Josh Jones at ILB?

D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Using ESPN's stats, the league in aggregate forced 483 fumbles last season with 285 recovered for a 59% recovery rate.
While the recovery may be a matter of serendipity in terms of the recovering player being in the right place at the right time, the guy forcing the fumble has made an impactful play 59% of the time, and that ain't serendipity. On balance, a forced fumble is worth more than half of an INT.

Here's another question. When a defender leaps at the line and tips a ball does PFF credit that as a "hurry" when he didn't actually hurry anything? I don't know, but it strikes me as a whole other category of defensive play (pass rusher passes defended) just as strip sacks should be different category. Some guys have a knack for such plays, others do not.

As far as I know PFF credits players with for ed fumbles as well as batted balls at the LOS but don't include those plays in their metric to calculate pass rushing efficiency.

FWIW there were a total of 88 strip sacks that resulted in a turnover last season.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
There have also been countless TDs thrown and big plays achieved by QBs under pressure. There has never been a TD thrown, or a single yard gained by a QB who has been sacked. They are drive killers on most occasions, and though there's no chance an INT will be thrown, there's a huge possibility that an unaware QB will fumble the ball when hit, which happens all the time.

Pressures are great, but the impact can't be compared to a sack. From an individual perspective, I don't disagree with PFF's point system for pressures, I'm just a bit suspicious when certain players covert such a low number of them into sacks. But as for arguing that a pressure can possibly have more value than a sack, that's a bit silly.

Nobody is arguing that a pressure has more value than a sack but that some posters undervalue the importance of it.

While it's true that a lot of touchdown passes have been thrown under pressure there have been numerous on plays following a sack as well.

I know. You mentioned the 60-some passer rating under "pressure". And as I noted earlier, by definition, that passer rating is limited to hits and hurries. Sacks cannot be included by definition since the ball was not thrown.

It's true that you mentioned earlier that the passer rating under pressure is only for hits and hurries but continue to ignore its relevance. Of course I prefer a sack over solely pressuring the quarterback but there's no doubt that most passer struggle when not theowing from a clean pocket.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
There have also been countless TDs thrown and big plays achieved by QBs under pressure. There has never been a TD thrown, or a single yard gained by a QB who has been sacked. They are drive killers on most occasions, and though there's no chance an INT will be thrown, there's a huge possibility that an unaware QB will fumble the ball when hit, which happens all the time.

Pressures are great, but the impact can't be compared to a sack. From an individual perspective, I don't disagree with PFF's point system for pressures, I'm just a bit suspicious when certain players covert such a low number of them into sacks. But as for arguing that a pressure can possibly have more value than a sack, that's a bit silly.

Yes, that is why i said higher variance. That still doesn't remove the fact that there are also positive outcomes for the defense.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
As far as I know PFF credits players with for ed fumbles as well as batted balls at the LOS but don't include those plays in their metric to calculate pass rushing efficiency.
That may be true on a subjective basis when compiling their All Pro list or the like. But there's no evidence it is included in their numerical ratings. Why not quantify such important aspects of pass rusher performance? Leaving them out of the equation is highly distorting.
FWIW there were a total of 88 strip sacks that resulted in a turnover last season.
That sounds about right. There were 1120 sacks last season, so about 1 out of 13 sacks results in a turnover. Under PFF's 1.00 : 0.75 sack:hurry scoring ratio, do you think 1 out of 17 hurries results in an INT? I sure don't. And that does not even take into account the lost yards with the other sacks vs. zero lost on an hurry incompletions.
Nobody is arguing that a pressure has more value than a sack...
For like the upmteenth time, "pressures" include sacks. You meant "hurries". Or maybe hurries and hits. I like hits myself.
It's true that you mentioned earlier that the passer rating under pressure is only for hits and urries but continue to ignore its relevance.
I do not ignore their relevance. A hurry is better than having the QB sit back in his rocking chair and throw at his leisure, and if the player scores a hit to the QB's arm or his hand, or if he knocks the QB down as he throws, all the better.

What I questioned and continue to question is that a hurry is worth 0.75 sacks as PFF uses in their formula. Hits = hurries is also quite suspect. You seemed to agree, at least on the sack:hurry ratio.

