03-03-2021, 09:48 AM
(03-03-2021, 01:47 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You keep shitting on Maxx Crosby for some reason, but at the end of the day...
2019-2020
Crosby: 86 tackles, 4 FF, 5 Pdef, 17.0 sacks, 30 TFL
Lawson: 59 tackles, 2 FF, 0 Pdef, 10.5 sacks, 10 TFL
Yet the first was ranked 83rd by PFF and the second was ranked 14th. That is proof that there is clearly a problem with the analytics and system.
It's funny because you mentioned TFL, but Lawson has only 11 of those in the last 3 years. He doesn't get TFL, he doesn't get Sacks, he doesn't get Pdef, he doesn't get FF, and he doesn't even get tackles.
But boy howdy does he "win". Sure those "wins" don't actually produce anything, but that lack of production is glorious. You take the guy who produces nothing tangible and I will take the guy who is statistically superior in every tangible way.
- - - - - - -
As for the Seahawks, they regressed so much without Clowney's whopping 3 sacks that they actually got to the QB much better?
2018: 12th in sacks without Clowney
2019: 31st in sacks with Clowney
2020: 7th in sacks without Clowney
But hey, he "won" or something.
At the end of the day, no one in the NFL thinks Maxx Crosby is in the same world as Carl Lawson, why is that then? Oh right, that's because there is more to a defensive end than the 2.5% or so times they get credited with a sack on pass rush reps. The other 97.5% of their time matters too and you see generating pressures, hurries, hits, and throwaways all have value. Crosby gets brought up because his rookie year had gaudy sack numbers but outside of that, he wasn't much of a factor in the passing game. If a QB throws the ball away or throws an errant pass on 3rd down the result is almost the same as a sack. Arguing that the loss of yards matters would mean we need to value sacks differently, for instance when a guy gets tackled right at the line of scrimmage versus 10 yards back, but you aren't and we don't hence another reason just saying "sacks" doesn't frame their value.
I brought up TFL, not because of Lawson but to show again that your stats about what happens after a sack and how "important" they are is cherry-picking. TFL is the same result as a sack, a negative play, and loss of down, yet you have constantly harped on sack totals. TFL should be looked at like sacks in terms of mattering but also like sacks can be misleading. Unforced negative runs by backs don't make the defender better just because a back tried to reverse field instead of taking the 1 yard gain.
To your "win's don't produce anything" that is really the worst of all arguments. Sacks as an outcome are great, and this is where you are getting hung up. The idea of a sack is a positive thing, however, who is credited doesn't translate. I mentioned before a QB who runs out of bounds is sacked and if a DE gets a finger on him around the time he does he gets a sack. That QB should have thrown the ball away rather than go out of bounds (looking at you Derek Carr), so why do we want to give the DE who was blocked too long and never forced him out of the pocket any recognition for going over and touching a QB with one hand that happened to be the first one to get to a guy who made a bad play? The same thing goes for when a QB runs out of a clean pocket into the back of his own lineman and basically gets sacked by his own guy, why credit the defender who didn't actually win the rep? If a team rolls away from you, and you blow your guy up and chase the QB into that lineman you are the one who actually created the negative play, hence why we value winning a rep over simply looking at outcomes
We are starting to do this same thing on offense now as we have seen them evolve into these college-based offenses. A QB who does a pop pass to a WR on a jet motion gets credited with a completion. If that WR takes it 90 yards and scores a TD that QB also gets credited with 90 yards and a TD, did the QB actually add any value? The answer is no. We have to look past the box score numbers and better understand players' roles in plays and how much they actually had to do with the outcomes.
Again, this isn't even a debate as it is universally understood inside the league. No one in the NFL thinks Maxx Crosby is better than Carl Lawson, no matter the sack totals. No one in the NFL thinks sacks are all that important in evaluating players' skill, especially compared to total pressures. Relying on outcomes versus looking at how those outcomes occur is for fans, not for personal people. FA is about paying for skill, winning reps is more indicative of skill than simply being credited for a single type of play that you may or may not have had much to do with.
