Does it mean the pass was completed or not? Or there is there no such stat?
Or does it mean the qb was just in the process of throwing the ball and then was legally hit, but you don't know the outcome of the throw as a stat....
I'd like to see the comp% or YPA on the passes from those hits.
we don't know what constitutes a hit. Anecdotally I haven't seen Vernon planting very many QBs after they get rid of the ball.
Since Vernon signed here we've ranked 15th and 30th in sacks as a defense. So, there's that. But I'm supposed to believe that sacks now don't matter. Oh and in 2017 we conceded more TD passes than anyone else, and the second most passing yards.
Yeah the Vernon experience has been something.
The love for these guys here makes you wonder why so many people wanted Reese canned.
Seems to me tha 100% of sacks result in loss of down, lost yardage. I doubt 100% of hurries end up in INTs or errant passes.
Regular season game in Green Bay. Rodgers is regularly getting, without exaggeration, 5+ seconds to throw the football. Vernon and JPP being completely dominated, and Al Michaels says something to the effect of, "When the Giants made him the richest defensive end in the NFL, people around the league said, 'Him?'". It was like he was Ann on Arrested Development.
Great. Take the lowest point of that season and put it on Vernon. Let's absolve the offense for all the 3 and outs. Absolve the injury to JPP. Absolve the Giants D all together...never mind that there wasn't one more legit pass rusher on that entire team.
The last 6 seasons have been a collective low point with this franchise. Cherry picking the one fluke year might make you feel better but it doesn't make Vernon a great player just because you want him to be. He never has been a great player...paying him like one doesn't change that.
we don't know what constitutes a hit. Anecdotally I haven't seen Vernon planting very many QBs after they get rid of the ball.
Since Vernon signed here we've ranked 15th and 30th in sacks as a defense. So, there's that. But I'm supposed to believe that sacks now don't matter. Oh and in 2017 we conceded more TD passes than anyone else, and the second most passing yards.
Yeah the Vernon experience has been something.
The love for these guys here makes you wonder why so many people wanted Reese canned.
Seems to me tha 100% of sacks result in loss of down, lost yardage. I doubt 100% of hurries end up in INTs or errant passes.
Let's not forget about the personal fouls he has picked up multiple times for driving the QB to the ground to hard,etc.
If OV is disrupting QBs while drawing double teams then there’s value in the hurry. But if he’s getting marks for hurries one on one then I don’t see much value in that regard. Don’t most starting DEs in the NFL cause hurries?
The last 6 seasons have been a collective low point with this franchise. Cherry picking the one fluke year might make you feel better but it doesn't make Vernon a great player just because you want him to be. He never has been a great player...paying him like one doesn't change that.
Ok. Not sure what 6 years has to do with Vernon's overall impact or ability. I think he's a very good all around player. I'm not getting into splitting hairs at how good he is. I see a plus player playing a premium position. I don't give that much of a fuck at his salary. I hate that take. Hate it.
they would cut him before too long. They must feel that this team with Vernon at his salary is better off with him than without. When the day comes they feel differently they will take the necessary action. Until then, I choose to view Vernon as part of the solution going forward. I don't see a liability on the field, not in the least. I see a player worth watching.
is like saying said catcher throws on target to second base every time with the runner sliding in safely. Great, he gets the ball there but nothing happens.
Great, OV hits the QB but isn't getting sacks.
Unless that stat can show how often the qb is throwing the ball away or is made to turn the ball over then hits on the qb mean nothing.
That’s exactly what it translates to. Excellent analogy. I’m a fan of Vernon but these stats to me are stupid like many football stats. Just watch the games and he’s pretty much invisible. Football more than any other sport is about the eye test. He’s okay vs the run but he wasn’t brought here to stop the run.
On topics like this and I continue to be exasperated by it.
Nate solder has never been the best or even top 5 LT in the league but he's paid like it. Eli Manning was never the best QB in the league but he's been paid like it. Antrel Rolled was never the best safety in the league but he was paid like it. It's the cost of doing business. Contracts are not always indicative of talent level. There's always an availability tax attached to free agents.