I'd go a step further and say PFF's formula construction has evidence of arbitrariness and is not based on any kind deep look at the value of outcomes. The round numbers are a giveaway as I said before. It would seem they have a lot of guys who focus on individual play performance but are light on guys who can build a rating model based on the value of relative outcomes. They're using Kentucky windage in those ratios. The shame of it is they probably have all of the raw data but nobody who knows how to refine the formula.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
brandon2348

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
Well I think Josh Jones is gonna make one hell of an ILB. :)

I really don't care what PFF thinks
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
Well I think Josh Jones is gonna make one hell of an ILB. :)

I really don't care what PFF thinks
Someone said he was a blitzing safety that day.
He really seems to me to be in position to be the new play maker on the defense. Capers got a deep dline, and that will open up the lbs. Jones will be an after thought. With his speed strength combo, he will be a great weapon for capers.

Same goes for king, and haha. They need to get a few tries to smear the qb.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
That may be true on a subjective basis when compiling their All Pro list or the like. But there's no evidence it is included in their numerical ratings. Why not quantify such important aspects of pass rusher performance? Leaving them out of the equation is highly distorting.

PFF grades every single play and track the number of forced fumbles and batted passes. While they don't include it in their pass rushing efficiency metric I'm convinced they consider those plays in their individual grades.

That sounds about right. There were 1120 sacks last season, so about 1 out of 13 sacks results in a turnover. Under PFF's 1.00 : 0.75 sack:hurry scoring ratio, do you think 1 out of 17 hurries results in an INT? I sure don't.

In my opinion that is irrelevant for the discussion though as the turnover percentage should be caculated based on the total number of pass plays for both interceptions because of the quarterback being hurried as well as strip sacks. Taking into consideration there were a total of 415 INTs in 2016 I'm convinced that numbers results in hurries having a bigger impact.

For like the upmteenth time, "pressures" include sacks. You meant "hurries". Or maybe hurries and hits. I like hits myself.

It's fine if you want to continue using semantics but it's pretty obvious I have been clearly differentiating between sacks and hits/hurries.

What I questioned and continue to question is that a hurry is worth 0.75 sacks as PFF uses in their formula. Hits = hurries is also quite suspect. You seemed to agree, at least on the sack:hurry ratio.

Once again, I'm not arguing that PFF is using a perfect formula but that solely hitting or hurrying a quarterback results in a significant drop in passer rating.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
PFF grades every single play and track the number of forced fumbles and batted passes. While they don't include it in their pass rushing efficiency metric I'm convinced they consider those plays in their individual grades.
On what basis are you convinced? The mere fact these are productive activities and but not factored into "Pass Rush Productivity" makes me highly skeptical. As noted earlier, in a top 25 ranking, the only player noted for stripping the ball was Mack whereas others were equally proficient. Nowhere in an any of the descriptions was batting balls mentioned as a factor.
In my opinion that is irrelevant for the discussion though as the turnover percentage should be caculated based on the total number of pass plays for both interceptions because of the quarterback being hurried as well as strip sacks. Taking into consideration there were a total of 415 INTs in 2016 I'm convinced that numbers results in hurries having a bigger impact.
You say it's irrelevant and then you agreed!? Lots of interceptions occur when the passer is not hurried.

We agree that such statistics are highly relevant. We disagree on the relative value of the plays. The fact that neither you nor I can find any stats on the outcomes of these plays, I remain skeptical that anybody has actually gotten down to the nitty gritty of serious measurement. The mere fact that PFF uses that 1.00 : 0.75 : 0.75 ratio tells me they have not done much study on the matter.
It's fine if you want to continue using semantics but it's pretty obvious I have been clearly differentiating between sacks and hits/hurries.
Words matter. Not differentiating "pressure" from "hurry" in a technical discussion that differentiates them is worth pointing out.
Once again, I'm not arguing that PFF is using a perfect formula but that solely hitting or hurrying a quarterback results in a significant drop in passer rating.
Yes, there is evidence it is an imperfect formula.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
bet mm won't tip his hand in preseason. sea will see mm's ultimate plan for the new jj.
I don't see how you could put a rookie in a foreign position playing in a foreign scheme, stone cold, in a money games. You have to put him out there in preseason against foreign schemes to see how he adjusts and performs. Heck, 11-on-11 full contact scrimmaging in training camp is an endangered species. I'm not sure if they do any at all except for Family Night. Somebody else can comment as to whether there are other limited instances.

Even then, the bulk of those snaps are against 2nd. and 3rd. stringers, many of whom couldn't start in the SEC, but it's the best trial run available.

