reasons, but probably reasons that add up to even less than 13.1% usage considering our new offensive direction.

it is all the more why i feel Reece is a far more attractive option moving forward because he is someone that can potentially be on the field for a much higher % of snaps due to his versatility as well as explosive talent. Ovie has rocked it for us and been the unheralded force behind Turner carrying us (much of the way) the past 4 years. but 13.1% usage, for the top FB in the game? seriously? think about that from purely an economic perspective for a second. it's a bit ridiculous. then think about why we have the top FB if we only use him a little more than 1 out of every 10 plays.

that stat is starting to smell fishy.

pardon the ramble.

that # is closer to 25% - adding the 2 together maybe 1 out of 4 plays = FB in the game

Edited February 9, 2012 by falcon057

[neko]

that # is closer to 25% - adding the 2 together maybe 1 out of 4 plays = FB in the game

i don't see how you can add them together when Cox did not begin playing until Ovie got hurt. we just used a FB a little less. there is only one real stat and that is FB usage because Cox & Ovie were not sharing snaps. 25% makes more sense, to be honest, but i don't see how that is the case if Ovie was only playing 13.1% of the snaps...unless the percentage includes missed playing time due to injury. but then that's not much of a stat, being so skewed and all.

[falcon057]

i don't see how you can add them together when Cox did not begin playing until Ovie got hurt. we just used a FB a little less. there is only one real stat and that is FB usage because Cox & Ovie were not sharing snaps. 25% makes more sense, to be honest, but i don't see how that is the case if Ovie was only playing 13.1% of the snaps...unless the percentage includes missed playing time due to injury. but then that's not much of a stat, being so skewed and all.

yea, you have to allow for his missed playing time, and we know they didn't play at the same time -. but one variable might be Snelling at FB - unknown #%=y LOL

[LADBABY]

When you compare Mughelli to Cox you want to keep Ovie.

However, there are guys out there with the tools to be great

fullbacks that go undrafted every year. Cox plays hard but we

can find a better fullback than Cox.

[falcon057]

When you compare Mughelli to Cox you want to keep Ovie.

However, there are guys out there with the tools to be great

fullbacks that go undrafted every year. Cox plays hard but we

can find a better fullback than Cox.

$4.5 mill tighted up in f-backs seems we might be over spending in this day and age - could those dollars be better spent?

[LADBABY]

$4.5 mill tighted up in f-backs seems we might be over spending in this day and age - could those dollars be better spent?

I don't know what kind of process the front office goes through to come up with a guy

like Cox but with the off-season in front of us there is time to explore all the possibilities.

For example: look at short stocky tight ends, look at quick undersized linemen coming

out without a chance of being drafted. Look at the big backs who are a step slow to play

running back in the NFL. There is a stud fullback out there among this group. Now consider

the guys actually playing fullback in college and I just believe we can hit big without the big

ticket.

[falconidae]

that # is closer to 25% - adding the 2 together maybe 1 out of 4 plays = FB in the game

Sorry, you don't add them together. Think of it this way- Falcons get about 65 offensive plays a game, Ovie played 7 games, Cox in the other 9. Thats 1040 plays total all year.

Ovie played 13% of 7 games snaps. That's 65 X 7 X .13 = 60 plays

Cox played in 12% of 9 games. That's 70 plays

That's 130 plays out of 1040 or 12.5 %, not 25%.

Better argument is that, Cox played fewer snaps than Ovie would have, he's not as good. And that Ovie got fewer snaps in his 7 games because the Falcons were behind so much in those games.

[freebird310]

Good FB's are a dime a dozen ....Ovie is the very least of my worrys .......

[Bullitt]

Good FB's are a dime a dozen ....Ovie is the very least of my worrys .......

Also, every time you see Ovie on the field, it pretty much means HD is on the bench.

[falcon057]

Sorry, you don't add them together. Think of it this way- Falcons get about 65 offensive plays a game, Ovie played 7 games, Cox in the other 9. Thats 1040 plays total all year.

Ovie played 13% of 7 games snaps. That's 65 X 7 X .13 = 60 plays

Cox played in 12% of 9 games. That's 70 plays

That's 130 plays out of 1040 or 12.5 %, not 25%.

Better argument is that, Cox played fewer snaps than Ovie would have, he's not as good. And that Ovie got fewer snaps in his 7 games because the Falcons were behind so much in those games.

sO WE ARE PAYINY $ 4.5mil for 12.5% of plays . someone call me a dann ambulance!

[Club212]

My opinion, sign Ovie, he's a beast, he fits the role to a tee, whether blocking, occasional run or pass. Injuries may play a roll on keeping him. As for Cox, before Ovie was hurt, there was no backup at FB. But when you look at the roster, why are we keeping, Turner,Snelling,J Rod & A.Smith? Tough decisions as I like all but if there is a call to make, I can see (& hate) to lose Snelling, but J Rod does make this happen (with his talent) & A.Smith who I believe they feel plays a role on Special Teams. This is why there was/is no Cox. I feel Ovie needs a backup so I say keep Cox over Smith!

[LADBABY]

My opinion, sign Ovie, he's a beast, he fits the role to a tee, whether blocking, occasional run or pass. Injuries may play a roll on keeping him. As for Cox, before Ovie was hurt, there was no backup at FB. But when you look at the roster, why are we keeping, Turner,Snelling,J Rod & A.Smith? Tough decisions as I like all but if there is a call to make, I can see (& hate) to lose Snelling, but J Rod does make this happen (with his talent) & A.Smith who I believe they feel plays a role on Special Teams. This is why there was/is no Cox. I feel Ovie needs a backup so I say keep Cox over Smith!

Antone Smith gets to the ball carrier first on special teams. He also is our

fastest back. Cox is only an o.k. fullback. You just made your team worse.

If we want to run the ball outside the tackles Smith is the best option we have.

We have to see what Koetter thinks about this personnel. They may not get

used or not used in the way they have in the past.

[neko]

sO WE ARE PAYINY $ 4.5mil for 12.5% of plays . someone call me a dann ambulance!

yes, that appears to be the case. when you add Cox & Ovie's salaries it's clear we paid a lot of money this year for minimal FB use. Ovie's low 13.1% of snaps makes more sense in light of falconidae's comment that we were playing from behind much of the time in the first 7 games.

as to moving forward, a few questions will remain until we get scheme & personnel answers in FA & draft:

will Turner remain a Falcon for 2012?

does Turner need Ovie (or another skilled FB) in order to be successful? / can Turner be successful as a single back?

--my sense is that Turner needs a FB in order to be truly successful. the problem is that we need to get HD/slot on the field and in order to do that we need to scrap a position from the formation to make room. FB is the obvious choice to take off the field so we could be 3-wide more often. also when Ovie & Turner are on the field it will be pretty obvious we are running the ball, so I dont see how we can really evolve towards a more versatile offense with them unless they both magically transform into dangerous receiving threats.