But batting average out of context is an empty stat. You try to make the comparison absurd by comparing a .220 hitter with a .350 hitter, but what about a .300ish slap hitter who doesn't walk versus a slugger who hits .250 but gets on base a ton and hits for power? You have a guy like Ichiro who put up seasons like .310/.361/.386 or .315/.359/.394, and his actual offensive production isn't as good as a Nick Swisher hitting .249/.371/.498 or a Curtis Granderson hitting .262/.354/.522.
I take your point - which is consensus by now thanks to all the OPS stuff out there - but in the case of Ichiro, in his prime, he was also a tremendous base stealer. Often thought effective base stealers should get a bump to their all around offensive output. Somehow add it to the SLG since most of their singles eventually becomes 'doubles'
Anyway - we digress. Lets go back to talking about Vernon yet again.
What I have a problem with is people dismissing a player getting consistent QB pressure as BS, hype, or anything else.
It's a legitimate aspect of evaluation. One of the most important actually. When the coaches grade a guy, he gets a positive grade if he beats his man and gets pressure. He doesn't control what the QB is doing. Or the fact that he isn't coming from the blind side. If he hurries the QB he's helping.
If you have a player doing it consistently then you have an impact guy.
Vernon is an excellent player. One of the few we have.
What I have a problem with is people dismissing a player getting consistent QB pressure as BS, hype, or anything else.
It's a legitimate aspect of evaluation. One of the most important actually. When the coaches grade a guy, he gets a positive grade if he beats his man and gets pressure. He doesn't control what the QB is doing. Or the fact that he isn't coming from the blind side. If he hurries the QB he's helping.
If you have a player doing it consistently then you have an impact guy.
Vernon is an excellent player. One of the few we have.
But he doesnt get sacks and despite what this stat says - he isnt hitting the QB either. And he is getting paid a lot of money do so.
Hitting a QB less than once per game isnt great whatsoever if you arent getting sacks.
I think his problem is that Spags made him play every snap in the game plus made him run sprints before and after games and forced him only to sleep 3 hours a night.
I think if the new DC can actually create some kind of rotation he'll be a lot better in the 3rd and 4th quarters where it matters.
Just like the situation in that playoff game against Rodgers.
Ok. Not sure what 6 years has to do with Vernon's overall impact or ability.
I bring up the past six years because there's been a common theme surrounding the discussion of this team for some time. That theme revolves around excuse making and rationalization to talk around a fundamental truth, and that truth is this:
The Giants suck. This organization has sucked for 6 years and has sucked because of the poor decisions it makes.
Positive spins on underperforming players are frequently repeated here by posters that refuse to accept that reality. Vernon isn't the only guy we see rationalized. The rationalizations around every big player on this team up to and including Eli have been all over this site for years.
Enough already. This team sucks. The players are failing...and it's not all McAdoo's fault. The sooner we all accept that then the sooner we can all stop rationalizing away poor performances with bullshit like a "hits" stat.
to Giant Mike at length about this in 2016. We were both on the same page on the take that the Giants overpaid for players:
Quote:
My lasting 2016 memory of Vernon
Go Terps : 12:29 pm : link : reply
Regular season game in Green Bay. Rodgers is regularly getting, without exaggeration, 5+ seconds to throw the football. Vernon and JPP being completely dominated, and Al Michaels says something to the effect of, "When the Giants made him the richest defensive end in the NFL, people around the league said, 'Him?'". It was like he was Ann on Arrested Development.
During the primetime games vs. Minny and GB, the team was getting absolutely roasted for the $200M. Everyone knows that figure because the announcers kept bringing it up.
Then you know what - later in the year when we were getting ready to clinch a playoff spot, the narrative changed. Vernon had recovered from the broken hand and JPP was playing well. Then the discussion turned to Reese getting a lot of value from the signings and how it turned around a defense that was the worst to one that was one of the best. Even in the playoff game vs. GB in the 1st quarter they went over the signings and how it "turned the season around".
djm is right on the head here. The money shouldn't factor into the player evaluation. It matters for the cap, but a player either plays well or he doesn't. It isn't a "well, he's OK but a terrible value". Vernon is a young DE who plays very well when healthy. I don't see the logic in tying performances to their salary, just like I'm, not thinking that when Collins or Beckham makes a play, it is great because they are an awesome value.
The Giants suck. This organization has sucked for 6 years and has sucked because of the poor decisions it makes.
