Post game Packers

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by DYoungJelly

What is the correlation?

All hurries and pressures aren't equal with many being expected and accounted for depending on how a play progresses. They may be a near miss sack, they may not be.

If a qb takes a five step drop and doesn't throw it for another second or two and Kerrigan gets a "pressure" and forces the qb to throw the ball out of bounds, how valuable is that?

Not nearly as valuable as beating the blocker and forcing the qb out of the schedule of the play.

Those two things may both be hurries or pressures but one is a lot closer to a sack than the other.

Kerrigan can lead the league in hurries and pressures and may or may not have any sacks. There isn't necessarily a correlation and definitely not a causation.

Generic statements with undefined terms don't really contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I can tell you're statistically challenged. A correlation means that the more pressures you get, the more sacks you'll get. Pressures indicate you're getting close, sacks indicate you got there.

What I'm saying - and let me dumb it down so you can understand it - is that if Kerrigan weren't registering pressures, it would indicate a serious problem. It would mean he's not beating his man, he's not getting around the block, etc. But he is getting pressures, and as long as that keeps up, the sacks will come.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I can tell you're statistically challenged. A correlation means that the more pressures you get, the more sacks you'll get. Pressures indicate you're getting close, sacks indicate you got there.

What I'm saying - and let me dumb it down so you can understand it - is that if Kerrigan weren't registering pressures, it would indicate a serious problem. It would mean he's not beating his man, he's not getting around the block, etc. But he is getting pressures, and as long as that keeps up, the sacks will come.

You should look up correlation and causation.

It also seems like you didn't actually read the post.

More pressures may mean more sacks or it may not. That's what a correlation is, rather than a causation.

Again, it's about defining terms: hurries and pressures.

Another knee jerk post.

Typical.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by DYoungJelly

You should look up correlation and causation.

It also seems like you didn't actually read the post.

More pressures may mean more sacks or it may not. That's what a correlation is, rather than a causation.

Again, it's about defining terms: hurries and pressures.

Another knee jerk post.

Typical.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

You're beginning to embarrass yourself.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

You're beginning to embarrass yourself.

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.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by DYoungJelly

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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by DYoungJelly

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.

Too long, didn’t read.

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

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Too long, didn’t read.

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

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

[Dlyne8r]

Originally Posted by DYoungJelly

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

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.