Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Peter Schrager: Denver to draft...Patrick Peterson?!?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Eric Fetzer View Post
    How do these stats have anything do do with "coverage sacks"? Im failing to see it here.
    1. Our coverage got better the longer QBs held onto the ball.

    2. QBs that hold onto the ball longer get sacked more.

    3. Our sack totals increased by 33% when we replaced 3 of our 4 starting DBs with starters from other teams.

    Thus, the increase in the production of our pass rush was a direct result of the improvement of our coverage. Ergo, they were "coverage sacks".
    Last edited by Lomax; 01-07-2011, 05:49 PM.
    "Pey-Pey to Bay-Bay for the Tay Day!!"

    sigpic

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Lomax View Post
      You're not paying attention. I never said that coverage causes sacks. It's you guys who are making blanket statements as if there is only one cause for every effect.

      Sacks are caused by pressure first, but are indirectly affected by how good the coverage is. You absolutely can increase your sack totals by improving your secondary, which is precisely why we jumped from 26 in '08 to 39 in '09. It wasn't by adding Fields and McBean to the starting DL, that's for sure.
      No it was because Doom is more suited for a 3-4 and having him and Haggan as OLB increased the sack count. Not much changed this year except injuries but the biggest injury was to Doom losing him made the coverage bad.

      Do you wonder why Nate Jones was considered the #1 nickel back in the NFL before he got here. It was because Miami was better at getting pressure last year then we are this year.

      Coverage sacks happen less then you might think. Normally when they occur its because of a bad decision by the QB not to get rid of the ball or take off. The truth is if the front 7 isnt good enough it doesnt matter how amazing your secondary is. For instance the saying give any QB in the NFL enough time in the pocket and he will make you pay, comes from the fact that eventually someone gets open. INT's caused by pressure occur more often. Also just adding 1 CB will not create coverage sacks it just means the QB targets a different DB.
      2016 Draft: http://forums.denverbroncos.com/show...aft-Watch-list

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Lomax View Post
        1. Our coverage got better the longer QBs held onto the ball.

        2. QBs that hold onto the ball longer get sacked more.

        3. Our sack totals increased by 33% when we replaced 3 of our 4 starting DBs with starters from other teams.

        Thus, the increase in the production of our pass rush was a direct result of the improvement of our coverage. Ergo, they were "coverage sacks".
        Its not a direct result!

        The stats youv'e shown lead you to that realization, but I still fail to see how.

        The lack of pass rush was the main factor for the Broncos poor pass defense. Everyone can see that. Giving the Broncos "more time" to rush the passer is not how the NFL, or football in general works. Ends are made by how quick they can get to the Qb, not how long they have to do it. You give Alex Smith 5 seconds to throw and your pass defense is in for a long day. No pass defense can collectivly cover WRs as a whole for more than 3 seconds on a daily basis.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Eric Fetzer View Post
          Its not a direct result!

          The stats youv'e shown lead you to that realization, but I still fail to see how.

          The lack of pass rush was the main factor for the Broncos poor pass defense. Everyone can see that. Giving the Broncos "more time" to rush the passer is not how the NFL, or football in general works. Ends are made by how quick they can get to the Qb, not how long they have to do it. You give Alex Smith 5 seconds to throw and your pass defense is in for a long day. No pass defense can collectivly cover WRs as a whole for more than 3 seconds on a daily basis.
          I've been pretty clear about it. Your failure to see how is on you.

          Going into last season, it was clear to just about everyone that with the addition of Dawkins and Goodman, DB our position of strength. Yet our sack totals jumped 33%. This isn't rocket science. It just takes a little logical deduction.

          Doom, given time, can get to the QB. We know that. Last season we gave him time. This season, a QB could just step up and hit their #2 read. Getting to the QB within 3 seconds is very, very rare at this level. You could literally count the number of times that happens to an offense in a game on one hand.

          You can continue to ignore the facts if you want, and continue to tell me how football works, but it's all hot air. Your view of football is simplistic. In your world, two good ends makes a pass defense. In the real world, a team that can hold coverage for longer can improve the production of the DL, and a team who can't cover makes it tough for any DL to get to the QB.
          Last edited by Lomax; 01-09-2011, 02:12 PM.
          "Pey-Pey to Bay-Bay for the Tay Day!!"

          sigpic

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Lomax View Post
            I've been pretty clear about it. Your failure to see how is on you.

            Going into last season, it was clear to just about everyone that with the addition of Dawkins and Goodman, DB our position of strength. Yet our sack totals jumped 33%.

            You can continue to ignore the facts if you want, and continue to tell me how football works, but it's all hot air. Your view of football is simplistic. In your world, two good ends makes a pass defense. In the real world, a team that can hold coverage for longer can improve the production of the DL, and a team who can't cover makes it tough for any DL to get to the QB.
            You can use as many stats as you like, but football is not about stats, there are many points of the game that you cant measure. It is completely obvious we need pass rushers and I will leave it at that.
            Denver Broncos GM
            Originally posted by Mosk
            Joey Bosa ~ Jason Spriggs ~ Darian Thompson ~ Nick Vannett ~ Paul Perkins ~ Dan Vitale

            Comment


            • Originally posted by THEdraftnik View Post
              You can use as many stats as you like, but football is not about stats, there are many points of the game that you cant measure. It is completely obvious we need pass rushers and I will leave it at that.
              Show me where I said that we don't need pass rushers.
              "Pey-Pey to Bay-Bay for the Tay Day!!"

              sigpic

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Lomax View Post
                Show me where I said that we don't need pass rushers.
                You said that coverage will allow DL to get sacks. But in real life, watch the Steelers and Giants. It's not there coverage that's elite, it's the pass rush. In real life you dont get many coverage sacks.
                Denver Broncos GM
                Originally posted by Mosk
                Joey Bosa ~ Jason Spriggs ~ Darian Thompson ~ Nick Vannett ~ Paul Perkins ~ Dan Vitale

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lomax View Post
                  I've been pretty clear about it. Your failure to see how is on you.

