Re: Post game Packers
 

[QUOTE=Dlyne8r;1201240]I've read your posts for years now and on countless occasions you come across as a [B]know-it-all[/B] and repeatedly put people down as if everyone but [B]you[/B] is an idiot. I seldom post and typically come to this site as a simple Redskin fan just trying to enjoy all other fan's viewpoints but your frequent arrogance ruins the experience. You've clearly been hurt somewhere in life with a resulting insecurity that motivates you to talk to others like shit in order to make yourself feel better. Sitting in front of a keyboard makes it far to easy for you to get away with your smug comments and I'm surprised more people on this site haven't called you out. Who are you anyway? [B]What makes you an "expert"[/B] in all things football and Redskins related? Doesn't really matter as whoever you are doesn't excuse such condescending behavior. Douche.[/QUOTE]



This is great. Lol. Plenty have called him out, most ignore him, and a couple have actually enjoyed some of the random nerdy knowledge that he plagiarizes off the interweb. Douche. Hahaha. Good stuff man. You need to post more often.

Re: Post game Packers
 

Oh yeah. I am getting my popcorn and beer ready this thread has taken a fun turn.

Re: Post game Packers
 

I've never been more scared than I am right now.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=Schneed10;1201311]You're beginning to embarrass yourself.[/quote]

I don't think expressing the idea that there are different degrees, tiers, grades of "hurries" and "pressures" is embarrassing at all.

Further, I don't think expressing the idea that the crappiest "hurries" that fall into the crappiest tier may not relate to sacks even though they may show up on ESPN's stat sheet is embarrassing either.

I do think going straight to ad hominem attacks without mentioning, in any way, the argument with which you disagree is embarassing because it is a lazy rhetorical crutch.

I simply proposed in post #152 (for those reading along) that all "pressures" are not the same, and that some may not be a good indicator of a near sack, and some, on the other hand probably are, but there isn't necessarily a correlation, and definitely not a causation.

Scenario 1, Kerrigan pressures Andrew Luck on step 3 of a 5 step drop. The pressure gets there before Luck is expecting it and before the Offensive line drops to block for 5 steps. They are out of position because the pressure arrives to quickly. He has to throw the ball out of bounds BECAUSE Kerrigan gets there ahead of schedule.

Scenario 2, Kerrigan pressures Andrew Luck on step 7 of a 5 step drop. Luck has already gone through all of his reads, nobody is open, Kerrigan is closing in and nearly gets his hands on him, Luck is EXPECTING pressure because it is a 5 step drop and he has been holding the ball too long. He throws the ball out of bounds.

Those plays would show up in ESPN's stat column as pressures, but they are radically different in the likelihood of resulting in a sack.

In the first, Luck isn't expecting pressure and has an "oh crap" moment and isn't able to plan but has to react.

In the second, Kerrigan is just as close to Luck, but the internal clock is ticking and Luck knows he has to throw it away. Despite being just as close to a sack physically, in reality Kerrigan isn't close at all because Luck is prepared to end the play with as positive a result as the situation makes possible.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=Dlyne8r;1201240]I've read your posts for years now and on countless occasions you come across as a [B]know-it-all[/B] and repeatedly put people down as if everyone but [B]you[/B] is an idiot. I seldom post and typically come to this site as a simple Redskin fan just trying to enjoy all other fan's viewpoints but your frequent arrogance ruins the experience. You've clearly been hurt somewhere in life with a resulting insecurity that motivates you to talk to others like shit in order to make yourself feel better. Sitting in front of a keyboard makes it far to easy for you to get away with your smug comments and I'm surprised more people on this site haven't called you out. Who are you anyway? [B]What makes you an "expert"[/B] in all things football and Redskins related? Doesn't really matter as whoever you are doesn't excuse such condescending behavior. Douche.[/quote]

Hold on just a second.

When I think of the intellectual giants of our age, and throughout history, I distinctly recall one common trait.

Without exception, the mark of a true genius is telling others, their peers, just how smart they are.

This makes sense when you think about it. If he didn't tell us how smart he was, then how would we know.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[QUOTE=BaltimoreSkins;1201318]Oh yeah. I am getting my popcorn and beer ready this thread has taken a fun turn.[/QUOTE]



It usually does when he goes full douche because someone disagrees with his “factual opinions”
Anyway I hope I am still worthy of his ire. Otherwise my life is utterly worthless. [emoji22]

Post game Packers
 

[QUOTE=DYoungJelly;1201320]I don't think expressing the idea that there are different degrees, tiers, grades of "hurries" and "pressures" is embarrassing at all.



Further, I don't think expressing the idea that the crappiest "hurries" that fall into the crappiest tier may not relate to sacks even though they may show up on ESPN's stat sheet is embarrassing either.



I do think going straight to ad hominem attacks without mentioning, in any way, the argument with which you disagree is embarassing because it is a lazy rhetorical crutch.



I simply proposed in post #152 (for those reading along) that all "pressures" are not the same, and that some may not be a good indicator of a near sack, and some, on the other hand probably are, but there isn't necessarily a correlation, and definitely not a causation.



Scenario 1, Kerrigan pressures Andrew Luck on step 3 of a 5 step drop. The pressure gets there before Luck is expecting it and before the Offensive line drops to block for 5 steps. They are out of position because the pressure arrives to quickly. He has to throw the ball out of bounds BECAUSE Kerrigan gets there ahead of schedule.



Scenario 2, Kerrigan pressures Andrew Luck on step 7 of a 5 step drop. Luck has already gone through all of his reads, nobody is open, Kerrigan is closing in and nearly gets his hands on him, Luck is EXPECTING pressure because it is a 5 step drop and he has been holding the ball too long. He throws the ball out of bounds.



Those plays would show up in ESPN's stat column as pressures, but they are radically different in the likelihood of resulting in a sack.