The definition of suck really just got elevated here. The Giants sucked last year. The rest of the time, they are similar to the vast mess of teams we see every year. Mediocre.
I hear people in the past raving about how well the Panthers are run. They've existed since 1995 and have never had back to back winning seasons.
Pretending cost shouldn't be considered is another rationalization Â
It does matter, because it impacts decision making all over the roster. Vernon is not paid to "play very well when healthy". He's paid to be an elite player at his position...that's the commitment Reese made. The problem is that Vernon has never been an elite player, and that is in part why Reese is no longer the GM.
All offseason we see moves made all around the league that are driven completely or in part by salary cap constraints. Let's stop pretending it doesn't impact decision making.
he was excellent year 1, by every measure other than nitpicking his worst game or worst 10 plays. reverse engineering nonsense to fit a narrative.
the whole defense was poor for large portions last year, and he was part of that, and his injury was part of that- and he needs to perform this year to erase that feeling...
i would expect him to do well this year.
not paid to be an elite player. You keep missing that point.
He's paid to be a starting DE.
The contracts the Giants have given allow us to move on from guys not playing up to their contract with relative ease.
So, comparing him vs. his pay is already accounted for and safeguards put in.
If you truly cared about cost, you'd be one of Beckham's greatest fans because he's an incredible value. Instead, you're going to end up spending 3-4 years bitching about how much he'll cost down the road.
In Beckham's case, you hate the guy. In Vernon's case, you have some illusion that the cap is 1993 again. In both cases, your take is pretty poor as evidenced by the belief that Vernon has to be an elite player. Hell, even when he played well in 2016, his slow start jaded you into thinking it was a $200M waste of money.
$200M that has produced 2 All Pros and a good DE
As with Solder, they had no choice but to overpay for Vernon Â
and others. It's the price you pay for years of horrific drafting. Vernon is not a great player, nor is he a terrible one, I'd classify him as average, sometimes above average.
As for sucks, 4 losing seasons out of 5, 5 out of 6 no playoffs, complete implosion last year? I'd have to say they are well into suck-dom, 60% of the way to a lost decade.
Giving a player credit for QB pressure is not putting "positive spins on underperforming players"
That is a horseshit comment.
Front 7 guys can make a big impact without the sacks especially guys who get consistent pressure like Vernon. He's a damn good player.
How about Graham in PHI? Another underperforming player? Avg 6 sacks/year. Only one season with 7 sacks. He's not up to your standards because of the sack numbers? That's a joke. The last few years he's been one of the best in the league.
For the meatheads, the lower sack numbers tell the whole story with every DE. I'm surprised your in that group on this subject.
The mental gymnastics required to not value a QB pressure is really comical.
The quarterback has as a lot of say in whether he is sacked or not, and the defender can have done his job perfectly and not get a sack.
The sack is a highly dependent, not encompassing, and certainly not singular measure of the efficacy of a pass rusher.
A number of valuable things can occur as a result of a pressure. An incomplete pass, an intentional grounding, an interception, a dump-off for a shorter gain.
A quarterback can decide not to take a sack and do a number of totally destructive things.
There's a whole school of thought in football that taking the sack is the best thing to do when pressured.
It's a pretty dorky zero-sum world if you think a sack is actually always the best outcome, and especially the only good outcome of a pass rush.
It's one outcome if the quarterback has the time and in is the position and has the wherewith-all to actually take the sack.
It's funny you bring that up, because that's what I think has been going on with the other side of the argument.
No one is debating that pressuring the quarterback has great value. The question is in the actual statistic. In years on BBI I had never seen pressures mentioned as a statistic. Then last year when it became fashionable to point to pressures (IMO as a rationalization for our inability to generate a pass rush), I asked the question: what actually defines a pressure?
- Is the amount of time between snap and pressure a factor?
- How is the quarterback deemed to have been pressured?
- Does the end result of the play factor in? If so, how?
If we're going to point to pressures as a stat by which to measure performance, shouldn't we know definitively what the stat is showing? It's the same thing with "hits". What constitutes a hit? This is a league where hitting a quarterback without the ball in his hands is very often a penalty...so how are we defining a hit? Is it merely physical contact?
