First Downs Allowed

[dead_poet]

First Downs Allowed in Coverage

It’s a relatively simple concept. We wanted to see which cornerbacks not only gave up the most first downs or touchdowns, but also who gave up the most relative to how often they’re in coverage. After all, someone in coverage for 500 snaps is infinitely more likely to give up results to the offense than a player in coverage for 300.

As far as corners are concerned, Winfield was the best Viking in this regard according to this chart: https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... rnerbacks/

Safeties: Harrison Smith ranks #7

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... -safeties/

Unfortunately when it comes to linebackers, we have two of the worst in Greenway and Brinkley (seventh and eighth worst, respectively) but Greenway fares better in the "beaten with regularity" stat a bit further down the page.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... nebackers/

Interpret as you will.

[PurpleMustReign]

Interpret as you will.

Christian Ponder sucks.

[mansquatch]

I think the lack of a playmaker at the LB position is probably the most under reported issue the Vikings face. It has been overshadowed by the hyper media focus on the secondary both locally and in general across the league.

It should be noted that both SB defense boast significant contributors at hte LB postions. (Yes I know they both run 3-4 alignments.)

[dead_poet]

Christian Ponder sucks.

He doesn't play on defense?

[Cliff]

He doesn't play on defense?

I think that was sarcasam. lol

[S197]

Suprised how poorly Eric Berry graded, I thought he was going to be a heck of a player. Although injuries may have something to do with that. As for the Vikings, I don't think it's a secret to any of the forum members, just confirms what we've all been saying that our LB's our a liability in pass coverage and have been for years.

[Mothman]

Suprised how poorly Eric Berry graded, I thought he was going to be a heck of a player. Although injuries may have something to do with that. As for the Vikings, I don't think it's a secret to any of the forum members, just confirms what we've all been saying that our LB's our a liability in pass coverage and have been for years.

All it confirms for me is that PFF's brand of statistical analysis is subjective, very questionable and not to be accepted at face value. I apologize for beating a dead horse but I just don't trust these guys. They're fans working from TV broadcasts. It's fun to look at what they have to say, just like it's fun for us to analyze and discuss football here, but trusting their stats and conclusions is another story.

Here's what their own FAQ says about their approach to analyzing coverage:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/faq/

• Coverage

Assignments in coverage can be a more difficult matter, specifically in the middle of the field when applied to LBs and safeties. Because when a TE, HB or WR finds a seam, the determination of whose responsibility that is becomes trickier. Some other analysts have decided to apportion the yardage out amongst the players involved, but frankly we don’t believe this is worth the effort. In addition, if it’s a touchdown, do you award half a TD? Because of the inherent issues with the statistics mentioned above we just go for the simple approach and take the closest player when the ball is thrown, understanding inaccuracy is built in.

[S197]

It's certainly not perfect and I do take issue with some of their grading but at least they're transparent about their methodology. Their analysis is subjective but really any sort of public analysis is going to be that way. The only one who knows the exact assignments on every play are going to be the coaches and they certainly won't share anything.

I don't think they're wrong about the Vikings LB's and I think that's reinforced by Brinkley and Henderson not getting long term deals. In fact, Henderson shopped free agency and received little to no interest.

[Just Me]

Are the "snaps" just the total number of pass plays? (I actually assume this is the case, but you know what 'assuming' does ) This kind of makes sense to a degree, but it might artificially inflate (deflate?) some of the numbers. Take Winfield, for example. I don't know of anyone who will argue that he is the best cornerback we have. I think that 'secret' is probably pretty well known to our opponents as well. I'm thinking he gets targeted less because of his ability, when there are other targets an opposing QB could look for that are covered by a less capable DB. The result is that if you put Winfield on the field for all 600 (or whatever the number) of the snaps for passing play, and he is targeted for 10% of them, he would appear to be a 'shutdown corner' if he stopped only half of the balls actually thrown his way (5% being his final number in that scenario).

Now granted, if oposing QBs are only targeting Winfield 10% of the time, that does (and probably should) factor into the CBs overall effectiveness. It means on 90% of the passes he was determined to be a less desirable target, presumably because he is somewhere close in coverage. On a team with a sometimes suspect secondary (not so much this year, but in previous years - most definitely) a "really bad" counterpart at corner, might artificially inflate the "good" CBs stats because even in cases where his receiver is open, the other corner's receiver might be even more so. Or even in the vikings case, where we all acknowledge the LB corps coverage skills could improve, perhaps the QBs are targeting the LBs more which means fewer wide receiver receptions regardless of how good or bad the coverage might be.

IOW Winfield could be that good, or he could be the beneficiary of generally suspect LB coverage on pass plays. Just a thought...

[Mothman]

It's certainly not perfect and I do take issue with some of their grading but at least they're transparent about their methodology.

Yes, that's definitely good.

I don't have a problem with what they're doing. As I said, it can be fun. I'm just reluctant to take any of it at face value.

I don't think they're wrong about the Vikings LB's and I think that's reinforced by Brinkley and Henderson not getting long term deals. In fact, Henderson shopped free agency and received little to no interest.

