Post game Packers

[WillH]

Originally Posted by WillH

On Redskins Talk podcast JP Finlay asks Gruden about how well Bergstrom and Roullier did and if they can replicate it and he said, "we'll try, I think when Saun comes back we'll address the issue then, but I think they did a good job, Tony did a an excellent job."

It sounds very much like these guys may play Lavauo out of his job!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

BTW I called that shit. Lol

"Anyways, I say this because the during times they've been good, I've always noticed that if they had an injury it didn't drastically effect the play of the unit as a whole. Guys like Tony Bergstrom have come in and looked like competant backups and had good games. Sometimes this is when we'd find our future starters. I think everyone needs to chill. Last year the whole line was injured, that hasn't happened yet, and hopefully won't, and maybe the line will be ok."

https://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?p=1200880

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[ethat001]

Originally Posted by WillH

On Redskins Talk podcast JP Finlay asks Gruden about how well Bergstrom and Roullier did and if they can replicate it and he said, "we'll try, I think when Saun comes back we'll address the issue then, but I think they did a good job, Tony did a an excellent job."

It sounds very much like these guys may play Lavauo out of his job!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

We've been waiting for someone to push Luvao out of a job for years. This would be a great thing, and then next year draft a young center or LG. Needs next year are: (1) WR, (2) OLB, (3) C vs LG, (4) CB, (5) QB, (6) MLB

[WillH]

Originally Posted by ethat001

We've been waiting for someone to push Luvao out of a job for years. This would be a great thing, and then next year draft a young center or LG. Needs next year are: (1) WR, (2) OLB, (3) C vs LG, (4) CB, (5) QB, (6) MLB

I'd probably put TE in there ahead of QB, but that list looks about right. I like our young MLBs though. I might put safety in there instead.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Pervis_Griffith]

Man ... it's just nice basking in the glow of Redskins win and a Cowboys loss ... the second time in this young season that that has happened.

HTTR

FTMFC

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Pervis_Griffith

Man ... it's just nice basking in the glow of Redskins win and a Cowboys loss ... the second time in this young season that that has happened.

HTTR

FTMFC

no shit.

HTTR

[KI Skins Fan]

This post is dedicated to Schneed:

The following is from a statistical analysis done by Eric Eager of PFF published on February 22, 2018:

"Using our Expected Points Added (EPA) model, we know exactly how much each impact play by a defender affects opposing offenses, with a positive EPA implying a successful play by an offense and a negative EPA a successful play by the defense.

EPA on all passing plays: 0.025
EPA on all non-sack passing plays: 0.145
EPA on passing plays without pressure: 0.233
EPA on passing plays with pressure (incl. sacks): -0.397
EPA on passing plays with pressure but no sack: -0.074
EPA on passing plays where the quarterback is only hurried: 0.019
EPA on passing plays where the quarterback is only hit: -0.161
EPA on passing plays where the quarterback is only hit and hurried: -0.323
EPA on passing plays that result in sacks: -1.856

Notice that, on average, passing plays are a net positive for an offense, and passing plays that do not result in pressure are even more so. Once pressure is applied to a quarterback, passing plays become a negative proposition for an offense, but are an order-of-magnitude worse when they result in sacks."

So, to those of you who think I don't know what I'm talking about when I say we need more sacks rather than just pressures or hurries from our Edge Rushers, I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

This post is dedicated to Schneed:

The following is from a statistical analysis done by Eric Eager of PFF published on February 22, 2018:

"Using our Expected Points Added (EPA) model, we know exactly how much each impact play by a defender affects opposing offenses, with a positive EPA implying a successful play by an offense and a negative EPA a successful play by the defense.

EPA on all passing plays: 0.025
EPA on all non-sack passing plays: 0.145
EPA on passing plays without pressure: 0.233
EPA on passing plays with pressure (incl. sacks): -0.397
EPA on passing plays with pressure but no sack: -0.074
EPA on passing plays where the quarterback is only hurried: 0.019
EPA on passing plays where the quarterback is only hit: -0.161
EPA on passing plays where the quarterback is only hit and hurried: -0.323
EPA on passing plays that result in sacks: -1.856

Notice that, on average, passing plays are a net positive for an offense, and passing plays that do not result in pressure are even more so. Once pressure is applied to a quarterback, passing plays become a negative proposition for an offense, but are an order-of-magnitude worse when they result in sacks."

