Shanedorf Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 From PackersNews: "The Packers tied for eighth in the NFL with 44 sacks, and a big reason was their defensive line. Led by Clark’s six, the Packers' defensive line accounted for 12.5 sacks in 2018. Inside linebacker Blake Martinez had five sacks, and he said a contributing factor was the attention opponents paid to the defensive line. That might not seem like much on its own (it ranks about middle of the pack in the league), but given the injuries that hit the position, there’s good reason to think that production will increase in 2019. For a team lacking in edge rush, it helps to start from a basis of quality interior pressure " Of course its all intertwined and as we try to tease out the relative positional values, its worth remembering that these positions don't operate in isolation. Having a top DL helps the LBs immensely - both in terms of keeping them clean and in terms of creating the pincer effect required for a killer pass rush. If you only have speed demons bending the edge, the OTs will just push them wide. Need that consistent push up the middle too So it would appear that GB needs (1) speed demon + (1) stouter edge-setter, plus another interior DL to make this pass rush impactful game in and game out Most here have the Packers cutting Perry - and for good reasons. But the Packers are also blessed in having one of the best ankle specialists on the planet working across the street from Lambeau Field. IF the 2018 ankle injury is the key decider, then the Packers have the capability to find out. IF his entire body is just too broken down, then its time to move on and that helps focus the offseason needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Only issue I'll take with this is that it fails to take into account that there are multiple WRs on the field for each team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcon14 Posted February 11, 2019 Author Share Posted February 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Only issue I'll take with this is that it fails to take into account that there are multiple WRs on the field for each team. I used 40 WRs in my study versus 20 for positions with only one starter. Now, could you say I should use 60 because 11 personnel is pretty much standard now? Yeah, I think so, but it becomes hard to find meaningful veteran salaries at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, rcon14 said: I used 40 WRs in my study versus 20 for positions with only one starter. Now, could you say I should use 60 because 11 personnel is pretty much standard now? Yeah, I think so, but it becomes hard to find meaningful veteran salaries at that point. Which I think has its own conclusive merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcon14 Posted February 11, 2019 Author Share Posted February 11, 2019 Just now, AlexGreen#20 said: Which I think has its own conclusive merits. I think it certainly can, but it also becomes hard to tell how much of it is based on rookie deals being a higher percentage share of particular roster spots, which is an additional thing I think would be advantageous to look at long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 2018 Franchise Tag numbers Defensive End - 17.143 million Defensive Tackle – $13.939 million Linebacker – $14.961 million 2018 Transition Tag numbers Defensive End – $14.2 million Defensive Tackle – $11.407 million Linebacker – $12.81 million The numbers will look different in 2019, after including the impact of Khalil Mack's and Aaron Donald's monster deals into the league formula Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcon14 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Share Posted February 12, 2019 3 hours ago, Shanedorf said: 2018 Franchise Tag numbers Defensive End - 17.143 million Defensive Tackle – $13.939 million Linebacker – $14.961 million 2018 Transition Tag numbers Defensive End – $14.2 million Defensive Tackle – $11.407 million Linebacker – $12.81 million The numbers will look different in 2019, after including the impact of Khalil Mack's and Aaron Donald's monster deals into the league formula Problem with the linebacker number is it likely includes many guys we would consider EDGE players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 13 hours ago, rcon14 said: Problem with the linebacker number is it likely includes many guys we would consider EDGE players. The franchise tag numbers simply haven't kept up with positional values and the increased specialization in the NFL They still consider all Ofensive Lineman the same and all LB's the same. That's why some players have fought their designation, including Jimmy Graham Maybe the next CBA will update the categories to reflect the current state of affairs. That would will help some players, hurt others so not sure how hard the NFLPA will fight for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 20 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Only issue I'll take with this is that it fails to take into account that there are multiple WRs on the field for each team. That was one of my biggest knocks. On average, there's 2-3 WRs on a field for any given play. There's only 1 LT on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcon14 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Share Posted February 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, CWood21 said: That was one of my biggest knocks. On average, there's 2-3 WRs on a field for any given play. There's only 1 LT on the field. One thing I think we can struggle to properly value is that WR1 reduces WR2 value and then WR3 value. Whereas you can have two great EDGE and they don't take away from each other. I'm not completely sure how to quantify that, but it's something to consider with WRs in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 3 hours ago, rcon14 said: One thing I think we can struggle to properly value is that WR1 reduces WR2 value and then WR3 value. Whereas you can have two great EDGE and they don't take away from each other. I'm not completely sure how to quantify that, but it's something to consider with WRs in particular. A more enterprising endeavor could be to determine cost/snap at those positions. Just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 Here's a link to some work by Warren Sharp via twitter "The Steelers are the best WR-drafting team out of the 28 that drafted more than 5 WRs the last 10 years in rd 1-6. Of the 28, they've received the most production/WR-year & they've received the most value vs draft capital risked. Summary & detail table: ( Packers ranked 3rd in this metric) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzOoxbyXgAUlokr.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzOozXHWkAETcWH.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 On 2/12/2019 at 12:13 PM, rcon14 said: One thing I think we can struggle to properly value is that WR1 reduces WR2 value and then WR3 value. Whereas you can have two great EDGE and they don't take away from each other. I'm not completely sure how to quantify that, but it's something to consider with WRs in particular. I mean, that kinda goes without saying. But you're talking about trying to compare an elite WR to a non-elite WR. It'd be like comparing an elite LT to a non-elite LT. There should be a drop off in terms of the $$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.