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

2 hours 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:

https://www.myajc.com/sports/football/beasley-comfortable-with-strongside-linebacker-role/qb0NnLyBIvWDChHfWvZprJ/

Quote

In addition to the [15.5] sacks, Beasley led the team with 16.5 quarterback hits and 33.5 hurries last season. Totaled with his sacks, he affected the quarterback on 65.5 plays and was named first-team All-Pro.

You're being ridiculous about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Beef said:

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.

Which I hope is the case but still hypothetical at this moment. If I'm not not mistaken that year he lead the year in sacks he had a very low amount of tackles. It's just seems like, whether injury or positioning, that we don't get the full package from vic. (and before you go there I'm not saying he can't, he's only in his 4th year) but again to me and others not everyone is convinced he's that guy like von is for Denver. And that's not saying he needs to be a world beater  but there are talents that are above excuses and circumstance that just ball out, and thats what I want out of vic. Or atleast consistent enough to make me feel better about the fo paying him when his time has come. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Beef said:

After rereading the quote you chose what's the point of the article, not even the same year we're talking about? 

In that 15.5 sack season do we really need to go back and nit pick every sack and see just really how many were sacks and meaningful ones or Gabe changers? If not and you say that it doesn't matter sacks are sacks, then you've literally made my point for me.. You guys are arguing the wrong message here.. 

Share this post


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

After rereading the quote you chose what's the point of the article, not even the same year we're talking about? 

In that 15.5 sack season do we really need to go back and nit pick every sack and see just really how many were sacks and meaningful ones or Gabe changers? If not and you say that it doesn't matter sacks are sacks, then you've literally made my point for me.. You guys are arguing the wrong message here.. 

65.5 pressures on around 470 pass rushing snaps is a pressure rate of around 14%.

That's huge.  I mean that is a ridiculous pressure percentage.

Just to put it in perspective, Von Miller played 846 snaps last season.  Probably 600 of those pass rushing snaps.  He totalled 84 pressures.  That's a pressure rate of........ check this out.... 14%.

If you don't think Beasley was effecting games, you're just crazy.

 

Last year was an anomaly.  He played nearly 200 run snaps and only 280 pass rushing snaps, and had a bum hamstring for a portion of that time.  And still racked up just under 40 pressures (38/280 = 13.6%).

Give Beasley 500+ pass rushing snaps while 100% healthy and he's going to effect games at a high rate.

Share this post


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

65.5 pressures on around 470 pass rushing snaps is a pressure rate of around 14%.

That's huge.  I mean that is a ridiculous pressure percentage.

Just to put it in perspective, Von Miller played 846 snaps last season.  Probably 600 of those pass rushing snaps.  He totalled 84 pressures.  That's a pressure rate of........ check this out.... 14%.

If you don't think Beasley was effecting games, you're just crazy.

 

Last year was an anomaly.  He played nearly 200 run snaps and only 280 pass rushing snaps, and had a bum hamstring for a portion of that time.  And still racked up just under 40 pressures (38/280 = 13.6%).

Give Beasley 500+ pass rushing snaps while 100% healthy and he's going to effect games at a high rate.

Preach 

Tim Mazetti, atljbo and Ergo Proxy like this

Share this post


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

65.5 pressures on around 470 pass rushing snaps is a pressure rate of around 14%.

That's huge.  I mean that is a ridiculous pressure percentage.

Just to put it in perspective, Von Miller played 846 snaps last season.  Probably 600 of those pass rushing snaps.  He totalled 84 pressures.  That's a pressure rate of........ check this out.... 14%.

If you don't think Beasley was effecting games, you're just crazy.

 

Last year was an anomaly.  He played nearly 200 run snaps and only 280 pass rushing snaps, and had a bum hamstring for a portion of that time.  And still racked up just under 40 pressures (38/280 = 13.6%).

Give Beasley 500+ pass rushing snaps while 100% healthy and he's going to effect games at a high rate.

Again still arguing the wrong point, just as you're saying vics sacks and pressure were meaningful all I'm saying is so we're clays 9.5 regardless if 6 were in one game. Thats literally the argument. 

BUT IF WE ARE going to start weighing when in the game and momentum changing then we can do the same for vic, and other rushers on this and other teams. 

Which is why I said thats a slippery slope and it's better to just leave it a 'all sacks matter'. Which in turn means we need to credit Clay more than the first two pages of this post were giving him.. 

 

THAT'S IT.. 

So if you want to argue anything that I just said then you can just reread this entire thread cuz it's been argued already my guy

Share this post


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

65.5 pressures on around 470 pass rushing snaps is a pressure rate of around 14%.

That's huge.  I mean that is a ridiculous pressure percentage.

Just to put it in perspective, Von Miller played 846 snaps last season.  Probably 600 of those pass rushing snaps.  He totalled 84 pressures.  That's a pressure rate of........ check this out.... 14%.

If you don't think Beasley was effecting games, you're just crazy.

