R I S E ___ U P ___ D A R K ___ S I D E (2022)

[Stout]

Oweh had 5 sacks last season as a rookie on limited snaps after having 0 his last season in college and only 7 in 3 years.

Gregory Rousseau only had 4 despite having 15.5 in his last college year.

A lot of schools line up very different on the DL and use Edge players in different ways than the NFL. It's why teams look more at traits than production.

On saying that I'm not expecting much in year 1. Even the best edge guys rarely blow the league away in sacks. Chase Young is one of the best college edges in the past 10 years but topped out at 7.5 as a rookie and only had 1.5 though 9 games last year. TJ Watt had 7. Garrett had 7.

If we can get 4 from Sanders and 4 from Thomas I'll be happy. Plus 5 from Gardeck. 4-5 from Kennard and 8 from Golden that should put us around or above our standard edge production.

Also sacks are overrated. That's not to say they are not important, just that they are overrated by fans because they are a simple, tangible, easy to see play. A pressure that results in a throwaway or a misplaced pass is just as useful as a sack, sometimes more so if it results in a turnover.

You and Krang seem to be banging this drum pretty hard. I'm not buying what you're selling. The "remain calm, all is well" approach where we're going to get a bunch of sacks combined from a bunch of JAGs and projects is a lot of hope and little certainty. The best we can hope for, IMO, is for our offense to be so good we can just trot guys out there and tell them to pin their ears back and rush the passer. That still won't transform our JAGs into anything but JAGs. And that's without our top receiving option in a brutal opening to the season.

 

[BullheadCardFan]

You and Krang seem to be banging this drum pretty hard. I'm not buying what you're selling. The "remain calm, all is well" approach where we're going to get a bunch of sacks combined from a bunch of JAGs and projects is a lot of hope and little certainty. The best we can hope for, IMO, is for our offense to be so good we can just trot guys out there and tell them to pin their ears back and rush the passer. That still won't transform our JAGs into anything but JAGs. And that's without our top receiving option in a brutal opening to the season.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[BritCard]

You and Krang seem to be banging this drum pretty hard. I'm not buying what you're selling. The "remain calm, all is well" approach where we're going to get a bunch of sacks combined from a bunch of JAGs and projects is a lot of hope and little certainty. The best we can hope for, IMO, is for our offense to be so good we can just trot guys out there and tell them to pin their ears back and rush the passer. That still won't transform our JAGs into anything but JAGs. And that's without our top receiving option in a brutal opening to the season.

I wrote a whole post recently about how in the past 10 years only 1 team has won the SB with a rusher getting over 10 sacks.

Most teams had an 8 sack guy and a 5 sack guy. Nobody has had a guy like Chandler getting 17-20 sacks a year.

So I'm not massively concerned because,

a) It's a proven fact you don't need a stud rusher to be a great team
b) In all the years we had Chandler's elite production we made the playoffs once last year
c) That year was Chandlers worst year here and his recent production isn't hard to replace

We had all this off season hand wringing when P2 left last year and the defense improved on the year before.

 

[Stout]

I wrote a whole post recently about how in the past 10 years only 1 team has won the SB with a rusher getting over 10 sacks.

Most teams had an 8 sack guy and a 5 sack guy. Nobody has had a guy like Chandler getting 17-20 sacks a year.

So I'm not massively concerned because,

a) It's a proven fact you don't need a stud rusher to be a great team
b) In all the years we had Chandler's elite production we made the playoffs once last year
c) That year was Chandlers worst year here and his recent production isn't hard to replace

We had all this off season hand wringing when P2 left last year and the defense improved on the year before.

And none of that means that we're going to be even close to efficient enough at getting after the passer this year.

 

[Garthshort]

I don't know how good Sanders will be as a Cardinal, but there must be a reason why they count 'pressures'.

 

[BritCard]

And none of that means that we're going to be even close to efficient enough at getting after the passer this year.

We don't have to be. Look at it this way.

Cards sacks per game by year

21 - 2.3
20 - 3
19 - 2.5
18 - 3.1
17 - 2.3
16 - 3
15 - 2.1
14 - 2.1
13 - 2.9
12 - 2.4

Our best year for sacks in the past 10 years was our 3-13 season. The second best were highly disappointing seasons we finished around .500 and didn't make the playoffs. The worse seasons for sacks were the years most fans would consider this teams best year's.

There's no correlation between high sack numbers and success. Sacks are not to be dismissed as unimportant, that's not what I'm saying. But it's a bigger, more complicated picture.

Pressure is more important. The average drop off in passer rating from clean vs pressure is 33 points. Odds of an interception nearly double under pressure vs clean.

This is one of the issues with Golden. He often has sack numbers that look good, but his pressure rates are often below average.