In the first, Luck isn't expecting pressure and has an "oh crap" moment and isn't able to plan but has to react.



In the second, Kerrigan is just as close to Luck, but the internal clock is ticking and Luck knows he has to throw it away. Despite being just as close to a sack physically, in reality Kerrigan isn't close at all because Luck is prepared to end the play with as positive a result as the situation makes possible.[/QUOTE]



Your first paragraph says it all. There are absolutely unequivocally different degrees of hurry and pressure. I completely agree with you. Can you imagine if we had even one dominant edge rusher in that front 7. My God.
I do not think RK is a weakness by any means, he is definitely above average and smart. Good team player. Smith on the other hand? But neither of them strike fear in the heart of the opposing quarterback. Probably a position that we can upgrade after the year along with wr and interior o line.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=MTK;1201307]Feels like every year we put Kerrigan under the microscope and it's just beyond silly at this point.

Here's a guy who averages 10 sacks a year, has been to 3 Pro Bowls, and probably most impressively hasn't missed a single damn game and somehow he's always the one getting singled out. I don't get it, never have, never will.[/quote]

Well if you're a OLB in a 3-4 you're supposed to be under a microscope.It comes w/ the territory.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1201320]I don't think expressing the idea that there are different degrees, tiers, grades of "hurries" and "pressures" is embarrassing at all.

Further, I don't think expressing the idea that the crappiest "hurries" that fall into the crappiest tier may not relate to sacks even though they may show up on ESPN's stat sheet is embarrassing either.

I do think going straight to ad hominem attacks without mentioning, in any way, the argument with which you disagree is embarassing because it is a lazy rhetorical crutch.

I simply proposed in post #152 (for those reading along) that all "pressures" are not the same, and that some may not be a good indicator of a near sack, and some, on the other hand probably are, but there isn't necessarily a correlation, and definitely not a causation.

Scenario 1, Kerrigan pressures Andrew Luck on step 3 of a 5 step drop. The pressure gets there before Luck is expecting it and before the Offensive line drops to block for 5 steps. They are out of position because the pressure arrives to quickly. He has to throw the ball out of bounds BECAUSE Kerrigan gets there ahead of schedule.

Scenario 2, Kerrigan pressures Andrew Luck on step 7 of a 5 step drop. Luck has already gone through all of his reads, nobody is open, Kerrigan is closing in and nearly gets his hands on him, Luck is EXPECTING pressure because it is a 5 step drop and he has been holding the ball too long. He throws the ball out of bounds.

Those plays would show up in ESPN's stat column as pressures, but they are radically different in the likelihood of resulting in a sack.

In the first, Luck isn't expecting pressure and has an "oh crap" moment and isn't able to plan but has to react.

In the second, Kerrigan is just as close to Luck, but the internal clock is ticking and Luck knows he has to throw it away. Despite being just as close to a sack physically, in reality Kerrigan isn't close at all because Luck is prepared to end the play with as positive a result as the situation makes possible.[/quote]

Too long, didn’t read.

I’m just going to assume it was all drivel.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1201330]Well if you're a OLB in a 3-4 you're supposed to be under a microscope.It comes w/ the territory.[/quote]

Some people can’t be saved, Matty. :doh:

Re: Post game Packers
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;1201332]Too long, didn’t read.

I’m just going to assume it was all drivel.[/QUOTE]Of course you are.

You're an insecure online bully who needs to convince all you are the smartest.

You parrot whatever theme is being put forward by various analysts as insight.

You ignore logic and reason as it applies to something indefensible you say, probably of the cuff, then defend like it is some holy doctrine.

You're response was truly perfect, in character, and predictable.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1201334]Of course you are.

You're an insecure online bully who needs to convince all you are the smartest.

You parrot whatever theme is being put forward by various analysts as insight.

You ignore logic and reason as it applies to something indefensible you say, probably of the cuff, then defend like it is some holy doctrine.

You're response was truly perfect, in character, and predictable.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk[/quote]

This. Good to know that there are others on this site that recognize this key board commando as a fraud. Unfortunately, I'm sure he, she, or whatever Schneed is will probably enjoy all the discussion about him, her, or whatever Schneed is. I fully expect a rapid response in another lame attempt to illustrate to us all just how intelligent he, she, or whatever Schneed is in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.... Always relish meeting people like this in person as most times they are not as they seem and typically down play their elitist persona.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=Schneed10;1201333]Some people can’t be saved, Matty. :doh:[/quote]

I actually thought Kerrigan was ok last week. My point is he isn't above being called out.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=Schneed10;1201312]People don't understand what they're watching. Too many just follow the ball with their eyes and conclude that if the player didn't tackle the player with the ball, they were not impactful. It's a basic lack of understanding about the game of football.

And yes they deserve to be condescended for it.[/quote]

At this point I just lol at the shit that comes out of your mouth. It's pure comedy and entertainment.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=MTK;1201307][B]Feels like every year we put Kerrigan under the microscope and it's just beyond silly at this point. [/B]

Here's a guy who averages 10 sacks a year, has been to 3 Pro Bowls, and probably most impressively hasn't missed a single damn game and somehow he's always the one getting singled out. I don't get it, never have, never will.[/quote]

Agreed.
And I've been one to knock Kerrigan for not producing more.

But at some point you just gotta accept [U][I]he's not Khalil Mack, he's not Von Miller...[/I][/U]
But [I][U]he's a reliable, consistent edge rusher who plays well[/U][/I], is available, and is having a really good beginning of a season so far.

Saying he's not in the same category as those other guys is true IMO.
But we've had this discussion for several years now, so I'm guessing [I][U]that dead horse has been reduced to a putrefying steak tartare that nobody will (nor should) ever eat after all that beating.[/U][/I]