When I've watched games these past two years, I've seen the Giants struggle to generate a pass rush. Now I'm far from an expert; I could be completely wrong in that assertion. But no one is proving otherwise.
Far be it for me to defend Terps, but his reasoning above makes a lot of sense here. The concept of pressure or hit seems as subjective as any stat in football...
For instance, if the offense calls a play where they want the rush to come in on a screen play, and the DE gets his hands on the QB after the screen pass is complete, is this really a hit? The design of the play was for the DE to get actually pressure the QB to open up space for a screen...
It's funny you bring that up, because that's what I think has been going on with the other side of the argument.
No one is debating that pressuring the quarterback has great value. The question is in the actual statistic. In years on BBI I had never seen pressures mentioned as a statistic. Then last year when it became fashionable to point to pressures (IMO as a rationalization for our inability to generate a pass rush), I asked the question: what actually defines a pressure?
- Is the amount of time between snap and pressure a factor?
- How is the quarterback deemed to have been pressured?
- Does the end result of the play factor in? If so, how?
If we're going to point to pressures as a stat by which to measure performance, shouldn't we know definitively what the stat is showing? It's the same thing with "hits". What constitutes a hit? This is a league where hitting a quarterback without the ball in his hands is very often a penalty...so how are we defining a hit? Is it merely physical contact?
When I've watched games these past two years, I've seen the Giants struggle to generate a pass rush. Now I'm far from an expert; I could be completely wrong in that assertion. But no one is proving otherwise.
I agree that the Giants have struggled to generate a conventional pass rush, but how can you pin all of that on the DEs?
— They’ve had practice squad level talent at the LB position for god knows how long
— They haven’t had a pass rusher at the DT position in a while
— They’ve had no quality depth behind JPP/Vernon
No LB as an effective blitzer like Mitchell/Pierce. No legit third pass rusher like Tuck/Kiwi/Osi. No one on the interior like Cofield.
We’ll see what happens but I’d bet we see a pretty good year out of Vernon/JPP in a new scheme with talent at the LB position. Even more so if they add quality to the rotation like Philly has done the last few years.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: There's more to the game than sacks Â
There's a bunch of good reading on QB pressure, specifically football outsiders. There's also a good 508 article on the efficacy of pressure.
It's a moderately new, not rationalizing, way of measuring pass rush. Football doesn't lend itself to advanced analytics, but in this case the zero-sum defition of pass rush = sack isn't accurate.
It's also worth looking into QBR and the net effect of pressure on points scored.
Far be it for me to defend Terps, but his reasoning above makes a lot of sense here. The concept of pressure or hit seems as subjective as any stat in football...
For instance, if the offense calls a play where they want the rush to come in on a screen play, and the DE gets his hands on the QB after the screen pass is complete, is this really a hit? The design of the play was for the DE to get actually pressure the QB to open up space for a screen...
Of course it's subjective, just as almost any stat in football is. It's a much more nuanced game than baseball or basketball.
There's times where a sack isn't indicative of a good pass rush too. There are plenty of blown assignments, roll outs into waiting arms.
But in the aggregate and over time those outliers correct themselves to a degree.
Far be it for me to defend Terps, but his reasoning above makes a lot of sense here. The concept of pressure or hit seems as subjective as any stat in football...
For instance, if the offense calls a play where they want the rush to come in on a screen play, and the DE gets his hands on the QB after the screen pass is complete, is this really a hit? The design of the play was for the DE to get actually pressure the QB to open up space for a screen...
Of course it's subjective, just as almost any stat in football is. It's a much more nuanced game than baseball or basketball.
There's times where a sack isn't indicative of a good pass rush too. There are plenty of blown assignments, roll outs into waiting arms.
But in the aggregate and over time those outliers correct themselves to a degree.
And therein lies the problem - Football is so nuanced that it is very difficult to grade it - as an outsider - because we don’t know the plays, checks offs, and specific assignments. Further, who has access to the all-22 shots? That’s the true view to grade a game...
It’s not terribly misleading because those are arguably the three best players in football at their positions based on their year over year consistency. And their play jumps off the screen. It doesn’t take a great eye to watch Von Miller turn the corner time after time and realize that’s very different versus most.
