question about projecting 2 down to 3 down guys (1 Viewer)

[-baller]

every so often I see it mentioned somewhere that a guy got x production playing only 2 downs, but got pulled in nickel situations, etc ---- now he's in on evry play so he figures to jump up in production.

now, clearly being in on every play is going to be better than however many snaps he was in on, but how many of those extra downs end up being just 'empty snaps' where the play is downfield and he has no part in it?

I'm just wondering because it seems like people tend to mechanically project out from the 'meat and potatoes' snaps whenever somebody gets an increased role.

also, while I'm asking questions --- you guys seem a little cooler on timmons in the ranking than I would have expected.

any comments?

 

[Jene Bramel]

I would imagine that a fair number of the snaps are "empty" in that the play goes downfield or to the sideline where the secondary makes the play or it ends in the backfield with a sack or incompletion. But I don't think the snaps are insignificant -- there are draw plays, screen plays, short slants, underneath routes, etc -- that the linebackers clean up on.

The number of snaps is meaningful. I estimated teams spent 40% of the time in one subpackage or another passed on run-pass data from Doug Drinen's data dominator down and distance logs three years ago. Multiple coaches have said that their base defenses are only on the field about half the time in recent seasons. The data we have on Curtis Lofton from the 2008 season suggest he played approximately 60% of his team's snaps last season.

Some additional food for thought from recent seasons:

Andra Davis (2005-2006 as every-down ILB in Cleveland) -- averaged 89 solos per 16 games

Andra Davis (2007-2008 as base defensive backer only) -- averaged 57 solos per 16 games

Leon Williams had 30 solos last season in a platoon role (nickel only) with Davis

Bradie James second half split from 2008 was significantly more productive. I think there's something to the more aggressive philosophy that occurred when Wade Phillips started calling the shots, but I think that production was primarily driven by James' increased snaps on passing downs that occurred at about the same time.

Jeremiah Trotter v2004 was on pace for a 73 solo tackle season in a base defensive role with some nickel duty. Trotter v2005-06 in an every down role had 102 and 88 solos.

I've seen arguments elsewhere that players don't get enough third down snaps for the nickel packages to be worth considering. That clearly severely underestimates that number of first and second down snaps defenses spend in the nickel (and dime). And the instances above support my argument that there are plenty of plays in the middle of the field to provide tackle opportunity for linebackers.

I agree that it's too superficial to simply project out the percentage of a player's base defensive solos to a full time role. Projecting Lofton to 112 solo tackles is certainly pushing it. In Lofton's case, I think he's likely to be productive enough in coverage to leverage those snaps into what guys like Leon Williams and Bradie James and Lawrence Timmons have been able to do in those packages. By comparison, I was never as excited about the prospects of a guy like Daryl Smith in an increased role.

Timmons himself is an interesting case.

I really like Timmons. I was happy to leave him ranked highly as a rookie in anticipation of him earning an every-down role. He's clearly looked good in limited time and looks to have some big play value, too. But it's harder for me to project Timmons to 92+ solos than it is Lofton to a big number. His surrounding cast is more likely to limit opposing offenses and less base defensive snaps may be generated. The Steeler defenders have had some of the worst tackle opportunity in the league for a number of seasons now. And Farrior doesn't get much credit as a tackle sponge because of the relatively poor opportunity.

It goes against my "go for upside" nature, but I think the chances that Timmons finishes with 75-80 solos is much higher than the chance he finishes with 90 or more. Still, for consistency, my rankings should reflect Timmons' upside given my current rankings of guys like Lofton, Justin Durant, DJ Williams, and others. I'll be moving him up in the next update.

 

[Biabreakable]

Awesome post Jene.

I just want to add that a player moving from a 2 down role (1st and 10 2nd down and 6) into a 3 down role will see more than a 33% increase in plays they are on the field. Because of what Jene mentioned above. On 2nd down and 7 a guy like that might come off the field.

In the case of Timmons however he is moving from a 3rd down role (or 2nd and long packages) into a 3 down role. That is a 50% increase in plays they are on the field. And a bit higher tackle opportunity being in on run downs.

I think it is a significant difference.

 

[-baller]

Awesome post Jene.I just want to add that a player moving from a 2 down role (1st and 10 2nd down and 6) into a 3 down role will see more than a 33% increase in plays they are on the field. Because of what Jene mentioned above. On 2nd down and 7 a guy like that might come off the field.In the case of Timmons however he is moving from a 3rd down role (or 2nd and long packages) into a 3 down role. That is a 50% increase in plays they are on the field. And a bit higher tackle opportunity being in on run downs.I think it is a significant difference.

agree about the awesome post, and the timmons upside, which is why I was curious about the ranking, but where do you arrive at that 50% increase you mentioned?

 

[Biabreakable]

Awesome post Jene.I just want to add that a player moving from a 2 down role (1st and 10 2nd down and 6) into a 3 down role will see more than a 33% increase in plays they are on the field. Because of what Jene mentioned above. On 2nd down and 7 a guy like that might come off the field.In the case of Timmons however he is moving from a 3rd down role (or 2nd and long packages) into a 3 down role. That is a 50% increase in plays they are on the field. And a bit higher tackle opportunity being in on run downs.I think it is a significant difference.

agree about the awesome post, and the timmons upside, which is why I was curious about the ranking, but where do you arrive at that 50% increase you mentioned?

50% is more of a rough guess. But Foote played most run downs right? And those down and distance situations make up around 50% of plays in the NFL and teams are more likely to run in those situations.So while I wouldn't just add Footes numbers to Timmons (he will still be the primary cover LB with those responsibilities even on run downs), Timmons will be on the field that much more. Unless I am missing something and Steelers fan could elaborate?So like you say some of those may be dead downs for Timmons (pass incomplete ect) but that he is on the field for those downs increases his opportunity to make plays. So he should make plays with the same frequency as he did when on the field before. He is just on a field a lot more now.Being in on running downs obviously should help him make a lot more tackles also since it isn't just the occasional draw play.The Steelers are still too efficient on defense for this to be great tackle opportunity as a team but Timmons role in the defense did about double I would say.

 

[Lash]

i would also project (without having any stats to back this up just a hunch) that more non-tackle plays (sacks, turnovers, PDs) happen more in nickel than in base

 

[womb]

I do not know if you guys factor in the situation that seemingly he will look to be the weakest link to a great defense. I do not have stats to back my words, but I usually find it that unproven linebackers and cornerbacks are tested more often in their first year. Just a hunch to add to the value that is put on the table. (I do not mean he is unproven or weak, but he is probably the only big replacement in the front 7 of that formidable D).