What would a Shaq Lawson contract extension look like for the Buffalo Bills?

[formerlyofCtown]

It depends on what his season looks like and what else is on the market.  Personally I think this is going to be a breakout season for him and several other players.

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m not sure what the fixation is with Lawson. He’s been pretty much invisible his entire career. Yes, he was a first round pick but if he hadn’t been he’d be just another guy on the team. I hear almost nothing about him taking a leadership role, or his mentoring younger players. He’s just sort of...there.

You cant have 11 leaders on a starting D.  He has the job of listening to and supporting those leaders that we already have.

Edited June 22, 2019 by formerlyofCtown

[Virgil]

Whatever it ends up being, I'm sure Rob Ryan will pay him 20% more to play for him

[SoCal Deek]

26 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:

 

You cant have 11 leaders on a starting D.  He has the job of listening to and supporting those leaders that we already have.

Will you be OK saying the same thing about Oliver in three years? 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

6 minutes ago, Virgil said:

Whatever it ends up being, I'm sure Rob Ryan will pay him 20% more to play for him

 

 

...whatever Ryan, be it Wrecks, Rob the Slob, or (deceased) Blowhard Buddy, I'd rather be homeless in LA versus any type of association with these frauds.....

[formerlyofCtown]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Will you be OK saying the same thing about Oliver in three years? 

If someone else is the leader then yes.  The only two players we have that must be leaders in their positions are Allen and Edmonds the signal callers.  The other position groups just need a leader in their groups.

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, formerlyofCtown said:

If someone else is the leader then yes.  The only two players we have that must be leaders in their positions are Allen and Edmonds the signal callers.  The other position groups just need a leader in their groups.

OK let’s leave leadership aside for a second. Will you be OK if Oliver is that invisible in three years? The point is if you’re not going to be a stand out on the field, then one would think you’d be a stand out in the locker room,  training room, or somewhere. I’ve never read anything of the sort about Shaq. With that said I’m certainly rooting for this to be his year.

[formerlyofCtown]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

OK let’s leave leadership aside for a second. Will you be OK if Oliver is that invisible in three years? The point is if you’re not going to be a stand out on the field, then one would think you’d be a stand out in the locker room,  training room, or somewhere. I’ve never read anything of the sort about Shaq. With that said I’m certainly rooting for this to be his year.

Hes got one more year to show he can contribute at a higher level as a pass rusher if he wants to get paid.  Otherwise its 7-8 mil per year max.

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

 

Yep. You’re right.  I can’t believe I missed that many, but I did. Rare, yes. But not as rare as I thought. 

One option the Bills have IF he does have a great 5th year is place the transitional tag on him if they can't agree on a contract.  That will allow them to pay not quite as much as a franchise tag salary.  You then get to see his value on the open market and have the ability to match that offer.  That's what the Bears did with Fuller when they decided to match the Packers offer.  

 

A lot of time it's the relationship between the organization and the player.  If they took Lawson into a room and said this is what we expect this year for you to sign a premier long term deal here.  If not, we'd love to have you back at a smaller salary as a rotational DE.  There's too many variables to just assume the guy's done here because we didn't pick up his 5th year option.

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Hes got one more year to show he can contribute at a higher level as a pass rusher if he wants to get paid.  Otherwise its 7-8 mil per year max.

...so the next question is IF he did that, would you pull the trigger for your forecasted numbers?...probably a depth or rotational role...

[ColoradoBills]

8 hours ago, Ronin said:

Lawson, another in a fairly lengthy string of 1st-round draft busts for us.  

 

He's a backup caliber player whose snap-count % has been around 40% over the past two seasons, an unreliable starter, and who's averaged 3 sacks and 4 TFL per season, and a player with no particular strength.  

I don't think that such production is difficult to get in rounds 3-5 of the draft.  9 players from last year's draft did it, one even being a 6th-rounder.  

