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
Marshall Newhouse worries me
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="mradtke66" data-source="post: 486167" data-attributes="member: 4199"><p>Certainly. 11.5 over 13 games is much worse than 10 over 16 games. .89 sacks per game vs .63 sacks per game.</p><p> </p><p>But total sacks given is not the only indicator of how well a lineman has pass blocked. We need to know the rate at which he gave up sacks. Compared to Sanchez, for example, Rodgers threw 100 more passes. It's not surprising Rodgers has more sacks.</p><p> </p><p>This is the kind of math PFF did at the end of November. Newhouse was the 19th most efficient pass blocker (I believe this is only tackles). From the article:</p><p> </p><p>"The formula is simple enough. You add all sacks with three quarters the worth of hits and hurries, divide by snaps in pass protection, take away from 100 and just like that you’ve got an efficiency formula."</p><p> </p><p>Joe Thomas, the best, got a grade of 97.8. Newhouse got 95.6. Total pressures: 12 vs 24.</p><p> </p><p>Best of the bottom 20, Byron Bell (#46), was graded out at 93.7. Worst was Michael Harris, graded at 87.4.</p><p> </p><p>He did slip a bit near the end of the year, but still a hell of a lot better. He'd be rated higher if his "regular mistake" was so bad. It's a lot like my golf game.</p><p> </p><p>My best shot is very close in quality to the best shot of my friend who is a single digit handicap. But my most likely mistake is a duck-hook that goes out of bounds and costs me two strokes and I'm staring at a bogey, where my friend's most-likely 'bad' shot is just going to get in the way of a birdie. Assuming I duck-hook on 6 holes, that's 12 wasted strokes per round. If I could improve those bad shots to the point that they <em>just stay in bounds</em>, I've knocked a minimum 6 strokes off my round. That's huge.</p><p> </p><p>Same thing for Newhouse. If he could replace his "beaten badly right at the snap of the ball" play with "beaten in 2 seconds," his average 'score' would improve significantly, even though getting beat in 2 seconds is still pretty bad.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mradtke66, post: 486167, member: 4199"] Certainly. 11.5 over 13 games is much worse than 10 over 16 games. .89 sacks per game vs .63 sacks per game. But total sacks given is not the only indicator of how well a lineman has pass blocked. We need to know the rate at which he gave up sacks. Compared to Sanchez, for example, Rodgers threw 100 more passes. It's not surprising Rodgers has more sacks. This is the kind of math PFF did at the end of November. Newhouse was the 19th most efficient pass blocker (I believe this is only tackles). From the article: "The formula is simple enough. You add all sacks with three quarters the worth of hits and hurries, divide by snaps in pass protection, take away from 100 and just like that you’ve got an efficiency formula." Joe Thomas, the best, got a grade of 97.8. Newhouse got 95.6. Total pressures: 12 vs 24. Best of the bottom 20, Byron Bell (#46), was graded out at 93.7. Worst was Michael Harris, graded at 87.4. He did slip a bit near the end of the year, but still a hell of a lot better. He'd be rated higher if his "regular mistake" was so bad. It's a lot like my golf game. My best shot is very close in quality to the best shot of my friend who is a single digit handicap. But my most likely mistake is a duck-hook that goes out of bounds and costs me two strokes and I'm staring at a bogey, where my friend's most-likely 'bad' shot is just going to get in the way of a birdie. Assuming I duck-hook on 6 holes, that's 12 wasted strokes per round. If I could improve those bad shots to the point that they [I]just stay in bounds[/I], I've knocked a minimum 6 strokes off my round. That's huge. Same thing for Newhouse. If he could replace his "beaten badly right at the snap of the ball" play with "beaten in 2 seconds," his average 'score' would improve significantly, even though getting beat in 2 seconds is still pretty bad. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Half Empty
Latest posts
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
42 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: GreenBaySlacker
Today at 12:29 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Cornelius Weems
Today at 12:05 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 7:46 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Yesterday at 6:52 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Marshall Newhouse worries me
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
