Jump to content

Chris Simms interview from OBD


TPS

Recommended Posts

Simms is a great listen and has some very positive things to say about Allen and the Bills. Includes a lot of other interesting takes as well, especially his view of Giants pick Jones.

 

Bills Mobile: Chris Simms: "I really would be shocked if Josh Allen doesn't go out there and assert himself as one of the better QBs"
https://www.buffalobills.com/audio/chris-simms-i-really-would-be-shocked-if-josh-allen-doesn-t-go-out-there-and-ass

 

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Thank you (+1) 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simms made an interesting point about the importance of pass rushers vs coverage guys.  Chiefs led the league in sacks last year, but their defense was awful.  Highly recommend Simms’s podcast.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mannc said:

Simms made an interesting point about the importance of pass rushers vs coverage guys.  Chiefs led the league in sacks last year, but their defense was awful.  Highly recommend Simms’s podcast.

 

I am like 75% on the way to a complete change of philosophy: Sacks don't matter! 

 

And by that what I am really saying is that sack numbers are completely overrated.  Like, if you get a sack, it will be a drive-ruiner.  But even NFL sack leaders do not get enough sacks to significantly alter the course of a game.  This of course excludes well timed sacks. 

 

I think what really matters is consistent QB pressure + coverage; something that is attainable as compared to sacks.   

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
 
2
2 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I am like 75% on the way to a complete change of philosophy: Sacks don't matter! 

 

And by that what I am really saying is that sack numbers are completely overrated.  Like, if you get a sack, it will be a drive-ruiner.  But even NFL sack leaders do not get enough sacks to significantly alter the course of a game.  This of course excludes well timed sacks. 

 

I think what really matters is consistent QB pressure + coverage; something that is attainable as compared to sacks.   

 

 

They really are.  I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I am like 75% on the way to a complete change of philosophy: Sacks don't matter! 

 

And by that what I am really saying is that sack numbers are completely overrated.  Like, if you get a sack, it will be a drive-ruiner.  But even NFL sack leaders do not get enough sacks to significantly alter the course of a game.  This of course excludes well timed sacks. 

 

I think what really matters is consistent QB pressure + coverage; something that is attainable as compared to sacks.   

You won’t say this If Hughes had 15 sacks.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

You won’t say this If Hughes had 15 sacks.  

 

I wouldn't had occurred to me if Hughes had 15 sacks, that is probably true. 

 

But now that it has, I really think I am on to something.  It reminds me of the year we had Pettine and got all those awesome sack numbers-our defense still sucked. Or Mario, even when he had those 10+ sack years, he was invisible on every other play.  It never sat well with me, but I couldn't articulate the problem. 

 

If Hughes had 15 sacks and half the pressures, I would say he is not worth the money.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I am like 75% on the way to a complete change of philosophy: Sacks don't matter! 

 

And by that what I am really saying is that sack numbers are completely overrated.  Like, if you get a sack, it will be a drive-ruiner.  But even NFL sack leaders do not get enough sacks to significantly alter the course of a game.  This of course excludes well timed sacks. 

 

I think what really matters is consistent QB pressure + coverage; something that is attainable as compared to sacks.   

 

I think you're on to something and you make sense.  But I have to say the problem with many blanket statements (like "sacks are great . . . sacks don't matter") is that, like so many things in football, the impact is situational and, I think, we often "over-statisticize" and use stats to come up with a rule that may not apply to all situations.  A sack on second and short may (may) kill a drive.  A sack on third and long may be meaningless because the punt was likely anyway.  And a sack on first down . . . I dunno, you've got at least two plays left to do something about it so I really don't want to generalize.

 

But you're right that sacks are over glamorized.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I am like 75% on the way to a complete change of philosophy: Sacks don't matter! 

 

And by that what I am really saying is that sack numbers are completely overrated.  Like, if you get a sack, it will be a drive-ruiner.  But even NFL sack leaders do not get enough sacks to significantly alter the course of a game.  This of course excludes well timed sacks. 

 

I think what really matters is consistent QB pressure + coverage; something that is attainable as compared to sacks.   