... and yet, if I recall correctly, PFF named Henderson one of the two or three best LBs in the division, didn't they?

Are the "snaps" just the total number of pass plays? (I actually assume this is the case, but you know what 'assuming' does ) This kind of makes sense to a degree, but it might artificially inflate (deflate?) some of the numbers. Take Winfield, for example. I don't know of anyone who will argue that he is the best cornerback we have. I think that 'secret' is probably pretty well known to our opponents as well. I'm thinking he gets targeted less because of his ability, when there are other targets an opposing QB could look for that are covered by a less capable DB. The result is that if you put Winfield on the field for all 600 (or whatever the number) of the snaps for passing play, and he is targeted for 10% of them, he would appear to be a 'shutdown corner' if he stopped only half of the balls actually thrown his way (5% being his final number in that scenario).

Now granted, if oposing QBs are only targeting Winfield 10% of the time, that does (and probably should) factor into the CBs overall effectiveness. It means on 90% of the passes he was determined to be a less desirable target, presumably because he is somewhere close in coverage. On a team with a sometimes suspect secondary (not so much this year, but in previous years - most definitely) a "really bad" counterpart at corner, might artificially inflate the "good" CBs stats because even in cases where his receiver is open, the other corner's receiver might be even more so. Or even in the vikings case, where we all acknowledge the LB corps coverage skills could improve, perhaps the QBs are targeting the LBs more which means fewer wide receiver receptions regardless of how good or bad the coverage might be.

IOW Winfield could be that good, or he could be the beneficiary of generally suspect LB coverage on pass plays. Just a thought...

It just underlines an issue with stats of this sort (and to some extent, with all stats): if they're presented without sufficient context they're not very meaningful. For example, PFF says Chad Greenway gave up 29 first downs and 1 TD. Let's assume that's accurate. They acknowledge that an every-down LB is likely to get beaten more often because he's on the field more and consequently, they include snaps in their analysis to "truly paint a picture of those beaten most often in the passing game". Unfortunately, that doesn't truly paint a reliable picture because they don't include other relevant factors like down and distance, game situations, etc. I understand there are limits to what they can do and what they have time to do. Nevertheless, how meaningful is the resulting stat? You pointed out some other potential issues above.

Not all first downs allowed are equal, not all INTs thrown by QBs are equal., and so on.

[dead_poet]

... and yet, if I recall correctly, PFF named Henderson one of the two or three best LBs in the division, didn't they?

They did. But I'll say this: the North isn't exactly stacked with stud linebackers these days. I see them elevating Henderson partially due to his run-stopping ability (which is pretty good), lack of penalties, lack of missed tackles and, really, lack of better options. He wouldn't sniff "Best LB in the NFC" by any means. It's just, for the North, he sucks a little less than a lot of the others.

[Mothman]

They did. But I'll say this: the North isn't exactly stacked with stud linebackers these days. I see them elevating Henderson partially due to his run-stopping ability (which is pretty good), lack of penalties, lack of missed tackles and, really, lack of better options. He wouldn't sniff "Best LB in the NFC" by any means. It's just, for the North, he sucks a little less than a lot of the others.

That's a fair point but even elevating him above Greenway, as they did, seems like a significant stretch to me. Between Briggs, Matthews and Greenway, there are at least 3 LBs in the division that are clearly better than Henderson and I doubt any of them would have sat out on the FA market and then had to settle for a one year deal as Henderson did last year (unless they were demanding way too much money or something).

I like Henderson and I don't mean to sound too tough on PFF either since I admire their dedication. What they do is fun and their info makes for good conversation fodder.

[VikingLord]

[quote="Mothman"]
All it confirms for me is that PFF's brand of statistical analysis is subjective, very questionable and not to be accepted at face value. I apologize for beating a dead horse but I just don't trust these guys. They're fans working from TV broadcasts. It's fun to look at what they have to say, just like it's fun for us to analyze and discuss football here, but trusting they're stats and conclusions is another story.

I think whatever the methodology used, as long as its applied consistently it should be as valid as any other analysis.

I've never felt Greenway was a particularly strong cover linebacker. He's not bad, but it's not a strength, either. Some of it could be the defense the Vikings run, though. They seem to ask their LBs to play a lot of soft coverages, which could contribute to the perception they are weak against the pass when in fact the scheme tilts their numbers for an evaluation like that done by PFF. I mean, Henderson ranked very highly in their other LB evaluation, so that suggests the conclusion you reach largely depends on how you ask the question.

[dead_poet]

That's a fair point but even elevating him above Greenway, as they did, seems like a significant stretch to me.

From what I read, their reasoning was that Greenway missed 15 tackles on the season to Henderson's 3.

Between Briggs, Matthews and Greenway, there are at least 3 LBs in the division that are clearly better than Henderson

The three PFF selected as their top in the north were: Briggs, Brad Jones (GB) and Henderson. Clay Matthews and Israel Idonije were tops in the "Edge Defenders" category.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... orth-team/

[saint33]

Christian Ponder sucks.