DL Observsations from KC Joyner

[CoachK]

Hadn't seen this posted yet.


"KC Joyner

I've had a chance to break down the Pats run metrics for both of the past two years and can say that Seymour is the better of two even considering the positional differences. I would also point out that NE drafted Ron Brace and that the metrics I did on Brace suggest he is just as good the much more highly touted BJ Raji. In other words, Wilfork may have a tough time getting paid."


Chat: Chat with KC Joyner -SportsNation - ESPN

I certainly hope he is right about Brace (and wrong about Big Vince getting paid).

As much as I value Vince for out defense, I must say it's hard to argue with his conclsuion about Sey (when he is healthy).

 

[BradyFTW!]

Agreed. Seymour's one-of-a-kind. Encouraging stuff about Brace though.

 

[Pats726]

No doubt this metric is important..but does it tell the whole story?? Can one be replaced as easily as the other?? Are there health, injury, and age factors?? Other intangibles? I think there are...and I would be interested to see how teh FO proceeds with these two.
I would like to keep both..and my guess is that the FO does as well..although NOT ast a large cost that would throw things out of whack.
I was not that surprised that Brace's metrics were as high as they were..but again..does that translate immediately to the NFL or are there many others that enter into this?
I always liked teh Vrace pick and having BOTH he and Wilfork would really be quite the 1-2 punch inside at a goal line stand.

 

[PittPatriot]

I have yet to read or hear anything that makes me not believe that Wilfork is the heart of our defense. He is durable and he is the one who changes everything at the point of attack.
Our biggest rival has a young, Pro Bowl Center in Mangold...I like the idea of Wilfork being a fixture at NT for the next 7years.

 

[DarrylS]

Interesting take on #93.... as he is often demeaned on this board.

 

[upstater1]

With an uncapped year coming, it's not like we don't have the cap room to pay all of them.

This is all up to Robert Kraft. He has made a mint since buying the team, and though I appreciate it, next year is his chance to invest some of that dough back into the team. He won't have that chance again when a salary cap comes back into play. I want every single FA paid at value next season.

 

[AzPatsFan]

All this discussion is moot.

The Patriots don't have the CAP room to sign any of their big three right now. The till is just near empty. Next year is another situation.

If Capped, they wil pay Seymour essentially what he is receiving, as Haynesworth gets Seymour money, not the other way around.

Wilfork can be franchised if necessary, but a five million dollar pay raise is not impossible. Then Mankins gets the tag.

In an Uncapped year they are all signed, and or tagged, with the two tags allowed in an Uncapped year. Mankins is not a FA.

The signing situation is nowhere as grim as depicted. But the 30% rule prevents no cost in 2009 extensions, except maybe for Seymour, who will get a raise, but won't get a 30% raise over his lucrative present contract.

 

[ALP]

interesting...

a note on the metrics though, i would have to say that the LB corps may factor into it, and our OLB's 2 yrs ago were more superior to our ILB's, hence making them less effective up the middle on runs...

doesn't AD play on the side of Seymour? thats two playmakers right there, i think that has something to do with it

 

[spacecrime]

"KC Joyner

the metrics I did on Brace suggest he is just as good the much more highly touted BJ Raji.[/b] "

I'd feel better about this if Joyner wasn't such a donkey.

 

[Boston Boxer]

Interesting take on #93.... as he is often demeaned on this board.

he is demeaned by folks who do not understand the Patriots defense.

 

[Pats726]

With an uncapped year coming, it's not like we don't have the cap room to pay all of them.

This is all up to Robert Kraft. He has made a mint since buying the team, and though I appreciate it, next year is his chance to invest some of that dough back into the team. He won't have that chance again when a salary cap comes back into play. I want every single FA paid at value next season.

Firstly..there has been NO declaration that next year WILL BE an uncapped year. That is a possibility if there is no agreement with a CBA, but who nows what will happen at this point. Is it 50-50?? 70-30 in favor of an uncapped year or??? I think now it's possible, and mabye leaning a bit toward probable but not like it's a definite. the same can be said for a salary cap being in play again. That may happen, it may not. Many feel once it is gone..it will never return. If one wants to bank on the uncapped year happening, they could get burned.

 

[Jimke]

With an uncapped year coming, it's not like we don't have the cap room to pay all of them.

This is all up to Robert Kraft. He has made a mint since buying the team, and though I appreciate it, next year is his chance to invest some of that dough back into the team. He won't have that chance again when a salary cap comes back into play. I want every single FA paid at value next season.

Bob Kraft opted out of the CBA because the players were getting
too much. I don't see him reversing direction and paying market
value for very many of the Patriot's free agents.

The best thing that can happen is the uncapped year which requires
6 years for free agency. This makes several of the Patriots RFAs instead
of UFAs.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Patriots lose Green, Seymour, and
Wilfork among several others to free agency.

 

[CoachK]

I'd feel better about this if Joyner wasn't such a donkey.

And the metrics underlying your hypotheis are ????????

 

[spacecrime]

And the metrics underlying your hypotheis are ????????

A. Most of the time Joyner is wrong.

B. Joyner says Brace will be good.

C. Therefore I am not reassured about Brace.

Don't believe Joyner just because he puts a bunch of numbers in your face. Collecting past stats does not necessarily predict the future. He uses individual stats as though they prove something, and but they do not. It is like a team that is always playing from behind having lots of passing yardage, or the great stat of teams that run the ball for over a hundred yards usually win, so try to run for a hundred yards. No, that is not understanding stats. Teams that are WINNING run more, not the other way around.

