Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
Originally posted by NCommand:
Originally posted by YACBros85:
No. It is too generate pressure in a reasonable amount of time. The longer pass pro holds up the less likely the pass rush gets home. The FO spends a lot of money and resources generating a pass rush that can get there in under 3 seconds. Because as I just showed you, a pass rush that takes longer to get there is less efficient at getting home.
Why are you moving the goal post to 3s? Who cares.
THEIR goal is to stop the run and bring as much QB pressure in waves as possible hence their absolute obsession in their team building strategy.
Here's a snippet of why and this is JUST sacks:
Sacks Taken vs Win Percentage
This chart includes the win percentages split by sacks taken in a game of every quarterback to play at least 48 games between 2011 and the third week of the 2017 regular season. The line for NFL Avg clearly shows that taking sacks is bad for wins. If a team goes an entire game without their quarterback being sacked, they have almost a seven-in-ten chance of winning. A team taking only two sacks will be more likely to win than lose, while a team that takes its third sack drops to just above a four-in-ten chance of winning.
I am not moving the goalposts. My argument this entire time has been that time is a better indicator of pass rush/pass pro success than a hollow stat like pressure rate that gives no context.
If a pass rush takes 4.5 seconds to generate a 75% pressure rate and they come up with 0 sacks, do you really believe that the pass rush was successful? Do you really believe that pass protection failed?
No it's not. Pressure is pressure. It affects the QB just the same. Sure it's more ideal if you can get there quicker but the pressure itself is what's most important to winning. Whether it's 1 DE winning a bull rush against a T in 3+s or all 4 DL busting through untouched immediately, pressure is pressure. Pressure simply disrupts everything and forces a QB to make split second decisions off schedule.
It's so important, it's one of the primary reasons we asked, "What are Brock's numbers under pressure?"
I apologise for taking a shot earlier. I got a little triggered by your accusation of me moving the goalposts. I assure you that I have not. I am more calm now and ready to continue this discussion.
My whole thing has been about pass protection vs pass rush. This isn't about the QB. This is the O line thread and so the discussion should try to stay on that subject. I brought up pass rush because it goes hand and hand with pass protection. The duscission should not be about how it affects the QB. The discussion should be about the success or failure of pass protection.
I am not arguing that pressure rate doesn't have a high correlation to wins and losses. I am simply saying that not all pressures are created equal. There is such a thing as coverage sacks and pressures. I would argue that the Niners defense has 14 of those coverage sacks this season. You simply cannot place a whole lot of blame on an o line for not protecting the QB longer than 3.7 seconds. I mean Pass Rush Win Rate (PRWR) is litterally measured by how often a rusher beats their block in 2.5 seconds.
What you are arguing when it comes to pressure rate does not separate PRWR from Coverage Win Rate (CWR). So your entire argument has a very shaky foundation when it comes strictly to pass protection. What the 3.7 seconds TTP tells me is that pass protection held up and the QB/route runners did not get the job done.
No worries. I came at you a bit hard myself and while on a long bike ride, made a mental note to PM you to apologize myself. So
As to PP, if we want to talk just PP, you know I can talk that all day.
We definitely went off on a number of different tangents and reasons for the loss in one NFCCG.
I like to look at the whole picture, look for patterns and outliers and correlations. That's always my angle. And team building and philosophy (if you haven't noticed, LOL). I do off season projections too in an effort to set up realistic expectations for the season.
I also like to look at context. Especially within a game. I think this is where fans really get separated/heated; lots of unrealistic expectations out there (too high/low).
Just some background for future conversations; not that we've really disagreed on much (other than this pie chart-of-blame for the loss).
I think we have a golden opportunity to evaluate the post season PP here using your own original post. Can you run this same comp for Stafford? Not just because of the NFCCG but because we can stack our own post season TTT splits /production up against him as a Superbowl winning QB. Context.
Looking at the numbers in the post season. Jimmy's numbers with a clean pocket were 47 dropbacks, 66% completion, 2 TD's, 0 int's with 108.7 passer rating and a 2.28 TTT. Jimmy's numbers while under pressure were 33 dropbacks, 44.4% completion, 0 TD's, 3 int's with a 16.8 passer rating and a 3.40 TTT.
After that we can talk about adjusting for expectations. For instance, the Rams OL was stellar in PP and health going into the playoffs, IIRC. Ours was limping (literally) into the playoffs. Both OL's were facing top tier defenses. I'd have lower expectations for ours over theirs. I also would expect our DL to give them their biggest challenge of the year.
If its easier, we can talk about just the TTP since that's just PP. It's such a new stat, it would be cool to explore what's normal and what's not? Or at least compare that one game for both teams. How much time did each QB have before pressured? How many attempts were there in that average TTP?
We already know what's normal, what's not for QB pressure rates and those effects.
Wherever you'd like to go...
[ Edited by NCommand on Jan 7, 2023 at 11:08 AM ]