 

Last year was an anomaly.  He played nearly 200 run snaps and only 280 pass rushing snaps, and had a bum hamstring for a portion of that time.  And still racked up just under 40 pressures (38/280 = 13.6%).

Give Beasley 500+ pass rushing snaps while 100% healthy and he's going to effect games at a high rate.

And where are you getting the 'probly 600 rushing'? Is there a link or on actual graphic showing these figures? 

Share this post


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

And where are you getting the 'probly 600 rushing'? Is there a link or on actual graphic showing these figures? 

It's just a mathematical deduction.  Denver played 1,012 total defensive snaps.  The average pass/run ratio in the NFL is around 60/40.  So just assuming when you're Von Miller, you're probably playing every passing snap against your defense.

Even if Miller only played 500, 84/500 = 16.8%.  Beasley still wouldn't be far behind.

So either way, 14% pressure rate is really good.  His 13% rate last year was still really good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Beef said:

It's just a mathematical deduction.  Denver played 1,012 total defensive snaps.  The average pass/run ratio in the NFL is around 60/40.  So just assuming when you're Von Miller, you're probably playing every passing snap against your defense.

Even if Miller only played 500, 84/500 = 16.8%.  Beasley still wouldn't be far behind.

So either way, 14% pressure rate is really good.  His 13% rate last year was still really good.

Gotcha but again I'm not knocking. But just as youre arguing the importance of every sack and pressure why does clay not get the same for all 9.5, regardless of the 6in1? Just like vic I'm sure clay had pressures and other contributions and deflections and so forth. So why does he not get the same respect.. Again that's literally my argument and you guys make my point more and more giving these stats showing it all adds up.. Tha s what I mean you guys are arguing the wrong point, because I'm not here arguing against vic, just saying clays sacks were either just as important or unimportant as anyone else's.. So throw some respect on a 6 sack game 

Share this post


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

Gotcha but again I'm not knocking. But just as youre arguing the importance of every sack and pressure why does clay not get the same for all 9.5, regardless of the 6in1? Just like vic I'm sure clay had pressures and other contributions and deflections and so forth. So why does he not get the same respect.. Again that's literally my argument and you guys make my point more and more giving these stats showing it all adds up.. Tha s what I mean you guys are arguing the wrong point, because I'm not here arguing against vic, just saying clays sacks were either just as important or unimportant as anyone else's.. So throw some respect on a 6 sack game 

Because Beasley had sacks in 9 games while Clayborn only had them in 5?

Beasley had 6 forced fumbles and a strip sack TD, Clayborn had 2 forced fumbles and his 1 fumble recovery TD that was from a Beasley strip sack?

Beasley had 39 tackles, 32 of which were solo, 11 tackles for loss.  Clayborn had 21 tackles, 17 solo, 8 tackles for loss?

 

I mean I don't know what to tell ya, bro.  The production just isn't the same, period.  It's that simple.

I'm not really sure what you're even trying to argue anymore.  Clayborn isn't as good as Vic.  This isn't even a question.

 

McKinley is a pressure machine.  Played around 250 pass rushing snaps and got 6 sacks in 6 different games, plus 10 QB hits, and over 25 hurries.

Plus 20 tackles, 15 solo, and 10 of those were tackles for loss, and 2 forced fumbles.

So as a rookie, he played about 30% less snaps than Clayborn and yet put up nearly the same numbers.

 

Brooks Reed put up 39 tackles and 4 sacks on similar snap counts as McKinley.  Except played a bit more run downs than passing downs, however.

 

Beasley and McKinley will very likely both put up between 8-12 sacks this year if they stay healthy.  Reed and Campbell may see some more pass rush snaps as well.  We will be just fine without Clayborn.

Vandy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Dirtybird3 said:

Gotcha but again I'm not knocking. But just as youre arguing the importance of every sack and pressure why does clay not get the same for all 9.5, regardless of the 6in1? Just like vic I'm sure clay had pressures and other contributions and deflections and so forth. So why does he not get the same respect.. Again that's literally my argument and you guys make my point more and more giving these stats showing it all adds up.. Tha s what I mean you guys are arguing the wrong point, because I'm not here arguing against vic, just saying clays sacks were either just as important or unimportant as anyone else's.. So throw some respect on a 6 sack game 

You realize that DQ wasn't impressed enough with a 6 sack game to keep Clayborn around, right?

Tim Mazetti likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, falconidae said:

 

You realize that DQ wasn't impressed enough with a 6 sack game to keep Clayborn around, right?

That was a ZING!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, falconidae said:

 

You realize that DQ wasn't impressed enough with a 6 sack game to keep Clayborn around, right?

So then he wasn't impressed with Poe then either right? Or value him enough either to try and keep him, that's a dumb rebuttle tbh bro. Teams let players go in fa all the time, we're going to have to live with letting Teco go in a year or two of you wanna be real, you saying dq doesn't value him? 