The long and short of it is, I don't really know what the outcome will be because it's a complicated thing to predict. And you can see from our own records that a good sack numbers don't equal good teams and vice versa.

Which is why I'm not worrying about it, it's impossible to tell and only waiting to see will give us any clues.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Oweh had 5 sacks last season as a rookie on limited snaps after having 0 his last season in college and only 7 in 3 years.

Gregory Rousseau only had 4 despite having 15.5 in his last college year.

A lot of schools line up very different on the DL and use Edge players in different ways than the NFL. It's why teams look more at traits than production.

On saying that I'm not expecting much in year 1. Even the best edge guys rarely blow the league away in sacks. Chase Young is one of the best college edges in the past 10 years but topped out at 7.5 as a rookie and only had 1.5 though 9 games last year. TJ Watt had 7. Garrett had 7.

If we can get 4 from Sanders and 4 from Thomas I'll be happy. Plus 5 from Gardeck. 4-5 from Kennard and 8 from Golden that should put us around or above our standard edge production.

Also sacks are overrated. That's not to say they are not important, just that they are overrated by fans because they are a simple, tangible, easy to see play. A pressure that results in a throwaway or a misplaced pass is just as useful as a sack, sometimes more so if it results in a turnover.

Agree about first year production. Think it unlikely we get four from both rookies or kennard. Likely hit the 5 from gardeck and 8-10 from golden if plays entire season. If that last sentence doesn’t materialize we are in big trouble.

And no, an incompletion isn’t the same as a sack as a sack typically entails loss of yardage. Other than a takeaway a sack is the best play a defense can make.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

We don't have to be. Look at it this way.

Cards sacks per game by year

21 - 2.3
20 - 3
19 - 2.5
18 - 3.1
17 - 2.3
16 - 3
15 - 2.1
14 - 2.1
13 - 2.9
12 - 2.4

Our best year for sacks in the past 10 years was our 3-13 season. The second best were highly disappointing seasons we finished around .500 and didn't make the playoffs. The worse seasons for sacks were the years most fans would consider this teams best year's.

There's no correlation between high sack numbers and success. Sacks are not to be dismissed as unimportant, that's not what I'm saying. But it's a bigger, more complicated picture.

Pressure is more important. The average drop off in passer rating from clean vs pressure is 33 points. Odds of an interception nearly double under pressure vs clean.

This is one of the issues with Golden. He often has sack numbers that look good, but his pressure rates are often below average.

The long and short of it is, I don't really know what the outcome will be because it's a complicated thing to predict. And you can see from our own records that a good sack numbers don't equal good teams and vice versa.

Which is why I'm not worrying about it, it's impossible to tell and only waiting to see will give us any clues.

Okay so we need roughly 43-44 sacks to hit our average of the last 10 years.

Golden - 9
Watt - 5
Gardeck - 5
Allen - 3
Thomas - 3
Sanders - 2
Kennard - 2
Budda - 2
Simmons - 3
Collins - 2
Lawrence - 2
Fotu- 1
Murphy - 1
Keke - 1
Dogbe - 1

I think that’s pretty close.

 

[oaken1]

That sounds great. But doesn’t it make you raise an eyebrow when a guy has 62 pressures and only gets home on 2 1/2? Something doesn’t compute. Maybe there’s a difference between high impact pressures and eh-I-guess-that-qualifies-pressures?

Or, he needs to learn to get off blocks a little quicker, transition better.
Historically pressure rates transition to the nfl better than sacks.

If the guy gets 45 pressures, but only 6 sacks, that still goes a long way towards replacing CJ55's production the past couple years. But with growth potential instead of certain decline

 

[Stout]

We don't have to be. Look at it this way.

Cards sacks per game by year

21 - 2.3
20 - 3
19 - 2.5
18 - 3.1
17 - 2.3
16 - 3
15 - 2.1
14 - 2.1
13 - 2.9
12 - 2.4

Our best year for sacks in the past 10 years was our 3-13 season. The second best were highly disappointing seasons we finished around .500 and didn't make the playoffs. The worse seasons for sacks were the years most fans would consider this teams best year's.

There's no correlation between high sack numbers and success. Sacks are not to be dismissed as unimportant, that's not what I'm saying. But it's a bigger, more complicated picture.

Pressure is more important. The average drop off in passer rating from clean vs pressure is 33 points. Odds of an interception nearly double under pressure vs clean.

This is one of the issues with Golden. He often has sack numbers that look good, but his pressure rates are often below average.

The long and short of it is, I don't really know what the outcome will be because it's a complicated thing to predict. And you can see from our own records that a good sack numbers don't equal good teams and vice versa.

Which is why I'm not worrying about it, it's impossible to tell and only waiting to see will give us any clues.