Take a look at Spotrac's valuation tool (I'd link but I'm on my phone). It's just one tool, but the methodology seems sound and there appears to be a correlation between the top players & teams and win/loss record.
Vernon rated 71st in the NFL. There were only a few guys worse. One was JPP.
but that makes it easier to argue endlessly about it. There's no stat that directly correlates, which makes this a perfect thing to go back and forth about. No QB likes to get hit and many play worse than they get hit. I know it's so, but there's nothing I can copy and paste to prove it.
he was excellent year 1, by every measure other than nitpicking his worst game or worst 10 plays. reverse engineering nonsense to fit a narrative.
the whole defense was poor for large portions last year, and he was part of that, and his injury was part of that- and he needs to perform this year to erase that feeling...
i would expect him to do well this year.
Proving GoTerps point.
Or does it mean the qb was just in the process of throwing the ball and then was legally hit, but you don't know the outcome of the throw as a stat....
I'd like to see the comp% or YPA on the passes from those hits.
Since Vernon signed here we've ranked 15th and 30th in sacks as a defense. So, there's that. But I'm supposed to believe that sacks now don't matter. Oh and in 2017 we conceded more TD passes than anyone else, and the second most passing yards.
Yeah the Vernon experience has been something.
The love for these guys here makes you wonder why so many people wanted Reese canned.
Seems to me tha 100% of sacks result in loss of down, lost yardage. I doubt 100% of hurries end up in INTs or errant passes.
Great. Take the lowest point of that season and put it on Vernon. Let's absolve the offense for all the 3 and outs. Absolve the injury to JPP. Absolve the Giants D all together...never mind that there wasn't one more legit pass rusher on that entire team.
Lazy and easy. Good stuff.
Quote:
we don't know what constitutes a hit. Anecdotally I haven't seen Vernon planting very many QBs after they get rid of the ball.
Since Vernon signed here we've ranked 15th and 30th in sacks as a defense. So, there's that. But I'm supposed to believe that sacks now don't matter. Oh and in 2017 we conceded more TD passes than anyone else, and the second most passing yards.
Yeah the Vernon experience has been something.
The love for these guys here makes you wonder why so many people wanted Reese canned.
Seems to me tha 100% of sacks result in loss of down, lost yardage. I doubt 100% of hurries end up in INTs or errant passes.
Let's not forget about the personal fouls he has picked up multiple times for driving the QB to the ground to hard,etc.
Ok. Not sure what 6 years has to do with Vernon's overall impact or ability. I think he's a very good all around player. I'm not getting into splitting hairs at how good he is. I see a plus player playing a premium position. I don't give that much of a fuck at his salary. I hate that take. Hate it.
Great, OV hits the QB but isn't getting sacks.
Unless that stat can show how often the qb is throwing the ball away or is made to turn the ball over then hits on the qb mean nothing.
That’s exactly what it translates to. Excellent analogy. I’m a fan of Vernon but these stats to me are stupid like many football stats. Just watch the games and he’s pretty much invisible. Football more than any other sport is about the eye test. He’s okay vs the run but he wasn’t brought here to stop the run.
Nate solder has never been the best or even top 5 LT in the league but he's paid like it. Eli Manning was never the best QB in the league but he's been paid like it. Antrel Rolled was never the best safety in the league but he was paid like it. It's the cost of doing business. Contracts are not always indicative of talent level. There's always an availability tax attached to free agents.
It’s not about sacks. If a guy consisntenly gets pressure he can have much more value than the guy with more sacks.
You win football games by getting pressure. Sacks are just one way to measure pressure.
The players may have 1000 snaps in a season.
They are evaluated on every snap to get their grade.
At the end of the year, the simpletons roll out the sack numbers as the measuring stick.
Not a game wrecker but a very good player.
He gets QB pressure. He plays hard. He brings a lot of value and his consistent QB pressure is a big part of it. He’s helping the team.
Does it make him worth the big deal? That’s another question.
I take your point - which is consensus by now thanks to all the OPS stuff out there - but in the case of Ichiro, in his prime, he was also a tremendous base stealer. Often thought effective base stealers should get a bump to their all around offensive output. Somehow add it to the SLG since most of their singles eventually becomes 'doubles'
Anyway - we digress. Lets go back to talking about Vernon yet again.
