Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

falconidae

Snap counts for the 2017 Falcons and the replacement for the top 4 snap counts missing from last year

187 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Vandy said:

He had a sack against 11-5 rams in last year's playoffs....

Oh yea the one where Goff fell down a yard in front on the LOS???? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dirtybird3 said:

Beez was played in the same role the year before that as well. I'm saying that Duke being injured was not the reason his numbers dipped. Duke was out 3 games last year lol. His numbers the year before looked high, again due to playing well against lesser opponents and garbage time. So its easy to say **** have another bounce back year after falling off, but you had other guys to eat up attention amd still didn't perform like we needed him too, in his lb or line position. 

Look we can go on about this, create another thread about it gah **** but it's still not gone change the fact that even vic 'league leading' year he still is not yet the rusher we drafted him to be period.. And no regular season sack you point out is gonna change my stance on that. 

He did not play LB his rookie year. He played LEO on the right side of the D. He played the position Reed plays now. Which is a hybrid. 2016 he moved to LDE. He played SLB a FEW times that year but he primarily played LDE. Last year he straight up played SLB after Riley got hurt and Campbell went back to WLB. 

Ergo Proxy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 1:32 PM, falcons007 said:

DQ doesn’t play rookies.. so few rookie snap counts. 

He didn't have any problem starting 4 rookies on defense all season the year the Falcons made the Super Bowl.

Geneaut and TheFatboi like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dirtybird3 said:

Oh yea the one where Goff fell down a yard in front on the LOS???? 

stop!!! Lol. Goff fell because he knew the play was dead. Why take the hit? If he didn’t go down he takes an unnecessary hit from Beasley. Smart qb’s will go down in no win situations. Matt does it too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dirtybird3 said:

Beez was played in the same role the year before that as well. I'm saying that Duke being injured was not the reason his numbers dipped. Duke was out 3 games last year lol. His numbers the year before looked high, again due to playing well against lesser opponents and garbage time. So its easy to say **** have another bounce back year after falling off, but you had other guys to eat up attention amd still didn't perform like we needed him too, in his lb or line position. 

Look we can go on about this, create another thread about it gah **** but it's still not gone change the fact that even vic 'league leading' year he still is not yet the rusher we drafted him to be period.. And no regular season sack you point out is gonna change my stance on that. 

Duke being injured ABSOLUTELY affected Beasley. Because it forced Quinn to move Campbell back to WLB. And with the injuries to Reynolds and other LB’s on IR who was gonna Play SLB?? Beasley. BUT because the defense tightened up with Campbell back at WLB Quinn didn’t rock the boat and kept him there and regulated Riley to ST’s. So YES!!! The Riley injury directly impacted the decision to move Beasley tk SLB because Campbell was the starting SLB at the beginning of the season. 

falconidae and Ergo Proxy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheFatboi said:

He did not play LB his rookie year. He played LEO on the right side of the D. He played the position Reed plays now. Which is a hybrid. 2016 he moved to LDE. He played SLB a FEW times that year but he primarily played LDE. Last year he straight up played SLB after Riley got hurt and Campbell went back to WLB. 

Duke was 3 games, which were latter games in the year. Yes he was injured, but he has been since he's been drafted. Yet even still with Poe and Grady and camp and takk taking up attention that'd he still eat, but he hasn't when it matters. And it's not just vic but when you're the 1st round pic more is put on your shoulders. And to this point I'm certainly not comfortable paying him as a top tier rusher like I feel the fo will pay him like.. So again out of position or not, its gonna take more than a 'standout year', that I don't feel was as hyped as its being made out to be, to convince me he's our guy for the future. 

Dq has work to do and I trust him but right here right now vic in my eye is not the guy I wanna pay 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TheFatboi said:

stop!!! Lol. Goff fell because he knew the play was dead. Why take the hit? If he didn’t go down he takes an unnecessary hit from Beasley. Smart qb’s will go down in no win situations. Matt does it too. 

Interpret the play how you want but the play was dead like you said and he fell, just like vic did to start the play. The field was azz.. So again your basing your argument of that sack lmaoo really? Vic was a devastating force against that lineman so much that he gets pushed back 5 yards and into better position tbh to defend Goff that he gets so scared and falls down to end the drive.. Get outta here if thats the defense you wanna rely on for the next 6 years haha.. What else did you see from vic that game? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dirtybird3 said:

Duke was 3 games, which were latter games in the year. Yes he was injured, but he has been since he's been drafted. Yet even still with Poe and Grady and camp and takk taking up attention that'd he still eat, but he hasn't when it matters. And it's not just vic but when you're the 1st round pic more is put on your shoulders. And to this point I'm certainly not comfortable paying him as a top tier rusher like I feel the fo will pay him like.. So again out of position or not, its gonna take more than a 'standout year', that I don't feel was as hyped as its being made out to be, to convince me he's our guy for the future. 

