| ChaosTheory |
09-07-2023 10:11 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyNorm
(Post 273310)
We had 8 draft picks after Freeland, and a lot of IOL were taken from pick 110 on. Pretty sure quite of few of them are better than Fries.
|
It's not a given, but could be. Even if so, you have to ask, by what margin would/could these mid-round guys be better than Fries? It's zero-sum, so they would have had to pass on one of the guys they actually took. They clearly felt it wasn't enough of an improvement over our guys to warrant passing on the guys they took.
Who was such an egregious pick after Freeland that we shouldn't have picked them and instead should have drafted one of the IOL?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyNorm
(Post 273312)
It wasn't just the sacks. We were bottom 1/3 of the league in both rushing ypc and ypg (22nd and 23rd respectively). So yes, I'm going to take objective stats like those as well as how many sacks we gave up with more weight than subjective PFF grades.
|
I always caveat that PFF grades are not Gospel. The point, though, is that the eyeball test and tape review can tell a much different story than the numbers.
Since the Eagles are regarded as top-dogs, I reference them a lot... they're 22nd in sacks and 13th in YPC. Contrary to those numbers, they're clearly not middle-of-the-pack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racehorse
(Post 273324)
Take away a guy like Taylor, and this is what you get. Taylor, when healthy, would make those numbers improve dramatically.
|
And not just Taylor, but yes. There was so much goofy shit going on last year (more than I've ever seen by a mile) that I don't know how you can look at the stats and learn much.
I'm big on numbers, they just require context.
|