RR doing a good job with the D

[rico6]

18 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Actually using ypg  surrendered as your standard his defense have been ranked:

2011- 28th

2012 - 10th

2013- 2nd

2014- 10th

2015- 6th

2016- 15th

2017- 7th

2018- 15th

That is five times in top 10 and 2 more in the top 15th.  Not sure what you are using but the NFL standard has always been ranked by total yards surrendered.

Wasn’t 2016 the year that the secondary was ranked dead last, though? Or at least bottom 20? Something is off with that

[TheSpecialJuan]

yay

[onmyown]

21 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Actually using ypg  surrendered as your standard his defense have been ranked:

2011- 28th

2012 - 10th

2013- 2nd

2014- 10th

2015- 6th

2016- 15th

2017- 7th

2018- 15th

That is five times in top 10 and 2 more in the top 15th.  Not sure what you are using but the NFL standard has always been ranked by total yards surrendered.

I was using pro football reference which does not use yards surrendered as the only stat.

Using only yards surrendered has a lot of fallacies I believe...which I’m sure you can imagine what they could be.

Any ranking system will have them.

[panthers55]

7 minutes ago, rico6 said:

Wasn’t 2016 the year that the secondary was ranked dead last, though? Or at least bottom 20? Something is off with that

You have to look at passing stats in context. If you are number 1 against the run you are likely going to be much lower against the pass given teams will throw all day. Few teams are tops in running and passing defense at the same time.

[rico6]

1 minute ago, panthers55 said:

You have to look at passing stats in context. If you are number 1 against the run you are likely going to be much lower against the pass given teams will throw all day. Few teams are tops in running and passing defense at the same time.

So essentially top ranks for the front 7 and not so good ranks elsewhere

[panthers55]

2 minutes ago, onmyown said:

I was using pro football reference which does not use yards surrendered as the only stat.

Using only yards surrendered has a lot of fallacies I believe...which I’m sure you can imagine what they could be.

Any ranking system will have them.

As you say rankings vary so that is why total yards is the standard much like QB rankings. PFF has got issues as well.

[panthers55]

Just now, rico6 said:

So essentially top ranks for the front 7 and not so good ranks elsewhere

Look at who we have had in the secondary and tell me can you name most of them ?   Most can't .  Sure the front 7 have been better. That is where Gettleman put his emphasis and his draft picks.  You can only expect so much with Worleys in the secondary. Which again points out how good a job Rivera and McDermott did with what they had to work with.

 

 

[panthers55]

40 minutes ago, rico6 said:

Wasn’t 2016 the year that the secondary was ranked dead last, though? Or at least bottom 20? Something is off with that

So we were fifth against the run and 29th against the pass for an overall ranking in the middle at 15th. We were probably 5th against the rush because teams didn't waste time running the ball when you can get chunks in the air. But let's be real here, you can't blame Rivera for Gettlemans hubrisness. Dumping Josh, Peanut is hurt and we move on with 2 rookies. Not even a first rounder. And expecting them to start in this division.

[MHS831]

6 hours ago, Thunderbird037 said:

Van Roten and who?

Paradis.

[MHS831]

5 hours ago, bigdavis said:

Sooo...you're saying Ron gets no credit for scheme, alignments, etc.?

I see your point, but the recent success isn't just about the individual parts, is it?

Did you read that?  

[MHS831]

4 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Don't know that first and second rounders are the telling tale given how many first and second rounders don't pan out. You could argue that Butler and Poe aren't great and guys like McCoy and Irvin are getting long in the tooth and were free agents for a reason. Even Shaq was a question mark until this year.  So the whole notion Rivera has the benefit of all this talent might be a little overblown.

Is this not true for any team?  Statistically, first rounders are the most effective players in the league.  Second rounders are the second most effective.  Odds are, the more you have, the better your talent.  I put it out there-nothing but facts--the only opinion:  If you have elite players and Luke is one of them (calling the shots), do you not think the DC should be good?  Your logic suggests that you should have no older players and round does not matter.  Sure you can single out situations where it did not pan out, but you are discounting the fact that other teams experience the same effects, putting us back to the statistical/numerical supposition that the more first rounders you have, the better you should be.

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

Is this not true for any team?  Statistically, first rounders are the most effective players in the league.  Second rounders are the second most effective.  Odds are, the more you have, the better your talent.  I put it out there-nothing but facts--the only opinion:  If you have elite players and Luke is one of them (calling the shots), do you not think the DC should be good?  Your logic suggests that you should have no older players and round does not matter.  Sure you can single out situations where it did not pan out, but you are discounting the fact that other teams experience the same effects, putting us back to the statistical/numerical supposition that the more first rounders you have, the better you should be.

All first and second rounders are not alike so the simple counting hardly accounts for your talent pool. A Cam Newton  is not equivalent to a Matt Kalil and a Luke Kuechly is not equivalent to a Vernon Butler.  And what about guys who are third rounders or lower?  And your argument totally ignores that talent is a given in the NFL but not the decider in most contests. Cleveland has been the perfect rebuttal to your argument. They had tons of number 1 picks and what happens??  Yeah. Sure anyone would take as many first rounders as they can get but guys like Kyle Allen demonstrate that there is talent all over the league. Coaching makes players more than players make coaches except at the QB position where the coach and QB are often tied to each other for better or worse.

[Snake]

We spent most of our money on the defense so it really should be good. It's the offense that got discounted. 

[MHS831]

6 hours ago, panthers55 said:

All first and second rounders are not alike so the simple counting hardly accounts for your talent pool. A Cam Newton  is not equivalent to a Matt Kalil and a Luke Kuechly is not equivalent to a Vernon Butler.  And what about guys who are third rounders or lower?  And your argument totally ignores that talent is a given in the NFL but not the decider in most contests. Cleveland has been the perfect rebuttal to your argument. They had tons of number 1 picks and what happens??  Yeah. Sure anyone would take as many first rounders as they can get but guys like Kyle Allen demonstrate that there is talent all over the league. Coaching makes players more than players make coaches except at the QB position where the coach and QB are often tied to each other for better or worse.

No they are not alike, and as I explained, all teams experience that dynamic. Statistically, however, first and second rounders are better players.  That is the point. If you want to reduce down to personalities, there are exceptions to every rule---so that argument does not refute the premise.

Considering the fact that just over half of first rounders "pan out" it is not a cerebral challenge to locate an example to prove that first rounder status does not guarantee success. 

https://theriotreport.com/scout-camp-2018-about-the-author/

The argument I am making is a fun fact---so go after it if you want--but it is also one based on statistics--probability and outcome---not a challenge for gridiron scholars to identify exceptions.   This article demonstrates how success seems to drop after the second round and seems to level off at some point in the third round.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2015/05/22/tracking-nfl-draft-efficiency-how-contingent-is-success-to-draft-position/#7159ce9d7495

Does this suggest that all first rounders are better than all undrafted players? No.