So, to those of you who think I don't know what I'm talking about when I say we need more sacks rather than just pressures or hurries from our Edge Rushers, I'm pretty sure I do know what I'm talking about.

Nobody was trying to say that hurries or pressures are just as good as sacks. We were saying that sacks correlate to hurries and pressures, so as long as Kerrigan is getting hurries and pressures, the sacks will come.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Nobody was trying to say that hurries or pressures are just as good as sacks. We were saying that sacks correlate to hurries and pressures, so as long as Kerrigan is getting hurries and pressures, the sacks will come.

What is the correlation?

All hurries and pressures aren't equal with many being expected and accounted for depending on how a play progresses. They may be a near miss sack, they may not be.

If a qb takes a five step drop and doesn't throw it for another second or two and Kerrigan gets a "pressure" and forces the qb to throw the ball out of bounds, how valuable is that?

Not nearly as valuable as beating the blocker and forcing the qb out of the schedule of the play.

Those two things may both be hurries or pressures but one is a lot closer to a sack than the other.

Kerrigan can lead the league in hurries and pressures and may or may not have any sacks. There isn't necessarily a correlation and definitely not a causation.

Generic statements with undefined terms don't really contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by DYoungJelly

What is the correlation?

All hurries and pressures aren't equal with many being expected and accounted for depending on how a play progresses. They may be a near miss sack, they may not be.

If a qb takes a five step drop and doesn't throw it for another second or two and Kerrigan gets a "pressure" and forces the qb to throw the ball out of bounds, how valuable is that?

Not nearly as valuable as beating the blocker and forcing the qb out of the schedule of the play.

Those two things may both be hurries or pressures but one is a lot closer to a sack than the other.

Kerrigan can lead the league in hurries and pressures and may or may not have any sacks. There isn't necessarily a correlation and definitely not a causation.

Generic statements with undefined terms don't really contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I can tell you're statistically challenged. A correlation means that the more pressures you get, the more sacks you'll get. Pressures indicate you're getting close, sacks indicate you got there.

What I'm saying - and let me dumb it down so you can understand it - is that if Kerrigan weren't registering pressures, it would indicate a serious problem. It would mean he's not beating his man, he's not getting around the block, etc. But he is getting pressures, and as long as that keeps up, the sacks will come.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I can tell you're statistically challenged. A correlation means that the more pressures you get, the more sacks you'll get. Pressures indicate you're getting close, sacks indicate you got there.

What I'm saying - and let me dumb it down so you can understand it - is that if Kerrigan weren't registering pressures, it would indicate a serious problem. It would mean he's not beating his man, he's not getting around the block, etc. But he is getting pressures, and as long as that keeps up, the sacks will come.

You should look up correlation and causation.

It also seems like you didn't actually read the post.

More pressures may mean more sacks or it may not. That's what a correlation is, rather than a causation.

Again, it's about defining terms: hurries and pressures.

Another knee jerk post.

Typical.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Burgold]

Let's not get too geeked up,yes a victory is good of course,but we still got[Brees]coming up and he ain't hurt.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Burgold

Let's not get too geeked up,yes a victory is good of course,but we still got[Brees]coming up and he ain't hurt.

Best Offense we will see all yr , in the dome. But we get 2 weeks to prepare

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Best Offense we will see all yr , in the dome. But we get 2 weeks to prepare

Well you have to remember, Saints will be coming off a blowout win and psyched to be home on Monday night.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Well you have to remember, Saints will be coming off a blowout win and psyched to be home on Monday night.

Possibly but you need to remember that it is possible that the Saints may be resting on their laurels after such an easy win and take the Skins lightly, assuming that we're just another weak NFC East team like the two teams that wear blue.

[MTK]

The Saints are definitely beatable even at home