Vikings Message Board.Com

Great article by Arif at Daily Norseman with really in depth analysis and puts the tackle stat supporters to silly shame.

http://vikingsterritory.com/2014/analys ... hree-years

It's not exactly a secret anymore that he's been bad. He'll likely be gone after this year.

maembe wrote:It's not exactly a secret anymore that he's been bad. He'll likely be gone after this year.

When Arif had suggested that he could be a camp cut or CAP cut, the fans freaked out on him.

It pains me to say it, but Chad Greenway is no longer an effective linebacker. I don't think Zimmer's scheme is going to magically save Chad Greenway's lack of coverage ability - which has been a prevalent issue since 2011. I have been hard on Greenway the past few seasons and I usually have been laughed at by others. I don't understand how people do not see the vast coverage deficiencies Greenway displays game in and game out. I fully expect that this will be Greenway's last season in Minnesota - barring a stellar 2014 campaign.

Tackles are not a bad statistic. This is a fallacy that is pushed by the sabermetric community, much like how baseball mathematicians say that batting average and hits are bad stats. If you're in on a high percentage of your team's tackles, that means that you're a good tackler. There's a stat for this called "tackle factor" that is very handy for getting around the "100 tackles on 1,000 snaps" part of Arif's argument.

Honestly, he's right in a way and I see his point, but tackles aren't a bad stat just because you can't find a way to see them as being useful. You might has well say every non-sabermetric stat is useless or "bad", because it's the same logic. Vin Scully once said that statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination. If we've become so rigid in our thinking that we can't come up with our own reasons in support of our stats, and have a good enough argument that stats as simple as tackles and TD passes are good enough, and we now need advanced mathematical formulas created by Billy Asperger from Butthole North America, then you have to wonder if some of these people even know how their advanced metrics work.

I should also quickly mention that I'm a supporter of advanced metrics, and that I think Greenway was better than people think over the last few years.

I dunno, to me Greenway has been pretty average, not really bad and not really great either. I think if you're in Fraziers defense and playing next to Marvin Mitchell and Erin Henderson you're going to have to make up for a lot of slack and get a lot more on your plate than you might otherwise want.

For me I have to see how he plays in Zimmer's defense before I can say definitely one way or the other if he'll be back or not.

I think tackles are a horrible statistic because on their own they provide no context to support a result, whether it be good or bad. Example:

Greenway sacks a QB: 1 Tackle

Greenway tackles the guy he was covering after the guy catches a pass for a first down: 1 Tackle

Greenway tackles a RB after a 15 yard gain in his gap: 1 Tackle

Greenway stuffs a runner for 3 yard loss: 1 Tackle

4 tackles, but two of them were bad plays and two were good. If all 4 plays were positive or negative it would still be 4 tackles. IMO, tackles by themself are a garbage stat. They do not tell you whether the play was positive or negative. In fact, all they tell you is that the player being measured ended the play. That is it.

mansquatch wrote:I think tackles are a horrible statistic because on their own they provide no context to support a result, whether it be good or bad. Example:

Greenway sacks a QB: 1 Tackle

Greenway tackles the guy he was covering after the guy catches a pass for a first down: 1 Tackle

Greenway tackles a RB after a 15 yard gain in his gap: 1 Tackle

Greenway stuffs a runner for 3 yard loss: 1 Tackle

4 tackles, but two of them were bad plays and two were good. If all 4 plays were positive or negative it would still be 4 tackles. IMO, tackles by themself are a garbage stat. They do not tell you whether the play was positive or negative. In fact, all they tell you is that the player being measured ended the play. That is it.

You are probably correct but tackles by defensive linemen are usually a good indicator as to how they are performing.

mansquatch wrote:4 tackles, but two of them were bad plays and two were good. If all 4 plays were positive or negative it would still be 4 tackles. IMO, tackles by themself are a garbage stat. They do not tell you whether the play was positive or negative. In fact, all they tell you is that the player being measured ended the play. That is it.

Most stats need context. On their own, they rarely tell you enough, which is why that Vin Scully quote Slick Rick posted is great.

As for Arif's LONG explanation of why Greenway is a bad player... it's hard to buy, especially because he spends a lot fo time talking about how tackles are an unofficial stat and then spends even more time using subjective stats compiled of PFF and other sites to make his case. The includes some film too but that's cherry-picked stuff and not enough to carry the argument.

Greenway certainly isn't the player he was years ago and if the Vikings could upgrade his position, it would be a good idea but I think Arif goes too far in the other direction and makes Greenway out to be far worse than he is. YMMV..

Greenway gets a "tackle" for something like this:

NextQuestion wrote:Greenway gets a "tackle" for something like this:

So do defensive players all around the league. It's not as if that play is representative of most of Greenway's tackles.

mansquatch wrote:I think tackles are a horrible statistic because on their own they provide no context to support a result, whether it be good or bad. Example:

Greenway sacks a QB: 1 Tackle

Greenway tackles the guy he was covering after the guy catches a pass for a first down: 1 Tackle

Greenway tackles a RB after a 15 yard gain in his gap: 1 Tackle

Greenway stuffs a runner for 3 yard loss: 1 Tackle

4 tackles, but two of them were bad plays and two were good. If all 4 plays were positive or negative it would still be 4 tackles. IMO, tackles by themself are a garbage stat. They do not tell you whether the play was positive or negative. In fact, all they tell you is that the player being measured ended the play. That is it.

You don't generalize tackles because some of them aren't pretty. You generalize them because they all serve the same purpose: they end the offensive play. If a player gets more tackles than his teammates, generally that's one of your best players and in fact usually your best linebacker. Some touchdowns go through two defenders' hands before they land in a receiver's hands, it doesn't mean that it wasn't a better play than, say, dropping the pass and not scoring the TD. All 4 of those hypothetical tackles served their purpose, as opposed to not making the tackle, and potentially allowing 4 TDs. This is the same logic that drives some people to say things like bad cornerbacks have the most tackles. It simply isn't true.

I give Greenway a break he played on an exposed defense with little support from the back end or front for that matter.

Lets see how this year is..

While I'll admit that it seemed to me that Greenway was definitely not the same player last year than he was earlier in his career -- I saw a lot of bad angles and missed tackles on his part. Whether it is mostly due to waning skills or Greenway over compensating for the lack of talent around him, that is really hard to determine.

But I'm not ready to toss him out to the curb.
Here's another quote:
“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
― Benjamin Disraeli

Statistics are interesting, but they can't be the only part of a position, pro or con. They are too easily bendable to aid any side of argument.

I don't expect much improvement out of Chad unless he plays within the system Zimmer lays out, and if that system really can take advantage of the skills Greenway possesses. Something I'll have to wait for until the season.

When Greenway got obliterated from that block by Steve Smith, I knew he was falling off.




Smith is like 5'9 and 180 something pounds. Greenway is 6'2 and 242 pounds. There's no way he should be getting blasted as hard as he did. Not saying that Steve Smith isn't strong but Greenway is a linebacker, I thought he'd be a little stronger than that, and Smith is much older than he is. I know this is only one play, but to me this play represents Greenway's ability as of late. Hopefully he can get it together this season. We are going to really need him to come through.