Franchise tag and transition tag numbers released

[Miguel]

Did you really read every post I wrote for 11 1/2 months searching for that? Wow.

This board has a search feature. I had a gut feeling that you had posted something very complimentary about Wilfork.

Nice job pulling one sentence out of context though, congrats.

In February 2009, you considered Vince Wilfork dominant. In January 2010 you said that you never saw Wilfork as dominant.

I do not how pointing to your entire post is pulling one sentence out of context. Nice spin, job.

 

[Ring 6]

This board has a search feature. I had a gut feeling that you had posted something very complimentary about Wilfork.


In February 2009, you considered Vince Wilfork dominant. In January 2010 you said that you never saw Wilfork as dominant.

I do not how pointing to your entire post is pulling one sentence out of context. Nice spin, job.

I guess I still consider it out of context if you provide a link. Perhaps I am wrong and everyone who read the post also opened the link and read the entire post, which the sentence is not very representative of.
The oringinal post was abou the value of a NT in our system.
My opinion one year ago was if I assume Wilfork is dominant, which I was willing to do, then the NT cannot be the most critical player on the defense because our run D performance was not consistent with dominance.

Why is it so hard to believe that one year later, after we allow a 10th worst in the NFL ypc and 230-some rush yards in a playoff loss, that my opinion changes from believing Wilfork is dominant but not as critical as people think to that Wilfork actually isn't dominant since we became a bad run defense? We haven't been good vs the run for much f Wilforks tenure
Using ypc as the gauge (I think the fairest and I chose it before looking up the numbers)
We were ranked
2009-2004
22,15,28,9,28,11
That is an average rank of 19th. Does that sound like a dominant performance of the player consider by most the most important part of run D?
That is above average twice (including his rookie year when he split time, average once, and below avg to bad in half the years he has been the NT)
Do you think the players consider 'dominant NTs' have those kind of run D stats for their teams?

For fairness I looked at the same stat pre-Vince, in the BB era
2003 6th
2002 29th
2001 21
2000 6th

Thats an average of 15.5th and 2 years good 2 years below avg to bad.

Not that he is the only factor but in 10 years of BB we have been worse in defending the run while Wilfork has been here.

(disclaimer: i used NFL.com rankings and since the numbers are only rounded 1 spot, I used where they were listed assuming that was in order of rounding further. i.e. if there was a 4 way tie for 15th, and they were listed second in that group, i call that 16th, i think it is irrelevant to the argument though)

Are you implying I am disingenuous because I had an opinion a year ago about the quality of a player who is solely a run defender and after a year where we were poor defending the run that opinion changes?
And that it changes from his importance is overrated to his play is overrated? Hardly a 180.

 

[PATSNUTme]

And in other news, I was watching Pro Football Weekly last night. They all agreed that there is no chance of a CBA being reached by 3/10/10.

So that means Mankins and The Ghost will not be FA's. Only players with 6 or more years can be FA's.

 

[Miguel]

We haven't been good vs the run for much f Wilforks tenure
Using ypc as the gauge (I think the fairest and I chose it before looking up the numbers)
We were ranked
2009-2004
22,15,28,9,28,11
That is an average rank of 19th. Does that sound like a dominant performance of the player consider by most the most important part of run D?
That is above average twice (including his rookie year when he split time, average once, and below avg to bad in half the years he has been the NT)
Do you think the players consider 'dominant NTs' have those kind of run D stats for their teams?

For fairness I looked at the same stat pre-Vince, in the BB era
2003 6th
2002 29th
2001 21
2000 6th

Thats an average of 15.5th and 2 years good 2 years below avg to bad.

Not that he is the only factor but in 10 years of BB we have been worse in defending the run while Wilfork has been here.

(disclaimer: i used NFL.com rankings and since the numbers are only rounded 1 spot, I used where they were listed assuming that was in order of rounding further. i.e. if there was a 4 way tie for 15th, and they were listed second in that group, i call that 16th, i think it is irrelevant to the argument though)

Let's use the average yards per game since you use 230 yards in the Ravens game.

