Josh Jones at ILB?

[Deleted member 6794]

Speaking of hard hitting safety's. Kentrell Brice was dropping bombs last year. ! If he comes back a little stronger, bigger, and still willing to sacrifice the body the way he does. How do we not play him? Still have a healthy Randall/Rollins/Gunter trio needing some reps...king, house, and Jones come in and knock everyone down the depth chart three spots... Our secondary starts to look stacked .

Brice showed some promise during his rookie season but he definitely has to reduce his mental lapses to receive more playing time. There's way too much uncertainty at the cornerback position to declare the secondary stacked.

 

[thequick12]

It's along shot that Jones will even be close to as good as Collins was though. In addition it took Nick until his fourth season to perform at an elite level.

it seems to always take packers safeties 4 years to become elite. you mentioned collins that was also the case with burnett and that other guy not worth mentioning by name. so i would fully expect clinton dix to reach his peak next season

 

[Sky King]

With hits like that Brice may become the next Bob Sanders as it relates to hitting hard, having a plethora of injuries and a career that is cut short by them. Hopefully, he improves each year he plays and that he can stay healthy in the process.

 

[gopkrs]

I also like Brice

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Your statements are self-contradictory. If you cannot compare passing efficiency between hits, hurries and no pressure, and the value of sacks, and in particular strip sacks, where this is no passer rating, then there's no basis for an assumption about their relative values.

Here's some interesting information from PFF regarding the discussion:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here's some interesting information from PFF regarding the discussion:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

That really doesn't clarify the value of sacks vs. hits vs. hurries.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That really doesn't clarify the value of sacks vs. hits vs. hurries.

It doesn't, but if you wouldn't be that stubborn you would have realized by now that either hitting or hurrying opposing quarterbacks makes a huge difference.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It doesn't, but if you wouldn't be that stubborn you would have realized by now that either hitting or hurrying opposing quarterbacks makes a huge difference.

And for the upteenth time + 2 it's the relative valuation of sacks (not included in that data because the passer did not throw the ball) vs. hits (which I like) vs. hurries which is in question.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And for the upteenth time + 2 it's the relative valuation of sacks (not included in that data because the passer did not throw the ball) vs. hits (which I like) vs. hurries which is in question.

And for the upteenth time +3 I definitely agree that sacks are more valuable than hits or hurries. But there's no denying not creating any pressure on opposing quarterbacks results in a huge spike in passer rating.

 

[HardRightEdge]

And for the upteenth time +3 I definitely agree that sacks are more valuable than hits or hurries. But there's no denying not creating any pressure on opposing quarterbacks results in a huge spike in passer rating.

And for the umpteeth time + 4, the original issue I presented was PFF's relative valuations used in the numerical pass rusher ranking:

sack: 1.00
hit: 0.75
hurry: 0.75

This relative valuation is unsupported and implausible.

Your most recent post provided no clarity on that issue.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And for the umpteeth time + 4, the original issue I presented was PFF's relative valuations used in the numerical pass rusher ranking:

sack: 1.00
hit: 0.75
hurry: 0.75

This relative valuation is is unsupported and implausible.

Your most recent post provided no clarity on that issue.

And for the umpteenth time +5 I agree that PFF's metric to calculate their pass rushing efficiency isn't accurate.

That doesn't change the fact that the overall quarterback rating drops significantly with the passer either hit or hurried and therefore a pass rush constantly putting pressure on opposing QBs is a decisive factor in trying to successfully defend elite offenses.

 

[HardRightEdge]

And for the umpteenth time +5 I agree that PFF's metric to calculate their pass rushing efficiency isn't accurate.

That doesn't change the fact that the overall quarterback rating drops significantly with the passer either hit or hurried and therefore a pass rush constantly putting pressure on opposing QBs is a decisive factor in trying to successfully defend elite offenses.

When you have some data on hits vs. hurries, that would be interesting. The frequency of the various kinds of plays would be relevant.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

When you have some data on hits vs. hurries, that would be interesting. The frequency of the various kinds of plays would be relevant.

Unfortunately I don't have access to that information but tried to contact PFF via Twitter to ask for it. We'll have to wait and see if they response to it.

Here's a graphic detailling the percentage of passes intercepted from a clean pocket compared to quarterbacks being pressured:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I believe strongly that the packers rule. While the rest of the NFC north drools. Go Packerzzz

 

[Poppa San]

Unfortunately I don't have access to that information but tried to contact PFF via Twitter to ask for it. We'll have to wait and see if they response to it.

Here's a graphic detailling the percentage of passes intercepted from a clean pocket compared to quarterbacks being pressured:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

My take away from this pic is the average QB under pressure now throws interceptions at almost the same rate as a QB 10 years ago did in a clean pocket. QBs are getting better at handling it or the definition of pressure has been expanded to include more close but not actual pressure type plays.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

My take away from this pic is the average QB under pressure now throws interceptions at almost the same rate as a QB 10 years ago did in a clean pocket. QBs are getting better at handling it or the definition of pressure has been expanded to include more close but not actual pressure type plays.

There's no doubt quarterbacks have gotten better at reducing the number of interceptions over the past 10 years but the point of my post was that there's still a significant gap between the percentage of throws being picked off while having a clean pocket compared to the QB being under pressure.

 

[PikeBadger]

My take away from this pic is the average QB under pressure now throws interceptions at almost the same rate as a QB 10 years ago did in a clean pocket. QBs are getting better at handling it or the definition of pressure has been expanded to include more close but not actual pressure type plays.

Agree. I think some of that has to do with the fact that QB's today have less to fear. They know they are a protected species and I believe the rules now make it more difficult to separate QB from the ball. They don't have to worry about taking near as much punishment as they used to.

 

[Poppa San]

There's no doubt quarterbacks have gotten better at reducing the number of interceptions over the past 10 years but the point of my post was that there's still a significant gap between the percentage of throws being picked off while having a clean pocket compared to the QB being under pressure.

I don't dispute that.
And the gap is widening. ~30% increase 10 years ago is now ~60%.