A.J. Jenkins

[clyde_carbon]

Is someone in this thread really trying to say that Alex attempts more narrow windowed passes than Eli?

Lol.

 

[MHSL82]

Is someone in this thread really trying to say that Alex attempts more narrow windowed passes than Eli?

Lol.

No, not more, just more frequently. Stop focusing on grammar! Just kidding. I don't know what he's claiming. Without stats on Eli, I'll go with the eye test. Eli throws more tight-window passes and he's paid back by great catches sometimes.

 

[MHSL82]

Yea I went there too at first, and figured that is what happened. Didn't mean anything by it just thought it would fit in with all the damn grammer talk

Grammar, not grammer. I don't care, but grammar goes well with spelling and semantics. Personally, I like semantics MUCH better than grammar and spelling. There's just much more to say, you know?

 

[Bemular]

Is someone in this thread really trying to say that Alex attempts more narrow windowed passes than Eli?

Lol.

Haha...bored are you?

 

[deep9er]

Is someone in this thread really trying to say that Alex attempts more narrow windowed passes than Eli?

Lol.

not taking sides on the point of discussion, but am enjoying this thread.

believe Bemular said Eli does throw more, but its so close its negligible? ie Crimson's claim is far exaggerated?

there's no stats for Eli so we can't compare 'head to head', and its also true these stats are unsubstantiated.

no one will prove his side in this topic, but its not really about proving THIS topic.

 

[imac_21]

I want to take the stats Bemular posted about Smith throwing into tight coverages in a different direction. . .

I haven't gone back to look at the exact numbers, but IIRC, it was a pretty distinct minority of Smith's attempts going to receivers with a DB with 2 yards (roughly 33%?).

Does this dispel the theory that our receivers can't get open? If 33% of passes were to guys with a defender within 2 yards, that means that 67% of passes were to guys that were open by 2+ yards, correct?

 

[NinerSickness]

Does this dispel the theory that our receivers can't get open? If 33% of passes were to guys with a defender within 2 yards, that means that 67% of passes were to guys that were open by 2+ yards, correct?

Well no, because those numbers were just on pass attempts to the WRs Someone would have to find out the percentage of times they weren't covered for every desifgned pass play, and they'd have to do it for all the targets on all those plays, not just the ones who were targetted.

So no, this doesn't speak to the WRs' abilities to get open.

Besides, 2 yards is an arbitrary number, and that doesn't take into consideration the position of the safety or zone coverages.

 

[deep9er]

Well no, because those numbers were just on pass attempts to the WRs Someone would have to find out the percentage of times they weren't covered for every desifgned pass play, and they'd have to do it for all the targets on all those plays, not just the ones who were targetted.

So no, this doesn't speak to the WRs' abilities to get open.

Besides, 2 yards is an arbitrary number, and that doesn't take into consideration the position of the safety or zone coverages.

good response. also, are those stats only pertaining to WR's? what about RB's, TE's, DT's, and OT's?



All totaled, 153 or 34.4% of Smiths 445 passes were thrown to receivers covered at a distance ranging from touching the receiver to 2.5 yards from the receiver.

 

[Bemular]

I want to take the stats Bemular posted about Smith throwing into tight coverages in a different direction. . .

I haven't gone back to look at the exact numbers, but IIRC, it was a pretty distinct minority of Smith's attempts going to receivers with a DB with 2 yards (roughly 33%?).

Does this dispel the theory that our receivers can't get open? If 33% of passes were to guys with a defender within 2 yards, that means that 67% of passes were to guys that were open by 2+ yards, correct?

Excellent question.

It does say something, but without comparative data it is hard to know what it is saying. One thing to consider is the number of passes that were dumps, drags, swings etc. Those passes are more often than not going to be to receivers that are open to wide open.

 

[MHSL82]

I want to take the stats Bemular posted about Smith throwing into tight coverages in a different direction. . .

I haven't gone back to look at the exact numbers, but IIRC, it was a pretty distinct minority of Smith's attempts going to receivers with a DB with 2 yards (roughly 33%?).

Does this dispel the theory that our receivers can't get open? If 33% of passes were to guys with a defender within 2 yards, that means that 67% of passes were to guys that were open by 2+ yards, correct?

Even after all Sickness wrote, to further elaborate, where the receivers were in relation to where the defenders were when the ball was thrown says nothing about the times Smith took a sack because of no separation, threw the ball away when the receiver had no separation (or for that matter did and Smith didn't pass it), or rushed when receivers had no separation, or checked down to an open check down because the designed targetted player created no separation in which the ball if completed would have been close to the defender. Hypothetically speaking, the receivers could have created separation 10% of the time and Smith 90% of the time threw it to check downs/rushed/threw it away who were 2.5+ yards away making it appear that the targets were open.

 

[Bemular]

Even after all Sickness wrote, to further elaborate, where the receivers were in relation to where the defenders were when the ball was thrown says nothing about the times Smith took a sack because of no separation, threw the ball away when the receiver had no separation (or for that matter did and Smith didn't pass it), or rushed when receivers had no separation, or checked down to an open check down because the designed targetted player created no separation in which the ball if completed would have been close to the defender. Hypothetically speaking, the receivers could have created separation 10% of the time and Smith 90% of the time threw it to check downs/rushed/threw it away who were 2.5+ yards away making it appear that the targets were open.

