Pass Rushing Stats Need Context

[GleefulGary]

Well, all stats need context, but I just want to talk about pass rushing stats.

We often see people value a pass rusher based on just their sacks. This is understandable because sacks are a production stat, and very rarely do players luck into sacks...but do they tell the whole story? The answer is without a doubt no. The tape, like always, tells no lies.

I want to show a play where Kenny Clark and Clay Matthews combine for a sack due to good effort and good play, but it was primarily caused by Vince Biegel. This will not show up in the stat book for Vince Biegel, and will be forgotten by the majority of us following the game. Pass rushing is a team effort, and having a solid DL that can penetrate helps create sacks. If you watch this play, Biegel causes Cam Newton to step up into Clark/Matthews. If they hadn't been there, Newton runs for 10+ yards. Instead, because of the interior and edge pressure, we got a sack. Interesting factoid, Matthews was on the field for 31 of our 37 sacks. Don't think that doesn't matter.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AaronNagler/status/982659668521766912

The video is in the link to Nagler. I don't know how to post the video direct, but somebody smart could maybe do that.

 

[Mondio]

I don't know how many of them there were, but it seemed every time I saw Charles Woodson get a sack, it was because Hawk did the dirty work

 

[Dantés]

I don’t understand why Biegel has already been written off by many.

 

[Mondio]

He has ability and a high motor, I'll bet on that every time.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The spin move is Biegel's best move, one he brought with him from college, even if it does look a tad mechanical. In 122 snaps last season, he recorded neither a sack nor a hit. That clip may well be his best pass rush snap. And as for that team effort, that was the only sack recorded that day.

Biegel's probably going to be a smart, decent player, but not an impact player. He's just not that instinctive, fluid or explosive. When he wins it will be on study and technique with experience probably providing some upside. But I don't think you're going to want him playing 700 snaps on the edge if Perry and/or Matthews get injured. I don't have a problem seeing him on the field situationally such as on that play when they have Matthews rush from the middle. But I certainly don't see him as a 2019 replacement for Matthews.

The biggest defensive takeway from that game is yet another QB throwing to his TE, RB and slot reciever all day, often wide open or poorly covered in the flats and in the middle of the field.

Dreadful red zone coverage, a hallmark of this defense for two years running ranking 30th. in TD% two years running, was amply on display. That's not just scheme. Swapping out Randall for Williams while losing Burnett doesn't fix anything.

So if the suggestion here is Biegel makes spending the #14 on an OLB a less than optimal choice from a needs perspective, I don't think one needs Biegel's presense to make that case.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think anybody is suggesting that Biegel is the answer to our pass rushing problem.

 

[OldSchool101]

Good article. I'd contend there's a reason that Vince Biegel was taken with the first overall pick 3rd day, that's a pick that requires a great deal of thought because he was considered one of the best values of all remaining day 3 prospects after round 3 finished. We had all night to think about this one, literally. That speaks volumes to me.
The 2 major concerns that made Beigel such a low draft projection last year were:
1. He was considered small and lacked strength
2. He had an injury concern with his foot.
I believe GB knew exactly what they were getting into and understood they would have an initial setback when he was drafted, so this was more calculated than we think. They also knew from a physical standpoint Vince would take at least a year to develop into the next level and he'd need strength condition.

The great thing is that now Biegel is a year older and the foot operation was an apparent success. Expect him to make a jump this year with an extra year of strength conditioning that will mitigate much of his week spots. I see him as a reliable backup LB for now, but with the potential to have a larger role by years end. I think Mike Pettine will absolutely love Beigels work ethic, Football drive and leadership is just one of the things you can't teach and Vince Biegel is a natural in those areas.. Those traits more often pay and tend to make a player "wear well" at the professional level. He will gradually get better year to year IMO.