It’s not about sacks. If a guy consisntenly gets pressure he can have much more value than the guy with more sacks.
You win football games by getting pressure. Sacks are just one way to measure pressure.
The players may have 1000 snaps in a season.
They are evaluated on every snap to get their grade.
At the end of the year, the simpletons roll out the sack numbers as the measuring stick.
Again, why cant he get sacks, hits, and hurries?
Are we really bragging about a guy who gets less than 1 hit per game for the last 5 years?
What I have a problem with is people dismissing a player getting consistent QB pressure as BS, hype, or anything else.
It's a legitimate aspect of evaluation. One of the most important actually. When the coaches grade a guy, he gets a positive grade if he beats his man and gets pressure. He doesn't control what the QB is doing. Or the fact that he isn't coming from the blind side. If he hurries the QB he's helping.
If you have a player doing it consistently then you have an impact guy.
Vernon is an excellent player. One of the few we have.
What I have a problem with is people dismissing a player getting consistent QB pressure as BS, hype, or anything else.
It's a legitimate aspect of evaluation. One of the most important actually. When the coaches grade a guy, he gets a positive grade if he beats his man and gets pressure. He doesn't control what the QB is doing. Or the fact that he isn't coming from the blind side. If he hurries the QB he's helping.
If you have a player doing it consistently then you have an impact guy.
Vernon is an excellent player. One of the few we have.
But he doesnt get sacks and despite what this stat says - he isnt hitting the QB either. And he is getting paid a lot of money do so.
Hitting a QB less than once per game isnt great whatsoever if you arent getting sacks.
I think if the new DC can actually create some kind of rotation he'll be a lot better in the 3rd and 4th quarters where it matters.
Just like the situation in that playoff game against Rodgers.
Ok. Not sure what 6 years has to do with Vernon's overall impact or ability.
I bring up the past six years because there's been a common theme surrounding the discussion of this team for some time. That theme revolves around excuse making and rationalization to talk around a fundamental truth, and that truth is this:
The Giants suck. This organization has sucked for 6 years and has sucked because of the poor decisions it makes.
Positive spins on underperforming players are frequently repeated here by posters that refuse to accept that reality. Vernon isn't the only guy we see rationalized. The rationalizations around every big player on this team up to and including Eli have been all over this site for years.
Enough already. This team sucks. The players are failing...and it's not all McAdoo's fault. The sooner we all accept that then the sooner we can all stop rationalizing away poor performances with bullshit like a "hits" stat.
Go Terps : 12:29 pm : link : reply
Regular season game in Green Bay. Rodgers is regularly getting, without exaggeration, 5+ seconds to throw the football. Vernon and JPP being completely dominated, and Al Michaels says something to the effect of, "When the Giants made him the richest defensive end in the NFL, people around the league said, 'Him?'". It was like he was Ann on Arrested Development.
During the primetime games vs. Minny and GB, the team was getting absolutely roasted for the $200M. Everyone knows that figure because the announcers kept bringing it up.
Then you know what - later in the year when we were getting ready to clinch a playoff spot, the narrative changed. Vernon had recovered from the broken hand and JPP was playing well. Then the discussion turned to Reese getting a lot of value from the signings and how it turned around a defense that was the worst to one that was one of the best. Even in the playoff game vs. GB in the 1st quarter they went over the signings and how it "turned the season around".
djm is right on the head here. The money shouldn't factor into the player evaluation. It matters for the cap, but a player either plays well or he doesn't. It isn't a "well, he's OK but a terrible value". Vernon is a young DE who plays very well when healthy. I don't see the logic in tying performances to their salary, just like I'm, not thinking that when Collins or Beckham makes a play, it is great because they are an awesome value.
The definition of suck really just got elevated here. The Giants sucked last year. The rest of the time, they are similar to the vast mess of teams we see every year. Mediocre.
I hear people in the past raving about how well the Panthers are run. They've existed since 1995 and have never had back to back winning seasons.
All offseason we see moves made all around the league that are driven completely or in part by salary cap constraints. Let's stop pretending it doesn't impact decision making.
the whole defense was poor for large portions last year, and he was part of that, and his injury was part of that- and he needs to perform this year to erase that feeling...
i would expect him to do well this year.
