Jump to content

Bears at Vikings - GDT


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

His passer rating allowed was notably higher in 2019. Check PFR's numbers:

Cool. You can go by PFR and I'll stick with FO and SIS (which is where all of the stats I have provided are from). FYI, PFRs advanced stats aren't bad but they from sportradar which are VERY conservative--much like the former STATS.  Which is why I prefer better sources. 

Point remains, zero TDs allowed, less targets, less yards, less yards per target, and the same amount of completions on more defensive pass plays(which PFR doesn't not show).

 

 

12 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

Which is exactly why I argued that his success was heavily context-specific. He has only succeeded in 1 role under 1 DC. He was not good as a box S. He has not been good this year as a FS. He was only good in Fangio's defense which relied on heavily pre-determined coverage looks that put him in better position to make plays on the ball.

He's had 3 good seasons and 1 average (this year). Stop acting as if he's only had 1 good season. 

12 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

If you think that, after the way he's played this season, Jackson would even be considered in the same category as Baker or other elite S, or even that his poor play would result in the same extension, then we shouldn't even have this discussion. You're essentially saying that new results don't matter, that you've formed an opinion based on 2 years of play and any results to the contrary are due to something other than Jackson's ability.

What we should instead be doing is regressing the new results with the previous. I am not trying to say that Jackson is a bum player (though he is playing poorly this season). What I'm saying is that, after regressing this season's performance with the rest of his career, he does not fit into the category of elite S. He wouldn't be paid like an elite S after this season.

What are you talking about now? You are all over the place.

First, you said, and I quote  "There’s no reason to think he wouldn’t have accepted an offer a few months later. But more importantly, the Bears wouldn’t have even made the same offer. "

Jackson signed his contract in January. A few months later would have been March or April, like I said.  And now you're going left field talking about how he has played this season. 

 
Quote

 

  On 12/23/2020 at 11:56 AM, abstract_thought said:

There’s no reason to think he wouldn’t have accepted an offer a few months later. But more importantly, the Bears wouldn’t have even made the same offer. Jackson would not be offered elite S money during this season. And he wouldn’t have leverage to ask for it.

 I'm not sure what your point is here. He would've still got the same extension based on his resume. He signed an extension in January. Waiting until March or April would've made zero difference.

The only difference there was is that Pace extended him BEFORE other safeties like Budda Baker got their extensions because if he had waited and they signed their contracts first then the price for Jackson would've been much higher. Which has been my point all along. 

 

 

Resume's leading up to their extensions. 

Eddie Jackson's resume: 1AP and 1PB in 2 separate years
Budda Baker's resume: 1AP and 1PB in 2 separate years
Kevin Byard's resume: 1AP and 1PB in 1 year
Harrison Smith's resume:  0AP and 1PB in 1 years
Landon Collins resume: 1AP and 2PB in 3 separate years

1 year doesn't change the fact that his resume would guarantee that he was going to get paid, regardless. He's one of the best safeties in the league and the best players get paid as such.  He would've had to have been absolutely terrible this season for him to NOT get paid. 

 

12 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

Dropping a few INTs separates elite S from good ones. We're having a debate about Jackson's status as an elite player. Obviously changing the results would change the debate.

 

ALL DBs drop INTs.  No ones perfect.  So what you are essentially saying is that this entire debate has literally hinged on and been decided by 1 or 2 (uncharacteristic) dropped INTs?  Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

And technically it's not even that because FO/SIS has Jackson with 2 INTs and not 3. I say 3 because I disagree with it. There was a play around week 5ish that felt he should've had as well.  I haven't seen every single from Baker or the others like I have with Jackson so I can't speak for them in the same regard.

Baker and Mccourty have two drops this season,  Smith and Byard have 1,  

Jackson: 0INT,  2 drops (3 drops IMO)
Byard: 1INT, 2 drops
Baker: 2INT, 1 drop
McCourty: 2INT, 2 drops
Smith: 4INT, 1 drop
Collins: 1INT, 0 drops

12 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

 

  On 12/23/2020 at 11:56 AM, abstract_thought said:

There’s no reason to think he wouldn’t have accepted an offer a few months later. But more importantly, the Bears wouldn’t have even made the same offer. Jackson would not be offered elite S money during this season. And he wouldn’t have leverage to ask for it.

