Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jones at ILB?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 726439"><p>You guys missed the point. "Pressure" = sacks + hits + hurries. I took issue with PFF's relative value to the defense of those three kinds of plays.</p><p></p><p>I stated before that sacks by definition equal a zero passer rating. That's not technically correct since with a sack the QB did not throw the ball so those plays do not enter into the passer rating at all, but more on that in a minute. Because sacks are not factored into passer rating, there is a false equivalency between pass rusher ratings based on "pressures" and QB ratings under "pressure". One includes sacks, the other does not. But I digress.</p><p></p><p>From a practical standpoint, sacks by themselves actually generate the equivalent of a negative passer rating even if the passer rating formulas do not allow for a negative number, which they should if anybody cared about passer rating for QBs with a tiny number of throws. I don't, but there you have it.</p><p></p><p>If, for example, a QB goes 0-10 with no INTs and obviously no TDs, the numerator in the 4 formulas that go into passer rating are all zero, yielding a zero passer rating. The down is lost, yardage is not. With a sack there is the loss of down and loss of yardage, ergo a sack creates what might be the equivalent of something better than a zero passer rating from the defensive perspective.</p><p></p><p>So, the sack component yields the equivalent of a zero-to-negative passer rating but is not actually in the passer rating. So how should that negative or zero passer rating equivalent for sacks be weighted against a 64.5% passer rating for "pressures" which by definition includes only hits and hurries and excludes sacks?</p><p></p><p>And without seeing the passer rating differences between hits and hurries, we're left with the counter intuitive PFF formula saying they are of equal value.</p><p></p><p>First, a hit before the throw is released clearly affects the throwing mechanics more than a mere hurry.</p><p></p><p>Second, I'd like to see the passer rating and sack percentages for plays immediately following hits vs. hurries if that subsequent play happens to be a pass. Certainly some hits knock a QB a bit foggy even if the concussion protocol is not introduced, or maybe it just has him looking over his shoulder. Either way, the subsequent pass play is more likely to be influenced by a hit than a hurry.</p><p></p><p>I mentioned Cam Newton earlier. He got the holy hell beat out of him in a couple of early games. Flags were not being thrown, but that's neither here nor there except for the deterrent affect. The "holy hell" is what matters in Cam closing out the year saying he's not having fun anymore. Cam had a bad year chiefly because he was getting the crap and fun beat out of him. Hurries do not do that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 726439"] You guys missed the point. "Pressure" = sacks + hits + hurries. I took issue with PFF's relative value to the defense of those three kinds of plays. I stated before that sacks by definition equal a zero passer rating. That's not technically correct since with a sack the QB did not throw the ball so those plays do not enter into the passer rating at all, but more on that in a minute. Because sacks are not factored into passer rating, there is a false equivalency between pass rusher ratings based on "pressures" and QB ratings under "pressure". One includes sacks, the other does not. But I digress. From a practical standpoint, sacks by themselves actually generate the equivalent of a negative passer rating even if the passer rating formulas do not allow for a negative number, which they should if anybody cared about passer rating for QBs with a tiny number of throws. I don't, but there you have it. If, for example, a QB goes 0-10 with no INTs and obviously no TDs, the numerator in the 4 formulas that go into passer rating are all zero, yielding a zero passer rating. The down is lost, yardage is not. With a sack there is the loss of down and loss of yardage, ergo a sack creates what might be the equivalent of something better than a zero passer rating from the defensive perspective. So, the sack component yields the equivalent of a zero-to-negative passer rating but is not actually in the passer rating. So how should that negative or zero passer rating equivalent for sacks be weighted against a 64.5% passer rating for "pressures" which by definition includes only hits and hurries and excludes sacks? And without seeing the passer rating differences between hits and hurries, we're left with the counter intuitive PFF formula saying they are of equal value. First, a hit before the throw is released clearly affects the throwing mechanics more than a mere hurry. Second, I'd like to see the passer rating and sack percentages for plays immediately following hits vs. hurries if that subsequent play happens to be a pass. Certainly some hits knock a QB a bit foggy even if the concussion protocol is not introduced, or maybe it just has him looking over his shoulder. Either way, the subsequent pass play is more likely to be influenced by a hit than a hurry. I mentioned Cam Newton earlier. He got the holy hell beat out of him in a couple of early games. Flags were not being thrown, but that's neither here nor there except for the deterrent affect. The "holy hell" is what matters in Cam closing out the year saying he's not having fun anymore. Cam had a bad year chiefly because he was getting the crap and fun beat out of him. Hurries do not do that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
gopkrs
Latest posts
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: tynimiller
Today at 12:32 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Movies and TV shows Thread
Latest: Poppa San
Today at 11:57 AM
Movies and Entertainment
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 11:08 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Badgers Football 2025-2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 9:07 AM
Wisconsin Badgers Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 8:43 AM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jones at ILB?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