But at least there is a connection between winning and running yardage, even if Joyner and others get the cause and effect backwards.

Some of Joyner's stuff has no cause and effect at all, just synchoronicity and coincidence:

A. It rained today (Sunday) and I was tired.

B. I was tired last Sunday and it rained.

C. But two weeks ago I was not tired, and it didn't rain.

D. Therefore it rains when I am tired, so if I want it to rain I will stay up late and be tired, or if I don't want it to rain I will go to bed early and get lots of sleep.

 

[slash83]

As long as we don't lose both vince n Richard Ill be ok. I'd rather keep vince since he's younger and plays the more important position. But brace could be a fine replacement for wilfork, whereas there's no clear cut replacement for Seymour.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I have yet to read or hear anything that makes me not believe that Wilfork is the heart of our defense. He is durable and he is the one who changes everything at the point of attack.
Our biggest rival has a young, Pro Bowl Center in Mangold...I like the idea of Wilfork being a fixture at NT for the next 7years.

The Jets are our biggest rival? Since when? And even if they a rival, do you honestly think that the Pats would make personnel decisions based largely on that?

 

[BradyFTW!]

A. Most of the time Joyner is wrong.

B. Joyner says Brace will be good.

C. Therefore I am not reassured about Brace.

Don't believe Joyner just because he puts a bunch of numbers in your face. Collecting past stats does not necessarily predict the future. He uses individual stats as though they prove something, and but they do not. It is like a team that is always playing from behind having lots of passing yardage, or the great stat of teams that run the ball for over a hundred yards usually win, so try to run for a hundred yards. No, that is not understanding stats. Teams that are WINNING run more, not the other way around.

But at least there is a connection between winning and running yardage, even if Joyner and others get the cause and effect backwards.

Some of Joyner's stuff has no cause and effect at all, just synchoronicity and coincidence:

A. It rained today (Sunday) and I was tired.

B. I was tired last Sunday and it rained.

C. But two weeks ago I was not tired, and it didn't rain.

D. Therefore it rains when I am tired, so if I want it to rain I will stay up late and be tired, or if I don't want it to rain I will go to bed early and get lots of sleep.

First off, no offense, but you're selling Joyner pretty short with that ridiculous comparison. I don't always agree with the guy's conclusions either, but the statistics that he use aren't nearly as bad as you want people to believe. And more often than not I do find his conclusions at least reasonable.

BTW, for anyone who thinks that Joyner may be biased, be sure to check here: QB Anderson didn't deserve Pro Bowl invite - NFL - ESPN

That was Joyner's All-NFL 2007 overrated list. Seymour and Vrabel made the cut. Makes sense: we all knew that Seymour wasn't fully recovered in 2007, and his play suffered. Joyner caught that. He also understood that Vrabel wasn't playing to nearly the level that most others thought, which I agreed with at the time (he fell off a cliff near the end of the 2007 season). Now, he's correctly realized that Seymour is recovered and is an absolute monster again. Joyner is objective and willing to correct himself when wrong, which is exactly what we claim we want from the media right up until we get it.

 

[WelshPat]

I hate Joyners statistic only approach, but however i think there's a real chance that we've got something in Brace. He played in an elite duo in college with Raji, and they were both asked to do different things. Raji was asked to attack and penertrate, whereas Brace held up blockers.

Raji is without a doubt more explosive and a better athlete, theres a reason he was picked so high. But which one sounds more like a NT?

 

[CoachK]

A. Most of the time Joyner is wrong.

B. Joyner says Brace will be good.

C. Therefore I am not reassured about Brace.

DSome of Joyner's stuff has no cause and effect at all, just synchoronicity and coincidence:

A. It rained today (Sunday) and I was tired.

B. I was tired last Sunday and it rained.

C. But two weeks ago I was not tired, and it didn't rain.

D. Therefore it rains when I am tired, so if I want it to rain I will stay up late and be tired, or if I don't want it to rain I will go to bed early and get lots of sleep.

You had mne for a moment.. I think you lost me when you **** all over your syllogism.

I hope it's gonno be allright........for mephistomology class tomorrow

 

[BradyFTW!]

I hate Joyners statistic only approach, but however i think there's a real chance that we've got something in Brace. He played in an elite duo in college with Raji, and they were both asked to do different things. Raji was asked to attack and penertrate, whereas Brace held up blockers.

Raji is without a doubt more explosive and a better athlete, theres a reason he was picked so high. But which one sounds more like a NT?

The way I look at it, the argument is never really whether statistics tell the story or not. It's a) are the right statistics being used? and b) exactly how much do they explain?

Even people who 'hate' statistics-only approaches have to be aware that, at the very least, they offer their share of insight, even if you think that it's incomplete.

Personally, I think that the fault in statistics-only models is that they don't use comprehensive enough statistics, or even that we haven't yet invented comprehensive enough statistics to adequately cover every situation. Still, though, I'll take a statistics-heavy approach over gut instinct and eyeballing any day of the week and twice on Sunday. (not saying that you're advocating for the opposite: I just kinda went off on a tangent there since this is where these topics always trail off to anyways)