Sacks would not be considered in this type of analysis simply because they are not counted a pass attempts.

 

[MHSL82]

Sacks would not be considered in this type of analysis simply because they are not counted a pass attempts.

That's what I'm saying. I was saying we couldn't know whether the receivers were creating separation if he didn't throw it (i.e. sack) so we can't say that, per 100 passing plays, the receivers were getting open at the same ratio of >2.5/<2.5 yards if on those passing plays the receivers were so covered that Smith took the sack. (2/1 according to your numbers) We could try to rectify it by adding the sack plays to the number of plays covered, but that would be saying that Smith wasn't gunshy ever. Plus, just like sacks, we'd have to add the non-designed rushes and the plays where he threw it out of bounds, if we were to try and account for plays the receivers were 'covered'.

It's a mess, to say the least. Add in the fact that we can't use Smith as the baseline to determine whether the receiver was too covered to throw the ball to because that would create somewhat of a circular reference.

So, short answer - no, the ratio mentioned does not indicate per se that the receivers were getting open, but rather, perhaps that Smith is choosing that number of risks. Without Manning's numbers, I'm going to go by what my eyes/gut tell me, that Manning throws more tight window passes. I won't say that Smith can't do as many, but rather that he hasn't and there's no indication that despite the added receivers that he's all of a sudden going to do it. If anything, it'll take time.

 

[Bemular]

That's what I'm saying. I was saying we couldn't know whether the receivers were creating separation if he didn't throw it (i.e. sack) so we can't say that, per 100 passing plays, the receivers were getting open at the same ratio of >2.5/<2.5 yards if on those passing plays the receivers were so covered that Smith took the sack. (2/1 according to your numbers) We could try to rectify it by adding the sack plays to the number of plays covered, but that would be saying that Smith wasn't gunshy ever. Plus, just like sacks, we'd have to add the non-designed rushes and the plays where he threw it out of bounds, if we were to try and account for plays the receivers were 'covered'.

Yeah, I think I understand what you're saying and for that type of analysis you would need access to coaches film and the playbook. Also, there are different types of sacks that have nothing to do with coverage, thus, and since they are not recorded as a pass attempt, they are simply not part of this analysis.

Throw-aways are a little easier to record simply because of their implication, although they can be removed from the PA denominator as well.

 

[Bemular]

It's a mess, to say the least. Add in the fact that we can't use Smith as the baseline to determine whether the receiver was too covered to throw the ball to because that would create somewhat of a circular reference.

So, short answer - no, the ratio mentioned does not indicate per se that the receivers were getting open, but rather, perhaps that Smith is choosing that number of risks. Without Manning's numbers, I'm going to go by what my eyes/gut tell me, that Manning throws more tight window passes. I won't say that Smith can't do as many, but rather that he hasn't and there's no indication that despite the added receivers that he's all of a sudden going to do it. If anything, it'll take time.

The only thing the information provides is how open or covered the receiver was at the point of reception. I've now watched 14 Giants games and I agree Manning does throw into coverage more often than Smith - Some of his throws were complete prayers that Smith would never throw with our line-up of receivers.

In addition to that, Manning's risk reward ratio for throwing into coverage more often than Smith doesn't appear to be worth it when you look at completion %, TD's & INT's. I would like to see Smith take more risks but it seems that Manning should probably take fewer risks.

 

[Rvnight18]

Damn I need a beer after reading all this.

 

[MHSL82]

Damn I need a beer after reading all this.

It would have helped before reading it; now, you're outta luck. Though I guess Lightyear would say beer is always good regardless.

 

[mem49er]

It would have helped before reading it; now, you're outta luck. Though I guess Lightyear would say beer is always good regardless.

Beer is good, God is great....and people are crazy.

 

[CalamityX11]

AJ Stank Jenkins.

 

[NinerSickness]

Sacks would not be considered in this type of analysis simply because they are not counted a pass attempts.

Sure they would. The only way to accurately show a WR's ability to get open (if 2 yards is the measure of openity) is to take every play the WR runs a route.

It's really almost impossible to show statistically.

 

[Bemular]

Sure they would. The only way to accurately show a WR's ability to get open (if 2 yards is the measure of openity) is to take every play the WR runs a route.

It's really almost impossible to show statistically.

Actually they wouldn't for three reasons. First, this particular analysis has no bearing on a receiver’s ability to get open. It simply shows where the defender(s) was/were at the point the pass reached the receiver.

Second, the analysis of whether a sack was coverage related, protection related, rush related or something else would be too subjective and time consuming while at the same time the percentage of coverage sacks to PA's would be far too low to even warrant the time to include such information.

I expect within the next 2-3 years we will begin to see sacks divided more meaningfully among their different categories and that will tell a similar story from a sack perspective rather than a pass attempt perspective.

Finally, and perhaps the biggest reason we will never see that type of analysis on the internet, at least any time soon, is your last sentence. Without access to coach’s film and a playbook and dozens of hours per game just to study the routes you won't get anywhere near a meaningful measurement.