We were ranked
2009-2004
13,15,10,5,8,6
That is an average rank of 9.5. That does sound like a dominant performance of the player consider by most the most important part of run D.
That is above average five (including his rookie year when he split time, and average once, and never below avg to bad in half the years he has been the NT). I do think the players consider 'dominant NTs' have those kind of run D stats for their teams.

For fairness I looked at the same stat pre-Vince, in the BB era
2003 4th
2002 31st
2001 19th
2000 21th

Thats an average of 18.75th and 1 year good 3 years below avg to bad.

Not that he is the only factor but in 10 years of BB we have been better in defending the run while Wilfork has been here.

Let's use the rushing touchdowns given up.

We were ranked
2009-2004
3,4,3,9,11,8
That is an average rank of 6. That does sound like a dominant performance of the player consider by most the most important part of run D.
That is above average six (including his rookie year when he split time) and never average once and never below avg to bad in half the years he has been the NT). I do think the players consider 'dominant NTs' have those kind of run D stats for their teams.

For fairness I looked at the same stat pre-Vince, in the BB era
2003 6th
2002 23rd
2001 4th
2000 12th

Thats an average of 11.25 and 3 good years 1 below avg to bad.

Not that he is the only factor but in 10 years of BB we have been better in defending the run while Wilfork has been here

Let's use the rushing first downs given up.

We were ranked
2009-2004
6,4,14,3,19,7
That is an average rank of 8.3. That does sound like a dominant performance of the player consider by most the most important part of run D.
That is above average fourx (including his rookie year when he split time) and average once and below avg to bad in one years he has been the NT). I do think the players consider 'dominant NTs' have those kind of run D stats for their teams.

For fairness I looked at the same stat pre-Vince, in the BB era
2003 10th (tied)
2002 31st
2001 19th (tied)
2000 23rd

Thats an average of 20.75 and 1 good years 3 below avg to bad.

Not that he is the only factor but in 10 years of BB we have been better in defending the run while Wilfork has been here.

While you may consider the YPC to be the fairest measure of a rush defense, I consider it fairer to show more rushing stats.
[/quote]

Are you implying I am disingenuous because I had an opinion a year ago about the quality of a player who is solely a run defender and after a year where we were poor defending the run that opinion changes?

I am saying that I do not understand how you think in February that Wilfork is a dominant nose tackle given the poor YPC stats.

And that it changes from his importance is overrated to his play is overrated? Hardly a 180.

I think that is. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Ring 6]

Let's use the average yards per game since you use 230 yards in the Ravens game.

We were ranked
2009-2004
13,15,10,5,8,6
That is an average rank of 9.5. That does sound like a dominant performance of the player consider by most the most important part of run D.
That is above average five (including his rookie year when he split time, and average once, and never below avg to bad in half the years he has been the NT). I do think the players consider 'dominant NTs' have those kind of run D stats for their teams.

For fairness I looked at the same stat pre-Vince, in the BB era
2003 4th
2002 31st
2001 19th
2000 21th

Thats an average of 18.75th and 1 year good 3 years below avg to bad.

Not that he is the only factor but in 10 years of BB we have been better in defending the run while Wilfork has been here.

Let's use the rushing touchdowns given up.

We were ranked
2009-2004
3,4,3,9,11,8
That is an average rank of 6. That does sound like a dominant performance of the player consider by most the most important part of run D.
That is above average six (including his rookie year when he split time) and never average once and never below avg to bad in half the years he has been the NT). I do think the players consider 'dominant NTs' have those kind of run D stats for their teams.

For fairness I looked at the same stat pre-Vince, in the BB era
2003 6th
2002 23rd
2001 4th
2000 12th

Thats an average of 11.25 and 3 good years 1 below avg to bad.

Not that he is the only factor but in 10 years of BB we have been better in defending the run while Wilfork has been here

Let's use the rushing first downs given up.

We were ranked
2009-2004
6,4,14,3,19,7
That is an average rank of 8.3. That does sound like a dominant performance of the player consider by most the most important part of run D.
That is above average fourx (including his rookie year when he split time) and average once and below avg to bad in one years he has been the NT). I do think the players consider 'dominant NTs' have those kind of run D stats for their teams.

