Draft Countdown Forums

Draft Countdown Forums (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/index.php)
-   Pro Football (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Bold Statement: Brandon Graham is a better player than Jason Pierre Paul (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56819)

AcheTen (Thumper) 06-05-2013 02:03 PM

Bold Statement: Brandon Graham is a better player than Jason Pierre Paul
 
That's right. I have been a proponent of Brandon Graham for a while now, and I think that he actually flew under the radar last year and had a BETTER season than Jason Pierre Paul last year (in 2012).

Brandon Graham is a better player than Jason Pierre Paul now and going foward.

According to any stat you can find, he was a more productive player on a per-snap basis than Pierre Paul, and posted similar numbers to Pierre Paul in HALF the snaps.

Per (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/snapcounts):

Jason Pierre Paul, in 2012, played 951 total snaps, of which 873 were on defense.
Brandon Graham, in 2012, played 440 total snaps, of which 421 were on defense.

Per (http://www.pro-football-reference.co...G/GrahBr99.htm) and (http://www.pro-football-reference.co...PierJa99.htm):

Jason Pierre Paul, in 2012, had 6.5 sacks, 5 PDs, 1 FF, 43 Tackles.
Brandon Graham, in 2012, had 5.5 sacks, 1 PD, 2 FF, 30 Tackles.

Does anyone here know simple math?

5.5 sacks in 421 defensive snaps vs. 6.5 sacks in 873 defensive snaps.

So using something called simple division, we get 0.0075 sacks per snap (Pierre Paul) vs. 0.0131 sacks per snap. 0.0131 > 0.0075.

And they don't list hits+hurries+qb hits on that site, but if they did, I'm sure we'd come to a similar conclusion.

I think that going foward, in 2013 and beyond, Graham will be the BETTER player. When we look back at their careers, we will say that Graham turned out to be the better player in the long run.

And it starts in 2013. Graham will be a beast off the edge as an OLB in the 3-4, and will completely outproduce Pierre Paul in every way: sacks, forced fumbles, tackles, tackles for loss.

NY+Giants=NYG 06-05-2013 02:09 PM

Two different systems now. So don't really care. One is in a 34 and the other is in a 43 where people rotate. If BG didn't out produce JPP I'd be surprised and actually laugh at him.

FUNBUNCHER 06-05-2013 02:15 PM

Bold statement there champ, considering JPP is coming off back surgery which affected his play in '12.

I liked Graham when he came out of UM and he may yet end up being a Dumervil type talent in the NFL, but as of right now he's not that guy.

Until he puts together an All-Pro type season like JPP did in 2011, no reasonable fan is going to put a part-time player like Brandon Graham on par with one of the best young pass rushers in the game.


The problem I have is you're trying to compare potential with production which you simply cannot do, then argue that one player's potential is better than another player's DEMONSTRATED body of work for 2+ NFL seasons.

That's ridiculous.

If Graham was the guy with the 16.5 sack season under his belt, the trigger man for a SB winning defense and an All-Pro nod, and JPP was the guy who'd never started in the NFL nor played a full season and Giants fans were arguing Pierre-Paul was the better player, you'd be in full meltdown.

Rosebud 06-05-2013 02:17 PM

Not as a complete player, because JPP played more snaps, had far more pass breakups, and probably played better run defense.

But if you are just looking at Pass Rush Pressure per snap (hits+hurries+sacks/snap), then Graham was superior.

But obviously, JPP was a better overall player.

AcheTen (Thumper) 06-05-2013 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud (Post 3380511)
Not as a complete player, because JPP played more snaps, had far more pass breakups, and probably played better run defense.

But if you are just looking at Pass Rush Pressure per snap (hits+hurries+sacks/snap), then Graham was superior.

But obviously, JPP was a better overall player.

The only thing that Pierre Paul did was play more snaps.

It took him TWICE the number of snaps as Graham to get similar, or only slightly better, levels of production.

Compare that to JJ Watt who had 2x the production as Pierre Paul from the same number of snaps.

Graham basically produced as much as Pierre Paul in half the playing time.

Rosebud 06-05-2013 02:26 PM

JPP actually had more snaps, far more pass breakups and was a better run defender, the three criteria you identified as important. But he did also produce more sacks, tackles and other things to.

AcheTen (Thumper) 06-05-2013 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud (Post 3380526)
JPP actually had more snaps, far more pass breakups and was a better run defender, the three criteria you identified as important. But he did also produce more sacks, tackles and other things to.

It took him twice as many snaps to get these numbers. Do you understand the concept of division?

Graham was a far more efficient player in the snaps that he played at basically everything.

Rosebud 06-05-2013 02:30 PM

That's not the argument we're having, we're not talking about efficiency but actual productivity, well that and ability.

AcheTen (Thumper) 06-05-2013 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud (Post 3380533)
That's not the argument we're having, we're not talking about efficiency but actual productivity, well that and ability.

Ability is more closely tied to efficiency than total production.

Would you rather have the RB that can get 1200 yards on 300 carries or the RB that can get 900 yards on 150 carries.