Not to get off topic, but he's in a similar boat as another player. A guy not given much thought is Montravious. We essentially have a 3rd round DT that hasn't had much of an opportunity thus far for a similar injury reason. He was one of those players that everyone had a buzz about early in the year and one of the few rookies everyone said looked most likely to succeed early on in his contract (much like Davante a few years ago)

I believe our 2018 squad will have the effect of picking up two more players in the 3rd and 4th rounds this year.
That's the equivalent of rounds: 1st,2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th, 7th and keeping in mind three of those picks will have been the first pick in their respective round (Biegel, then Picks #101 and #138) so that's a ton of draft capital.

 

[GleefulGary]

I don't think anybody is suggesting that Biegel is the answer to our pass rushing problem.

Dude likes to read things that aren't there.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd contend there's a reason that Vince Biegel was taken with the first overall pick 3rd day, that's a pick that requires a great deal of thought because he was considered one of the best values of all remaining day 3 prospects after round 3 finished. We had all night to think about this one, literally. That speaks volumes to me.

If only the Packers had selected Carl Lawson at that point the team might not be in need of upgrading their pass rush this offseason.

 

[Poppa San]

If only the Packers had selected Carl Lawson at that point the team might not be in need of upgrading their pass rush this offseason.

And with the Packers medical staff we could be looking for another pass rusher again.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't think anybody is suggesting that Biegel is the answer to our pass rushing problem.

Dude likes to read things that aren't there.

Then what was the question being answered?

 

[Mondio]

that context was important, not just stats. 1 singular example was given to show that. I thought it did a good job. It's not an earth shattering proclamation, but I happen to think it is important for people to maintain that perspective. It's always a team effort. and that statement was a statement of just how important Matthews still is to this defense, as it was about Biegel being the future of our pass rush. In fact I'd say it was the larger message between the 2. Many people get caught up in stats, while useful, not the full story. Everyone has a job to do. Just like in pass protection, 4 of the 5 defensive backs can be doing their job well, and if the 5th doesn't do his, it makes the entire unit look bad.

 

[GleefulGary]

Then what was the question being answered?

Well, not so much answering a question as making a statement. It's fairly obvious as it's in the title of the thread.

Biegel was just a clip I saw on twitter, and it made me want to start this thread. It's not about him. It's about pass rushing stats needing context. I can look and say that Biegel had no sacks, and conclude he did nothing. Now maybe that was close to true, but we know now that it wasn't entirely true.

You're trying to bring a whole bunch of other stuff into this thread that doesn't have a place here. I'm not talking about the overall defense in the Carolina game. I'm literally only talking about what the thread title stated.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You're trying to bring a whole bunch of other stuff into this thread that doesn't have a place here. I'm not talking about the overall defense in the Carolina game. I'm literally only talking about what the thread title stated.

Oh, I think my comments are more than relevant to your thread. You're trying to extrapolate some larger point from one play, right? If not, what is the point?

The larger point I'm making is highlighting the best play in a bad team performance doesn't say much.

You could take the worst player you can think of and find a play with a +1 or +2 if you happened to have all of the tape to comb through. Or a team effort with a +2. It was a game with a pretty dreadful defensive performance across the position groups, especially in the red zone.

As for Biegel, where some kind of point is being made, he not only did not record a sack, he also did not record a hit during the season. I'm sure a PFF grader, for example, would give him a hurry. That's a plus. But it is only one play. It's about the body of work, which as I noted, is pretty limited.

If the point is that Biegel should not be cut, that he should be above the likes of Fackrell or Gilbert on the depth chart, you won't get an argument from me.

 

[HardRightEdge]

tEveryone has a job to do. Just like in pass protection, 4 of the 5 defensive backs can be doing their job well, and if the 5th doesn't do his, it makes the entire unit look bad.

That's going to happen no matter what. The question is how often and when. One play doesn't tell you anything about that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

that statement was a statement of just how important Matthews still is to this defense

According to the ESPN box score, Clark got full credit for that sack, not half-and-half with Matthews. Maybe that's a stat you'd like to put in context. I won't be engaging in that debate.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

If only the Packers had selected Carl Lawson at that point the team might not be in need of upgrading their pass rush this offseason.

Then we wouldn't have been able to meet our quota of drafting 5 guys who really have no shot of ever being a quality NFL player.

