PDA

View Full Version : Fox or Timmons?



SteelAbility
11-10-2009, 10:46 AM
:stirpot

From what I've seen Fox is better as a starter. The two times Fox has started:

TEN 5 Tackles (2nd to Troy with 6)
DEN 8 Tackles (Led all tacklers with JH being next at 6)

Timmons has 6 starts with 20 total tackles.

This isn't a bust on Timmons. It is a bust on Timmons as an every down LB. His speed pass rush is diminished by playing every down. I think Fox should be starting and Timmons should be playing situational.

MeetJoeGreene
11-10-2009, 10:47 AM
Conversly, I think all of those short passes over the middle that Orton was getting would have been not present if Timmons is starting.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
11-10-2009, 10:51 AM
Conversly, I think all of those short passes over the middle that Orton was getting would have been not present if Timmons is starting.

Bingo.

papillon
11-10-2009, 10:57 AM
:stirpot

From what I've seen Fox is better as a starter. The two times Fox has started:

TEN 5 Tackles (2nd to Troy with 6)
DEN 8 Tackles (Led all tacklers with JH being next at 6)

Timmons has 6 starts with 20 total tackles.

This isn't a bust on Timmons. It is a bust on Timmons as an every down LB. His speed pass rush is diminished by playing every down. I think Fox should be starting and Timmons should be playing situational.

How about Timmons on the outside and Fox in the middle and sit Woodley in a similar fashion that Mendenhall sat to get his head right. Woodley isn't making mistakes, but, the number of big plays has diminished tremendously since last year. Timmons was drafted as an OLB, I'd like to see what he can do there.

Pappy

RuthlessBurgher
11-10-2009, 10:57 AM
Fox is a valuable piece, for sure, but Timmons allows you to do so much more.

NWNewell
11-10-2009, 11:06 AM
Conversly, I think all of those short passes over the middle that Orton was getting would have been not present if Timmons is starting.

Bingo.

I won't say all... but I think it's an influence. Timmons is probably a step faster and can cover the middle a little better, so there are likely less balls thrown his way. With Fox, he is certainly capable, but not as quick. So people are probably opened, but he is right there to make the tackle after they catch the ball.

It's just one game, but Favre was not hooking up with AP or TE's very much in the short middle of the field when Timmons was in the game. But after Timmons was hurt, there were a lot of 5yd checkdowns to AP in the middle of the field, some of them he turned into solid gains. Could be a coincidence, could be that when the starter went out, the Vikings were consciously targeting "the back-up".

By no means am I dissing Fox or favoring Timmons, but I just don't know that it is a fair comparison.

RuthlessBurgher
11-10-2009, 11:11 AM
For comparison's sake, if James Harrison, LaMarr Woodley, and James Farrior play the roles of Greg Lloyd, Kevin Greene, and Levon Kirkland, respectively, then that would make Lawrence Timmons a Chad Brown type and Keyaron Fox would be a Jerry Olsavsky type.

Oviedo
11-10-2009, 11:18 AM
For comparison's sake, if James Harrison, LaMarr Woodley, and James Farrior play the roles of Greg Lloyd, Kevin Greene, and Levon Kirkland, respectively, then that would make Lawrence Timmons a Chad Brown type and Keyaron Fox would be a Jerry Olsavsky type.

Very good and Chad Brown was a Pro Bowl caliber player and Olsavsky was, well Olsavsky. Timmons has so much more to offer than Fox and the points made about the easy receptions in the middle of the field is right on...they don't happen when Timmons is in.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
11-10-2009, 11:34 AM
Fox is a great asset to this team. He is a solid starter...If needed. Timmons does give you more when he is on the field. As far as Woodley, I watched him last night more than usual because of the topics in here. I actually think Woodley was in coverage about 50% of the time. It would have been a great time to pile up some sacks but dropping the LBs into coverage against this offense really disrupted the Broncos short passing game. DL had a nice gameplan for the Broncos.

Chadman
11-10-2009, 11:43 AM
Don't.

Just...don't.

Timmons is a class above Fox.

Fox vs Farrior...that's a better argument.

phillyesq
11-10-2009, 11:50 AM
:stirpot :stirpot :stirpot

I was thinking about this last night.

Would you rather have:

Timmons
Fox

or

Foote
Fox
Revis

I know that Revis was snatched the pick before Timmons, but imagine what this team would look like with him. Willie Gay is becoming the weak link on D, and opposing offenses have been going after him. Revis and Ike would be one of the best cb tandems in the NFL, and certainly the best I can remember for the Steelers.

I know that Timmons is better in coverage and as a pass rusher, but both Foote and Fox look to be better against the run.

So, which do you think would make a better defense? I think it is Revis, hands down.

birtikidis
11-10-2009, 11:54 AM
:stirpot :stirpot :stirpot

I was thinking about this last night.

Would you rather have:

Timmons
Fox

or

Foote
Fox
Revis

I know that Revis was snatched the pick before Timmons, but imagine what this team would look like with him. Willie Gay is becoming the weak link on D, and opposing offenses have been going after him. Revis and Ike would be one of the best cb tandems in the NFL, and certainly the best I can remember for the Steelers.

I know that Timmons is better in coverage and as a pass rusher, but both Foote and Fox look to be better against the run.

So, which do you think would make a better defense? I think it is Revis, hands down.
ah gay is really driving me nuts. the stat that i didn't like hearing last night... 69% of passes thrown gays way have been completed. how gay is that?

flippy
11-10-2009, 11:54 AM
Timmons is like a safety at the LB position.

He's the LB version of Troy P.

feltdizz
11-10-2009, 11:56 AM
I posed the same question before the first game. I know Timmons is the better athlete and better in space but Fox is better at shooting the gap amd plugging the holes. Fox just seems to play under more control inside. This isn't a knock on Timmons... Just a compliment to our depth and Fox's play last night. I think this is a great problem to have... Fox needs to see the field.

NWNewell
11-10-2009, 11:59 AM
Willie Gay is becoming the weak link on D, and opposing offenses have been going after him.

I agree with that point. Most of the passing success opponents have head, especially in the Vikings and Broncos games have come against Gay.

But it's still limited success anyway....

AngryAsian
11-10-2009, 12:17 PM
This is shouldn't even be discussed. Fox will replace Farrior. I see him being more of a glue. Though he's been pretty dynamic (by necessity because of the position he's filling), his game seems to fit more of what Farrior brings to the table. I think we are pretty lucky we have the luxury of such talent at the LB tier of our great D. However way you want to rotate the talent, we're going to be successful. With regards to the Woodley bench comment, I think he needs to come back to camp next year at a more stealth weight and not the beefed up version we're seeing this year. He looks too "lumbery" this season. No explosion.

RussBII
11-10-2009, 12:37 PM
I think it's this simple:

Timmons' upsides are not coachable. You can't teach speed or athleticism.

Fox's upsides are straight up learnable.

Timmons stays in to get the reps. It's not like he's horrible, he just has some more learning to do. His ability to get somewhere quickly adds a whole new dimension to our pass rush, even if he whiffs on the tackle.

SteelAbility
11-10-2009, 01:40 PM
From what I've seen so far, Fox is much more effective. In the two games that he's started the D has been able to dominate the entire 2nd half. In four out of the six that Timmons has started we've been handled on D in the 4thQ. Fox is not as fast, but his positioning is better. The point is "who is more effective?" In the sample set I've seen so far Fox is much more effective.

Al Davis is enamored with speed. How's that worked out for him? It's not just about speed. It's about total defense and that involves stopping both run and pass. IMO, Fox does a better job on the combo.

Fox's Starts
56.5 Rushing Yards allowed (Opponents average 136 rushing YPG)
232.5 Passing Yards allowed (Opponents average 193 passing YPG)
Opponents' YPA: 6.4
NET YARDAGE IMPROVEMENT (compared to opponent average) 40
Opponents are a collective 8-8 (8-6 not counting Steeler games)


Timmons' Starts
74.8 Rushing Yards allowed (Opponents average 102 rushing YPG)
235.2 Passing Yards allowed (Opponents average 212 passing YPG)
Opponents' YPA: 5.7
NET YARDAGE IMPROVEMENT (compared to opponent average) 4
Opponents are a collective 24-24 (20-22 not counting Steeler games)

MaxAMillion
11-10-2009, 02:40 PM
Timmons is a 4-3 LB playing inside in a 3-4 defense. It seems obvious that Timmons is more comfortable in space. He was great last year playing in the Nickel defense and blitzing. He is not as good when he is having to fight through bodies.

I would keep Fox inside as a starter and continue to use Timmons like they did last year, where he is most effective.

stlrz d
11-10-2009, 03:14 PM
Teams don't have to wonder if Timmons is blitzing...if he's standing on the sidelines.

This isn't even a debate.

SteelAbility
11-10-2009, 03:42 PM
Teams don't have to wonder if Timmons is blitzing...if he's standing on the sidelines.

This isn't even a debate.

Look at the OVERALL effectiveness between Fox and Timmons. That's what counts. Blitzing is ONE aspect of the game. Where Timmons blitzes better, he's falling short in other areas (compared to Fox).

steelsnis
11-10-2009, 03:54 PM
Not even close IMO. Fox is a fantastic extra backer to have on the team. Classic Steeler free agent signing (a guy no one else knew about). Heck, he'd be a great starter to have if not for Timmons.

But Lawrence Timmons is a 22-year old Pro Bowler in the making, Fox is not. Like I said, Fox has filled in admirably, but he's not a more effective player than Timmons. You can't just pick out the overall team stats and apply them to one out of 11 players on the defense and say that it means Fox is more effective than Timmons.

SteelAbility
11-10-2009, 04:05 PM
Not even close IMO. Fox is a fantastic extra backer to have on the team. Classic Steeler free agent signing (a guy no one else knew about). Heck, he'd be a great starter to have if not for Timmons.

But Lawrence Timmons is a 22-year old Pro Bowler in the making, Fox is not. Like I said, Fox has filled in admirably, but he's not a more effective player than Timmons. You can't just pick out the overall team stats and apply them to one out of 11 players on the defense and say that it means Fox is more effective than Timmons.

