Merry Christmas everyone.
On the topic of Jensen vs. Ducasse, here are their cumulative scoring lines for the season as I graded it:
Ducasse: 382 snaps, 334 blocks, 23 missed, 3.5 penetrations (responsibilities for run for a loss), 5.58 pressures, 4 QH, 1.83 sacks, 45 penalty yards, .70 points per play. I weighted the adjustments for quality of competition, highlights, etc by snaps and his is .04. Total .74. That would be a D at guard for an individual game. Individual game grades F, B-, A, D, D, F.
Jensen: 251 snaps, 232 blocks, 14 missed, 1 penetration, 7.5 pressures, 2.17 QH, 1 sack, 15 penalty yards, .73 points per play. His snap weighted adjustment is .07, which is a function primarily of more highlight blocks per snap and the fact he didn't have a disastrous play like Ducasse (safety vs. NE) to wipe out one game's adjustment. Total .80. That would be a C at guard for an individual game. His individual game grades are F, B, B-, C.
From my perspective, Jensen earned a continued chance at guard and should have been allowed to fail before Ducasse got a chance. He's imperfect, but Jensen (year 3) has significantly more upside than a 7th-year player like Ducasse. Jensen also offers more in terms of versatility.
You can have qualms with my system on at least 3 levels:
1) The individual play grading is something for which I try to provide as much transparency as is possible, particularly in regards to significant downgrades. Watch along and come up with your own conclusions with (Q, T) references.
2) The weighting. That's the relativity of scoring between pass and run, relative charges for penalties, etc.
3) The biggest point, however, is something we don't discuss much. Specifically, I treat offensive line grading overwhelmingly as a "reduction from 1 system", like batting average or fielding percentage. So if you want to know how a player can earn enough "extra credit" to earn their way back to 1.00 after 20 yards of penalties, the answer is simply he can't do that any more than a baseball player can get back to a 1.000 batting average or fielding percentage. Those opportunities have been permanently squandered. Unlike most other positions in football, the OLman goes through a visible trial on virtually every play, so those opportunities have more in common with AB in baseball and the lineman must seek to minimize the impact of failure. This is the major difference between me and PFF.
There really isn't a point in having a discussion about weighting unless we can agree that 3) is the correct approach and have at least made some attempt to go through 1) on a play-by-play basis to understand the methodology (regardless of play-by-play disagreement).
There are some knowledgable OL people, be they former players, analysts, or observant fans on this site. I welcome discussion on how the OL should best be graded and would love to find a good live medium for that discussion among interested parties.