Skins v Saints Pre game thread

[WillH]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...espn-analytics

Interesting new stats for pass rush and blocking using next gen metrics.

Trent ranks 5th

More surprisingly and encouraging Ryan Kerrigan is ranked 2nd!


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[GridIron26]

Originally Posted by WillH

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...espn-analytics

Interesting new stats for pass rush and blocking using next gen metrics.

Trent ranks 5th

More surprisingly and encouraging Ryan Kerrigan is ranked 2nd!


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I was going to post this.. I'm not surprised by Kerrigan's numbers - he is not flashy player but he is valuable player for Redskins.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by WillH

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...espn-analytics

Interesting new stats for pass rush and blocking using next gen metrics.

Trent ranks 5th

More surprisingly and encouraging Ryan Kerrigan is ranked 2nd!


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

It’s a matter of time with Kerrigan...also supports Kerrigan should be rushing the passer the more and not dropping into coverage.

Trent is just a baller...why is Goff breaking out? Look at the top 2 of the stat.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by WillH

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...espn-analytics

Interesting new stats for pass rush and blocking using next gen metrics.

Trent ranks 5th

More surprisingly and encouraging Ryan Kerrigan is ranked 2nd!


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I love it. Great metric.

I think one thing it misses is how quickly a guy wins. They use the cutoff of 2.5 seconds to determine whether a block or a pass rush was successful. But of course if a rusher wins at 1.5 seconds instead of at 2.4 seconds, that’s more impactful. But still, I think this is a better way to view it than counting the Time in Pocket which may be short on purpose because the QB just gets rid of the ball super quickly (Brady).

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I love it. Great metric.

I think one thing it misses is how quickly a guy wins. They use the cutoff of 2.5 seconds to determine whether a block or a pass rush was successful. But of course if a rusher wins at 1.5 seconds instead of at 2.4 seconds, that’s more impactful. But still, I think this is a better way to view it than counting the Time in Pocket which may be short on purpose because the QB just gets rid of the ball super quickly (Brady).

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.

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Too long, didn’t read.

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

Cool story.

All drivel till you say it?

Maybe it wasn't too long to read.

Post game packers thread starting around post 172.

Polly want a cracker?

[Tennskinsfan]

From looking back at the way the Saints have played all season up and till now. They haven’t been able to reach the end zone in the first half. They settled for 4 field goals last week against a middle of the pack Giants defense. 1 assisted by a converted fake punt on 4th down and another a fumble recovery at the Giants 11. It’s been like this all year they have only found the end zone 4 times in the first half 3 coming week 1 against Tampa bay and the other the opening drive to Atlanta.

If we can come out and stay aggressive the first half like we have in the games that we came to play and the defense can keep the run game in check with some pressure on Brees we can do this. It is near impossible for Brees to not make the milestone tomorrow as the Saints will do everything in their power to ensure it happens at home. But if we get off the ball quick and put up some first half points and play our game we should stand victorious in the end.

Skins 34
Saints 31

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by DYoungJelly

Cool story.

All drivel till you say it?

Maybe it wasn't too long to read.

Post game packers thread starting around post 172.

Polly want a cracker?

I don’t get it.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don’t get it.

Yes you do....

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Yes you do....

No I don't - I didn't read it. It's too long.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No I don't - I didn't read it. It's too long.

You sound like Trump.....🤪