To be fair his last 8 games he has averaged 57.4% snaps per game.

That would coincide with McDermott's comments on his improvement as the season went on.

IMO he will be evaluated on his 2019 season and the decisions will be made then.

[Ronin]

46 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

To be fair his last 8 games he has averaged 57.4% snaps per game.

That would coincide with McDermott's comments on his improvement as the season went on.

IMO he will be evaluated on his 2019 season and the decisions will be made then.

 

Well, OK, but 57.4% still isn't something  that matches up with being drafted 19th overall, eh.  

 

Also, given those increased reps, one would then also expect increased results.  I those last 8 games he posted three sacks, 1 against McCown halfway thru the 3rd Q in that rout of the Jets.  The other two were on Tannehill in that last game vs. Miami.  

 

Still not seeing any kind of commensurate production much less anything impressive.  

 

I'd guess that McD was sizing him up in case he needed to make a "tough decision" this year as well as how to proceed in the Draft.  

 

Murphy was the one taking the rest of his reps.  He was another of McD & Beane's blase signings that didn't work out as they'd hoped.  Again, I'm guessing that McD was saying to himself "I can't go into next season with both of these guys again" and was trying to figure out which one to keep.  

 

Also, wasn't Lawson only starting, and only getting more reps, because Murphy was banged up again?   Either way, Murphy also wasn't impressive when he played.  They're both very average players at best.  

 

Either way, as I pointed out, you can draft guys in rounds 3-5 that'll give you that kind of production.  No need to pay a player like Lawson more than a low-end contract, if in fact you even want him back.  

 

As to McD's comments on players improving, I wouldn't put a whole lot of credence into that.  Improvement breeds results.  Look at what McD said, for months while pissing into the wind, about Peterman.  That shot quite a bit of McD's credibility.  

 

Murphy's was a whole lot more expensive, so in that way he was the bigger financial bust, but at least the team didn't waste a 1st-round draft pick on him.  I dont' know what we save in cap space if we cut Murphy, but between the two I'd probably keep Lawson.  I don't think that the Murphy signing was a good one at all, one of the most expenive of Beane's along with Lotulolei.  

 

Their team-building strategy is showcased this season.  I'm not particularly optimistic, especially on the offensive side of the ball.  

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, Ronin said:

 

 

Murphy's was a whole lot more expensive, so in that way he was the bigger financial bust, but at least the team didn't waste a 1st-round draft pick on him.  I dont' know what we save in cap space if we cut Murphy, but between the two I'd probably keep Lawson.  I don't think that the Murphy signing was a good one at all, one of the most expenive of Beane's along with Lotulolei.  

They can get out of Murphy's contract quite easily after 2019. If I had to choose, I'd rather pay Lawson if we're talking equal money.

 

In a perfect world, they find a true stud DE in the 2020 offseason and Lawson AND Murphy are very low priority guys.

[Rocky Landing]

3 hours ago, Ronin said:

 

Well, OK, but 57.4% still isn't something  that matches up with being drafted 19th overall, eh.  

 

Also, given those increased reps, one would then also expect increased results.  I those last 8 games he posted three sacks, 1 against McCown halfway thru the 3rd Q in that rout of the Jets.  The other two were on Tannehill in that last game vs. Miami.  

 

Still not seeing any kind of commensurate production much less anything impressive.  

 

I'd guess that McD was sizing him up in case he needed to make a "tough decision" this year as well as how to proceed in the Draft.  

 

Murphy was the one taking the rest of his reps.  He was another of McD & Beane's blase signings that didn't work out as they'd hoped.  Again, I'm guessing that McD was saying to himself "I can't go into next season with both of these guys again" and was trying to figure out which one to keep.  

 

Also, wasn't Lawson only starting, and only getting more reps, because Murphy was banged up again?   Either way, Murphy also wasn't impressive when he played.  They're both very average players at best.  

 

Either way, as I pointed out, you can draft guys in rounds 3-5 that'll give you that kind of production.  No need to pay a player like Lawson more than a low-end contract, if in fact you even want him back.  

 

As to McD's comments on players improving, I wouldn't put a whole lot of credence into that.  Improvement breeds results.  Look at what McD said, for months while pissing into the wind, about Peterman.  That shot quite a bit of McD's credibility.  

 

Murphy's was a whole lot more expensive, so in that way he was the bigger financial bust, but at least the team didn't waste a 1st-round draft pick on him.  I dont' know what we save in cap space if we cut Murphy, but between the two I'd probably keep Lawson.  I don't think that the Murphy signing was a good one at all, one of the most expenive of Beane's along with Lotulolei.  

 

Their team-building strategy is showcased this season.  I'm not particularly optimistic, especially on the offensive side of the ball.  

Lawson was primarily used on likely running downs. Not really fair to fault him for too few sacks. And, to call Murphy "average at best" is to ignore the entire rest of his career.

[ColoradoBills]

15 hours ago, Ronin said:

 

Well, OK, but 57.4% still isn't something  that matches up with being drafted 19th overall, eh.  

 

Also, given those increased reps, one would then also expect increased results.  I those last 8 games he posted three sacks, 1 against McCown halfway thru the 3rd Q in that rout of the Jets.  The other two were on Tannehill in that last game vs. Miami.   

 

Also, wasn't Lawson only starting, and only getting more reps, because Murphy was banged up again?   Either way, Murphy also wasn't impressive when he played.  They're both very average players at best.  

 

Either way, as I pointed out, you can draft guys in rounds 3-5 that'll give you that kind of production.  No need to pay a player like Lawson more than a low-end contract, if in fact you even want him back.  

 

 

Lawson's contract will be determined on his play from last year and this year.  I don't think the 1st round draft position will matter much.

The Murphy/Lawson combo is not a very good situation and something will change about that next year (I'm almost sure).

But, if you combine their cap hits and look at the results from last year it's not as bad as some make out.

 

Next years draft they will probably look at LDE very hard so I don't think they want to use a 3-5 to replace Lawson but a 1-3 to replace both.

That is of course with neither Murphy or Lawson having a great season.

 

LDE will be interesting to watch this season.

[Bangarang]

11 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:

Lawson was primarily used on likely running downs. Not really fair to fault him for too few sacks. And, to call Murphy "average at best" is to ignore the entire rest of his career.

 

It absolutely is fair since he's not good at rushing the passer. 

 

Are you saying Murphy has been better than an average player before coming here?

[BarleyNY]

21 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

One option the Bills have IF he does have a great 5th year is place the transitional tag on him if they can't agree on a contract.  That will allow them to pay not quite as much as a franchise tag salary.  You then get to see his value on the open market and have the ability to match that offer.  That's what the Bears did with Fuller when they decided to match the Packers offer.  

 

A lot of time it's the relationship between the organization and the player.  If they took Lawson into a room and said this is what we expect this year for you to sign a premier long term deal here.  If not, we'd love to have you back at a smaller salary as a rotational DE.  There's too many variables to just assume the guy's done here because we didn't pick up his 5th year option.

 

 

 

While we shouldn’t write off Shaq 100%, I expect the Bills to proceed as if he won’t be.  That said, none of us know the most important piece of information regarding this - the relationship between the Bills and Shaq.  It’s also possible that his play will take a big leap forward, but that’s unlikely.  It it happens, we’ve got a different situation and tagging him would make sense.  Another unlikely situation is that his play falls off significantly. Easy decision there too.

 

Most likely he’ll play at about the same level as last season.  If that happens I’d expect that he’d want to go elsewhere to try to prove himself in a system that fits him better.  He’d probably get a better initial contract and that would be preferable to signing a backup level contract here.  Plus he’d have a chance at a better deal down the road too.  It’d likely net us a comp pick too.

 

We will have to let the season play out before anything happens, obviously.

[Doc Brown]

On 6/22/2019 at 9:23 AM, SoCal Deek said:

I’m not sure what the fixation is with Lawson. He’s been pretty much invisible his entire career. Yes, he was a first round pick but if he hadn’t been he’d be just another guy on the team. I hear almost nothing about him taking a leadership role, or his mentoring younger players. He’s just sort of...there.

You answered your own question which means he was given a 1st round grade and may still have some untapped potential.  The good thing about this regime is they won't accept a Chris Kelsay level starter at the DE position so if he doesn't improve he's probably gone.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Doc Brown

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

You answered your own question which means he was given a 1st round grade and may still have some untapped potential.  The good thing about this regime is they won't except a Chris Kelsay level starter at the DE position so if he doesn't improve he's probably gone.

My comment was somewhat rhetorical. I’m expecting big things from Lawson this year. If not, time to move on.

[Rocket94]

3 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Lawson's contract will be determined on his play from last year and this year.  I don't think the 1st round draft position will matter much.

The Murphy/Lawson combo is not a very good situation and something will change about that next year (I'm almost sure).

But, if you combine their cap hits and look at the results from last year it's not as bad as some make out.

 

Next years draft they will probably look at LDE very hard so I don't think they want to use a 3-5 to replace Lawson but a 1-3 to replace both.

That is of course with neither Murphy or Lawson having a great season.

 

LDE will be interesting to watch this season.

You can be sure the DE position will change. Lawson of course is a carryover from the Ryan experiment and Murphy was signed as a band aid based on his potential if he could get healthy. If we were not searching for our QB, we could have devoted more resources   to finding a DE. Now we hopefully can.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Rocket94

[ColoradoBills]

19 minutes ago, Rocket94 said:

You can be sure the DE position will change. Lawson of course is a carryover from the Ryan experiment and Murphy was signed as a band aid based on his potential if he could get healthy. If we were not searching for our QB, we could have devoted more energy in to finding a DE. Now we hopefully can.

 

Odds are LDE is in play but April of 2020 is a long way away.  Definitely know more after this season.

[Rocket94]

2 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Odds are LDE is in play but April of 2020 is a long way away.  Definitely know more after this season.

I bet that it is. Notice I keep saying "I bet" I can't help it. Every time that I read something about the Bills improving, the DE position is the first thing that comes to my mind!

[ColoradoBills]

3 minutes ago, Rocket94 said:

I bet that it is. Notice I keep saying "I bet" I can't help it. Every time that I read something about the Bills improving, the DE position is the first thing that comes to my mind!

 

"I bet" you're not alone in that thinking.  LOL

[Rocket94]

5 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

"I bet" you're not alone in that thinking.  LOL

Your on! ?

On 6/22/2019 at 8:23 AM, SoCal Deek said:

I’m not sure what the fixation is with Lawson. He’s been pretty much invisible his entire career. Yes, he was a first round pick but if he hadn’t been he’d be just another guy on the team. I hear almost nothing about him taking a leadership role, or his mentoring younger players. He’s just sort of...there.

My feelings all along. The DE spot will be addressed. Hopefully we can now give it the attention that it deserves.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Rocket94

[Dr.Mantis_Toboggan]

On 6/21/2019 at 9:32 AM, CuddyDark said:

Many don't understand this. The strong side end has to be a 5-6 tech type player. Brandon Graham, is a "McDermott" draft pick, so is Greg Hardy. The defense is not a stats defense. It's a teamwork defense. Shaq has a greater role than stat. Can he be upgraded, yes. Can every player on the roster be upgraded? YES.

McDermott’s scheme also relies on the front 4 being able to put pressure on the passer more so than most other schemes, and using blitzing/pressure packages less frequently than the league average.  For this reason, Lawson is not a great fit, he is not a 3 down lineman who can be relied on to bring pressure consistently like Greg Hardy in his prime... As a rotational piece, sure but this is why they went out and signed Murphy, when healthy he can do both where as Lawson is mainly only effective at “setting the edge”.

They already tried to upgrade with Murphy, i don’t expect them to stop.  Still wouldn’t rule out a late trade for Clowney, or making a push for him next year, he would be an ideal fit.

[CuddyDark]

1 hour ago, Dr.Mantis_Toboggan said:

McDermott’s scheme also relies on the front 4 being able to put pressure on the passer more so than most other schemes, and using blitzing/pressure packages less frequently than the league average.  For this reason, Lawson is not a great fit, he is not a 3 down lineman who can be relied on to bring pressure consistently like Greg Hardy in his prime... As a rotational piece, sure but this is why they went out and signed Murphy, when healthy he can do both where as Lawson is mainly only effective at “setting the edge”.

They already tried to upgrade with Murphy, i don’t expect them to stop.  Still wouldn’t rule out a late trade for Clowney, or making a push for him next year, he would be an ideal fit.

The Hughes extension means Clowney is out. IMO

Murphy can not do both. Murphy is a liability against the run and it's why as the season went on Lawson got more snaps.

McDermott runs a Jim Johnson defense, not a Tony Dungy defense. Part of his defense is zone blitz much like the Steelers. The strong side DE must be like a 34 End when they run blitzing schemes.

Hardy because of his size was able to be a combination of Murphy and Lawson. If you find that player, good. Get him. Good luck finding him. 6'4 280lbs. Quick, twitchy. Good luck finding him.

[Ronin]

7 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

Lawson's contract will be determined on his play from last year and this year.  I don't think the 1st round draft position will matter much.

The Murphy/Lawson combo is not a very good situation and something will change about that next year (I'm almost sure).

But, if you combine their cap hits and look at the results from last year it's not as bad as some make out.

 

Next years draft they will probably look at LDE very hard so I don't think they want to use a 3-5 to replace Lawson but a 1-3 to replace both.

That is of course with neither Murphy or Lawson having a great season.

 

LDE will be interesting to watch this season.

 

His draft status won't matter at all, they never do for second contracts which are always of the "what have you done for me lately" variety.  

 

I won't disagree with you on Murphy/Lawson, but my point is who brought in Murphy as their answer?   Lawson was here, but Murphy was, prior to this offseason, McBeane's second most expensive contract.  

 

I've said it often, McBeane have merely brought in a bunch of injury risk players hoping that they'll for some unbeknownst reason otherwise ascede to the level of their best seasons prior.  That to me is not a good team-building strategy.  We'll find out this year I suppose.  

 

I'm not sure they're going to have next year's draft if Allen doesn't make monumental strides and play like he never has this season.  Their futures, both short-term and long are premised upon Allen working out.  

[Ronin]

7 hours ago, Rocket94 said:

I bet that it is. Notice I keep saying "I bet" I can't help it. Every time that I read something about the Bills improving, the DE position is the first thing that comes to my mind!

 

Something akin to a pass-rush in a league where passing and stopping the pass, by players actually brought on by the current staff would be refreshing to see.  

 

Of the front-7 players brought on by McBeane, only three logged sacks last season.  Edmunds had 2, Murphy, their second most expensive free agent after Lotulolei (who had 0) had 4, and Milano had 1.  7 total.  

 

But I heard that Lotulolei was actually busy taking up blockers so that the others would be freed up to log sacks en route to our 26th sack ranking.  So we're told.  His first season ever w/o a sack.  

 

If Oliver isn't what they're expecting, with Kyle gone and Lorax in his last season and at 36 otherwise, the team won't have much of a pass-rush going forward as Hughes is into his back-9.  

 

Unlike many others, I remain wholly unimpressed with McBeane's team-building and their Process.  

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Ronin

[Rocky Landing]

12 hours ago, Bangarang said:

 

It absolutely is fair since he's not good at rushing the passer. 

 

Are you saying Murphy has been better than an average player before coming here?

Well, if Lawson is generally put in a position to stop the run, and that's what he does, he's not likely to get a lot of sacks. Why would he?

 

And, regarding Murphy, yes. In 2016, Murphy had 9 sacks, 46 tackles, and 25 QB hits in 16 games that he did not start. That is above average, no? So, in the context of Ronin's post, where he claimed that Murphy is "average at best," that would be an incorrect statement. Murphy was, clearly, better than average at his best. And, this year, if reports are correct, he will start the season healthy, for the first time in two years. He is 28 years old. At best, he should be above average. Possibly well above average. Let's hope we get him at his best.

[Bangarang]

1 hour ago, Rocky Landing said:

Well, if Lawson is generally put in a position to stop the run, and that's what he does, he's not likely to get a lot of sacks. Why would he?

 

What percentage of Lawson's snaps were against running plays? 

 

 

 

[Rocky Landing]

31 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

What percentage of Lawson's snaps were against running plays? 

 

 

 

I couldn't tell you, but I'd be interested to know.

My perception was that neither Murphy, nor Lawson were really complete DEs last season, anywhere near the way Hughs has been. When Murphy was active last season, I believe the two were swapped frequently, with Murphy being the better pass rusher, and Lawson used against the run. But, I have no stats, or evidence to back that up. I can't tell you that as I watched the games, I was able to account for all 11 players on the field. and I have no desire (or time) to analyze, play by play, which situations these two were placed in. It was just my perception that last season I watched Lawson work (effectively) in stopping the run, and I watched Murphy pressure the QB a lot more than Shaq. Was this by design? I suspect so.

[Richard Noggin]

52 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

I couldn't tell you, but I'd be interested to know.

My perception was that neither Murphy, nor Lawson were really complete DEs last season, anywhere near the way Hughs has been. When Murphy was active last season, I believe the two were swapped frequently, with Murphy being the better pass rusher, and Lawson used against the run. But, I have no stats, or evidence to back that up. I can't tell you that as I watched the games, I was able to account for all 11 players on the field. and I have no desire (or time) to analyze, play by play, which situations these two were placed in. It was just my perception that last season I watched Lawson work (effectively) in stopping the run, and I watched Murphy pressure the QB a lot more than Shaq. Was this by design? I suspect so.

Love the honesty. Of course that's where most fans fall: in this highly subjective place of watching the games live (in-person or on TV either at a business or a private home) and forming (sometimes strong) assessments based upon imperfect, fleeting, and incomplete information (often gathered while we curse, converse, gesticulate, drink, pace about). I thought, in total disagreement, that Lawson made impactful plays, on meaningful downs, deflecting passes (especially as the season wore on). I'm sure stats can prove me right or wrong here.

 

That being said (that fans like me have subjective and/or faulty opinions), I think the decade-plus drought would have been interrupted if Wilson had simply, post-Butler, implemented a crowd-sourced, Bills fan referendum approach to major football decisions. Poll the fans prior to the draft, free agency, and hiring head coaches and coordinators, and execute those majority decisions. It's not a good NFL success plan, but it would have avoided some draft blunders, fo sho.

 

 

[Bangarang]

12 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:

I couldn't tell you, but I'd be interested to know.

My perception was that neither Murphy, nor Lawson were really complete DEs last season, anywhere near the way Hughs has been. When Murphy was active last season, I believe the two were swapped frequently, with Murphy being the better pass rusher, and Lawson used against the run. But, I have no stats, or evidence to back that up. I can't tell you that as I watched the games, I was able to account for all 11 players on the field. and I have no desire (or time) to analyze, play by play, which situations these two were placed in. It was just my perception that last season I watched Lawson work (effectively) in stopping the run, and I watched Murphy pressure the QB a lot more than Shaq. Was this by design? I suspect so.

 

Don't you think you should have some data to back up the claim that Shaq's sack numbers are what they are because he was mainly in the game to stop the run?

[Rocky Landing]

2 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

Don't you think you should have some data to back up the claim that Shaq's sack numbers are what they are because he was mainly in the game to stop the run?

I wouldn’t know where to find that stat, and it would likely be a bit misleading. Opposing defenses don’t know when the other team is going to run the ball. Certainly, something like 3rd and one vs. Dallas, you know it’s a likely running play. Other situations are far less obvious. Again, I’m just going off my perception, and that may well be deeply flawed. But, convince me otherwise. I think that McD used Shaq primarily to stop the run, and Murphy to pressure the QB. They got rotated a lot. Do you disagree?

[thebandit27]

16 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

I wouldn’t know where to find that stat, and it would likely be a bit misleading. Opposing defenses don’t know when the other team is going to run the ball. Certainly, something like 3rd and one vs. Dallas, you know it’s a likely running play. Other situations are far less obvious. Again, I’m just going off my perception, and that may well be deeply flawed. But, convince me otherwise. I think that McD used Shaq primarily to stop the run, and Murphy to pressure the QB. They got rotated a lot. Do you disagree?

 

http://www.nfl.com/player/shaqlawson/2555252/situationalstats

^ Situational stats if you're interested

 

By the look of things, 3 of Shaq's 4 sacks in 2018 came when ahead by 15+ points, which more or less says obvious passing situation.

 

Not a lot of context there...here they are broken down further:

https://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/football/players/situational-stats/2018/1983523/shaq-lawson/

 

Maybe that tells you more?

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Is the claim being made here that Shaq would be racking up the sacks if only McDermott used him right? What a load

[eball]

Like this, perhaps?

 

[LABILLBACKER]

On 6/20/2019 at 9:52 AM, Max Fischer said:

Regardless of his 2019 performance, I don't think the Bills re-sign Lawson. I can only see it if Lawson performs at a pro-bowl level AND he's willing to give a hometown discount (which seems very doubtful for a guy who might be playing for his last contract).  

They're not resigning him. He's a nice depth DE and nothing else. And he's definitely not worth 8-10M/yr. This will be his last season in Buffalo.

[Bangarang]

49 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

I wouldn’t know where to find that stat, and it would likely be a bit misleading. Opposing defenses don’t know when the other team is going to run the ball. Certainly, something like 3rd and one vs. Dallas, you know it’s a likely running play. Other situations are far less obvious. Again, I’m just going off my perception, and that may well be deeply flawed. But, convince me otherwise. I think that McD used Shaq primarily to stop the run, and Murphy to pressure the QB. They got rotated a lot. Do you disagree?

 

What am I supposed to convince you of?

 

I think Shaq is a poor pass rusher. Certainly if we go by your claim that McD primarily used him against the run, then that stands to reason he must feel the same way no?

 

You created the argument that his sack numbers are low because he wasn't used that way and I'm saying that there was a reason for it.

[Rocky Landing]

18 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

What am I supposed to convince you of?

 

I think Shaq is a poor pass rusher. Certainly if we go by your claim that McD primarily used him against the run, then that stands to reason he must feel the same way no?

 

You created the argument that his sack numbers are low because he wasn't used that way and I'm saying that there was a reason for it.

Well, sure. And I’m not really disagreeing with you. But then, if he is infrequently put in a position where he will be able to get to the QB, maybe 4 sacks for the year isn’t so bad? Really, my point (responding to a different poster) was that using such numbers without any context doesn’t prove much. And, really, that other poster is becoming famous for using stats completely out of context. 

[3rdand12]

4 hours ago, Bangarang said:

 

Don't you think you should have some data to back up the claim that Shaq's sack numbers are what they are because he was mainly in the game to stop the run?

since you are countering, i believe the onus is upon you here.

: )