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!

     

Question regarding tackling stats


Black

Recommended Posts

So on NFL.com, Beason is credited with 142 tackles, but yesterday on the news, the story was about how he set the new Panther record with 169 tackles. I'm pretty sure tackles are not actually an official stat, but how could there be a 17 tackle difference?

Either way, monster Pro Bowl snub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from Sando's blog on ESPN

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcsouth/post/_/id/7028/beason-tackles-team-record-again

Now, a word about tackle totals. They’re kind of a difficult stat because the NFL doesn’t count tackles as an official statistic and you’ll probably see several different tackle totals out there for Beason. Some teams go off of game-day statistics and some teams rely on their coaches to provide numbers after they view film.

Neither way is perfect because the stat crews on game day don’t have the luxury of slowing down film. Assistant coaches, at times, can be a little too generous with crediting their players. One thing I’ll say about the Panthers during the John Fox regime is that their coaches have been pretty good about not inflating numbers.

That’s not always the case everywhere. The best example I can give you is from the Buccaneers back in the Sam Wyche days when it seemed like Hardy Nickerson was getting credited with about 400 tackles every year. The running joke in the local media back then was that Nickerson was so good he’d give you 12 tackles on Sunday and another dozen Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe NFL.com only counts solo tackles?

No.

Thanks Cpanthers5851.

I wonder why they track the stat and use it to determine top defenders if it isn't an official stat? My guess is because on many plays who actually creates the tackle can be difficult to determine. Or that blogger is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...