 I'm not sure what your point is here. He would've still got the same extension based on his resume. He signed an extension in January. Waiting until March or April would've made zero difference.

The only difference there was is that Pace extended him BEFORE other safeties like Budda Baker got their extensions because if he had waited and they signed their contracts first then the price for Jackson would've been much higher. Which has been my point all along. 

 

Missed tackles is absolutely an subjective stat which is why it's different for each site or person and not considered a "official stat".  Each is based on different criteria's based on the site/person. What you may deem as a missed tackle another person may see something different when breaking down a play. Hell, look no further than this site and the debates that happen for further proof of that.   

12 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

Comparing contracts inevitably forces us to compare players. Contracts don't exist independent of the value a player brings to the team. Smith's contract is not seen as a value just because of the inflation of the salary cap. If he were playing like Jackson right now, his contract would be seen as a poor decision.

If wanna look at it like then compare Smith's first 4 years in the league (before he signed a extension vs Jackson 3 years then. We know Jackson's value. Whether you wanna decide to clinch onto 1 average season or not. 

Here, since, you wanna go by PFR I'll even stick with it.

Smith

Games Def Interceptions Fumbles   Tackles  
Year Tm G GS Int Yds TD Lng PD FF Fmb FR Yds TD Sk Comb Solo Ast TFL QBHits Sfty
Average 13.3 13 3 69 1   6.3 0.8 0 0.5 0 0 1.4   60.3 19.8 3.3 3.3  
Per 16 Games 16 16 4 83 1   8 1 0 1 0 0 2   73 24 4 4
2012-2015 MIN 53 52 12 276 4 81 25 3 0 2 0 0 5.5   241 79 13 13  

Jackson

Games Def Interceptions Fumbles   Tackles  
Year Tm G GS Int Yds TD Lng PD FF Fmb FR Yds TD Sk Comb Solo Ast TFL QBHits Sfty
2017-2019 CHI 46 46 10 181 3 76 26 4 0 5 143 2 2.0   147 37 8 1

Jackson only has 2 less INTs, 1 less INT TD, 1 more PD, 1 more FF, 3 more Fumble recoveries, 143 more fumble return yards, and 2 more fumble return TDs. And that's giving Smith a half season worth of games more than Jackson to accumulate stats and it's still comparable.

Again, a team was going to pay high for Jackson regardless and I'm glad that team was the Bears and before his price went up. His contract can look just as good, if not better, than Smiths in the future. (COVID is going to be a long recovery process for every team).  Jackson is one of the best safeties in the league with a very high ceiling and one down year doesn't change this. 

 

 

Edited by JAF-N72EX
Link to post
Share on other sites

Vikings D is very bad. Kamara just tied an age old record with 6 rushing TDs and they got a 52 burger dropped on them.

This is why people need to take this teams last 3 offensive outputs with a grain of salt. They all came against bad defenses...Detroit, Houston and Minnesota and now Bears will get to face another bad D in Jax.

I still think a lot of jobs will depend how this team does against GB in week 17. Another loss to them is not going to be pretty.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2020 at 6:40 AM, topwop1 said:

Vikings D is very bad. Kamara just tied an age old record with 6 rushing TDs and they got a 52 burger dropped on them.

This is why people need to take this teams last 3 offensive outputs with a grain of salt. They all came against bad defenses...Detroit, Houston and Minnesota and now Bears will get to face another bad D in Jax.

I still think a lot of jobs will depend how this team does against GB in week 17. Another loss to them is not going to be pretty.

i think the biggest thing with "take the opponents with a grain of salt" argument is that mitch is doing exactly what he should be doing against bad defenses, and it takes away what the offense is doing against them. How many times have we seen this team and think "man, if they could just score 20 pts they'd win a lot more." putting 30+ against less than average defenses should be equivalent to 20+ against middle of the road offenses, and that should win us more ball games.

imo the defense is the biggest issue we need to worry about moving forward this season (weird to say)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...