|
Schneed10 09-25-2018, 02:50 PM This post is dedicated to Schneed:
The following is from a statistical analysis done by Eric Eager of PFF published on February 22, 2018:
"Using our Expected Points Added (EPA) model, we know exactly how much each impact play by a defender affects opposing offenses, with a positive EPA implying a successful play by an offense and a negative EPA a successful play by the defense.
EPA on all passing plays: 0.025
EPA on all non-sack passing plays: 0.145
EPA on passing plays without pressure: 0.233
EPA on passing plays with pressure (incl. sacks): -0.397
EPA on passing plays with pressure but no sack: -0.074
EPA on passing plays where the quarterback is only hurried: 0.019
EPA on passing plays where the quarterback is only hit: -0.161
EPA on passing plays where the quarterback is only hit and hurried: -0.323
EPA on passing plays that result in sacks: -1.856
Notice that, on average, passing plays are a net positive for an offense, and passing plays that do not result in pressure are even more so. Once pressure is applied to a quarterback, passing plays become a negative proposition for an offense, but are an order-of-magnitude worse when they result in sacks."
So, to those of you who think I don't know what I'm talking about when I say we need more sacks rather than just pressures or hurries from our Edge Rushers, I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about.
Nobody was trying to say that hurries or pressures are just as good as sacks. We were saying that sacks correlate to hurries and pressures, so as long as Kerrigan is getting hurries and pressures, the sacks will come.
DYoungJelly 09-25-2018, 03:36 PM Nobody was trying to say that hurries or pressures are just as good as sacks. We were saying that sacks correlate to hurries and pressures, so as long as Kerrigan is getting hurries and pressures, the sacks will come.What is the correlation?
All hurries and pressures aren't equal with many being expected and accounted for depending on how a play progresses. They may be a near miss sack, they may not be.
If a qb takes a five step drop and doesn't throw it for another second or two and Kerrigan gets a "pressure" and forces the qb to throw the ball out of bounds, how valuable is that?
Not nearly as valuable as beating the blocker and forcing the qb out of the schedule of the play.
Those two things may both be hurries or pressures but one is a lot closer to a sack than the other.
Kerrigan can lead the league in hurries and pressures and may or may not have any sacks. There isn't necessarily a correlation and definitely not a causation.
Generic statements with undefined terms don't really contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Chico23231 09-25-2018, 03:48 PM summarizing eli debate in this thread
Eli is in decline
-- don't judge my eli!!!
don't be so sensitive
-- show me proof, don't judge my eli!!!
qbr bad
-- it's about wins losses don't judge my eli!!!
wins/losses bad
-- it's a team sport, it's about what happens on the field - don't judge my eli!!!
lol I kinda thought wins/losses and qbr defined what is happening on the field
Pretty much this....
G1's slurpin and burp'in on Eli's dick...and don't dare suggest Darnold was the right draft pick.
Schneed10 09-25-2018, 04:14 PM What is the correlation?
All hurries and pressures aren't equal with many being expected and accounted for depending on how a play progresses. They may be a near miss sack, they may not be.
If a qb takes a five step drop and doesn't throw it for another second or two and Kerrigan gets a "pressure" and forces the qb to throw the ball out of bounds, how valuable is that?
Not nearly as valuable as beating the blocker and forcing the qb out of the schedule of the play.
Those two things may both be hurries or pressures but one is a lot closer to a sack than the other.
Kerrigan can lead the league in hurries and pressures and may or may not have any sacks. There isn't necessarily a correlation and definitely not a causation.
Generic statements with undefined terms don't really contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I can tell you're statistically challenged. A correlation means that the more pressures you get, the more sacks you'll get. Pressures indicate you're getting close, sacks indicate you got there.
What I'm saying - and let me dumb it down so you can understand it - is that if Kerrigan weren't registering pressures, it would indicate a serious problem. It would mean he's not beating his man, he's not getting around the block, etc. But he is getting pressures, and as long as that keeps up, the sacks will come.
@MarkBullockNFL
Seen a couple people questioning Ryan Kerrigan after no sacks through 3 games. He was a constant thorn in the side of the Packers. Plenty of pressures, got a couple of holding calls, nice strong edge set vs the run. Packers chipped him with a TE 6 or 7 times too
ethat001 09-25-2018, 04:47 PM @MarkBullockNFL
Seen a couple people questioning Ryan Kerrigan after no sacks through 3 games. He was a constant thorn in the side of the Packers. Plenty of pressures, got a couple of holding calls, nice strong edge set vs the run. Packers chipped him with a TE 6 or 7 times too
Lots of discussion about Kerrigan. Agree with pressures being important, and if you have a lot of pressures you affect the game / sacks should come. Stopping the run is important. But at some level it seems like RK is underperforming, he doesn't seem to be changing games. When you discuss Khalil Mack and Von Miller - we're not talking about how pressures they've had, we're talking about game-changing talent.. And we haven't seen top tier Olines (Arizona may be one of the worst, Colts Olines were battered up,etc). Just saying I would have expected more from RK to this point, and his PFF grade is only 65.7 (above average), and the 50th ranked edge defender (https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/ryan-kerrigan/6168), which seems about right.
DYoungJelly 09-25-2018, 04:49 PM I can tell you're statistically challenged. A correlation means that the more pressures you get, the more sacks you'll get. Pressures indicate you're getting close, sacks indicate you got there.
What I'm saying - and let me dumb it down so you can understand it - is that if Kerrigan weren't registering pressures, it would indicate a serious problem. It would mean he's not beating his man, he's not getting around the block, etc. But he is getting pressures, and as long as that keeps up, the sacks will come.You should look up correlation and causation.
It also seems like you didn't actually read the post.
More pressures may mean more sacks or it may not. That's what a correlation is, rather than a causation.
Again, it's about defining terms: hurries and pressures.
Another knee jerk post.
Typical.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Chico23231 09-25-2018, 05:00 PM I think we all can agree Kerrigan just hasn't made the plays we are typical of seeing...but its just 3 games and he is still effective in his role. I have faith the sacks will come...he's been putting in the work.
Zero worried about Kerrigan....I'm more concerned with the other OLB. And actually Im MOST concerned with WR group.
Defense overall has been effective with its pass rush
Feels like every year we put Kerrigan under the microscope and it's just beyond silly at this point.
Here's a guy who averages 10 sacks a year, has been to 3 Pro Bowls, and probably most impressively hasn't missed a single damn game and somehow he's always the one getting singled out. I don't get it, never have, never will.
metalskins 09-25-2018, 05:35 PM Feels like every year we put Kerrigan under the microscope and it's just beyond silly at this point.
Here's a guy who averages 10 sacks a year, has been to 3 Pro Bowls, and probably most impressively hasn't missed a single damn game and somehow he's always the one getting singled out. I don't get it, never have, never will.
Cris Collinsworth? Is that you???
|