 

[HardRightEdge]

For what it's worth, here are PFF's grades (all plays, not just pass rush) for:

1) Matthews, 83.4, "above average" https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/clay-matthews/4949

2) Perry, 80.5, "above average" https://www.packerforum.com/threads/pass-rushing-stats-need-context.78929/#

3) Gilbert, 72.8 "average" https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/reggie-gilbert/11147

4) Biegel, 71.2, "average" https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/vince-biegel/11863

5) Fackrell, 58.8, "poor" https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/kyler-fackrell/10722

I was suprised I could actually just google this stuff. Looks about right to me.

 

[Mondio]

That's going to happen no matter what. The question is how often and when. One play doesn't tell you anything about that.

do you just like to argue? Nobody is trying to make some grand statement, other than it takes everyone to do their job. I've said, the OP has said, and you've said, it was kind of a "no ****" statement. Just an example he came across to illustrate a general feeling he has about the game of football. So what's there to argue about? don't make into something it's not.

According to the ESPN box score, Clark got full credit for that sack, not half-and-half with Matthews. Maybe that's a stat you'd like to put in context. I won't be engaging in that debate.

I have no idea who got what credit for that play and why would I care, since all I was engaging in was agreement that stats don't tell the full story and context matters. That's it, that's all. If you choose not to participate, don't. If you choose to have arguments or debates about something else, then make a thread about it because you keep trying to have ones in this one (and others) that nobody is trying to have.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Then we wouldn't have been able to meet our quota of drafting 5 guys who really have no shot of ever being a quality NFL player.

There seems to be a lot more grousing about Jones' play than that of King, the latter seeming to get more benefit of the doubt. They were both pretty dismal. But there's not much choice but to roll the dice on the scheme changes and the "second year jump". The zone coverages in particular were a hot mess; at least there's nowhere to go but up on that score.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I have no idea who got what credit for that play and why would I care, since all I was engaging in was agreement that stats don't tell the full story and context matters.

That's odd. I gave you the stat which belied the context and now you say it doesn't matter because you're concerned about the context instead of the stat.

 

[Mondio]

oh, well then you win LOL. I don't know what the stat is, know why? because I never looked. know why? because I really don't care that much LOL. He could have made up a play or used one from 35 years ago, I don't care. The sentiment is the same, context, situations, and team play are more important than stats. Sometimes they line up, sometimes they don't. I was agreeing with that sentiment. I didn't even watch the play, know why? because the play wasn't important. I agree with the thought that stats need context. That's it. can I be more clear? will you STILL find something to argue about? I"m going to say yes, which of course you'll probably disagree with

 

[HardRightEdge]

do you just like to argue? Nobody is trying to make some grand statement, other than it takes everyone to do their job.

Oh, I didn't expect a grand statement, nor was I offering one. My point is that examining one single tree tells you nothing about the health of the forest. If you don't like that counterpoint, that's on you.

 

[HardRightEdge]

will you STILL find something to argue about?

Will you?

 

[GleefulGary]

Oh, I think my comments are more than relevant to your thread. You're trying to extrapolate some larger point from one play, right? If not, what is the point?

The larger point I'm making is highlighting the best play in a bad team performance doesn't say much.

You could take the worst player you can think of and find a play with a +1 or +2 if you happened to have all of the tape to comb through. Or a team effort with a +2. It was a game with a pretty dreadful defensive performance across the position groups, especially in the red zone.

As for Biegel, where some kind of point is being made, he not only did not record a sack, he also did not record a hit during the season. I'm sure a PFF grader, for example, would give him a hurry. That's a plus. But it is only one play. It's about the body of work, which as I noted, is pretty limited.

If the point is that Biegel should not be cut, that he should be above the likes of Fackrell or Gilbert on the depth chart, you won't get an argument from me.

I get why you might be confused because words are hard, but I'll try to explain this again.

This is not about any player specifically.

I highlighted a play because it was an excellent example of how pass rushing stats need more context than just "sacks". If you read the title, you might be able to see that. This was not about the defense overall, any specific player, or any other point other than EXACTLY what the thread title is.