I said "to be good enough" so yes, by definition, we will have to be good enough lol

Regardless of the actual sack numbers, we also have to get enough pure pressure on opposing QBs. I have no faith that we'll provide enough pressure. Now you can reply, providing some stats and rationalizing how you're absolutely positive we're going to get enough pressure The problem is, this goes beyond existing stats. We're projecting not just growth and rebounding from injury from our old roster, but quick/instant impact/growth/contribution from rookies. It's not a great recipe for success.

I don't think we're going to get nearly enough pressure on the passer to protect our CBs. Couple an inability to do so with an inability, or really a steadfast refusal to, stop the run, and this D will suffer. Our only real hope is to outscore opponents and give our D big leads.

 

[BritCard]

Now you can reply, providing some stats and rationalizing how you're absolutely positive we're going to get enough pressure

I can't. I said it's a complicated thing and it's difficult to tell until the season starts or at least camp starts and we hear more about Sanders and Thomas.

What I can say is that we are only replacing Philips and CJ. Philips had 3 sacks and only 8 pressures and Keke replaces that. Jones had 10.5 and 36. I don't think that's irreplaceable production, especially if Watt stays healthy and we get his production back.

I would like to see a move on the interior of the line though. I don't rate Zach Allen much and I can't confidently say that Lawrence, Dogbe or Fotu are going to make a big leap.

They kept 7 DI guys on the 53 last year. Right now it's 6 with Watt, Allen, Keke, Fotu, Lawrence and Dogbe. They have a space available nobody else on the roster is worthy of filling.

Larry Ogunjobi makes a lot of sense once he's healthy.

 

[Stout]

I can't. I said it's a complicated thing and it's difficult to tell until the season starts or at least camp starts and we hear more about Sanders and Thomas.

What I can say is that we are only replacing Philips and CJ. Philips had 3 sacks and only 8 pressures and Keke replaces that. Jones had 10.5 and 36. I don't think that's irreplaceable production, especially if Watt stays healthy and we get his production back.

I would like to see a move on the interior of the line though. I don't rate Zach Allen much and I can't confidently say that Lawrence, Dogbe or Fotu are going to make a big leap.

They kept 7 DI guys on the 53 last year. Right now it's 6 with Watt, Allen, Keke, Fotu, Lawrence and Dogbe. They have a space available nobody else on the roster is worthy of filling.

Larry Ogunjobi makes a lot of sense once he's healthy.

Replacement of exact sack numbers from year to year is a woefully inadequate measure of something that can't usually be measured, though: getting enough pressure on opposing QBs over a season. How does one say we need at least X or Y sacks or pressures over the course of a season without knowing what's going to happen in the coming season? It's not about those stats and trying to predict how many we need to replace, it's about what players we have, what ones we've lost, and who we've replaced them with.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

There's no correlation between high sack numbers and success. Sacks are not to be dismissed as unimportant, that's not what I'm saying. But it's a bigger, more complicated picture.

Here's an article that addresses your theory - https://www.bleedinggreennation.com...-eagles-science-engineering-pressure-rate-pff

The answer seems to be, it's complicated.

I'd love to see more data on the pressure correlation, or how to judge sack #'s with a D that blitzes significantly more, etc.

 

[oaken1]

Replacement of exact sack numbers from year to year is a woefully inadequate measure of something that can't usually be measured, though: getting enough pressure on opposing QBs over a season. How does one say we need at least X or Y sacks or pressures over the course of a season without knowing what's going to happen in the coming season? It's not about those stats and trying to predict how many we need to replace, it's about what players we have, what ones we've lost, and who we've replaced them with.

Agree.
Based on that I prefer a high energy young guy with loads of potential to chase over an already declining guy who has probably fallen off the age cliff.
At some point you have to move forward. Transition away from " I hope he still has another year" to " I hope he can play in the league"

 

[kerouac9]

Bump. Kyler is literally going to have to put the team on his back.

 

[Cardsfan77]

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Zalixar]

Bump. Kyler is literally going to have to put the team on his back.

There's a short joke somewhere in there.

 

[Stout]

Bills: We need a pass rusher, so let's get Von Miller!
Keim: We need a pass rusher, so, um, erm...aw hell, ASFN will defend me and say there was no one available to fill the position! We'll throw cheap bodies at the problem.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

EA$Y

 

[Stout]

GD it! I thought about dropping 500 or 1000 on this game, and I thought it was ridiculous, to bet so much money to make so little. I should've realized it was easy money.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Perfect game to commemorate the induction of Mr. B into the Ring of Honor. Same ol’ Cardinals.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Best K1 talk ever. He is speaking the truth.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[GatorAZ]

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[blindseyed]

Reading back on the defending of the defense in earlier posts here makes my stay here even more comfy

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I thought resurrecting this thread was premature.

I was wrong.