Jump to content

Ravens Trade for Roquan Smith


baltimoreRebel

Recommended Posts

This Arjun dude is attempting to black pill on Roquan's coverage ability and links to this other thread from PFF's Eric Eager- both offerings are extremely odd to me.

@sp6488 @drd23 Curious to get your thoughts on this....

Arjun is implying his metric involves what?... how successful the entire defensive unit's coverage is when that specific player is on the field? He says it looks at "every coverage snap every defensive player is playing". So despite the massive gap between Roquan and Patrick's individual advanced coverage statistics, Smith somehow isn't an upgrade over Queen in coverage because the players around them enjoyed a similar success rate?..... Even if that's not what he's implying by cumulative, I'm struggling to think of any interpretation where it would have analytical value that validates ignoring Smith's undeniable individual success within other advanced coverage metrics(especially when putting him head to head vs Queen)....  

 Another earlier video I found from Arjun where he's talking about why the Chargers shouldn't trade for Roquan and hits on some similar notes-   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns3DcngYmro&t=531s&ab_channel=GuiltyAsCharged

 

Then you have this from Eric Eager, who if you comb through this thread you'll find out is an utter c*nt-

Lots of tweets and figures here, but basically he's saying(before the current 22' season) that Smith will struggle or enter a learning curve in Eberflus' defense because Roquan's BDUE(Bite Distance Under Expected) has gotten worse since his Rookie year. Naturally he gets pressed on whether Roquan 'biting' more actually came with some large cost in terms of YPCS(Yards Per Coverage Snap) against PA, and spoiler alert... it didn't. So (what else) Eager pivots to labeling all non CB individual and target coverage metrics as 'noisy', and notes that as a unit the Colt's defense gave up 1.4 less yards per play than the Bears' did(I don't know what time frame he's pulling that statistic from either). Finally he says that year to year rank within the individual coverage production metrics is more important than the metric itself because that's a more stable indicator of the player's ability relative to his peers. A stance which directly conflicts with Arjun's "Queen and Smith are basically the same in coverage" BS. 

The cherry on top is Eager further refuting his colleague's claim about Queen and Smith's coverage skills being a wash, by directly responding to a tweet mocking Queen's coverage ability in relation to Roquan's-

Yea so clearly PFF is a f*cking disaster, this isn't the first example of that and certainly won't be the last. This case is just especially funny because you have two colleagues in same department contradicting each other's work. It's completely fine to disagree with this trade from a cost perspective, but all the above analysis of Roquan's play strikes me as forced and somewhat bizarre.

-----------

Side Note:

Whenever you see a PFF employee mocking Patrick Queen's coverage ability and/or him being a bad pick because of it- remember that he graded out exceptionally well within their model for coverage in college.

From their own draft profile on Queen-

--Queen played just 250 snaps, started four games in 2018 and displayed some promising reps in coverage by allowing just 49 yards on 92 coverage snaps. He didn’t start for LSU in the 2019 season for the first three weeks, but once named the starter, he continued to deliver in coverage by producing an 82.0 coverage grade that ranked 12th among FBS off-ball linebackers. The fact that he allowed just half a yard per coverage snap in his first full season with significant snaps against the SEC is incredibly impressive. His run defense wasn’t as hot as his coverage ability — he posted just a 64.7 grade in that facet. But a linebacker’s performance in coverage is the most important part of their job on the field, and Queen clearly did that at a high level.--

Queen had no coverage issues in college, it was an area of strength for him- especially when compared to his peers at the position. There were no indicators that he would struggle the way he has. So dismiss any jawing from anyone on the subject.

-------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roquan is not looking his best this season after fighting with Bears in offseason for a new contract.   He had one very good game, others have been either okay or bad.   Since camp he has looked a little heavy and slow by his high standards.  I think if he gets a new deal, he will play very well next season.  This season I am not so sure.   

On plus side, Bears rarely used him properly and he can be even better in this league than he has shown thus far.  

He is an excellent blitzer and chase LB and wasn’t used that way enough. His closing speed is exceptional.   He is smallish and doesn’t take on blocks well, he needs beefy DL protecting him.  

On downside he does some iffy things off field and there have been unsubstantiated rumors about some bad decisions.  He is good in coverage, but lacks height and length to bother QBs in zone space. 

I think if you aren’t going to sign him to extension this was a very bad deal.  

If you do it can very well be a good deal, but maybe not this season.  

He will instantly improve you, but know what you are seeing right this instant isn’t prime Roquan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched like 4 highlight videos of Roquan Smith and I come away with the idea that he's really just a suped up Patrick Queen. He's ultra athletic, a very good blitzer, but not really known for being a coverage linebacker. He plays downhill and is a force in the run game, which is something Queen is not (well, consistently at least).

I do absolutely think there is validity to the idea that he's not good in coverage - or at least he's not known for being a coverage linebacker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DreamKid said:

This Arjun dude is attempting to black pill on Roquan's coverage ability and links to this other thread from PFF's Eric Eager- both offerings are extremely odd to me.

@sp6488 @drd23 Curious to get your thoughts on this....

Arjun is implying his metric involves what?... how successful the entire defensive unit's coverage is when that specific player is on the field? He says it looks at "every coverage snap every defensive player is playing". So despite the massive gap between Roquan and Patrick's individual advanced coverage statistics, Smith somehow isn't an upgrade over Queen in coverage because the players around them enjoyed a similar success rate?..... Even if that's not what he's implying by cumulative, I'm struggling to think of any interpretation where it would have analytical value that validates ignoring Smith's undeniable individual success within other advanced coverage metrics(especially when putting him head to head vs Queen)....  

 

Tried to unpack this SCOE metric, but the explanation for what it even is / how they arrive at it is paywalled 😬

Link to comment
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...