If you don't see him playing that position in preseason, don't expect to seem him playing there week 1.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
On what basis are you convinced? The mere fact these are productive activities and but not factored into "Pass Rush Productivity" makes me highly skeptical. As noted earlier, in a top 25 ranking, the only player noted for stripping the ball was Mack whereas others were equally proficient. Nowhere in an any of the descriptions was batting balls mentioned as a factor.

As I've mentioned earlier PFF keeps track of forced fumbles and batted passes. Therefore I expect those plays to factor into individual grades.

You say it's irrelevant and then you agreed!?

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I agreed with you.

Words matter. Not differentiating "pressure" from "hurry" in a technical discussion that differentiates them is worth pointing out.

It should be pretty obvious to everyone that I differed between pressures (hits and hurries) and sacks.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Yeah, you did, on precisely that point. Unless you changed your mind. Not that it matters or that I care very much.

No, I didn't. Maybe you should read my post once again as I clearly stated that the percentage of strip sacks should be calculated based on the total number of pass plays and not like you suggested on the amount of sacks.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
No, I didn't. Maybe you should read my post once again as I clearly stated that the percentage of strip sacks should be calculated based on the total number of pass plays and not like you suggested on the amount of sacks.
I see. You called something "irrelevant to the discussion". Actually it's irrelevant to your assumed perspective on how how PFF does what they do, not to the discussion itself. At least we agree that strip sacks and batted passes are relevant. What we don't know is how or with what kind of weighting PFF considers them, if at all, numerically.

You assume that PFF accounts for strips sacks and forced interceptions on hurries and hits, as well as batted balls, "somewhere" other than in their Pass Rush Productivity (PRP) 1:00 / 0.75 / 0.75 weightings. Perhaps, perhaps not.

They do produce the "premium" Pass Rush Grade (PRG) stat that looks to be on a 0-100 scale so something in addition to PRP is factored into that. We know not what. Perhaps the calculation of the PRG is disclosed to premium subscribers. Perhaps not. You are assuming something not in evidence.

Here's another oddity I just noticed in the pass rusher ranking example I posted earlier, though 2016 week 7:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-the-nfls-top-25-pass-rushers/

PFF ranks the pass rushers, but not in the order of their PRG numerical ranking. So beyond PRP and PRG there is some other unidentified third layer of evaluation.

Note Miller at #2. What in the notes suggests they rated him higher than PRG would indicate? Strip sacks. He's the only player in the list noted for this element of production. If they had a numerical valuation for them, wouldn't it stand to reason it would be incorporated in the PRG or some third numerical super ranking?

Conversely, Wake is rated lower than his PRG would indicate. The notes highlight his low pass rush snap count. That is a relevant consideration we've not discussed. It also appears not to be numerically accounted for.

This ranking suggests subjective non-numerical inputs. Otherwise, why not put a number on those factors and incorporate them numerically in the rankings?

Without seeing inside the black box formulas, I would not assume where turnovers (or batted balls) are incorporated numerically or if they are accounted for numerically at all.

But let's say you're right on one particular point. Let's say turnovers and batted balls are not factored into the 1:00 / 0.75 / 0.75 PRP ratios. In that case, sacks get an edge solely on lost yards. If so, PFF should not call it a "productivity" rating since there are obviously productive plays that are not included. They should call it simply a "Pressure Ranking" or something of the sort. This is peculiar.

What is also peculiar, as noted before, the roundness of these numbers and the fact that hits and hurries are coincidentally ranked the same. What this also suggests is that beyond turnovers and batted balls, passer rating outcome differences between hits and hurries are not included in the PRP ratios. Maybe that difference is included in the PRG rating. Or maybe not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I see. You called something "irrelevant to the discussion". Actually it's irrelevant to your assumed perspective on how how PFF does what they do, not to the discussion itself. At least we agree that strip sacks and batted passes are relevant. What we don't know is how or with what kind of weighting PFF considers them, if at all, numerically.

You assume that PFF accounts for strips sacks and forced interceptions on hurries and hits, as well as batted balls, "somewhere" other than in their Pass Rush Productivity (PRP) 1:00 / 0.75 / 0.75 weightings. Perhaps, perhaps not.

They do produce the "premium" Pass Rush Grade (PRG) stat that looks to be on a 0-100 scale so something in addition to PRP is factored into that. We know not what. Perhaps the calculation of the PRG is disclosed to premium subscribers. Perhaps not. You are assuming something not in evidence.