Dq has work to do and I trust him but right here right now vic in my eye is not the guy I wanna pay 

He didn’t play that many snaps with Takk. And you also don’t take into account that he had a nagging injury all year.  

Either way Beasley has 24.5 sacks in 3 years. You realize Beasley is already top 20 in sacks in Falcons history after 3 years? That’s how bad the Falcons have been historically with pass rushers. I’m not saying make him the highest payed pass rusher in the league but I certainly don’t want to lose him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TheFatboi said:

Duke being injured ABSOLUTELY affected Beasley. Because it forced Quinn to move Campbell back to WLB. And with the injuries to Reynolds and other LB’s on IR who was gonna Play SLB?? Beasley. BUT because the defense tightened up with Campbell back at WLB Quinn didn’t rock the boat and kept him there and regulated Riley to ST’s. So YES!!! The Riley injury directly impacted the decision to move Beasley tk SLB because Campbell was the starting SLB at the beginning of the season. 

Even with missing 4 games he played 21% of snaps in defense.. So not much of his time needed to be eatin up be vic. But just because he wasn't on the line doesn't mean he had no pass rush opportunities. He had 5 sacks last year.. His league leading year you reference so much he was a lb Leo off the line whatever you wanna classify it as well. So AGAIN if you feel vic is your guy then go right ahead but you not changing my mind g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Dirtybird3 said:

Oh yea the one where Goff fell down a yard in front on the LOS???? 

Everything counts...Defense/Beasley held the rams to 13 points on their home field. 

Ergo Proxy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, falconsfan4life3 said:

He didn’t play that many snaps with Takk. And you also don’t take into account that he had a nagging injury all year.  

Either way Beasley has 24.5 sacks in 3 years. You realize Beasley is already top 20 in sacks in Falcons history after 3 years? That’s how bad the Falcons have been historically with pass rushers. I’m not saying make him the highest payed pass rusher in the league but I certainly don’t want to lose him. 

The second sentence literally mentioned vic being injured and him being injured since he's been drafted. The shoukder has always been a nagger I know that and agree. And I never made the point that I want to lose him either, none of this was ever knocking vic. Just simply comparing Clay 6 sacks against a sheet line and vic league leading sacks against lesser lines and garbage time. So if we're gonna clap for vic then clap for clay, and that's what I was tryna explain to people on the first page of this post and then it gets taken here on a whole other argument.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vandy said:

Everything counts...Defense/Beasley held the rams to 13 points on their home field. 

Bro and that's exactly the fawking point I've been trying to you two this entire post!! Everything counts sacks are sacks, so the same way you're arguing with me that beez sacks are so great and game changing then start quoting people throwing away clays 6 sack game, which is what I've been trying to do for 2 days now. I didn't come on here knocking vic, I cane out here to credit Clay the same way we do vic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dirtybird3 said:

Bro and that's exactly the fawking point I've been trying to you two this entire post!! Everything counts sacks are sacks, so the same way you're arguing with me that beez sacks are so great and game changing then start quoting people throwing away clays 6 sack game, which is what I've been trying to do for 2 days now. I didn't come on here knocking vic, I cane out here to credit Clay the same way we do vic. 

But wtf is throwing away the 6 sacks?? THEY IMPACTED THE GOT D@MN GAME!!! PERIOD!!! No sack Cam ne taken for granted. No pressure. No hurry. No ff. The only thing I’m really seeing ppl talking about is the 6 sack performance was an anomaly to his career. That’s it. And it was. A six sack game is an anomaly to ANYBODY’s career because they don’t happen often. Multi sack games happen to good players. Beasley has had a few of those already. ALL the greats ate off of weaker opponents. That’s how you pad your stats. And you battle the worthy opponents. What great DE dominated Larry Allen? Greatness works on both sides of the ball man. Again, there were games Reggie white was held to 0 sacks against worthy opponents. It’s going to happen. I’m still not understanding your argument. Just seems like you’re Beasley bashing to me. Which is your right but the argument just doesn’t make sense. Everybody knows Beasley was playing SLB and in COVERGE when he normally would’ve been rushing. This is common knowledge. He didn’t have the rush opportunities like 2016. Facts. You still haven’t shown proof of a Great that took over a game by dominating another great tackle and his team won the game. Those types of battles are epic. And truth be told a great tackle is gonna beat a great DE in a game more than the opposite. When is the Great DE is held to 1 sack the tackle won the battle. Now if he got pushed around and disrupted the qb all game the DE won. And that happens too. Sack or no sack. 

