Calling Andy

[bradmahn]

There is opinion, and then there is stupidity. Mr. Andy has been taking me to task about Freeney. When you refuse to recognize "QB Pressures" as a viable asset/function (primarily because the NFL doesn't keep an "official statistic" on it), then the "opinion" borderline insane

You can't simply look at the QB pressures as validation for him being a very good DE, because he is asked to almost exclusively play the pass. Of course he's going to get more pressures than players who are asked to play a more well-rounded game.

Before you jump on this post, note that I do think he does very well with what he's asked to do, but to simply point to QB pressures as the basis for your argument is short-sighted.

 

[Ring 6]

There is opinion, and then there is stupidity. Mr. Andy has been taking me to task about Freeney. When you refuse to recognize "QB Pressures" as a viable asset/function (primarily because the NFL doesn't keep an "official statistic" on it), then the "opinion" borderline insane

No one is refusing to recognize "QB pressures".
What I refuse to recognize is that he gets more of them than the 51 guys who get more sacks.
It goes against logic that the guy getting fewer sacks gets more pressure. Of course it does not have to fit with logic, but you saying he does, without being able to quantify makes your argument moot.

The fact of it being an official statistic came into play when you tried to make your case by showing stats from some Colts website. They have no value, first because there is no standard to them, and secondly because the stats for tackles are inflated compared to the official stats, by something like 50%. How can you use a stat source as reputable when it inflates the other stats for the player?

 

[Ring 6]

You can't simply look at the QB pressures as validation for him being a very good DE, because he is asked to almost exclusively play the pass. Of course he's going to get more pressures than players who are asked to play a more well-rounded game.

Before you jump on this post, note that I do think he does very well with what he's asked to do, but to simply point to QB pressures as the basis for your argument is short-sighted.

But no one has shown that he does in fact get more pressures.
This is exactly the point. Freeney is overrated, because everyone makes the assumption he is a great pass rusher. Since there are not sack (or any other) stats to prove it, then it must be because he gets a lot of pressure, because I know he is good, so there must be an explanation, so it must be that he gets a lot of near misses. Textbook overrated.

 

[Deus Irae]

There is opinion, and then there is stupidity. Mr. Andy has been taking me to task about Freeney. When you refuse to recognize "QB Pressures" as a viable asset/function (primarily because the NFL doesn't keep an "official statistic" on it), then the "opinion" borderline insane

As long as you have that idiocy that you currently sport in your sig, you have zero credibility on this issue.

 

[Joker]

Our wrathful God has spoken...

begone damn Troll!

 

[BradyFTW!]

You are ALL making my point for me. Allen had ZERO SACKS, but he sure as hell was a factor, wasn't he?? D Free, while not racking up sacks, sure is a FACTOR, isn't he?? Mr. ALL WORLD ANDY J. seems to think not, because the NFL doesn't keep official stats on things like "pressures". And of course, if they don't track it, it must not happen, or be of any consequence

Thanks for the support guys!

It's called small sample size. It's possible for a beast to have one game, or even a few games, where he gets few or no sacks while wreaking havoc in the backfield. Over time, however, if your job is to rush the passer and you're getting into the backfield like you're supposed to, you will get sacks. Not because sacks are the only way to impact a game, but because, minus random fluctuations that occur in any small sample size, being in the backfield + being assigned to rush the passer = getting sacks. Not every time, naturally, but often enough that a clear relationship can be established between pressures and sacks. If you're not getting sacks, therefore, then you're probably not getting as many pressures as the guys who are getting sacks.

If you want to go with the argument that Freeney is relatively ineffective in the sack dept because he's being double and triple teamed, and opening things up for Mathis, then go with that. But this 'pressure' excuse is meaningless. If he was really getting all this pressure, he'd get a sack from time to time too.

 

[He Ban Me]

No one is refusing to recognize "QB pressures".
What I refuse to recognize is that he gets more of them than the 51 guys who get more sacks.
It goes against logic that the guy getting fewer sacks gets more pressure. Of course it does not have to fit with logic, but you saying he does, without being able to quantify makes your argument moot.

The fact of it being an official statistic came into play when you tried to make your case by showing stats from some Colts website. They have no value, first because there is no standard to them, and secondly because the stats for tackles are inflated compared to the official stats, by something like 50%. How can you use a stat source as reputable when it inflates the other stats for the player?

You most certainly are refusing to take those in to account. I don't understand the logic that a player with more sacks also gets more pressures
Take a look at some opponents we have faced this season. Schaub and Garcia are tow that quickly come to mind. They each had a VERY HIGH completion % in games versus the Colts. How do you think they accomplished that? Quick 3 step drops, completing passes for short yardage gains. The statistic a few weeks ago was that the Colts were last in the League at giving up short yardage completions, and first in the League at giving up the fewest medium and long completions. Why do you suppose teams come in and try to run that offense at the Colts? Is it because the power rush by our huge DT's that force the QB out of the pocket? Or is it due to countering a strong out side rush by Freeney and Mathis? Fact is, if you don't game plan for Freeney, you'll pay. You cannot treat him like an ordinary DE. You have to account for him. I don't have game film, I don't break down each defensive snap, but I do know that when he's left one on one, he's quite successful. Colts list him with 16 pressures, I don't think some hack is marking down a stick arbitrarily. I suppose an agenda COULD be to show Colts fans Freeney is worth the $$ by inflating these numbers on their web site, but I doubt it. My guess is, if he was credited with a pressure, Freeney was there. I just don't understand why they would 'make sh*t up'.

I can agree to disagree, I don't think he belongs on the overrated list, you do. Did you take a look at Peppers?

 

[wdkantro2]

Yes he does. Freeney is an excellent DE. I have no idea why so many Pats fans feel the need to belittle him.

I don't know why either because he is a great pass rusher. I do think there are better pure ends out there because they can stop the run as well as rush the passer. Most teams can run right at Freeney and move the ball well.

 

[Joker]

well...this topic can certainly be re-visited at a more opportune time...like next season