csmopar

So will you kidding kidding

He’s better than fields. By the size of the distance from earth to Pluto

I’d rather Flacco than Fields

I ain’t celebrating until that ink is dry!

I don’t think we were as bad as some think but I don’t think we are as good as we put on at times either. We did benefit a bit from an easier schedule. But the the funny part is… we lost more in the “easy” part than we did in the “hardest” part of the schedule. Well with Snead, you’re getting a guy coming off of a career year that’s still on the right side of 30. Most of the FAs at DB were either banged up, on the decline, over 30 or more man press type DBs vs our zone scheme. We’re northwest of Morgantown, a few miles north of 252. Trying to get as far away from city life as possible as my kids age into the prime age for gang recruitment. Having gone through that struggle in Chicago many years ago as a kid, I want nothing to do with any big city. It’s just a breeding ground. We scrounged and saved. Bought 15 acres up here. It’s not much but we get a big garden. Kind of funny being surrounded by old white farmers when you’re black but everyone has been kind and respectful. Old guy that owns the woods next to us comes over from time to time to play poker with us, even mows our field for us, for free. Great guy which if you knew who his great uncle was, you’d be shocked

What the …..

Honestly, I’d offer the second this year and maybe a 3rd from next year.

If we land Snead, I’m gonna be jumping up and down, might cause an earthquake here in Morgantown

As much as Id love to see Ballard do the same thing, history has shown that very very very rarely does going on a super spending spree in FA result in any real gains. The Jags did it many times, and again after they draft Trevor Lawrence. They’ve gone no where. Browns did it several times. Chargers did it with Herbert. all after just one season with their rookie QBs. All of them showed promise so they went all in. meanwhile, teams like the Bills and Chiefs, spent the money more wisely and slowly, albeit that is starting to catch up because of how well they’ve drafted and developed their own while also supplementing with quality FA. This is the model I think Ballard is trying to replicate.

Wow

Yeah prior to losing his starting spot. If that’s still his attitude, then yeah pass

Yeah he wouldn’t be bad to help mentor AR either

I think we’ll look at Jimmy G

Would be hilarious if it was Us

Man I almost freaked out . At first glance I thought it said he had signed a 10 year contract .

I completely agree there. That and adjusting the scheme so that we’re not playing 10 yards off would help

If it’s cheap enough, why does it matter? Again, it’s not like he’s signing another RB to a 10 mil per year contract. people complain about the lack of depth, Ballard signs depth, people complain that he signed said depth. Geeze

Well that chart actually shows the pressure rate in relation to the blitz rate. If you look at the horizontal, we have 32+ percent pressure rate. the vertical shows the blitz rate, we blitzed very rarely. Something I think has to change. But on that same token, it shows that when we did blitz we got pressure 32 percent of the time. this isn’t a chart showing the number of total pressures but rather a chart showing the numbers of pressures we got when we blitzed

Yeah seems every source has it different. PFF shows it at 281 pressures out of 550 pass downs. NFL dot com lists it at 281 out of 1148 total snaps, 554 pass downs NextGen lists it 262 and 550 pass down

Okay. Fair enough. I guess I’m saying is that I don’t understand how we can have 60 sacks, 53 hits, out of 281 pressures. And that be a total bad thing I looked it up, we had 1148 snaps total, that’s passing and running plays combined, on D according to PFF. Of those 1148, we got pressure of some sort 281 times. That’s 24.45 percent. Basically we were gettin in the back field once every 4 snaps. now MOST sites do not show the passing vs run plays the defense faced. However, I decided to pay and found that opposing offenses passed against the Colts a total of 550 times with a completion total of 374 catches. however, I also learned that Pressures do not distinguish between type of plays called against. I also learned that TFL do not count towards pressures even if they are on the RB in the pocket. But a tackle in a scrambling QB out of the pocket with forward progress, doesn’t count as a sack but as a TFL. I find that interesting. anyway, let’s go back. So 550 pass down. We got pressure 281 times… that’s 51 percent. Which on paper, meant we were getting into the pocket every other passing snap. and we converted 21 percent of those into sacks. Btw, we also blitzed just 134 times. Now this would apply to every team in the league for sure. so I spot checked the Ravens cause they were mentioned earlier. Ravens: 1109(including playoffs) total defenses snaps. 624 of those were passing snaps. 285 total pressures. They blitzed 202 times to get them too. 58 sacks. So on passing downs, the Ravens got pressure on 45.67 percent of passing plays. That’s obviously really good(but the Colts were better with less blitzes) But I gotta wonder if we blitzed more, if our numbers wouldn’t be better It also shows that we were ran on more often than the Ravens too…

Okay so then why is everyone saying our pass rush was lower tier in the league. I’m confused

So follow up question, the pressure percentage then would be the total snaps against an Offense vs the total pressures right? So say we played 2810 total snaps, with 281 total pressures, our rate would be 10 percent.(overly simplified for example purposes only) but what if 1400 of those 2800 snaps were running plays where there was no chance to pressure? Do they separate out running plays nonsense passing plays in the pressure percentage?

Okay thank you. That makes a lot more sense now. Much appreciated

More like 5-6