                  Going into last season, it was clear to just about everyone that with the addition of Dawkins and Goodman, DB our position of strength. Yet our sack totals jumped 33%. This isn't rocket science. It just takes a little logical deduction.

                  You can continue to ignore the facts if you want, and continue to tell me how football works, but it's all hot air. Your view of football is simplistic. In your world, two good ends makes a pass defense. In the real world, a team that can hold coverage for longer can improve the production of the DL, and a team who can't cover makes it tough for any DL to get to the QB.
                  Lomax, you still have not proved the relationship with pass coverage and pass rushing. Viewing stats of how well a particular Cb covered his WR and directly attrbuting that to the pass rush is a strech and its based on your assumptions, not facts.

                  For the bolded part, you claim the success of the pass rush directly tied to the coverage when again you fail to reason and prove, how. Your stats from before didnt either.

                  In my world and the NFL, a pass rush is first and foremost created by the defensive line. In your world, CBs create pressure by allowing the defensive line time to get to the Qb, first an foremost.....

                  Creating pressure STARTS with the defensive line. And although nabbing a CB will help cover his guy longer, it wouldnt create pressure nearly as much as an effective pass rushing lineman.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by THEdraftnik View Post
                    You said that coverage will allow DL to get sacks. But in real life, watch the Steelers and Giants. It's not there coverage that's elite, it's the pass rush. In real life you dont get many coverage sacks.
                    The Steelers are 5th in the league in INTs. They have good DBs and the best Safety in football. Giants are middle of the pack. I fail to see how that supports your point that DBs don't impact the sack total.

                    I never said that all sacks are caused by DBs. I said that improving your DBs can result in more sacks. It couldn't be a simpler concept to understand.

                    Originally posted by Eric Fetzer View Post
                    Lomax, you still have not proved the relationship with pass coverage and pass rushing. Viewing stats of how well a particular Cb covered his WR and directly attrbuting that to the pass rush is a strech and its based on your assumptions, not facts.

                    For the bolded part, you claim the success of the pass rush directly tied to the coverage when again you fail to reason and prove, how. Your stats from before didnt either.

                    In my world and the NFL, a pass rush is first and foremost created by the defensive line. In your world, CBs create pressure by allowing the defensive line time to get to the Qb, first an foremost.....

                    Creating pressure STARTS with the defensive line. And although nabbing a CB will help cover his guy longer, it wouldnt create pressure nearly as much as an effective pass rushing lineman.
                    Incorrect. You can search through all of my old posts and you will not find this statement anywhere. Obviously, your DL has the biggest influence on sacks. But if you do NOTHING but improve the defensive backfield, you can impact your sack totals.
                    "Pey-Pey to Bay-Bay for the Tay Day!!"

                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • All this "we need front 7, not DBs" is driving me nuts.

                      Do you idiots not realize that there's more than one pick in the draft and that you can take DL with a 2nd and a 3rd and be absolutely fine?

                      Give me Crick and Casey any day over Nick "one year wonder" Fairley or Da'Quan Bowers, who doesn't even play the 3-4.

                      Besides, Dumervil comes back next year. Think of him as the first round pick pass rusher if it helps you get over picking Peterson.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SoundsOfSuccess View Post
                        All this "we need front 7, not DBs" is driving me nuts.

                        Do you idiots not realize that there's more than one pick in the draft and that you can take DL with a 2nd and a 3rd and be absolutely fine?

                        Give me Crick and Casey any day over Nick "one year wonder" Fairley or Da'Quan Bowers, who doesn't even play the 3-4.

                        Besides, Dumervil comes back next year. Think of him as the first round pick pass rusher if it helps you get over picking Peterson.
                        2 highly productive experienced corners and 2 promosing young corners does not equal need for that position. Broncos dont NEED another corner at all.

                        The Broncos are one year removed from one of the best pass defenses in the entire NFL! Using a top pick a corner, when there is no NEED there, would be stupid.

                        Comment


                        • i understand we need front 7 but that nick fairley guy is just playin dirty. punching guys in the face? seriously? is that what we want on our team?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Syvari View Post
                            i understand we need front 7 but that nick fairley guy is just playin dirty. punching guys in the face? seriously? is that what we want on our team?
                            Hell yes.

                            Or would you rather have Ryan McBean?
                            Denver Broncos GM
                            Originally posted by Mosk
                            Joey Bosa ~ Jason Spriggs ~ Darian Thompson ~ Nick Vannett ~ Paul Perkins ~ Dan Vitale

                            Comment


                            • Can we agree that it's a symbiotic relationship???

                              I understand the point Lomax is making but I also prescribe to the theory that a pass rush is a DB's best friend.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 91bronco View Post
                                Can we agree that it's a symbiotic relationship???

                                I understand the point Lomax is making but I also prescribe to the theory that a pass rush is a DB's best friend.
                                most people do, coverage sacks are VERY rare in the NFL its not something you try and bank a defense on AT ALL

                                dooms loss was huge and anyone that cannot see that DL is more important to INTs than a CB is to sacks is . . . well, crazy to me
                                sigpic
                                -------

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X