Misc discussion about Daniel Jones

[MightyGiants]

That's not the reason why I posted the article, for the reason the Chiefs won the SB. It was to show the tier groups of similar attributes. How QBs convert pressure into opportunity.

I appreciated that.  I just needed to vent about that paragraph.  For a site that is all about analytics, that was some of the worst "reasoning" I have ever witnessed.

As for the tiers, I noticed QBs from the same schools ended up in the same or adjacent tiers.  That makes me wonder if the system they used may be biased towards certain styles of offense or perhaps failed to account for the defenses faced.

[Ed Vette]

I appreciated that.  I just needed to vent about that paragraph.  For a site that is all about analytics, that was some of the worst "reasoning" I have ever witnessed.

As for the tiers, I noticed QBs from the same schools ended up in the same or adjacent tiers.  That makes me wonder if the system they used may be biased towards certain styles of offense or perhaps failed to account for the defenses faced.

Good observation. Perhaps USC sacrifices Oline and compensates with elusive QB who can make something out of nothing, as an example. It could be coaching or it's the QB. I wonder why McCarthy is conspicuously missing.

[MightyGiants]

Good observation. Perhaps USC sacrifices Oline and compensates with elusive QB who can make something out of nothing, as an example. It could be coaching or it's the QB. I wonder why McCarthy is conspicuously missing.

Best guess, this study was done prior to the McCarthy declaring

[Philosophers]

There are all kinds of sacks so I don't buy the sentence that sacks are a QB's fault.  Coverage sacks when a QB has lots of time, then gets sacked tends to be more on a QB, but Evan Neal completely missing on a 9 tech who sacks DJ quickly is absolutely not the QB's fault.

[gregf]

WTF? Buddy....

EliW.    This is exactly what we don't want here.  I noticed it in another thread too.  Please be respectful in your give and take with members.  Thanks. 

[Ed Vette]

There are all kinds of sacks so I don't buy the sentence that sacks are a QB's fault.  Coverage sacks when a QB has lots of time, then gets sacked tends to be more on a QB, but Evan Neal completely missing on a 9 tech who sacks DJ quickly is absolutely not the QB's fault.

Of course but that doesn't negate their analysis based on a hypothetical. The videos illustrate a couple of examples. They clearly state that the percentages they arrive at are the responsibility of either the QB, the Oline, or other. Of course it's up to the individual as to whether they trust the evaluation or not.

[Jclayton92]

The Giants need a perception change, we are going to be a case study on what not to do at the Qb position for the next decade. Every team that gets to that 5th year option with their qb, we'll be brought up as a worst case scenario of what happens.

If a qb isn't elite in 3-4 years move on until you find one that is.

[LennG]

 Is this what this board is going to be in for, for the next 4-5 months, more Daniel Jones threads, for, against, and who knows what else?
Didn't we have one thread last year for all Daniel Jones posts? God this is going to be a very long off-season if this is what we discuss everyday.

            

[Ed Vette]

Is this what this board is going to be in for, for the next 4-5 months, more Daniel Jones threads, for, against, and who knows what else?
Didn't we have one thread last year for all Daniel Jones posts? God this is going to be a very long off-season if this is what we discuss everyday.

            

Here's the thing, Lenn. After all the gloating at the conclusion of the 2022 season, hard core detractors continued their assertion that it wasn't a great season. After the 2023 season, the supporters capitulated with the caveat that injuries changed their mind.

Wait and see what happens if the Giants draft another QB. It will start all over. As it did for Jones and Eli as you recall. If there was an internet, the Scott Brunner/Phil Simms saga would have had the same affect.

It's called making myself look good, while making you look bad.

[katkavage]

Here's the thing, Lenn. After all the gloating at the conclusion of the 2022 season, hard core detractors continued their assertion that it wasn't a great season. After the 2023 season, the supporters capitulated with the caveat that injuries changed their mind.

Wait and see what happens if the Giants draft another QB. It will start all over. As it did for Jones and Eli as you recall. If there was an internet, the Scott Brunner/Phil Simms saga would have had the same affect.

It's called making myself look good, while making you look bad.

I wouldn't care if I looked bad if the fairy tale turned out to be true and Jones transformed himself into Cinderella after five years and multiple injuries to lead the team to the promised land. And I don't want anyone to look bad if they are wrong. My stance is about the Giants as an organization. They have not been run well in a long time and as an ancient fan, I would love to see them start making smart moves. I would love to see them as a dynamic franchise that was forward thinking, not one that is stodgy and always a step or two behind.

[uconnjack8]

It's not most likely. It's pressure where the QB WAS responsible for pressure creating the sack.

Why doesnt it say that then?  Do you have an explanation from PFF? 

[Ed Vette]

Why doesnt it say that then?  Do you have an explanation from PFF? 

I don't have the subscription this year. It did say it on the metric and in the article I posted on this thread.

[Ed Vette]

I don't have the subscription this year. It did say it on the metric and in the article I posted on this thread.

Of course there are those who do have a subscription and could provide that for you, but it doesn't serve them.

[MightyGiants]

Because of my engineering background, I am naturally drawn to analytics and statistics.  One rule I have is that no matter how well a stat or measure is explained and justified, I like to put it through one more test.  I call it, "Does it pass the eye test?"  In other words, no matter how much a stat makes sense when you apply it, it shows the top players at the top and the worst players at the bottom.  If it doesn't, then I question the value of such a measure, no matter how well it's justified.


Now take the idea that QBs are responsible for their own pressure, and it's worth looking at the percentage of pressures that are being blamed on the QB.  Well, PFF has that stat, and for 2023, DJ was 5 worse, being assigned blame for 20.0% of pressures.  If I left it at that it would be pretty damning.  Only, remember, my eye test.

I looked up at the two QBs who are slightly "worse" than Daniel Jones.  Those two QBs being blamed for 20.1% are the QB considered the best in the league and possibly in history and the current league MVP-  Mahomes and Lamar Jackson.

That sort of made me dismiss the stat as not all that meaningful, if at all.

[uconnjack8]

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-sam-howell-washington-commanders-sacks

Not only is Howell creating his own pressure, but he's also turning offensive line-allowed pressure into sacks at an unsustainable rate. He currently leads the league with a 33.7% pressure-to-sack percentage. The league-high rate last season was 30.8%.

So is pressure to sacks just those pressures that are offensive line created? Is it just "avoidable sacks"?

I think the bold part states pretty clearly that pressure to sacks isnt how many sacks the QB caused. 

I have no doubt Jones is the cause of some of his own sacks.

Anyone know how PFF determines who is responsible for a sack?  Some maybe easy to see, other could be a blown assignment on a blitz and the QB is blamed with the assumption he didnt move protection properly or throw a hot route...just do not understand how PFF would know the protection call and whether ot not it was executed properly.