Jump to content

Carl Lawson 47% win rate


BornJetsFan1983
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 10/10/2022 at 1:40 AM, Beerfish said:

You have to get sacks and you have to get turnovers.  Despite my criticism of saleh and the DC we have been getting both.  Getting clsoe, pressure, win rates mean dick all in the long run.  You have to get turnovers and actually sack the other qb and force possession changes.

Not disagreeing but pressures can lead to mistakes and incompletions so it’s not a total empty stat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Cyberjet said:

Not disagreeing but pressures can lead to mistakes and incompletions so it’s not a total empty stat

I woudl disagree. Pressure is far more valueable than sacks. And pressure is the more important stats overall.. Sacks are nice for sure and they will come with pressure. But you want pressure on the QB more than 1 or two sacks a game. 

  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

I woudl disagree. Pressure is far more valueable than sacks. And pressure is the more important stats overall.. Sacks are nice for sure and they will come with pressure. But you want pressure on the QB more than 1 or two sacks a game. 

Agree. BB didn’t care about sacks but rather being disruptive 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2022 at 1:40 AM, Beerfish said:

You have to get sacks and you have to get turnovers.  Despite my criticism of saleh and the DC we have been getting both.  Getting clsoe, pressure, win rates mean dick all in the long run.  You have to get turnovers and actually sack the other qb and force possession changes.

Question - do you think the pressures and win rates on the Bridgewater intentional grounding and the Gardner pick meant nothing, or do you recognize that it was the non-sack pressure that led to those outcomes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2022 at 7:25 AM, JiFapono said:

Lawson played lights out yesterday, dude was living in the backfield, I think I read that he had 7 hurries?  holy sh*t!!!

JFM finally showed up yesterday too, very disruptive.  Had a sack and a tip that led to a pick.

 

Not hurries. Hits. Ridiculous

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

Question - do you think the pressures and win rates on the Bridgewater intentional grounding and the Gardner pick meant nothing, or do you recognize that it was the non-sack pressure that led to those outcomes?

The intentional grounding was a tangible result, like a sack the int was a tangible result like a sack.  Both created turnovers which is my whole point.   If the pressure creates a turnover or a sack (which ends most drives) it helps you win games.  Getting by an olineman and having the QB run or make a play is not a positive result.

Guys like Leo Williams and Quinnen in his early years got all of these pressures and almosts and produced no turnovers and didn't put teams in 2nd or 3rd and long.

Get tangible results not some eyeball stat that tries to tell me how great a guy is who never actually makes a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

The intentional grounding was a tangible result, like a sack the int was a tangible result like a sack.  Both created turnovers which is my whole point.   If the pressure creates a turnover or a sack (which ends most drives) it helps you win games.  Getting by an olineman and having the QB run or make a play is not a positive result.

Guys like Leo Williams and Quinnen in his early years got all of these pressures and almosts and produced no turnovers and didn't put teams in 2nd or 3rd and long.

Get tangible results not some eyeball stat that tries to tell me how great a guy is who never actually makes a difference.

You're disambiguating things. Getting by an OL and having the QB rush a throw that falls incomplete is a tangible result that helps you win games. I'm not sure what you're not understanding about that

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fullblast said:

Don’t want to start a new thread for every single tweet so will post this here. This is the Lawson effect.

 

On the 1st clip it looks like the pack OLman got his finger in Q’s facemask, unk the circumstance but luckily Q. appeared to be okay for the rest of the game… I would definitely consider a face shield.

On the 2nd vid that was just a simple twist, Lawson didn’t affect the guard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2022 at 12:02 AM, Joe W. Namath said:

The achilles is getting stronger 

Stop it Nurse!

Just Google before you post silly sh*t...

You can also do exercises to strengthen your calf and heel muscles. These muscles are attached to your Achilles tendon, so it's important to keep them strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jetsons said:

On the 1st clip it looks like the pack OLman got his finger in Q’s facemask, unk the circumstance but luckily Q. appeared to be okay for the rest of the game… I would definitely consider a face shield.

On the 2nd vid that was just a simple twist, Lawson didn’t affect the guard.

You would expect the LT to pass Lawson off inside. Instead Lawson pushes him behind the center and creates a short path for Quinnen.

Point is, plays like these are what people miss when they look at his raw sack numbers and assume he isn’t getting it done. His presence is creating easy matchups for the other linemen.

  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...