Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TPS

Chris Simms interview from OBD

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
  • Thanks! (+1) 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Thanks! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

funny how a JA thread turned into defense and sacks?

its the TBD way (or any fan board)  

 

Simms has been "high" on Josh for a while ...  (a whole year) 

Edited by ShadyBillsFan
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

funny how a JA thread turned into defense and sacks?

JA is only one part of the discussion in the interview.  They got into a discussion about pass rush vs coverage, and what is more important.  Simms said something like, 10 years ago I would've said pass rush, but he's now on the side of coverage.  Another interesting tidbit was related to the year he worked for the Pats, saying how it is football 24-7.  He had a funny line about Belichick being so focused on football.  He was in town doing a piece on JA, which he said will come out next week most likely.  I'd recommend a listen if you haven't already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

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.

If not sacks, causing QB's to make bad/rushed decisions can be pretty damn effective too.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course sacks matter.  They matter the most.  If the ball doesn't leave the QB's hand, it has no chance to be completed downfield and everything that could then result negatively from that completion.  It's also a negative play for the offense.  There's nothing better than that.  Especially in key spots, or on key downs.

 

The next thing, of course, is consistent pressure.  Both are great to have.  But the actual sack is the abrupt end to a play with zero damage inflicted by the offense.   

 

Franchise QB's can deal with, and still beat, consistent pressure.  They can't beat laying on their backs with the ball still in their hands.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...