(12-31-2020, 03:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not talking specifically this year, but have they ever, as that's likely what got them paid on those current contracts. I think you knew that before you decided to Fred your numbers.

JJ Watt got paid in 2014 with a 20.5 sack season under his belt. Just because he got 5 sacks in 2020, so you're not counting him towards your 12 sack guys list, but you are counting him on the highly paid list. When he got paid, it was because he had big results as he showed in 2018 when he showed he could still do things with a 16 sack season. He has done it, he can do it. It's something we know as tangible results to point to as reasoning to keep paying him. Results that Lawson has never had. Right now paying Lawson would basically just be on ephemeral non-stats and hope.

I saw someone earlier on this board suggesting franchise tagging Lawson which in 2020 was over $15m. The guy has 5.5 sacks and is averaging about 1 solo tackle per game this year.

As has been pointed out to you by others, there are more than just sacks used to evaluate the disruptiveness of a pass rusher.  Lawson is among the top in hurries and QB hits, that qualifies his effectiveness.  If this were a different season, where we were also getting a good interior push, his sack total would likely be much higher.

The man has put together a good year on an injury riddled and identity struggling defense.  I agree with not franchise tagging him.  However, he's worth keeping around, and I sincerely hope that the team is able to work out a fair deal for him.

Lawson is going to get paid BIG money -

According to @PFF Carl Lawson with 59 total pressures - 5th and 23 QB hits - 2nd among edge defenders. pic.twitter.com/rAxQB9h3Qu

— Lindsay Patterson (@LndsPatterson) December 30, 2020

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Let's also remember that the cap is heading down not up this off-season.

(12-31-2020, 02:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Honestly? I don't particularly care about the defense this offseason. The vast majority of all draft capital and FA $ needs to be spent on the offense. They already tried spending on defense in FA, and it got them a hurt QB, a bad defense, and a losing record. Surround Burrow with all the OL and offensive weapons you can possibly draft and buy, then worry about defense. 

This league has gotten horribly stilted towards offense, so roll with it. Make sure your future franchise QB is protected and can thrive.

There are 12 teams with 10+ wins right now. 
-10 of those 12 teams are Top-12 in Scoring Offense.
-7 of those 12 teams are Top-12 in Scoring Defense.

Score points first. Then worry about stopping scoring.  


- - - - - - - - - -
(Interesting side fact, the Browns are the only 10+ win team this year to not be Top-12 in either.)


I'm all for pressures and all that, but at some point you need to tangibly produce. It's been 3 years and he's never finished like his rookie year. If you pressure the passer and slide off him, that isn't getting it done. There's too many QBs who can throw on the move out of the pocket now for that to be enough. 

Paying a 5 sack guy like he's a 12 sack guy because of pressures is going to backfire big time. Even without taking Lawson's injury history into account.

I definitely understand your point that he needs to "get home" more, but there's a difference between a 5-sack guy who only gets like 20 pressures and Lawson, who has over 40 pressures.

Carlos Dunlap got paid $13.5 mill APY and only hit double-digit sacks one season in his entire career.
So yes, Lawson is going to get paid rather well from some team who believes he'll turn all those pressures into more sacks.

As of 12/31 Lawson is 6th in total pressures this season with 40, is 2nd in QB hits with 32, and has a PFF rating of 78.9. All of those stats means the guy is going to get paid this season it's just a matter of where.
The Bengals have 4 options
Sign him long term
Franchise him and let him play out the year
Tag him and trade him
Let him hit free agency and pick up a third Rd comp.
To me you tag and Trade him. You probably can at least get a top 100 pick in the next draft for him at the very least. More than likely you probably get multiple picks for him.

(12-31-2020, 04:52 PM)Joelist Wrote: Let's also remember that the cap is heading down not up this off-season.

True, but that cuts both ways.  Many teams are already n cap trouble before the drop.  I think we'll see a mass exodus of high=paid vets from a lot of rosters very quickly.  It will also effect teams' willingness to shell out ridiculous deals.  

IMO any team with decent cap room (like the Bengals) is sitting pretty right now.  

(12-31-2020, 05:24 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I definitely understand your point that he needs to "get home" more, but there's a difference between a 5-sack guy who only gets like 20 pressures and Lawson, who has over 40 pressures.

Carlos Dunlap got paid $13.5 mill APY and only hit double-digit sacks one season in his entire career.
So yes, Lawson is going to get paid rather well from some team who believes he'll turn all those pressures into more sacks.

Carlos Dunlap also hovered around 8-9 sacks a year when he wasn't getting 10 plus though. Not to mention at his peak he'd tip passes, get interceptions, force fumbles, disrupt, and even found his way into the end zone a few times.

