Quote
Blue and Gold
Quote
zn
First off the difference between pressure on 39% v. 32% of plays is as substantial. On their numbers, In the 2 games in question its a difference of 4 plays. I think any coach, if told that they could increase pressures by 7.5% by doing this or that, would not simply scoff at it. Or for that matter, to use a different number, if the Rams were told if you do x you would increase scoring by 7.5%, that would mean they would go from 28.9 points a game to 31 points a game, which would surpass the Eagles, who were first with 29. So yes it;s a substantial number in context.
But that's not that important.
I presented it as one among many such claims. That is, the claim being that Donald's play had a clear impact on the defense as a whole. The simplest response is to ask if that's correct--not the exact PFF numbers, but the fact. Does the Rams pressure increase with Donald playing v. not. Anyone who watched a lot of games ought to be prepared to answer that with a simple yes or no, whether they agree with PFF numbers or not...since the issue isn't PFF, it's Donald. So is it yes or no? I think the obvious answer is yes. Which is why Wade;s praise for Donald is not just empty hyperbole.
Which is why I left YOU out of it. It was about PFF. And everything I said about the numbers is accurate. Before their summation can be accepted there needs to be more info because the difference isn's great enough to be valid because Indy and SF may have run difference plays. And in game 16 when there were hardly any starters (as opposed to game 1) there may have been more of a difference in one game as opposed to the others.
And you bring up something I forgot, they do an analysis of the 2 games but they don't mention the plays he's off the field and the rotational DL is in.
Is there a difference there? Is that difference consistent with the difference they present from game 1 and game 16?
PFF, in this particular analysis, is doing shoddy work, which they often do and any differences cannot be accepted as substantial until all other variables are accounted for such as protections, (5-. 6-. 7-man) and the like.
As I said, this is an example of PFF's Shoddy work
That's fine if you think that, but the claim is still valid, and they are not the only ones to make it. That is, the claim is simple: Donald has a significant impact on the defense as a whole and that can be measured or discussed in any number of ways.
(Which is not about me, it's about the real point.)
If PFF were alone in declaring that Donald had an impact--whether you measure that quantitatively or qualitatively through simple game analysis---then, that's a big deal. If not, then, they're just one bunch among others saying that.
If someone were to try to claim that Donald DIDN'T have a measureable and clear impact on the Rams defense overall, I would say they were wrong.
So for me the issue is Donald.
...