 

Sacks are obviously better than non-sacks, but agree that consistency is the key.  If you are getting consistent pressure, the sack numbers will come.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ennjay said:

 

I think you're on to something and you make sense.  But I have to say the problem with many blanket statements (like "sacks are great . . . sacks don't matter") is that, like so many things in football, the impact is situational and, I think, we often "over-statisticize" and use stats to come up with a rule that may not apply to all situations.  A sack on second and short may (may) kill a drive.  A sack on third and long may be meaningless because the punt was likely anyway.  And a sack on first down . . . I dunno, you've got at least two plays left to do something about it so I really don't want to generalize.

 

But you're right that sacks are over glamorized.

 

I hate blanket statements, and so I think my comment is really a response to overemphasis on season sack numbers.  We should always be trying to get sacks, but I don't think the number of sacks we get at the end of the year should be the metric or focus.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I am like 75% on the way to a complete change of philosophy: Sacks don't matter! 

 

And by that what I am really saying is that sack numbers are completely overrated.  Like, if you get a sack, it will be a drive-ruiner.  But even NFL sack leaders do not get enough sacks to significantly alter the course of a game.  This of course excludes well timed sacks. 

 

I think what really matters is consistent QB pressure + coverage; something that is attainable as compared to sacks.   

 

The flip is, outside of rare incidence of a guy being a great blitzer in an otherwise not aggressive defense... sacks and pressure tend to go hand in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I wouldn't had occurred to me if Hughes had 15 sacks, that is probably true. 

 

But now that it has, I really think I am on to something.  It reminds me of the year we had Pettine and got all those awesome sack numbers-our defense still sucked. Or Mario, even when he had those 10+ sack years, he was invisible on every other play.  It never sat well with me, but I couldn't articulate the problem. 

 

If Hughes had 15 sacks and half the pressures, I would say he is not worth the money.  

 

 

 

By no means did that Pettine defence suck. They were 10th in the league, in their first (and only) year in that new scheme. They were headed in the right direction. 4th best defensive DVOA in the league that year.

 

Sacks are very important. They're not overrated at all, IMO. But yeah, you can be good without getting them, especially if you're getting steady pressure.

Edited by Thurman#1
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

By no means did that Pettine defence suck. They were 10th in the league, in their first (and only) year in that new scheme. Not terrific, but headed in the right direction.

 

Sacks are very important. They're not overrated at all, IMO. But yeah, you can be good without getting them, especially if you're getting steady pressure.

 It was a stellar pass defense, but an atrocious run defense.  Teams ran all over us that year, and didn't even bother passing the ball.  As a result of the constant running, the game slowed down, meaning teams had fewer drives and thus lower total yards.  That defense sucked. 

 

Sacks are overrated, because event the best teams do not get enough sucks through the course of game to consistently matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality you want:  sacks + pressure = total QB stress.

 

However it is the total D stat that matters.  If you can not cover or stop the run, the QB stress does not matter.  The sum is greater than the parts with a great D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Just Joshin' said:

In reality you want:  sacks + pressure = total QB stress.

 

However it is the total D stat that matters.  If you can not cover or stop the run, the QB stress does not matter.  The sum is greater than the parts with a great D.

 

Yup - For instance, can't stop the run = 8 yards on first down.. 2nd and 2.  7 yard sack = 3rd and 9.  Still a good shot at converting.

 

Stop the run on 1st down.  2nd and 8.  7 yard sack on 2nd down = 3rd and 15.  Probably not converting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Just Joshin' said:

In reality you want:  sacks + pressure = total QB stress.

 

However it is the total D stat that matters.  If you can not cover or stop the run, the QB stress does not matter.  The sum is greater than the parts with a great D.

What you want is fewer 1st downs.  You can get there with a lower 3rd down %, but generally fewer first downs will result in fewer plays.  Fewer plays will result in fewer yards.  Fewer yards will result in fewer points.  

 

This puts your offense on the field more trying to do the opposite.  More plays, more yards, more points.  

 

Red zone execution is another important piece, but thats what i consider the basis of good defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...