(12-31-2020, 04:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What the hell are "ephemeral non-stats"?

Lawson is good at getting pressure/knocking down the QB.  Stats prove it.  Pressuring and/or knocking down the QB effects a QBs passing efficiency.  Again stats prove this.

(12-31-2020, 04:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As has been pointed out to you by others, there are more than just sacks used to evaluate the disruptiveness of a pass rusher.  Lawson is among the top in hurries and QB hits, that qualifies his effectiveness.  If this were a different season, where we were also getting a good interior push, his sack total would likely be much higher.

The man has put together a good year on an injury riddled and identity struggling defense.  I agree with not franchise tagging him.  However, he's worth keeping around, and I sincerely hope that the team is able to work out a fair deal for him.

(12-31-2020, 05:24 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I definitely understand your point that he needs to "get home" more, but there's a difference between a 5-sack guy who only gets like 20 pressures and Lawson, who has over 40 pressures.

Carlos Dunlap got paid $13.5 mill APY and only hit double-digit sacks one season in his entire career.
So yes, Lawson is going to get paid rather well from some team who believes he'll turn all those pressures into more sacks.

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-pff-data-study-how-hits-coverage-sacks-and-other-pressure-affect-nfl-offenses

The problem is that "qb hits" encompass both a guy who hits a QB while he is throwing and also a guy who hits a QB after he's thrown and they are vastly different results. Meanwhile pressures are good, but only compared to no pressure.

You hurry/pressure a QB and it only drops from 60% to 57.5%. You hit a QB after he's thrown and it only drops from 60% to 52.7%.

You sack a QB and it drops from 60% to 20%.

From an EPA standpoint, you need to hit a QB after he's thrown MORE than 9 times to equal a sack. Hurrying a QB without a hit doesn't even register on the EPA. So you need to hit a QB after he's thrown 93.5 times in order to equal 10 sacks from an EPA standpoint. Even hitting a QB while he's in his throwing motion is still only 1/2 of a sack's worth in EPA.

Dunlap got paid, but he was both healthy and an active tackler. He brought more to the table than just pass rush. Carl Lawson has 47 solo tackles in 50 games, Dunlap had 40 solo tackles in 2014 alone. Lawson's worth is almost exclusively in pass rush, and he can't finish those plays and make them truly valuable. He didn't even have a single forced fumble in 3 years before this year and he has 0 career passes defensed, so he doesn't contribute anything there either.

If he wasn't wearing black and orange, people on this board would be much less hyped about the idea of paying a 5 sack pressure DE who doesn't tackle, deflect passes, or force many turnovers, and has extensive injury red flags.

(12-31-2020, 02:04 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I'd prefer they resign both to reasonable contracts, but Lawson has not really shown he can stay healthy, and WJIII still shines in man coverage but not so much in zone. I wouldn't overpay either. I would really like for them to resign Alexander. I think if we rolled with Phillips, Waynes and Alexander next year we would be fine with Bates and Bell at safety. We just need better backups than Sims.

The reasonable contract is tough when guys hit free agency. Theyll command a premium.

Bates
Phillips
WJ3
Lawson

Maybe Spain.

Those 5 players for extensions or new contracts would be my guess.

This rule heavily favors teams that do things that make players want to re-sign. Things like win.

(12-31-2020, 12:19 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Seems like this would make a lot of sense for Jackson and/or Lawson.

It does make sense. But have to remember that in the Mike Brown household, sense and cents are confused words.

 

(12-31-2020, 11:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-pff-data-study-how-hits-coverage-sacks-and-other-pressure-affect-nfl-offenses

" Hurrying a passer negatively impacts a quarterback's passer rating on average around 35 points, "




FYI the difference between the #1 pass defense in the league (Pitt 75.5) and the worst pass defense in the league (Det 111.4) is 35.8 points.  Or as someone who always likes to bend over backwards to shit on a Bengal would say, an "ephemeral non-existent" difference. 

(01-01-2021, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: " Hurrying a passer negatively impacts a quarterback's passer rating on average around 35 points, "




FYI the difference between the #1 pass defense in the league (Pitt 75.5) and the worst pass defense in the league (Det 111.4) is 35.8 points.  Or as someone who always likes to bend over backwards to shit on a Bengal would say, an "ephemeral non-existent" difference. 

Yes Fred, and what is next in that sentence?

"...but completing one of two attempts for 10 yards will register that same lower passer rating (64.6) and still move the chains for the offense on the series."


You read the first half of the sentence, so I know you read the second half as well. It also is you fully ignoring every bit of the EPA section of the article in favor of a half-sentence that you quoted out of context. Fred? Shocker.  