He's paid to be a starting DE.
The contracts the Giants have given allow us to move on from guys not playing up to their contract with relative ease.
So, comparing him vs. his pay is already accounted for and safeguards put in.
If you truly cared about cost, you'd be one of Beckham's greatest fans because he's an incredible value. Instead, you're going to end up spending 3-4 years bitching about how much he'll cost down the road.
In Beckham's case, you hate the guy. In Vernon's case, you have some illusion that the cap is 1993 again. In both cases, your take is pretty poor as evidenced by the belief that Vernon has to be an elite player. Hell, even when he played well in 2016, his slow start jaded you into thinking it was a $200M waste of money.
$200M that has produced 2 All Pros and a good DE
As for sucks, 4 losing seasons out of 5, 5 out of 6 no playoffs, complete implosion last year? I'd have to say they are well into suck-dom, 60% of the way to a lost decade.
OK, I guess.
I thought we'd be more concerned with the two years of being unable to generate a conventional pass rush, but hey that's just me.
And basically, your point here is that people rationalize expensive players.
Yet, you take the best WR in the NFL and trash his ass whenever possible and don't think it is a rationalization?
I think rationalization is just your way of saying the people who don't agree with you are wrong.
And basically, your point here is that people rationalize expensive players.
Yet, you take the best WR in the NFL and trash his ass whenever possible and don't think it is a rationalization?
I think rationalization is just your way of saying the people who don't agree with you are wrong.
I think bringing up Beckham to prove something about Vernon is your way of deflecting.
I don't know the exact answer but it definitely had a major role to play in why our pass rush sucked.
That is a horseshit comment.
Front 7 guys can make a big impact without the sacks especially guys who get consistent pressure like Vernon. He's a damn good player.
How about Graham in PHI? Another underperforming player? Avg 6 sacks/year. Only one season with 7 sacks. He's not up to your standards because of the sack numbers? That's a joke. The last few years he's been one of the best in the league.
For the meatheads, the lower sack numbers tell the whole story with every DE. I'm surprised your in that group on this subject.
The money shouldn't factor into the player evaluation.
ROI should ALWAYS be part of the equation. It's why players get cut or asked to revise their contracts all the time.
I honestly can't believe you wrote that or even believe it.
The quarterback has as a lot of say in whether he is sacked or not, and the defender can have done his job perfectly and not get a sack.
The sack is a highly dependent, not encompassing, and certainly not singular measure of the efficacy of a pass rusher.
A number of valuable things can occur as a result of a pressure. An incomplete pass, an intentional grounding, an interception, a dump-off for a shorter gain.
A quarterback can decide not to take a sack and do a number of totally destructive things.
There's a whole school of thought in football that taking the sack is the best thing to do when pressured.
It's a pretty dorky zero-sum world if you think a sack is actually always the best outcome, and especially the only good outcome of a pass rush.
It's one outcome if the quarterback has the time and in is the position and has the wherewith-all to actually take the sack.
No one is debating that pressuring the quarterback has great value. The question is in the actual statistic. In years on BBI I had never seen pressures mentioned as a statistic. Then last year when it became fashionable to point to pressures (IMO as a rationalization for our inability to generate a pass rush), I asked the question: what actually defines a pressure?
- Is the amount of time between snap and pressure a factor?
- How is the quarterback deemed to have been pressured?
- Does the end result of the play factor in? If so, how?
If we're going to point to pressures as a stat by which to measure performance, shouldn't we know definitively what the stat is showing? It's the same thing with "hits". What constitutes a hit? This is a league where hitting a quarterback without the ball in his hands is very often a penalty...so how are we defining a hit? Is it merely physical contact?
When I've watched games these past two years, I've seen the Giants struggle to generate a pass rush. Now I'm far from an expert; I could be completely wrong in that assertion. But no one is proving otherwise.
Far be it for me to defend Terps, but his reasoning above makes a lot of sense here. The concept of pressure or hit seems as subjective as any stat in football...
For instance, if the offense calls a play where they want the rush to come in on a screen play, and the DE gets his hands on the QB after the screen pass is complete, is this really a hit? The design of the play was for the DE to get actually pressure the QB to open up space for a screen...