Vandy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dirtybird3 said:

So then he wasn't impressed with Poe then either right? Or value him enough either to try and keep him, that's a dumb rebuttle tbh bro. Teams let players go in fa all the time, we're going to have to live with letting Teco go in a year or two of you wanna be real, you saying dq doesn't value him? 

No, I'm saying that he didn't think Clayborn was worth a 10 mil contract or that Poe was worth a 27 mil contract.

And no one was saying the 6 sacks didn't matter just that there was no reason to think he was now a 10 sack a year guy because he got 9.5 sacks last year.

And that you shouldn't overpay him just because of that one game. Which is exactly what happened, he got overpaid based on that one game, just wasn't the Falcons doing it.

Clayborn's career total for sacks per year 7.5, 0, 5.5, 0, 3, 4.5, 9.5. It's possible that he averages 10 sacks a year for the next 2 years, much more likely that he'll get 3-5 sacks a year those years.

Tim Mazetti likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth... Clayborn was a good rotational DE... Also Poe was a good solid run stopping DT that caused some push up front .... If we could afford it i would have liked to have kept both but i didnt see either as core piece....

 

To me Poe is not worth 9 mil a year ...I think Clay is worth the mil a year but with the snaps he probably would have gotten (Takk and Beasley taking up most of the snaps) ... It just wasnt worth it

Tim Mazetti likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, falconidae said:

No, I'm saying that he didn't think Clayborn was worth a 10 mil contract or that Poe was worth a 27 mil contract.

And no one was saying the 6 sacks didn't matter just that there was no reason to think he was now a 10 sack a year guy because he got 9.5 sacks last year.

And that you shouldn't overpay him just because of that one game. Which is exactly what happened, he got overpaid based on that one game, just wasn't the Falcons doing it.

Clayborn's career total for sacks per year 7.5, 0, 5.5, 0, 3, 4.5, 9.5. It's possible that he averages 10 sacks a year for the next 2 years, much more likely that he'll get 3-5 sacks a year those years.

Just curious .....You really think $5M a year is a overpay of Clayborn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Beef said:

65.5 pressures on around 470 pass rushing snaps is a pressure rate of around 14%.

That's huge.  I mean that is a ridiculous pressure percentage.

Just to put it in perspective, Von Miller played 846 snaps last season.  Probably 600 of those pass rushing snaps.  He totalled 84 pressures.  That's a pressure rate of........ check this out.... 14%.

If you don't think Beasley was effecting games, you're just crazy.

 

Last year was an anomaly.  He played nearly 200 run snaps and only 280 pass rushing snaps, and had a bum hamstring for a portion of that time.  And still racked up just under 40 pressures (38/280 = 13.6%).

Give Beasley 500+ pass rushing snaps while 100% healthy and he's going to effect games at a high rate.

Fascinating how everything evens out over time....2016 he had an abnormal high sack rate based on pressures......last year it was low statistically......

I'm looking for 9-10 sacks out of Beasley this year.....

falconidae, Beef and Ergo Proxy like this

Share this post


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

Just curious .....You really think $5M a year is a overpay of Clayborn?

Aside from the 6 sack game, he averaged about 3.5 sacks a year as a falcon, I'm thinking that's more likely next year than 10 sacks, 1.5 mil a sack seems high to me.

Tim Mazetti likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, falconidae said:

Aside from the 6 sack game, he averaged about 3.5 sacks a year as a falcon, I'm thinking that's more likely next year than 10 sacks, 1.5 mil a sack seems high to me.

Interesting way of looking at it.

BB apparently likes him. maybe because he brings more to the table than just sacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, falconidae said:

Aside from the 6 sack game, he averaged about 3.5 sacks a year as a falcon, I'm thinking that's more likely next year than 10 sacks, 1.5 mil a sack seems high to me.

Clayborn at 5 mil a year is an awesome deal. Look around the leauge and see what guys are getting paid especially in FA. 5 mil doesn't by you much anymore. 

At worst Clayborn is a valueable #3 pass rusher who provides good run D. He was 3rd in the leauge in 4th quarter pressures last season. So while his sack total might have been inflated its not like he wasn't bringing getting after the QB, especially late in games.

Vandy likes this

Share this post


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

Interesting way of looking at it.

BB apparently likes him. maybe because he brings more to the table than just sacks?

Ya know, I was exaggerating in my earlier post, tried to defend it with the one you're responding to, and now , rather than get a  convoluted nonsense defense going....

I was wrong about 5 mil being unreasonable for Clayborn. Do think it's a little high for him, but it's hardly unreasonable, esp. the way the Pats constructed the contract, protecting themselves against injury.

Vandy and Tim Mazetti like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, falconidae said:

Ya know, I was exaggerating in my earlier post, tried to defend it with the one you're responding to, and now , rather than get a  convoluted nonsense defense going....

I was wrong about 5 mil being unreasonable for Clayborn. Do think it's a little high for him, but it's hardly unreasonable, esp. the way the Pats constructed the contract, protecting themselves against injury.

No worries man, I just wondered why. I like how he plays the run as well as getting an occasional sack. The key for him is staying healthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites