Chris Simms interview from OBD

[NoHuddleKelly12]

1 hour ago, LSHMEAB said:

That was the one year I felt confident we could contain the top QB's. If you want to have an elite defense, you get in the QB's face all day long. That's the way I view it anyways. Of course you need a solid MLB and guys who can cover. But if I'm given the choice, I'll take an imposing front four any day of the week.

Absolutely. That’s also how the Giants took care of Brady in his SB losses—constant pressure collapsing the middle of the pocket, throwing him off his timing, making him hear footsteps all day, etc. conversely give Brady time, and he’ll dissect your coverages no matter who you have at corner. 

[Rocket94]

1 hour ago, LSHMEAB said:

That was the one year I felt confident we could contain the top QB's. If you want to have an elite defense, you get in the QB's face all day long. That's the way I view it anyways. Of course you need a solid MLB and guys who can cover. But if I'm given the choice, I'll take an imposing front four any day of the week.

I totally agree. Relentless pressure on the QB through the middle and the outside...enough to wear down the best pass blocking.

[eball]

19 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Simms and Boomer Esiason really like Allen. Hoping they are right about him.

 

...but you won’t be shocked if they are wrong. 

 

Sorry, just completing what we all know are your true thoughts. Your keyboard must have jammed up while you were composing your post. 

 

 

12 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

With Schwartz, we arguably had the best d line in the nfl and had a defense that shut down prime Aaron Rodgers and Peyton Manning.  We weren’t taking about pressures then.  

 

Again, I like Hughes.  But it seems like Bills fans just settle.  Basically everywhere, a sack is better than a pressure. It’s like trying to pretend like 52% completion rate isn’t terrible.  It’s ok to want an $11 million dollar DE to get average more 5 sacks in his last four years, especially when he is turning 31.  It’s ok to have a qb complete more than 60% of his passes (and hopefully he will).  

 

And im not meaning this directly at you.  It’s just a frustration as Bills fans that we just act like it’s ok to not want more.  We should have high standards because we are the best fans on the plant.  

 

You really should read McD’s interview from a couple of days ago, talking about the media using sacks as the key stat but specifically talking about forcing incompletions and picks by getting consistent pressure, which is exactly what Hughes does. 

 

This “Bills fans settle” nonsense makes you sound like a fool.  Name a fan who doesn’t want the best players at every position?

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by eball

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

10 hours ago, TPS said:

Can I withdraw this thread? Shame...

 

The Originator can DELETE their thread at any time ..

 

[C.Biscuit97]

8 hours ago, eball said:

 

...but you won’t be shocked if they are wrong. 

 

Sorry, just completing what we all know are your true thoughts. Your keyboard must have jammed up while you were composing your post. 

 

 

 

You really should read McD’s interview from a couple of days ago, talking about the media using sacks as the key stat but specifically talking about forcing incompletions and picks by getting consistent pressure, which is exactly what Hughes does. 

 

This “Bills fans settle” nonsense makes you sound like a fool.  Name a fan who doesn’t want the best players at every position?

 

Name calling? When did you become such a Richard (see it’s easy)?

[TPS]

1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

The Originator can DELETE their thread at any time ..

 

I will give Simms one more opportunity, but if he says Ranch over Blue again, I'm done with him....

[Warcodered]

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...certainly interesting how ex-NFL QB's (their careers don't make a difference IMO; convenient excuse) like Simms, Boomer, Dilfer, Professor Palmer or our newest Professor Dorsey, etc. like this kid...think their objective analyses whether positive, negative or a blend (more than likely as it should be) are more beneficial than some urinalist trying to hide anti-Bills sentiment from their yips....other thread about "national media warming up to Bills" is a non-issue......blowout loss in week one and those bi-polars are on the other side of the fence......

[Rocket94]

On 5/23/2019 at 6:27 AM, ScottLaw said:

Simms and Boomer Esiason really like Allen. Hoping they are right about him.

From just watching the game for so many years, I sense good things from Josh Allen. This young man cares and seems open minded and teachable. All of the visceral stuff and instincts should kick in! There is no doubt about his talent.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Rocket94

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 5/23/2019 at 9:48 AM, 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.

 

This is a great post.

 

Here's a thought question to frame it differently:

If you look at the teams whose offense is taking the largest numbers of sacks, are they the best offenses in the league, or a the worst?

 

Typically, it's the latter.   So if sacks don't matter, why is it teams that take a lot of them tend to have poor offenses?

 

The way I'd put it is that sacks are an important component of a great defense, but they matter in context. 

Some defenses rack up sacks at the expense of gap discipline and containing the run.  That was a Pettine trademark IMO.   People are always saying sh** like "blitz every play, sack Brady!" but there's truth to the saying "live by the blitz, die by the blitz".  You blitz, you leave a coverage gap, and no one can exploit that like Brady.  On the other hand, when there's pressure that disrupts the QB and consistent coverage, then you get sacks which are less about having hair-raising edge rushers and more about coverage.

 

 

 

[Mat68]

I am a fan of Cris Simms work.  He is an entertaining listen. Legitimately, makes an effort to watch games and film of teams and players before formulating his own opinion.  His opinions are not always correct but they are at least well thought out.  Hes a big believer in Allen and McDermott.  He puts McDermott in the top of the league in terms of defensive minds and scheme.  He is an anti- Kyle Shannon/ Mcvay sort of speak. 

[TPS]

On 5/24/2019 at 8:18 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is a great post.

 

Here's a thought question to frame it differently:

If you look at the teams whose offense is taking the largest numbers of sacks, are they the best offenses in the league, or a the worst?

 

Typically, it's the latter.   So if sacks don't matter, why is it teams that take a lot of them tend to have poor offenses?

 

The way I'd put it is that sacks are an important component of a great defense, but they matter in context. 

Some defenses rack up sacks at the expense of gap discipline and containing the run.  That was a Pettine trademark IMO.   People are always saying sh** like "blitz every play, sack Brady!" but there's truth to the saying "live by the blitz, die by the blitz".  You blitz, you leave a coverage gap, and no one can exploit that like Brady.  On the other hand, when there's pressure that disrupts the QB and consistent coverage, then you get sacks which are less about having hair-raising edge rushers and more about coverage.

 

 

 

It would be interesting to see a deep dive into the “sacks” question. Some thoughts.

How many happen when a team is several scores up and the D line can “pin their ears back” and go? The KC example Simms used, a lot of sacks, but horrible O. Seems to be a consequence of KC’s O and teams having to keep pace. KC’s D faced 140 more pass attempts than the Bills. How many double teams did a pass rusher face? There are so many factors to consider, so there’s no perfect stat to measure a pass rushers effectiveness, but I’ll take % of pressures on pass rush attempts over # of sacks any day. 

[3rdand12]

On 5/23/2019 at 10:55 AM, TigerJ said:

Sacks are good, but they're kind of like gravy.  If the meat is tough and grisly, and has no flavor, you can't appreciate the gravy as much.

I always enjoy a food analogy.

 sack stats post season with out context are pretty rough to base conclusions on.

 Because fantasy football.
But the game remains a team game. Thank goodness.

Like a set of vernier calipers. . "for reference only " like post season statistics.

Sack can be game changing but are getting harder and harder to get. Due to the new rules of roughing the QB bu looking at him with evil intent.

 Hughes mentioned he had trouble adjusting. I suspect all the pass rushers do.

Future state is pressure and ability to disrupt passing lanes.

 Bruce would be quite frustrated playing todays game i bet . 

On 5/24/2019 at 8:18 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is a great post.

 

Here's a thought question to frame it differently:

If you look at the teams whose offense is taking the largest numbers of sacks, are they the best offenses in the league, or a the worst?

 

Typically, it's the latter.   So if sacks don't matter, why is it teams that take a lot of them tend to have poor offenses?

 

The way I'd put it is that sacks are an important component of a great defense, but they matter in context. 

Some defenses rack up sacks at the expense of gap discipline and containing the run.  That was a Pettine trademark IMO.   People are always saying sh** like "blitz every play, sack Brady!" but there's truth to the saying "live by the blitz, die by the blitz".  You blitz, you leave a coverage gap, and no one can exploit that like Brady.  On the other hand, when there's pressure that disrupts the QB and consistent coverage, then you get sacks which are less about having hair-raising edge rushers and more about coverage.

 

 

 

Good post.

[3rdand12]

8 hours ago, TPS said:

It would be interesting to see a deep dive into the “sacks” question. Some thoughts.

How many happen when a team is several scores up and the D line can “pin their ears back” and go? The KC example Simms used, a lot of sacks, but horrible O. Seems to be a consequence of KC’s O and teams having to keep pace. KC’s D faced 140 more pass attempts than the Bills. How many double teams did a pass rusher face? There are so many factors to consider, so there’s no perfect stat to measure a pass rushers effectiveness, but I’ll take % of pressures on pass rush attempts over # of sacks any day. 

this is a great way so simplify the details involved. easier to read stat  might be how an offense fairs on game day, to tell how  well opposing  defense did.
We had some nice pass defense all year, and got pooched against  run game  a couple games.

 

I like Simms. he does his  home work .

Thanks OP 

: )

[Captain Murica]

 

[Thurman#1]

On 5/24/2019 at 12:19 AM, 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.

 

 

It's all important, but pass D more so. Because the passing offense is more productive and the rules have been torqued to make it easier.

 

2018 Top ten run defenses by total yards: Bears, Saints, Texans, Ravens, Cowboys, Steelers, Eagles, Colts, Chargers, Lions. And that stat is affected by the fact that many teams with good offenses get ahead and force the other teams to play catch-up which generally means running less. A better look at how good the run defense is is Average Yard Per Carry.

 

2018 Top ten run defenses by Average Yards Per Carry:  Texans, Saints, Ravens, Bears, Cowboys, Colts, Vikings, 9ers, Bills, Steelers

 

It's all important. The more everything complements each other, the better. You're right that it's total D that matters. But if you're going to choose one, it's pretty obvious which would be better to emphasize.

[Thurman#1]

On 5/25/2019 at 9:18 AM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is a great post.

 

Here's a thought question to frame it differently:

If you look at the teams whose offense is taking the largest numbers of sacks, are they the best offenses in the league, or a the worst?

 

Typically, it's the latter.   So if sacks don't matter, why is it teams that take a lot of them tend to have poor offenses?

 

The way I'd put it is that sacks are an important component of a great defense, but they matter in context. 

Some defenses rack up sacks at the expense of gap discipline and containing the run.  That was a Pettine trademark IMO.   People are always saying sh** like "blitz every play, sack Brady!" but there's truth to the saying "live by the blitz, die by the blitz".  You blitz, you leave a coverage gap, and no one can exploit that like Brady.  On the other hand, when there's pressure that disrupts the QB and consistent coverage, then you get sacks which are less about having hair-raising edge rushers and more about coverage.

 

 

 

Overall you're right that it's poor offenses, though Dallas was #2 and Seattle #8 last year.

 

I'd argue that the context is important but not that important. Sacks greatly reduce the chances of a first down, generally, even on first down. They are key plays. And the reasons poor offenses have a lot of them are many and varied but the largest reason is probably that poor offenses wind up in a lot of obvious passing situations. That doesn't mean sacks don't hurt. Even if it's 3rd and 8 or 3rd and 10, a completion could easily convert and keep the drive moving. A sack is a death knell for most drives.

 

Agreed that Brady handles blitzes extremely well, but much less so when he can't easily predict when they're coming.  Teams that blitz a lot are predictable. Teams that blitz unpredictably can make life hell for QBs. Even Brady.

[the_D]

On 5/23/2019 at 11:04 AM, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

 

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.

I totally agree. My only wonder, is which leads to more turnovers? Sacks, or  Qb pressures? Fumbles? Bad decisions?

I'd look myself,.but I'm old, it would take too long.

Edited May 27, 2019 by the_D

[Shaw66]

On 5/24/2019 at 2:30 AM, eball said:

 

 

You really should read McD’s interview from a couple of days ago, talking about the media using sacks as the key stat but specifically talking about forcing incompletions and picks by getting consistent pressure, which is exactly what Hughes does. 

 

That's right.  McD was very interesting on the subject.  It sounds like they track and rely on QB pressures.  He likes sacks, but pressures is what he wants.  The more pressures, the more opportunities for other guys to make plays.  

Edited May 27, 2019 by Shaw66

[ColoradoBills]

9 hours ago, the_D said:

I totally agree. My only wonder, is which leads to more turnovers? Sacks, or  Qb pressures? Fumbles? Bad decisions?

I'd look myself,.but I'm old, it would take too long.

 

I look at it this way.  By definition a sack is a tackle (or force out-of-bounce) of a QB behind the LOS in attempting a pass.

So in that sense a sack cannot result in a turnover.

 

QB pressures can lead to fumbles, interceptions, sacks OR they can even end up not negatively affecting the offensive play at all.

 

Unless someone categories and scores every one of these plays it ends up being more of an "eye of the beholder" thing IMO.

I don't know of any site doing that for individual players or teams for that matter.

I'm also pretty sure some teams do analytics on this and do have that info but do not share it.

FWIW

 

 

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

 

Unless someone categories and scores every one of these plays it ends up being more of an "eye of the beholder" thing IMO.

I don't know of any site doing that for individual players or teams for that matter.

I'm also pretty sure some teams do analytics on this and do have that info but do not share it.

FWIW

 

 

McD made it sound like the Bill's keep those stats, and the pressure stat is more important to them.  

[ColoradoBills]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

McD made it sound like the Bill's keep those stats, and the pressure stat is more important to them.  

 

I'm willing to bet they keep those stats too.  It would be pretty cool to see how they score those pass rushing play results.

[eball]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

That's right.  McD was very interesting on the subject.  It sounds like they track and rely on QB pressures.  He likes sacks, but pressures is what he wants.  The more pressures, the more opportunities for other guys to make plays.  

 

This is falling upon deaf ears with @C.Biscuit97 and others. Sacks are all that matters and we sucker Bills fans are “settling” for Hughes on a true hometown discount contract!

 

Oh, to be a damaged Bills fan!

[Forward Progress]

2 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

I look at it this way.  By definition a sack is a tackle (or force out-of-bounce) of a QB behind the LOS in attempting a pass.

So in that sense a sack cannot result in a turnover.

 

 

... except a strip sack, where a fumble is caused by a tackle on the QB behind the line of scrimmage, can lead to a turnover and still counts a sack statistically.

 

I agree with the essence of your point that QB pressure leads to several good outcomes for the defense and sacks are not the only benefit of getting at (or near) the QB.

[3rdand12]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

That's right.  McD was very interesting on the subject.  It sounds like they track and rely on QB pressures.  He likes sacks, but pressures is what he wants.  The more pressures, the more opportunities for other guys to make plays.  

forced turnovers are what you want.

Back in the day Sacks often meant QBs were taking a volatile hit. The chances for a ball coming loose may have been higher. because sometimes they really freaked out when a defensive player was bearing down and going to crush them violently.

 i miss that.
seeing a QB go pee cuz he was actually scared.

 pressure comes from anywhere. if you are worried  as a qb ? That's  "advantage defense '

[ColoradoBills]

1 hour ago, Forward Progress said:

 

... except a strip sack, where a fumble is caused by a tackle on the QB behind the line of scrimmage, can lead to a turnover and still counts a sack statistically.

 

I agree with the essence of your point that QB pressure leads to several good outcomes for the defense and sacks are not the only benefit of getting at (or near) the QB.

 

You are right about both your points.

While you can't discount sacks as being highly emotional plays for the defense they are not the only way to judge a pass rush.

 

 

[Jumpsuit Jim]

We need to take these points into consideration when we form our opinion of Star L. Is he overpaid because he isn’t hitting the QB, or is he paid just right because he moves the pocket and indirectly pressures the QB? 

[Punching Bag]

Star is supposed to keep linemen off LBs so they can make plays and since most of our LBs are undersized that is a good thing.

 

Not sure how well it will work with an undersized DT protecting an undersized LB but we better hope Bills brain trust has solid plans.

[eball]

16 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

Star is supposed to keep linemen off LBs so they can make plays and since most of our LBs are undersized that is a good thing.

 

Not sure how well it will work with an undersized DT protecting an undersized LB but we better hope Bills brain trust has solid plans.

 

If it works it’s because said undersized DT will beat the OL to their gaps and disrupt plays before they ever get to the LBs. 

 

Oliver was not drafted to be someone who occupies blockers. Do people really not understand this?

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, 3rdand12 said:

forced turnovers are what you want.

Back in the day Sacks often meant QBs were taking a volatile hit. The chances for a ball coming loose may have been higher. because sometimes they really freaked out when a defensive player was bearing down and going to crush them violently.

 i miss that.
seeing a QB go pee cuz he was actually scared.

 pressure comes from anywhere. if you are worried  as a qb ? That's  "advantage defense '

 

One of my favorite Bruce Smith memories is Jeff George dropping back, looking left, and clearly mouthing bug-eyed "Oh, *****!" before Smith annihilates him for the fourth time that game.

 

And one of my favorite SB XXV moments is captured in the series of stills where Leon Seals pancakes Hostetler.  

 

One of the reasons sacks aren't as important nowadays is because that level of intimidation has been taken out of the pass rush.  QBs are much more protected nowadays, so you don't see "pressures" where the QB is pancaked after the throw, or where QBs are honestly frightened at the prospect of being sacked.  Getting a QB rattled has become less about the intimidation, and more about getting inside the QBs decision cycle and forcing errors.  

 

That being said, they're not unimportant, either.  A mere "pressure" never turned a 2nd and 5 into a 3rd and 18 (intentional grounding excepted, which frankly should be tracked as a stat along with sacks) and drastically limited an offense's play calling options.

[Wnybricky]

Would be nice to see his actual interview and not just the clip 

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

6 hours ago, eball said:

 

This is falling upon deaf ears with @C.Biscuit97 and others. Sacks are all that matters and we sucker Bills fans are “settling” for Hughes on a true hometown discount contract!

 

Oh, to be a damaged Bills fan!

Dude.

[Chandler#81]

I’m pretty sure today’s the day the entire interview gets posted on Fox Sports. If you see it, please copy & link.

[Locomark]

On 5/23/2019 at 12:25 PM, MJS said:

He also mentioned that there were a lot of teams interested in Josh Allen and had him as their #1 or #2 QB on the board. Not sure if I completely believe that, but he claimed the Giants would have taken him if not Barkley, he claimed he was the #2 QB for the Browns. Arizona preferred Josh Allen. The idea was that he was high on everyone's board and much more favored than the national media realized.

 

That made me feel better about our QB evaluation. First time I really heard anyone say that.

[billsfan_34]

On 5/23/2019 at 8:21 AM, Rocket94 said:

Simms has a good sense about players. He hits on the intangibles often overlooked by other analysts.

Super high IQ football guy. Simms is one of my favorites to listen to.

[Rocket94]

1 hour ago, billsfan_34 said:

Super high IQ football guy. Simms is one of my favorites to listen to.

Yeah...I like his out of the box thinking. Kind of like life itself! He is a former player too and he sometimes hits on underlying traits.

[billsfan_34]

1 hour ago, Rocket94 said:

Yeah...I like his out of the box thinking. Kind of like life itself! He is a former player too and he sometimes hits on underlying traits.

I have noticed that also. He is able to see the little things others dont.

[Rocket94]

10 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said:

I have noticed that also. He is able to see the little things others dont.

I know. We are seeing it more and more with the way the game is evolving. Look at Matt Milano and now possibly Vaseon Joseph.

[billsfan_34]

20 minutes ago, Rocket94 said:

I know. We are seeing it more and more with the way the game is evolving. Look at Matt Milano and now possibly Vaseon Joseph.

Seems like out LB corps is shaping up nicely. We may have a nasty D this year.

[Rocket94]

7 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said:

Seems like out LB corps is shaping up nicely. We may have a nasty D this year.

The "D" is getting there!