Going forward, into the future, efficiency, and being able to do alot in LESS snaps, is a better indicator of talent than just raw production in a TON of snaps.

Jamaal Charles is better than Michael Turner.

LonghornsLegend 06-05-2013 02:37 PM


Rosebud 06-05-2013 02:39 PM

Sure talent plays a part in efficiency, but efficiency has a lot more to do with surrounding factors than just talent, scheme, role, whether they're rotating in and out to get more favorable snaps or if they're playing whole games where many snaps they won't get to just pin their ears back and attack, surrounding talent, the course of games, and many other factors that warp simple efficiency numbers to be so off from players' actual ability.

niel89 06-05-2013 02:41 PM

Cedric Peerman had a higher yards per carry than Adrian Petersen this year 7.1>6.0. Its obvious that if given more carries Peerman will blow past ADs stupid 2000 yard season. Efficiency > actual production. I'd much rather have unproven back up than the great solid player everytime. The coaching staff was just out to get Peerman this year but when he gets the carries you'll all see how right I am. Obviously efficiency stays constant as a player gets more snaps.

cmarq83 06-05-2013 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AcheTen (Post 3380541)
Ability is more closely tied to efficiency than total production.

Would you rather have the RB that can get 1200 yards on 300 carries or the RB that can get 900 yards on 150 carries.

Going forward, into the future, efficiency, and being able to do alot in LESS snaps, is a better indicator of talent than just raw production in a TON of snaps.

Jamaal Charles is better than Michael Turner.

There are other factors at work though which need to be taken into account. For example by your standards Stevan Ridley would be a better football player than Trent Richardson despite not possessing a single trait I would deem better than Richardson. It's next to impossible to make a 1-1 comparison. Especially with running backs.

AcheTen (Thumper) 06-05-2013 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmarq83 (Post 3380556)
There are other factors at work though which need to be taken into account. For example by your standards Stevan Ridley would be a better football player than Trent Richardson despite not possessing a single trait I would deem better than Richardson. It's next to impossible to make a 1-1 comparison. Especially with running backs.

"Traits" in this sense are completely subjective and nebulous

There's no reason that Ridley can't be better than Richardson, despite what "traits' you subjectively ascribe.

Don Vito 06-05-2013 02:48 PM


BallerT1215 06-05-2013 02:55 PM

No....No he isn't.

That's all I have to say about that.

AcheTen (Thumper) 06-05-2013 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BallerT1215 (Post 3380577)
No....No he isn't.

That's all I have to say about that.

Sterling logic and analysis there.

cmarq83 06-05-2013 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AcheTen (Post 3380559)
"Traits" in this sense are completely subjective and nebulous

There's no reason that Ridley can't be better than Richardson, despite what "traits' you subjectively ascribe.

As are pressures, somebody decides what a pressure is, there is no concrete tangible thing that someone can point to that makes something a pressure, much in the same way a trait like speed or power would be subjective. The results are equally as nebulous because something deemed as a pressure could have a positive or negative impact on a play.

Yet you've had no problem leaning on that subjective and nebulous point.

jrdrylie 06-05-2013 03:02 PM

Based on AcheTen's logic, Jonathan Baldwin is a better player than Calvin Johnson.

AcheTen (Thumper) 06-05-2013 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmarq83 (Post 3380586)
As are pressures, somebody decides what a pressure is, there is no concrete tangible thing that someone can point to that makes something a pressure, much in the same way a trait like speed or power would be subjective. The results are equally as nebulous because something deemed as a pressure could have a positive or negative impact on a play.

Yet you've had no problem leaning on that subjective and nebulous point.

Pressure in terms of QB hits and hurries are not set in stone, but they are more well defined than some arbitrary highly subjective trait like "hustles well" or "has elite burst".

And even if I was doing this purely with traditional stats like sacks, which i outlined in the first post, the comparison still holds up.

BallerT1215 06-05-2013 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdrylie (Post 3380587)
Based on AcheTen's logic, Jonathan Baldwin is a better player than Calvin Johnson.

Obviously, that is just understood.

AcheTen (Thumper) 06-05-2013 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdrylie (Post 3380587)
Based on AcheTen's logic, Jonathan Baldwin is a better player than Calvin Johnson.


1. Baldwin might actually be an elite WR in the future. Did you even consider that? Putting up great numbers in limited snaps can often be a harbinger of what's to come. I wouldn't be shocked if Baldwin even outplays Johnson in the future. Put yuor bias aside and open your mind.

2. Also, Y/R stats for WRs are far more uniform and standardized than sacks/snap for DEs. The nature of the WR position lends itself to uniformity among Y/R stats.

3. 20 receptions is again a very small sample size. Much smaller than 400+ snaps.

ChiFan24 06-05-2013 03:18 PM

This thread is stupid. Let's just turn this into another 49ers thread instead.

cmarq83 06-05-2013 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiFan24 (Post 3380599)
This thread is stupid. Let's just turn this into another 49ers thread instead.

Alex Smith, why doesn't his name come up more often?

Don Vito 06-05-2013 03:30 PM

Wes Welker is an elite wide receiver, I don't care what anybody says. Sooooo many catches.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.