Here's another oddity I just noticed in the pass rusher ranking example I posted earlier, though 2016 week 7:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-the-nfls-top-25-pass-rushers/

PFF ranks the pass rushers, but not in the order of their PRG numerical ranking. So beyond PRP and PRG there is some other unidentified third layer of evaluation.

Note Miller at #2. What in the notes suggests they rated him higher than PRG would indicate? Strip sacks. He's the only player in the list noted for this element of production. If they had a numerical valuation for them, wouldn't it stand to reason it would be incorporated in the PRG or some third numerical super ranking?

Conversely, Wake is rated lower than his PRG would indicate. The notes highlight his low pass rush snap count. That is a relevant consideration we've not discussed. It also appears not to be numerically accounted for.

This ranking suggests subjective non-numerical inputs. Otherwise, why not put a number on those factors and incorporate them numerically in the rankings?

Without seeing inside the black box formulas, I would not assume where turnovers (or batted balls) are incorporated numerically or if they are accounted for numerically at all.

But let's say you're right on one particular point. Let's say turnovers and batted balls are not factored into the 1:00 / 0.75 / 0.75 PRP ratios. In that case, sacks get an edge solely on lost yards. If so, PFF should not call it a "productivity" rating since there are obviously productive plays that are not included. They should call it simply a "Pressure Ranking" or something of the sort. This is peculiar.

What is also peculiar, as noted before, the roundness of these numbers and the fact that hits and hurries are coincidentally ranked the same. What this also suggests is that beyond turnovers and batted balls, passer rating outcome differences between hits and hurries are not included in the PRP ratios. Maybe that difference is included in the PRG rating. Or maybe not.

Here's a link to an interesting article about how pressure affects quarterback performance. As a hint, there's a huge drop-off.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/quarterbacks-and-pressure-2016
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Here's a link to an interesting article about how pressure affects quarterback performance. As a hint, there's a huge drop-off.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/quarterbacks-and-pressure-2016
For the umpteenth time + 1: pressure = sacks + hits + hurries. Note the first paragraph in your link.

This article demonstrates nothing about the value of hurries.

I like sacks and hits, for the umpteenth time + 1. I like hurries too. They are better than letting the QB sit back in his rocking chair. I just don't think hurries are as valuable as PFF (and perhaps others?) make them out to be.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
You say it's irrelevant and then you agreed!? Lots of interceptions occur when the passer is not hurried.

Ok, I was gonna stay out of it but this statement is just silly. Yes, a lot of car accidents happen when people aren't drunk, that doesn't have ANY relevance to the fact that you're morel likely to have an accident if you drink and drive.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
According to Football Outsiders the Packers defense ranked 16th in pressure percentage last season at 27.0%. What is interesting the unit finished fifth in DVOA while putting pressure on opposing quarterbacks as well as in 28th when not, finishing with the league's highest DVOA difference in the entire league.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/defense-and-pass-pressure-2016

Yeah, no pressure means that opposing WRs had all day to get WIDE open against the starting corner that was slower than dlinemen in his draft class (Gunter) and whichever other corner happened to be less hurt...
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Ok, I was gonna stay out of it but this statement is just silly. Yes, a lot of car accidents happen when people aren't drunk, that doesn't have ANY relevance to the fact that you're morel likely to have an accident if you drink and drive.
You were going to stay out of it and then you didn't. And you obviously did not follow the conversation.

You're more likely to have an adverse outcome if somebody "hits" you on the road than if your passenger "hurries" you along. And it get's a whole lot worse if your car is "sacked" because you are drunk than if it's just a fender bender "hit" .

How much difference is there among the scenarios? That is the question unanswered so far. And how do each of those outcomes stack up relative to when you are neither sacked, hit or hurried?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Arthur Squires

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
950
Reaction score
63
Location
Chico California
I'm not putting high expectations on a 2nd round pick. But the 1 thing we need to see out of Jones is a punishing hitter. If he goes out and lays the wood on someone it gets your defense pumped. Add that spark to our defense and we are missing Josh Jones!
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I'm not putting high expectations on a 2nd round pick. But the 1 thing we need to see out of Jones is a punishing hitter. If he goes out and lays the wood on someone it gets your defense pumped. Add that spark to our defense and we are missing Josh Jones!

I prefer to have a sure tackler back in the secondary over someone capable of laying out an occasional big hit.
 

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
I prefer to have a sure tackler back in the secondary over someone capable of laying out an occasional big hit.
Just remember that PFF absolutely hated Keanu Neal in college for many of the same reasons, and thought he was a revelation in his rookie season.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top