It was brought up earlier, but our ability to defend the running QB has just improved dramatically. Lamar, Allen, Herbert and maybe even Russ will still get theirs against this defense, but not like before. And they'll definitely think twice after doing it once.
And that's not even bringing up how our short yardage and goal-to-go defense is now significantly better, and even THAT goes without talking about the physicality we now have with our defensive backs. I'm pumped to see our defense elevate a few levels on the physical front. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
It was brought up earlier, but our ability to defend the running QB has just improved dramatically. Lamar, Allen, Herbert and maybe even Russ will still get theirs against this defense, but not like before. And they'll definitely think twice after doing it once.
And that's not even bringing up how our short yardage and goal-to-go defense is now significantly better, and even THAT goes without talking about the physicality we now have with our defensive backs. I'm pumped to see our defense elevate a few levels on the physical front.
Yes that is a very good point those fucking running quarterbacks are going get 'Jacked up' They do it a couple times and they won't be running or maybe not walk after the hits. Let Bryan Cook hit one or Leo those guys are going be hurting from scrambling. I don't think Russell Wilson is that fast I think he is on the down cline. He will start out the season looking fresh but as the season goes and that cold mountain air he gets hit he will be hit a lot he will wear down after mid season.
I really want to get a hat on Josh Allen and Joe Burrow make them think about when to run and they will quickly try get out of bounds. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
It was brought up earlier, but our ability to defend the running QB has just improved dramatically. Lamar, Allen, Herbert and maybe even Russ will still get theirs against this defense, but not like before. And they'll definitely think twice after doing it once.
And that's not even bringing up how our short yardage and goal-to-go defense is now significantly better, and even THAT goes without talking about the physicality we now have with our defensive backs. I'm pumped to see our defense elevate a few levels on the physical front.
I remember having a bizzarely effective short yardage defense for the first couple years of Sutton, particularly in 2015.
Then it all kinda went kablooey when Hali got old, Houston got injured and struggled in his recovery, and... well, you know the rest. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
Our defense hasn't done well in short yardage situation in more than a decade. We've been soft at the line for way too long.
I don't know how we will do in short yardage but i think this defense is going force a lot more turnovers by hitting the ball carrier hard and forcing fumbles and we got DBs that will be flying to get interceptions. The big thing I want is more 3 and outs and not let teams drive on them keeping the ball control and allow big plays on third and 20 teams get a first down by scrambling or PI or something bogus happens. More 3 and outs and more turnovers that will make this defense fierce.
Also getting penetration from the interior line I know Jones can get through but he can't be the only one we really need find a DT somehow that can help Jones out. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I've seen it referred to as a 'density adjusted' athleticism metric.
So yeah, be tall and/or heavy and RAS loves you.
It's really stupid, though.
I don't think it's the be-all-end-all, but I don't think it's stupid, either.
If there's a WR that's 6'3" 215, runs a 4.3 and has elite explosion measurements (10 yd splits, etc.) then isn't he more likely to be harder to deal with than a 5'9" 180 lb. guy with the same speed and quickness?
I mean, the bigger, faster, stronger guy wins, all things being equal. And that's the point of RAS.
Now, it's not the end word; an individuals peculiarities all matter too-their work ethic, their intelligence, etc.
But saying it's dumb is off base, in my opinion. [Reply]
I'm just fine with the good old combine measurables of height, weight, speed, 20 yard shuttle, 3 cone, bench, broad jump and vertical.
Just put all those together and give me a composite number to compare between guys at the same position. You can keep this RAS bullshit out of it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
I don't think it's the be-all-end-all, but I don't think it's stupid, either.
If there's a WR that's 6'3" 215, runs a 4.3 and has elite explosion measurements (10 yd splits, etc.) then isn't he more likely to be harder to deal with than a 5'9" 180 lb. guy with the same speed and quickness?
I mean, the bigger, faster, stronger guy wins, all things being equal. And that's the point of RAS.
Now, it's not the end word; an individuals peculiarities all matter too-their work ethic, their intelligence, etc.
But saying it's dumb is off base, in my opinion.
The problem is when that that 6'3'' guy has WORSE explosion measurements than a 5'11'' guy.
RAS is going to favor the 6'3'' guy and by a fair amount. Moreover, it calls itself an 'athletic' score but in the end its emphasis on height and weight actually diminishes the athletic side of the equation.
Someone can have better athletic skills across the board but the taller and/or heavier guy will have the better 'Athletic Score' despite clearly being less athletic. He's just taller.
I've simply never seen it used by anyone in a reasonably productive manner. It's just 'HOLY SHIT, LOOK AT THE RAS ON THIS GUY!' as though it's dispositive of his athleticism. A lot of the time it isn't - it's determined more by his height than his athleticism.
Wanna call it a 'height adjusted composite index' or something like that and I'll be less down on it. Or if people would use it more like they do PFF where they give it an extremely healthy degree of skepticism but acknowledge that it may be useful in small doses or in close questions or with substantial context added - okay.
But all these Tweets were 'oh my god, this guy taken in the 7th round has a better RAS than Luke Keuchly!' -- for fuck's sake, folks. Shouldn't that make you question the metric? [Reply]
Normal guy, with perfectly reasonable WR size, has a lower RAS than Tall Guy despite being measurably a better athlete in every single way.
It isn't a measure of athleticism as much as it's a measure of height. It's used foolishly and it's named even moreso.
I've never looked at RAS at all, but in your example is it about height or weight? I think it's legitimately more impressive when a guy who weighs 25 pounds more has similar athletic performance. [Reply]