For fairness I looked at the same stat pre-Vince, in the BB era
2003 10th (tied)
2002 31st
2001 19th (tied)
2000 23rd

Thats an average of 20.75 and 1 good years 3 below avg to bad.

Not that he is the only factor but in 10 years of BB we have been better in defending the run while Wilfork has been here.

While you may consider the YPC to be the fairest measure of a rush defense, I consider it fairer to show more rushing stats.

I am saying that I do not understand how you think in February that Wilfork is a dominant nose tackle given the poor YPC stats.


I think that is. We will have to agree to disagree.[/quote]

Do you really think that the quality of play of a run defender should be based on how many times the opponent runs more than what they do when they run?
Having one of the best offenses in the NFL over that time, having an above average pass defense over that time, and playing from ahead very often are factors that are not due to Vince Wilfork. It seems unreasonable to sweep how the defense plays on running plays under the carpet by adding all of those factors into the equation.

If you think that an opinion that says I agree if you call him dominant (which is what I said, I did not make the claim myself) but if that were the case, then he is much less important than people believe, evolving into no, after another season of poor run D, actually as bad or worse than any other ( after he played for the first time without the dominant Richard Seymour) that he isn't dominant is a 180, why would we even discuss this?

 

[Ring 6]

Let's use the average yards per game since you use 230 yards in the Ravens game.

We were ranked
2009-2004
13,15,10,5,8,6
That is an average rank of 9.5. That does sound like a dominant performance of the player consider by most the most important part of run D.
That is above average five (including his rookie year when he split time, and average once, and never below avg to bad in half the years he has been the NT). I do think the players consider 'dominant NTs' have those kind of run D stats for their teams.

For fairness I looked at the same stat pre-Vince, in the BB era
2003 4th
2002 31st
2001 19th
2000 21th

Thats an average of 18.75th and 1 year good 3 years below avg to bad.

Not that he is the only factor but in 10 years of BB we have been better in defending the run while Wilfork has been here.

Let's use the rushing touchdowns given up.

We were ranked
2009-2004
3,4,3,9,11,8
That is an average rank of 6. That does sound like a dominant performance of the player consider by most the most important part of run D.
That is above average six (including his rookie year when he split time) and never average once and never below avg to bad in half the years he has been the NT). I do think the players consider 'dominant NTs' have those kind of run D stats for their teams.

For fairness I looked at the same stat pre-Vince, in the BB era
2003 6th
2002 23rd
2001 4th
2000 12th

Thats an average of 11.25 and 3 good years 1 below avg to bad.

Not that he is the only factor but in 10 years of BB we have been better in defending the run while Wilfork has been here

Let's use the rushing first downs given up.

We were ranked
2009-2004
6,4,14,3,19,7
That is an average rank of 8.3. That does sound like a dominant performance of the player consider by most the most important part of run D.
That is above average fourx (including his rookie year when he split time) and average once and below avg to bad in one years he has been the NT). I do think the players consider 'dominant NTs' have those kind of run D stats for their teams.

For fairness I looked at the same stat pre-Vince, in the BB era
2003 10th (tied)
2002 31st
2001 19th (tied)
2000 23rd

Thats an average of 20.75 and 1 good years 3 below avg to bad.

Not that he is the only factor but in 10 years of BB we have been better in defending the run while Wilfork has been here.

While you may consider the YPC to be the fairest measure of a rush defense, I consider it fairer to show more rushing stats.

I am saying that I do not understand how you think in February that Wilfork is a dominant nose tackle given the poor YPC stats.