Vandy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dirtybird3 said:

Bro and that's exactly the fawking point I've been trying to you two this entire post!! Everything counts sacks are sacks, so the same way you're arguing with me that beez sacks are so great and game changing then start quoting people throwing away clays 6 sack game, which is what I've been trying to do for 2 days now. I didn't come on here knocking vic, I cane out here to credit Clay the same way we do vic. 

And you've got me mixed up with someone else. I've never argued Clayton's sacks should be thrown away or taking for granted. I'm the guy who says sacks come in waves for all pass rusher. And even taking away his Dallas game, he played good football last year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TheFatboi said:

But wtf is throwing away the 6 sacks?? THEY IMPACTED THE GOT D@MN GAME!!! PERIOD!!! No sack Cam ne taken for granted. No pressure. No hurry. No ff. The only thing I’m really seeing ppl talking about is the 6 sack performance was an anomaly to his career. That’s it. And it was. A six sack game is an anomaly to ANYBODY’s career because they don’t happen often. Multi sack games happen to good players. Beasley has had a few of those already. ALL the greats ate off of weaker opponents. That’s how you pad your stats. And you battle the worthy opponents. What great DE dominated Larry Allen? Greatness works on both sides of the ball man. Again, there were games Reggie white was held to 0 sacks against worthy opponents. It’s going to happen. I’m still not understanding your argument. Just seems like you’re Beasley bashing to me. Which is your right but the argument just doesn’t make sense. Everybody knows Beasley was playing SLB and in COVERGE when he normally would’ve been rushing. This is common knowledge. He didn’t have the rush opportunities like 2016. Facts. You still haven’t shown proof of a Great that took over a game by dominating another great tackle and his team won the game. Those types of battles are epic. And truth be told a great tackle is gonna beat a great DE in a game more than the opposite. When is the Great DE is held to 1 sack the tackle won the battle. Now if he got pushed around and disrupted the qb all game the DE won. And that happens too. Sack or no sack. 

Again that's throwing away 6 sacks, so anything over 3 sacks a game is an anomonly or where do we cross the line? So it's padding the stats if you're an all time great in the HOF but if you're clayborn then it's unworldly?? Again if you're gonna credit vic for getting his sacks against lesser opponents then why are you doing the opposite for Clay just because he got more in a game than vic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dirtybird3 said:

Bro and that's exactly the fawking point I've been trying to you two this entire post!! Everything counts sacks are sacks, so the same way you're arguing with me that beez sacks are so great and game changing then start quoting people throwing away clays 6 sack game, which is what I've been trying to do for 2 days now. I didn't come on here knocking vic, I cane out here to credit Clay the same way we do vic. 

Ok while the rest of the world waits on another Clayborn 6 sack game, everyone else will appreciate Vic and Takk each combing for over 20 at least; while AC struggles to hit 6 for the season in NE.:tiphat:

Jerz #Quinning likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vandy said:

And you've got me mixed up with someone else. I've never argued Clayton's sacks should be thrown away. Even taking away his Dallas game, he played good football last year. 

I'm not saying you made the point against Clay but my responses to that argument are what you and the other guy started responding to. So yes its two separate arguments now. The initial one I had to the other poster that sacks are sacks regardless if clay got a chunk in one game so give credit to him like we do vic. Then this argument started on the validity of all vics sacks and how impactful they really were/werent. 

 

I agreed that vic was out of position, hurt, what have you. But STILL to me and alot of people we have not seen the production or impact or force may be a better word that we would want from our star. (Not saying he can't get there but at this point some people aren't convinced) 

Vandy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ergo Proxy said:

Ok while the rest of the world waits on another Clayborn 6 sack game, everyone else will appreciate Vic and Takk each combing for over 20 at least; while AC struggles to hit 6 for the season in NE.:tiphat:

Again, that's not the point being made, I don't care that 6 came in one Gabe or expect it to happen. All that's being argued is that if we're gonna take away from clays day because it was a weak line then we need to take away from vics too because some of his, just as all rushers are, came against weaker opponents or situations where he should of shined.. 

:tiphat::tiphat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dirtybird3 said:

I'm not saying you made the point against Clay but my responses to that argument are what you and the other guy started responding to. So yes its two separate arguments now. The initial one I had to the other poster that sacks are sacks regardless if clay got a chunk in one game so give credit to him like we do vic. Then this argument started on the validity of all vics sacks and how impactful they really were/werent. 

