Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Bosa deal done. Burns, are you next?


TheCasillas
 Share

Recommended Posts

I realize how important sacks are.  Sometimes if you have a great defensive on one side, and a good one on the other end ,, then the great one could get home more because of less double teams.. 

Then think of this,   17 games, and lets use a arbitrary number of 25 ,, the QBs throw 25 times a game.  You say that time the 17 game and that's 425 times your GREAT pass rusher  has a shot at the QB .    If he gets 12 sacks a year ,,  that means he gets home   0.028 % of the time.  Or once every 35 times the QB drops back.  

Crazy money for salaries based on "sacks" .    

Gawd I hope my numbers are right lol..  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, csx said:

The same people whining about not wanting to pay him will whine about the result of not paying him.

I mean, we aren't in win now mode.  We are in developing Bryce Young build around him mode.  

If you have a good front office....you should be able to generate pressure in a 3-4 scheme with a well built roster.   Without breaking the bank on any one player IMO.   And it should be a couple years before we are legitimately trying to make a run so we have some time to build up the roster as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for 120+ guaranteed? I'd rather go pay for a proven dominant DT and a dominant pass rusher.    Because you can get 2 for the same price.  Roster management. 

the best DTs have just been signed for 60.  And some of the best pass rushers in the game just signed for less than 60.  Market hasn't been flipped on it's head because of Bosa.  The other Bosa, Garrett, and Mack already were getting stupid 100+ guaranteed. 

end of the day, I'd rather have a well built roster than a handful of studs.  That's always been a Panther problem. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OceanPanther said:

I realize how important sacks are.  Sometimes if you have a great defensive on one side, and a good one on the other end ,, then the great one could get home more because of less double teams.. 

Then think of this,   17 games, and lets use a arbitrary number of 25 ,, the QBs throw 25 times a game.  You say that time the 17 game and that's 425 times your GREAT pass rusher  has a shot at the QB .    If he gets 12 sacks a year ,,  that means he gets home   0.028 % of the time.  Or once every 35 times the QB drops back.  

Crazy money for salaries based on "sacks" .    

Gawd I hope my numbers are right lol..  

that the problem with over emphasizing stats in general, they don’t reflect the actual impact. Pass rushers do more than just get sacks. Just to name a couple other ways they impact, pressures lead to bad throws (incompletions and interceptions). Double teams lead to other players being able to make an impact.  There’s a lot more to it than “they get a sack .028% of the time”.  It’s also why DTs can command high salaries despite usually not getting much on the stat sheet, and why even ones who aren’t Donald are still extremely valuable and expensive despite not showing up on the stat sheet much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

that the problem with over emphasizing stats in general, they don’t reflect the actual impact. Pass rushers do more than just get sacks. Just to name a couple other ways they impact, pressures lead to bad throws (incompletions and interceptions). Double teams lead to other players being able to make an impact.  There’s a lot more to it than “they get a sack .028% of the time”.  It’s also why DTs can command high salaries despite usually not getting much on the stat sheet, and why even ones who aren’t Donald are still extremely valuable and expensive despite not showing up on the stat sheet much. 

I don't disagree with you..  It's why I mentioned , who is playing on the other end of the defensive line determines how many double teams the Great Pass Rusher gets.   There's a lot more than sacks ..  but it seems to be the big stat we constantly hear.   How many teams design plays away from the defensive end,, etc.  But someone in management of these teams finds sacks very important. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

that the problem with over emphasizing stats in general, they don’t reflect the actual impact. Pass rushers do more than just get sacks. Just to name a couple other ways they impact, pressures lead to bad throws (incompletions and interceptions). Double teams lead to other players being able to make an impact.  There’s a lot more to it than “they get a sack .028% of the time”.  It’s also why DTs can command high salaries despite usually not getting much on the stat sheet, and why even ones who aren’t Donald are still extremely valuable and expensive despite not showing up on the stat sheet much. 

well, as a team lead by Burns last year. 

we were bottom half of the league in pressure %, knockdown %, hurry %

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CRA said:

for 120+ guaranteed? I'd rather go pay for a proven dominant DT and a dominant pass rusher.    Because you can get 2 for the same price.  Roster management. 

the best DTs have just been signed for 60.  And some of the best pass rushers in the game just signed for less than 60.  Market hasn't been flipped on it's head because of Bosa.  The other Bosa, Garrett, and Mack already were getting stupid 100+ guaranteed. 

end of the day, I'd rather have a well built roster than a handful of studs.  That's always been a Panther problem. 

 

There's only a few teams with a well built roster. 49ers and Eagles come to mind.

 

That's what happens when you draft well every year. You simply have to pay your elite stars on your team. Burns happens to be the best player on the team. Pay him and get it over with. We are in no position to lose our best player right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CRA said:

well, as a team lead by Burns last year. 

we were bottom half of the league in pressure %, knockdown %, hurry %

 

I would argue the team was lead by Rhule. Just like the years our offense was bad under Cam wasn’t because he’s not a great QB. There’s only so much that players can compensate for shitty leadership. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

 

There's only a few teams with a well built roster. 49ers and Eagles come to mind.

 

That's what happens when you draft well every year. You simply have to pay your elite stars on your team. Burns happens to be the best player on the team. Pay him and get it over with. We are in no position to lose our best player right now.

I would say there are a lot more than 2 well built rosters in the NFL. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...