I think that is. We will have to agree to disagree.[/quote]

Here is another stat for you.
Wilfork played 510 snaps all season.
265 were pass plays and 245 were runs.
I don't think you would venture to say he is dominant as a pass rusher would you?
I find it hard to say that a player who is primary, almost exclusively a run stopper could 'dominate' by playing against the run 245 times all season, and average of 15 times a game and ust over 60% of the times we were run on.
Wilfork was 12th on the defense in number of plays. How do you dominate from the sidelines.
I would imagine the fact that he played 971 plays, 392 vs the run in 2007, 614, 325 against the run in 2008 then 510 and 245 vs the run in 2009 may have something to do with my IMPRESSION (note that in neither of the comments you are highlighting here did I offer analysis but an off the cuff impression) declining regarding Vince, especially as the success of the team, his unit and the performance in the area he is supposed to dominate has declined.

 

[Miguel]

Do you really think that the quality of play of a run defender should be based on how many times the opponent runs more than what they do when they run?

And yet one finds top rushing defenses (Minnesota, Baltimore, Pittsburgh) at the top of the average rushing yards per game, rushing TD, 1st down categories. Looking at rushing touchdowns given up does measure what happens when an opponent runs. Ditto for 1st downs.

 

[Miguel]

If you think that an opinion that says I agree if you call him dominant (which is what I said, I did not make the claim myself) but if that were the case, then he is much less important than people believe, evolving into no, after another season of poor run D, actually as bad or worse than any other ( after he played for the first time without the dominant Richard Seymour) that he isn't dominant is a 180, why would we even discuss this?

Like I said before, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[mcgraw_wv]

In the new CBA, the Players Union needs to negotiate a team paid insurance policy taken out on each player that plays under the tag for a year.

If the player recieves an injury that dramatically reduces their earning potential while under the franchise tag, that player is paid the average salary for players at their position for the next 5-7 years.

That way it's not a bad thing to be tagged, it's an honor, the way it was meant to be an honor, not a penalty. The Insurance policy protects the players from injury, and allows them to comfortably enjoy their 1 really high paid season of guaranteed money.

 

[Rob0729]

In the new CBA, the Players Union needs to negotiate a team paid insurance policy taken out on each player that plays under the tag for a year.

If the player recieves an injury that dramatically reduces their earning potential while under the franchise tag, that player is paid the average salary for players at their position for the next 5-7 years.

That way it's not a bad thing to be tagged, it's an honor, the way it was meant to be an honor, not a penalty. The Insurance policy protects the players from injury, and allows them to comfortably enjoy their 1 really high paid season of guaranteed money.

Why should a team pay for that? I am sure every player who plays under the tag pays for such an insurance policy themselves anyway. I really doubt that Wilfork would play as a franchised player in 2010 without an insurance policy for injuries that is payable based on the huge long term deal he might lose.

It doesn't change it to being an honor in my book. I still think they would see it as a slap in the face.

 

[Ring 6]

And yet one finds top rushing defenses (Minnesota, Baltimore, Pittsburgh) at the top of the average rushing yards per game, rushing TD, 1st down categories. Looking at rushing touchdowns given up does measure what happens when an opponent runs. Ditto for 1st downs.

Of course the top rushing Ds by your definition will be at the top of what you have defined.
Do you believe that if we give up 109 yards a game and a 4.4 average we are better than a team that gives up 114 and a 3.8 average because our offense gave leads that took the running game away and the other defense had a bad offense, fewer leads and faced more runs.
Are we really saying the judgement of success is whether they run it in or throw it in?
Let me understand your argument from the other side.
If RB A rushes 250 times for 1125 yards and a 4.5 average
RB B rushes 350 times for 1150 and a 3 yard average, and ends up with more first downs and rushing TDs but RB As team scores more points because he is more effective and their passing game is better set up, RB B is better by your metrics?

 

[Miguel]

Of course the top rushing Ds by your definition will be at the top of what you have defined.

On the other hand, the bottom rushing Ds by your definition will be at the bottom of what you have defined

I actually named Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Minnesota because I feel that if you ask most NFL fans to name the top rushing defenses since 2000 those teams would get the most votes.

If you were to rank rushing defenses since 2000, where would you rank Baltimore??
Pittsburgh??
Minnesota??

If we use average yards per carry, the aforementioned trio would be in the Top 5.

Do you really believe that the quality of a rushing defense can be determined solely by looking at one stat - average yards per carry???

Is looking at just one stat fairer than looking at four??