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
Za'Darius Smith All-Pro Snub
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: 858139"><p>In addition to the solid argument presented by Dante in the OP, PFF named Z. to their first team All Pro team along with T.J. Watt while crediting Z. with a league leading 90 pressures. While that pressure count compared to ESPN's league leading 60 continues to call into question the subjectivity of advanced stats hidden behind a veneer of numbers, the fact that so many advanced analytics from so many sources indicate first team qualifications is telling.</p><p></p><p>Even raw pressure counts don't tell the whole story. For example, pro-football-reference.com came up with 55 pressures off of <strong>35 total blitz rushes </strong>for Z. It should come as no surprise that the Packers blitzed very little this season.</p><p></p><p>In comparison to Chandler Jones, even if you were to look askance at fuzzy pressure numbers and overweight sacks as definitively impactful, pro-football-reference.com has him down for 41 pressures, 14 fewer pressures worth of fuzziness in the comparison, but his productivity came on <strong>143 total blitz rushes. </strong> An asute observer would downgrade the sack count in the comparison for all the extra help Jones received in getting that number.</p><p></p><p><strong>In fairness to Jones, he led the league in forced fumbles with 8</strong> compared to Smith's 1. Fumbles are roughly a 50/50 proposition, so if we count the 8 as a 4 turnover equivalent, that's a huge contribution. If those forced fumbles came on strip sacks when blitzing, again you have the question what he'd do without all the help in the comparison. The overall difference between the two players based on these stats is not as large as the voting would suggest and if you break down run defense where would you be? I'm thinking it's a toss-up knowing what I know which is far from I'd need to know since I watched next to no AZ football this year. And the voters are in the same boat. You can bet few if any of voters watched all the leading candidates enough to make an informed decision. </p><p></p><p>The vote counts are at the bottom of this link:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://apnews.com/eeca59cc33eb5eeb11f3d08e7b0328c1" target="_blank">https://apnews.com/eeca59cc33eb5eeb11f3d08e7b0328c1</a></p><p></p><p>50 media guys cast one vote at each positional slot, e.g., 50 votes cast at QB, 100 votes cast at WR, etc. There's no scale or ranking involved. A vote is all or nothing.</p><p></p><p>Z got 9 votes and landed in 5th. place, 3 votes behind Jordon to make second team. 8 players got at least one vote. I'd have to do a lot more digging and hundreds of hours of tape watching on Game Pass to say if that's right or wrong. I'm not voting and don't care all that deeply to do a full post morem. But I'll say this much:</p><p></p><p>Like the guys who vote for this would tell you, I believe I've watched enough football for long enough to know what an All Pro season looks like and Z's certainly qualifies. On the other hand, like the voters, I've not seen enough of the other guys to say they are not a notch better. The difference is that if I did have a vote, and wasn't going to do 100's of hours of film study, as few if any of these voters were inclined to do, I'd be using the advanced metrics from these various sources to inform me about players I have not seen much.</p><p></p><p>One thing I'd like to know is the average time-to-pressure. A good secondary generates coverage pressure and sacks. Is a guy getting his pressures at 3 seconds or 2 or 4, and what's the difference on blitz vs. no blitz?</p><p></p><p>It does appear that most voters just looked at the sacks and forced fumbles and went with that. They may be right, but it may just be a happy accident for Jones, I couldn't say for sure. Maybe some threw up their hands and voted on reputation as the difference maker, Jones being an All Pro in 2017. Reputation and body of work counts for a lot in these things. Maybe a couple think pot is the demon weed and knocked Z down a notch for his pot bust. Who knows.</p><p></p><p>These votes rely on the averaging out in the "wisdom of crowds", a concept with a sketchy track record. I do know Z's perfornace this season was All Pro caliber. I'm pretty happy about that. Maybe he'll get the vote next year when somebody else might deserve it a little more because of his growing reputation. That's the way these things often work out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 858139"] In addition to the solid argument presented by Dante in the OP, PFF named Z. to their first team All Pro team along with T.J. Watt while crediting Z. with a league leading 90 pressures. While that pressure count compared to ESPN's league leading 60 continues to call into question the subjectivity of advanced stats hidden behind a veneer of numbers, the fact that so many advanced analytics from so many sources indicate first team qualifications is telling. Even raw pressure counts don't tell the whole story. For example, pro-football-reference.com came up with 55 pressures off of [B]35 total blitz rushes [/B]for Z. It should come as no surprise that the Packers blitzed very little this season. In comparison to Chandler Jones, even if you were to look askance at fuzzy pressure numbers and overweight sacks as definitively impactful, pro-football-reference.com has him down for 41 pressures, 14 fewer pressures worth of fuzziness in the comparison, but his productivity came on [B]143 total blitz rushes. [/B] An asute observer would downgrade the sack count in the comparison for all the extra help Jones received in getting that number. [B]In fairness to Jones, he led the league in forced fumbles with 8[/B] compared to Smith's 1. Fumbles are roughly a 50/50 proposition, so if we count the 8 as a 4 turnover equivalent, that's a huge contribution. If those forced fumbles came on strip sacks when blitzing, again you have the question what he'd do without all the help in the comparison. The overall difference between the two players based on these stats is not as large as the voting would suggest and if you break down run defense where would you be? I'm thinking it's a toss-up knowing what I know which is far from I'd need to know since I watched next to no AZ football this year. And the voters are in the same boat. You can bet few if any of voters watched all the leading candidates enough to make an informed decision. The vote counts are at the bottom of this link: [URL]https://apnews.com/eeca59cc33eb5eeb11f3d08e7b0328c1[/URL] 50 media guys cast one vote at each positional slot, e.g., 50 votes cast at QB, 100 votes cast at WR, etc. There's no scale or ranking involved. A vote is all or nothing. Z got 9 votes and landed in 5th. place, 3 votes behind Jordon to make second team. 8 players got at least one vote. I'd have to do a lot more digging and hundreds of hours of tape watching on Game Pass to say if that's right or wrong. I'm not voting and don't care all that deeply to do a full post morem. But I'll say this much: Like the guys who vote for this would tell you, I believe I've watched enough football for long enough to know what an All Pro season looks like and Z's certainly qualifies. On the other hand, like the voters, I've not seen enough of the other guys to say they are not a notch better. The difference is that if I did have a vote, and wasn't going to do 100's of hours of film study, as few if any of these voters were inclined to do, I'd be using the advanced metrics from these various sources to inform me about players I have not seen much. One thing I'd like to know is the average time-to-pressure. A good secondary generates coverage pressure and sacks. Is a guy getting his pressures at 3 seconds or 2 or 4, and what's the difference on blitz vs. no blitz? It does appear that most voters just looked at the sacks and forced fumbles and went with that. They may be right, but it may just be a happy accident for Jones, I couldn't say for sure. Maybe some threw up their hands and voted on reputation as the difference maker, Jones being an All Pro in 2017. Reputation and body of work counts for a lot in these things. Maybe a couple think pot is the demon weed and knocked Z down a notch for his pot bust. Who knows. These votes rely on the averaging out in the "wisdom of crowds", a concept with a sketchy track record. I do know Z's perfornace this season was All Pro caliber. I'm pretty happy about that. Maybe he'll get the vote next year when somebody else might deserve it a little more because of his growing reputation. That's the way these things often work out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Fat Dogs
Latest posts
Most hated teams outside of the division
Latest: Thirteen Below
28 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 7, pick 245: Michael Pratt, QB
Latest: gopkrs
37 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 7, pick 255 (compensatory): Kalen King, CB
Latest: Dantés
Today at 10:42 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 6, pick 202: Travis Glover, OT
Latest: Dantés
Today at 10:35 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The 11th Annual Amish Draft Contest 2024
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 10:35 PM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Za'Darius Smith All-Pro Snub
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