(01-01-2021, 03:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes Fred, and what is next in that sentence?

"...but completing one of two attempts for 10 yards will register that same lower passer rating (64.6) and still move the chains for the offense on the series."


You read the first half of the sentence, so I know you read the second half as well. It also is you fully ignoring every bit of the EPA section of the article in favor of a half-sentence that you quoted out of context. Fred? Shocker.  

That is the dumbest analysis I have ever seen.

Only two teams in the last decade have held opponents to a passer rating of 64.6 or less ('13 Seattle, '19 New England) and both of those defenses were first in both yards and points allowed.  So it sounds pretty stupid to act like it is meaningless.

Again the 35 point difference caused by pressuring the QB is the difference between the #1 and #32 pass defenses in the league.  And LeonardLeap calls the difference "ephemeral" and "non-existent" in order to shit on a Bengal?

Definitely NOT a shocker.

(01-01-2021, 06:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is the dumbest analysis I have ever seen.

Only two teams in the last decade have held opponents to a passer rating of 64.6 or less ('13 Seattle, '19 New England) and both of those defenses were first in both yards and points allowed.  So it sounds pretty stupid to act like it is meaningless.

Again the 35 point difference caused by pressuring the QB is the difference between the #1 and #32 pass defenses in the league.  And LeonardLeap calls the difference "ephemeral" and "non-existent" in order to shit on a Bengal?

Definitely NOT a shocker.

You should check out your own sometime, then, Fred. 

Of course you decide to go for the literal baseline of QB Rating and run off on a tangent on that while ONCE AGAIN for the third time ignoring the EPA reality.

You do this all the time with everyone, so I am not sure why I am surprised. Need to remind myself who I am talking to when I accidentally start taking you seriously and make a reply. Have a good New Year, Fred.

I am not a huge fan of Lawson but he is the best DE we have at rushing the passer. He definitely is not a Franchise tag player, but I think his sacks would go up with better players around him. No interior push allowed the QB to step up and Lawson flew past. A good DE or a healthy Hubbard all year may have turned pressures into sacks. Also for many games the CB's were really weak so rarely did the opposing QB have to hold onto the ball. Finally, the Bengals continue to struggle in guarding TE and RB's so dumping off when under pressure takes away sack opportunities. It is hard to evaluate a player on a bad defense by stats alone. It is a team sport.

I would offer Lawson and WJIII contracts around $12 mil per year. You gotta pay somebody and if the only way they could convince Waynes to come is $14 mil per, it makes sense to try and keep both of these guys if can get them on board for around $12 mil per year

(01-01-2021, 08:12 PM)CanadianBengal Wrote:  the Bengals continue to struggle in guarding TE and RB's so dumping off when under pressure takes away sack opportunities. 

That's interesting that you mention that part of the game.  From a viewer standpoint, it looked to me like the Bengals actually improved in that area compared to last year.  Do you have any statistical data to support your claim?

(01-01-2021, 08:25 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That's interesting that you mention that part of the game.  From a viewer standpoint, it looked to me like the Bengals actually improved in that area compared to last year.  Do you have any statistical data to support your claim?

Thanks for calling me out about backing my opinion with facts 

My opinion was that they gave up a lot of easy yards to RB and TE. But would agree that it is not as bad as other years. 

I decided to fact check my "eye test". 

It appears that they have allowed RB's to gain 26.5 yards on 3.3 receptions per game which would place them fifth best in the league. So clearly they are much much better. Last year they gave up 48.5 yards per game on 4.8 receptions 

TE's have gained 64 yards on 5.2 receptions per game against them which places them as the second worst in the league. Last year they gave up 49 yards per game against the TE on 4.1 receptions per game.

So I guess I was partly right and partly wrong. 

(01-01-2021, 09:07 PM)CanadianBengal Wrote: Thanks for calling me out about backing my opinion with facts 

My opinion was that they gave up a lot of easy yards to RB and TE. But would agree that it is not as bad as other years. 

I decided to fact check my "eye test". 

It appears that they have allowed RB's to gain 26.5 yards on 3.3 receptions per game which would place them fifth best in the league. So clearly they are much much better. Last year they gave up 48.5 yards per game on 4.8 receptions 

TE's have gained 64 yards on 5.2 receptions per game against them which places them as the second worst in the league. Last year they gave up 49 yards per game against the TE on 4.1 receptions per game.

So I guess I was partly right and partly wrong. 

Good stuff, thanks for looking it up.  I was pretty certain that they were getting burnt way less on screens and dumps to the RBs on the edges, but I'm actually surprised that they are giving up more to TEs in the middle of the field.

I guess when building their defensive strategy, they decided that RBs on the outside were doing more damage than TEs over the middle?