A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://beta1.vikingsmessageboard.com/
I agree wholeheartedly. We get so bogged down in a numbers game sometimes (odd coming from the guy who is evaluating Spielman's draft by the numbers, I know!) without taking a look at them in context. It is obvious Robison has some adjusting to do. I think he is one of those players who likes to gun for the QB, since he also did that at Texas. So, he is really learning a new scheme for himself. I think there have been marked improvements across the board with the defense, because now they seem to be playing as a unit, instead of playing as individuals.PacificNorseWest wrote:One person getting pressue can almost be counter productive against a quarterback who knows how to move in the pocket. However -- and I think this is what Zimmer alludes to when he talks about it essentially not mattering who gets sacks because it's all a product of other guys doing their job -- when multiple players get pressure on the quarterback it collapses the pocket where any number of great things can happen for the defense more times than not. Passing lanes limited or restricted, rushed throws leading to inaccurate ones, possible strip of the football and of course sacks.
And I think another large factor is the secondary's ability to cover. If one guy is getting pressure, but the quarterback simply steps up to a wide open receiver, it's all within rhythym and a fairly easy play to make. An entire unit that is great at getting to the quarterback can make a secondary better than it really might be with a lesser line or at least hides their ineffeciencies to a point. See: Detroit Lions.
Exactly. Watch his play, if he's disruptive week to week, fine. He's not. Hence this thread...every other starter and a couple backups are having more of an impact than he is.HardcoreVikesFan wrote: At the end of the day, do pressures really mean anything though? Look at Kenechi Udeze. In 2006 he started EVERY game and was sack less. He led the NFL pressures though. The result? Our defense still ranked dead last in pass yards per game allowed.
Cumulative pressure can affect a QB, but it doesn't mean anything if you cannot finish and get the sack. Especially nowadays where so many QBs are adept at throwing under duress. Getting a sack typically involves negative yardage and stalls a down-series, whereas pressuring may simply hurry a throw, but there is a pretty good chance that ball is getting completed.
To me, pressures are a worthless feel-good statistic. But that is just me personally.
Not saying that. I'm saying he has been our most effective and consistent defensive lineman we've had in the last 3 years and since he's off to a slow start people are saying we need to trade him or get rid of him. Also he must be somewhat disruptive if he has the 2nd most hurries in the NFL. If he was stalemated at the line week in and week out then I would understand but that's not happening. Its just since he doesn't have enough sacks to currently please you, he "isn't good". If he's "not good" then how does he have 8-9 sacks every year for 3 years?? Sorry but PKs "Jared Allen was getting doubled" argument doesn't work since every sack he has had that I have found on video shows Allen going 1 on 1Demi wrote: Exactly. Watch his play, if he's disruptive week to week, fine. He's not. Hence this thread...every other starter and a couple backups are having more of an impact than he is.
Why does it feel like every player on the team just *has* to be better than the general fan consensus of where they are at?
for you:CbusVikesFan wrote: lmao. Yea, next time I play the lotto, I want to miss all the numbers by one. So I can scream, "I was close!"
great points....PacificNorseWest wrote:One person getting pressue can almost be counter productive against a quarterback who knows how to move in the pocket. However -- and I think this is what Zimmer alludes to when he talks about it essentially not mattering who gets sacks because it's all a product of other guys doing their job -- when multiple players get pressure on the quarterback it collapses the pocket where any number of great things can happen for the defense more times than not. Passing lanes limited or restricted, rushed throws leading to inaccurate ones, possible strip of the football and of course sacks.
And I think another large factor is the secondary's ability to cover. If one guy is getting pressure, but the quarterback simply steps up to a wide open receiver, it's all within rhythym and a fairly easy play to make. An entire unit that is great at getting to the quarterback can make a secondary better than it really might be with a lesser line or at least hides their ineffeciencies to a point. See: Detroit Lions.
That is just wrong.The Breeze wrote: for you:
BGM wrote:Robison excelled as a secondary threat. When he had Allen across from him to eat up blockers, he was free to roam and make noise. I think Griffen gets his results because offenses focus more on stopping Robison, based more probably on his reputation than on his reality. What I would like to see is two real bookend DEs who can bring consistent pressure and collapse the pocket. Are there any teams out there who currently have that?
CbusVikesFan wrote: That is just wrong.
like dying of dehydration on a life raft in the oceansaint33 wrote:
I hate to be "that guy", but technically this isn't "close". It is in fact mathematically tied for as far from winning the lottery as is possible.
Pretty much the textbook definition of having the unluckiest luck.saint33 wrote:
I hate to be "that guy", but technically this isn't "close". It is in fact mathematically tied for as far from winning the lottery as is possible.
When he gets hurries, it's a useless stat. When he ranks in the top 30 in sacks every season for the past three years, it's a useless stat. Is it possible that it's not the numbers that are wrong, but your perception of the player?Demi wrote: Exactly. Watch his play, if he's disruptive week to week, fine. He's not. Hence this thread...every other starter and a couple backups are having more of an impact than he is.
Why does it feel like every player on the team just *has* to be better than the general fan consensus of where they are at?
Kansas City Chiefs have an awesome tandem on LBs in Tamba Hali and Justin Houston. They tied for 11th in sacks last season.BGM wrote:Robison excelled as a secondary threat. When he had Allen across from him to eat up blockers, he was free to roam and make noise. I think Griffen gets his results because offenses focus more on stopping Robison, based more probably on his reputation than on his reality. What I would like to see is two real bookend DEs who can bring consistent pressure and collapse the pocket. Are there any teams out there who currently have that?
Top 30? So he barely cracks the "average" mark in the statistic? That's kind of my perception and point, he's an average defensive end on his best day...When he gets hurries, it's a useless stat. When he ranks in the top 30 in sacks every season for the past three years, it's a useless stat. Is it possible that it's not the numbers that are wrong, but your perception of the player?
Actually, he ranked in the top 15 for DEs every year during that period.Demi wrote: Top 30? So he barely cracks the "average" mark in the statistic? That's kind of my perception and point, he's an average defensive end on his best day...
Go ahead and focus on him a bit more and you'll see the truth! My perception is reality!