No one is debating that pressuring the quarterback has great value. The question is in the actual statistic. In years on BBI I had never seen pressures mentioned as a statistic. Then last year when it became fashionable to point to pressures (IMO as a rationalization for our inability to generate a pass rush), I asked the question: what actually defines a pressure?
- Is the amount of time between snap and pressure a factor?
- How is the quarterback deemed to have been pressured?
- Does the end result of the play factor in? If so, how?
If we're going to point to pressures as a stat by which to measure performance, shouldn't we know definitively what the stat is showing? It's the same thing with "hits". What constitutes a hit? This is a league where hitting a quarterback without the ball in his hands is very often a penalty...so how are we defining a hit? Is it merely physical contact?
When I've watched games these past two years, I've seen the Giants struggle to generate a pass rush. Now I'm far from an expert; I could be completely wrong in that assertion. But no one is proving otherwise.
I agree that the Giants have struggled to generate a conventional pass rush, but how can you pin all of that on the DEs?
— They’ve had practice squad level talent at the LB position for god knows how long
— They haven’t had a pass rusher at the DT position in a while
— They’ve had no quality depth behind JPP/Vernon
No LB as an effective blitzer like Mitchell/Pierce. No legit third pass rusher like Tuck/Kiwi/Osi. No one on the interior like Cofield.
We’ll see what happens but I’d bet we see a pretty good year out of Vernon/JPP in a new scheme with talent at the LB position. Even more so if they add quality to the rotation like Philly has done the last few years.
Quote:
Holy crap. All I said was there are folks who believe batting average is a significant stat. I never said it was an empty stat.
BA - by itself - is not a significant stat. Just like a sack - by itself - is not a significant stat.
It is a significant stat. New agers may not think so, but BA is still an important stat.
It's a moderately new, not rationalizing, way of measuring pass rush. Football doesn't lend itself to advanced analytics, but in this case the zero-sum defition of pass rush = sack isn't accurate.
It's also worth looking into QBR and the net effect of pressure on points scored.
Quote:
The singular worst poster on the board.
Far be it for me to defend Terps, but his reasoning above makes a lot of sense here. The concept of pressure or hit seems as subjective as any stat in football...
For instance, if the offense calls a play where they want the rush to come in on a screen play, and the DE gets his hands on the QB after the screen pass is complete, is this really a hit? The design of the play was for the DE to get actually pressure the QB to open up space for a screen...
Of course it's subjective, just as almost any stat in football is. It's a much more nuanced game than baseball or basketball.
There's times where a sack isn't indicative of a good pass rush too. There are plenty of blown assignments, roll outs into waiting arms.
But in the aggregate and over time those outliers correct themselves to a degree.
Quote:
In comment 13874818 adamg said:
Quote:
The singular worst poster on the board.
Far be it for me to defend Terps, but his reasoning above makes a lot of sense here. The concept of pressure or hit seems as subjective as any stat in football...
For instance, if the offense calls a play where they want the rush to come in on a screen play, and the DE gets his hands on the QB after the screen pass is complete, is this really a hit? The design of the play was for the DE to get actually pressure the QB to open up space for a screen...
Of course it's subjective, just as almost any stat in football is. It's a much more nuanced game than baseball or basketball.
There's times where a sack isn't indicative of a good pass rush too. There are plenty of blown assignments, roll outs into waiting arms.
But in the aggregate and over time those outliers correct themselves to a degree.
And therein lies the problem - Football is so nuanced that it is very difficult to grade it - as an outsider - because we don’t know the plays, checks offs, and specific assignments. Further, who has access to the all-22 shots? That’s the true view to grade a game...
And that measuring a pass rush by sacks alone is missing a pretty decent chunk of productivity.
Miller
Mack
What a terribly misleading stat.......... or not
Miller
Mack
What a terribly misleading stat.......... or not
It’s not terribly misleading because those are arguably the three best players in football at their positions based on their year over year consistency. And their play jumps off the screen. It doesn’t take a great eye to watch Von Miller turn the corner time after time and realize that’s very different versus most.
Vernon rated 71st in the NFL. There were only a few guys worse. One was JPP.
the whole defense was poor for large portions last year, and he was part of that, and his injury was part of that- and he needs to perform this year to erase that feeling...
i would expect him to do well this year.
Preach