 

I agreed that vic was out of position, hurt, what have you. But STILL to me and alot of people we have not seen the production or impact or force may be a better word that we would want from our star. (Not saying he can't get there but at this point some people aren't convinced) 

Okay, I get you. 

Dirtybird3 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dirtybird3 said:

Again, that's not the point being made, I don't care that 6 came in one Gabe or expect it to happen. All that's being argued is that if we're gonna take away from clays day because it was a weak line then we need to take away from vics too because some of his, just as all rushers are, came against weaker opponents or situations where he should of shined.. 

:tiphat::tiphat:

Oh, I personally don't need to take it away. I simply know for a fact Takk and Vic are superior players. You don't need partial truth debates to argue that. Takk and Vic are better full time pass rushers than AC; if not for anything but their age and upside.

It won't be hard for them to eat most of the top 3 combined DE snaps in rush situations last year. The concern will be health above all. Rest is not a problem. Takk wasn't taken to replace Vic but to replace AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ergo Proxy said:

Oh, I personally don't need to take it away. I simply know for a fact Takk and Vic are superior players. You don't need partial truth debates to argue that. Takk and Vic are better full time pass rushers than AC; if not for anything but their age and upside.

It won't be hard for them to eat most of the top 3 combined DE snaps in rush situations last year. The concern will be health above all. Rest is not a problem. Takk wasn't taken to replace Vic but to replace AC.

 

(where did I say in any of my comments clay was better than either of those? Since I know I didn't none of this response is really needed but here it goes anyway) 

Lol and again bro back to my first comments, I stated takk will certainly be that replacement,and want him to be. I'd rather pay takk after 1 year vs vic after 3. But again that's not the discussion about who's replacing who or whatnot. The point being discussed between me and the initial gentleman was clays sacks came against a **** line, as has vics. So why doesn't he get credit as well, regardless if 6 sack a game doesn't happen ever? So that means we dismiss it when it does, that makes no sense. Now I'm not saying he's gonna do this every year but doesn't mean we get to view it as anything different as a feat as we would other rushers. He still went out and got 6 **** sacks. Regardless of what line or position vic hasn't done it has he? So you can jump into the argument at the end all you want but you're arguing things already discussed or not even part or this argument.. 

ALL SACKS MATTER!! 

Vandy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might as well call this thread Sack Lives Matter...

As for the actual point of thread, the team seems to have improved this offseason.  Even if there is some regression in the defense, the offense and special teams improved, so that can be made up. Personally, I don't think the D regresses.

The Takk and Beasley edge duo with Grady/Crawford/McClain/Senat rotation inside should at the very least maintain the DL production of last year, with a chance to improve if Takk keeps progressing and finishes more of those pressures. The only problem I have is with the LB corps.  If Riley stays healthy, did he improve enough for that to matter? He wasn't lighting it up before his injury, and he wasn't stellar in his return (though who knows if that is being only 4 weeks post-op on a meniscus surgery).  You would hope he would be coached up, but the last thing this D needs is him to falter out of the gate and get Beasley rotating back into the LB corps more than planned.  

I do think we will see more coverage sacks this year than in years past. I am pretty interested in seeing Alford more in the nickle if that is the plan.  He seems great at reading QB's eyes, and letting him roam a bit more could be dangerous.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dirtybird3 said:

Beez was played in the same role the year before that as well. I'm saying that Duke being injured was not the reason his numbers dipped. Duke was out 3 games last year lol. His numbers the year before looked high, again due to playing well against lesser opponents and garbage time. So its easy to say **** have another bounce back year after falling off, but you had other guys to eat up attention amd still didn't perform like we needed him too, in his lb or line position. 

Look we can go on about this, create another thread about it gah **** but it's still not gone change the fact that even vic 'league leading' year he still is not yet the rusher we drafted him to be period.. And no regular season sack you point out is gonna change my stance on that. 

Beasley played about 100 snaps at SAM in our Base, most of which were run plays.  He then played around 383 snaps in Nickel/Subs, of which probably ~30% were run plays.

So we're talking only about 270-280 pass rushing snaps for his entire 2017 season (don't forget he missed almost 2.5 games), a good portion of which were on a tender hamstring.

In 2016, he played less SAM and running down snaps, plus nearly 200 more total snaps (671 vs 483).

The Falcons faced 655 passing plays in regular season 2016.  Beasley played at least 470-480 of those.

In other words, he played around 200 more pass rushing snaps in 2016 than he did 2017.

Add to this he wasn't 100% after that hammy injury, and it's pretty clear 2017 isn't indicative of Beasley's norm.  We give him 450+ pass rushing snaps when he's healthy and he's likely to double his 2017 sack and pressure numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites