Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

Number 44

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Number 44

Profile Information

  • Birthdate
  • Washington Football Team Fan Since
  • Favorite Washington Football Team Player
    John Riggins
  • Not a Washington Football Team Fan? Tell us YOUR team:
  • Location
    Silver Spring
  • Zip Code

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Watch what you want. Alabama would probably be a good one. First rounder Turner and second rounder Braswell. I'd gues there's a good chance there may have been some pressure applied by that defense.
  2. 89 pressures for the whole season. LSU had a good O line. Not great. Daniels is an athletic QB that reads plays well, moves well, and makes good decisions. No magical powers involved.
  3. For crying out loud. I was stressing the point that of his 22 sacks, which is not a huge number to begin with, it is pretty much certain that a good share of those weren't his fault. I never said that you said they were. The raw sack numbers are certainly important, whether you want to care about them or not. It was odd to me for folks to be so worried about sacks for a guy that wasn't sacked all that often. His number of pressures are obviously a lot lower that other QBs. That isn't mythical. You want to go on the 24% STP ratio and ignore the raw numbers. Suit yourself. I think taking everything into consideration is the way to go.
  4. I implied nothing. You continue to assert that sacks are a concern with Daniels. I was showing that he doesn't have a big number to begin with, and that it is very likely that a good number of his sacks were through no fault of his own. You claim to agree, yet, somehow, you continue your assertion. The player's frame is a concern, and for all I know, the Commanders brain-trust may well eliminate the player based on that alone. But sacks certainly don't concern me as far as Daniels is concerned, and I really doubt is Peters and company are concerned about his sacks, either. The tape gives no reason to worry about sacks, the seemingly high STP ratio seems mitigated once analyzed, and the raw sack and pressure stats are good. It does seem odd to me to argue that sacks are a problem for a player and say that the sack number is irrelevant. Sorry, I just can't agree with you.
  5. You seem paranoid. 🙂 I didn't say that you said it. I said that it would be silly to pretend that they were all his fault. Apparently you agree. Like all stats, STP ratio has a purpose, but it isn't the be all, end all. PFF doesn't claim that it is. My point was, and remains, we need to look at stats with an understanding of the context. For example, if a QB has a propensity to throw the ball up for grabs when being pressure to avoid sacks, his STP ratio might look good, but he's likely to have bad outcomes. The whole reason I even looked into this was the obvious fact that 22 sacks is by no means a high number for a QB to have in a season, and he certainly isn't throwing a lot of interceptions, either. The 24% STP ratio that folks kept throwing out there seemed odd, given the sack number. It then became clear that, in Daniels' case, the guy was doing an outstanding job avoiding pressure. Again, I can't see any reason to buy an argument that sacks are a problem for Daniels.
  6. Or the number of pressures was very low. A pressure is defined as a play in which a defender gets within a yard an a half of the QB before the pass. I hope that we all can agree that the defense is attempting to pressure the QB on all pass plays. If we give the QB no credit for avoiding pressure to the point that he allowed only 89 pressures (within 1.5 yards) in the season, we are kidding ourselves. Avoiding pressures is a good thing. Not sure how there can be disagreement on that. When we are dealing with small sample size, percentages can easily appear distorted. I think it's safe to say that pretty much every game there's at least one play where the OL has a blown assignment and a sack happens where the QB had no chance. To pretend that all 22 of Daniels' sacks were his fault seems rather silly to me. This is true of pretty much all college QBs. I'm sorry, I just don't see sacks as being a problem for Daniels, and certainly nothing I've seen here would cause me to change my mind on that. Peace.
  7. Fellas, believe what you want. We aren't going to help Peters with his decision. The STP ratio is 24% because the number of pressures is low, not because the number of sacks is high. That seems obvious to me, but apparently not to everyone. So be it. If you think Daniels is bad, I'm not going to argue with you any more about it.
  8. Again, what you are missing, IMO, is the fact that he had a very low number of pressures. He is outstanding at recognizing where pressure will be coming from and making excellent decisions to move and avoid the pressure. If no defender gets within one and a half yards of him, the play doesn't count as a pressure. His 22 sacks are not a concerning number. Heck, if that concerns you, how about Maye's 29 or Williams' 32? I think you are misreading his excellent ability to avoid pressure to somehow mislead you to thinking he is bad. The guy avoids pressure extremely well. A QB without his athleticism and decision making ability would have had many, many more pressures (and sacks) on the exact same plays. If he wasn't as good as he is at avoiding pressure and therefore allowed a lot more defenders get within a yard and a half of him, his STP ratio would appear to be better, but that's the fallacy of looking at one stat without context. The claim that Daniels never threw off platform is just plain false. That he did run when he saw he had huge open field was in no way a bad thing. Sacks were not a problem. Turnovers were not a problem. The guy performed and presented major problems to the opposing defenses. I find it hard to watch his tape and see it any other way. I'm only seeing the tape and reading what I can. I'm not a scout and don't have the knowledge, experience, and information that Peters and company have. I trust them and will be happy with however they decide to go. My choice would be Daniels, but I'm totally unqualified to make such a decision. I do know that I don't buy into your arguments. Daniels' tape and results just don't fit your narrative in my eyes. Heck, maybe something came up in Daniels' visit that turned Peters and company off to him, I've got no way to know that. In any case, we aren't going to resolve anything here today. I'm just extremely unlikely to ever believe that having a low number of sacks and a very low number of pressures are valid reasons to be concerned about a QB.
  9. Wasn't a top 30 viisit. Schools within a certain distance of the NFL team - I think it's 50 miles - don't count as a top 30 visit.
  10. Daniels was sacked 22 times. 22. Maye was sacked 29, and Williams 32. Sack to pressure ratio is just that - dividing the sacks by the pressures. If his ratio was 24%, that means he had 89 pressures -- a phenomenally low number. Playing in the SEC. Your opinion notwithstanding, Daniels was quite obviously outstanding at recognizing and avoiding pressure. This means he not only was sacked less, but he also made fewer bad decisions due to pressure. 22 sacks. 4 interceptions. 40 touchdowns. Those are outstanding numbers. You are incredibly pretending that sacks were a problem for Daniels. Your comment above would be a clear indication that you either didn't see him play very often, are unaware of what exactly the sack-to-pressure ratio is, or both. I understand the concern folks have about his frame. In view of the fact that he hasn't missed games due to injury, I think the risk is worth taking, but I understand the concern. Your comments regarding pressure and sacks, well, I don't understand that at all.
  11. My guess is that they are considering Tagovailoa as an UDFA. I doubt if he's drafted.
  12. You are misreading the stat. Daniels was outstanding at avoiding pressure. He had quite a few less sacks, and many less pressures. You are mistakenly not recognizing the main reason for the "ratio" is that Daniels was excellent at recognizing what was happening and moving within the pocket and out of the pocket to avoid pressure. If no defender gets within a yard and a half of him, it isn't statistically a pressure. This explains both the low sacks number AND the low interception number. Pretending that sacks were a problem for Daniels flies in the face of reality. Fortunately, Peters and company are well aware of this.
  13. WAS 2. Jayden DanielsQB LSU 36. Kingsley SuamataiaOT BYU 66. Ja'Tavion SandersTE Texas 67. Max MeltonCB Rutgers 71. Payton WilsonLB NC State 78. Kiran AmegadjieOT Yale 100. Jermaine BurtonWR Alabama 139. Jonah EllissEDGE Utah 148. Tykee SmithS Georgia 152. Elijah JonesCB Boston College 186. Hunter NourzadOC Penn State 222. Dallin HolkerTE Colorado State 2025 HOU 3rd 2025 LV 5th 2025 ARI 6th
  • Create New...