Yes, you can. The bulk of the defensive difference between "Fox Starts" and "Timmons Starts" is straight up, Fox versus Timmons. Notice that with Fox in there, we have held teams that average 136 rushing YPG to 56. Think about that ... 80 yards UNDER their average. If you take away the Steeler Games in those teams' averages you are looking at an average for those teams of around 146 per game. So compared to the "untampered" sample, with Fox in there, they are really something like 90 rushing yards UNDER their normal average. That's a statistic you cannot ignore. And by the way, Timmons had two or three more games in there with the services of Sir Aaron Smith.

I believe the reason is that Timmons is a weak link on run D. That weakness is shored up with Fox in there.

feltdizz
11-10-2009, 04:10 PM
Willie Gay is becoming the weak link on D, and opposing offenses have been going after him.

I agree with that point. Most of the passing success opponents have head, especially in the Vikings and Broncos games have come against Gay.

But it's still limited success anyway....
I feel stupid cause I was a big gay fan amd thought we wouldn't see a big drop off but he clearly is the ne Chad Scott so far this year.

SteelAbility
11-10-2009, 04:14 PM
Willie Gay is becoming the weak link on D, and opposing offenses have been going after him.

I agree with that point. Most of the passing success opponents have head, especially in the Vikings and Broncos games have come against Gay.

But it's still limited success anyway....
I feel stupid cause I was a big gay fan amd thought we wouldn't see a big drop off but he clearly is the ne Chad Scott so far this year.

Yup. It looks like the physicality just isn't there. I remember a play last night where he had Ryan Moats for a no-gainer and Moats just handled him and went for 7.

feltdizz
11-10-2009, 04:17 PM
Teams don't have to wonder if Timmons is blitzing...if he's standing on the sidelines.

This isn't even a debate.

Look at the OVERALL effectiveness between Fox and Timmons. That's what counts. Blitzing is ONE aspect of the game. Where Timmons blitzes better, he's falling short in other areas (compared to Fox).

would Jack Ham even make our roster if it was all based on speed and athleticism? I'm a Timmons fan but right now Fox is a much better ILB. Fox plays with more control and looks to have a better technique to get inside and stop the run. I was impressed. Sure Timmons has to see the field because of the space he can cover but in traffic Fox is much better at taking the shortest route to make a tackle.

steelsnis
11-10-2009, 04:36 PM
Yes, you can. The bulk of the defensive difference between "Fox Starts" and "Timmons Starts" is straight up, Fox versus Timmons.

No, you can't. There are 11 guys on defense. Stats are too black and white and don't account for the actual play on the field. They won't tell you what kind of game everyone else on defense had, or if Ike Taylor missed a tackle on a running play that accounted for a 20-yard gain. All they can tell you is what the numbers are, but numbers don't tell the whole story.

Basically the stats you provide say that the Steelers defense gives up 56 ypg rushing when Fox is in there and 74 with Timmons in there. So those 18-yards rushing per game are the data that proves Fox is more effective overall? Not in my eyes.

Fox seems to be a more "natural" inside backer at this point (because that's been his position). But that doesn't mean a whole lot to me. The gap is so small and Timmons' strengths so far outweigh his shortcomings that I can't see a reason you would replace him other than an injury.

Like i said, I LOVE having Fox on the team (great fill-in backer, great special teams) but I still do not see him as a full time starter.

RuthlessBurgher
11-10-2009, 04:39 PM
Willie Gay is becoming the weak link on D, and opposing offenses have been going after him.

I agree with that point. Most of the passing success opponents have head, especially in the Vikings and Broncos games have come against Gay.

But it's still limited success anyway....
I feel stupid cause I was a big gay fan amd thought we wouldn't see a big drop off but he clearly is the ne Chad Scott so far this year.

Yup. It looks like the physicality just isn't there. I remember a play last night where he had Ryan Moats for a no-gainer and Moats just handled him and went for 7.

This Ryan Moats?

http://blog.lehighvalleylive.com/sports_impact/2009/03/large_ryan%20moats.JPG

:? :?:

SteelAbility
11-10-2009, 04:43 PM
Yes, you can. The bulk of the defensive difference between "Fox Starts" and "Timmons Starts" is straight up, Fox versus Timmons.

No, you can't. There are 11 guys on defense. Stats are too black and white and don't account for the actual play on the field. They won't tell you what kind of game everyone else on defense had, or if Ike Taylor missed a tackle on a running play that accounted for a 20-yard gain. All they can tell you is what the numbers are, but numbers don't tell the whole story.

Basically the stats you provide say that the Steelers defense gives up 56 ypg rushing when Fox is in there and 74 with Timmons in there. So those 18-yards rushing per game are the data that proves Fox is more effective overall? Not in my eyes.

Fox seems to be a more "natural" inside backer at this point (because that's been his position). But that doesn't mean a whole lot to me. The gap is so small and Timmons' strengths so far outweigh his shortcomings that I can't see a reason you would replace him other than an injury.

Like i said, I LOVE having Fox on the team (great fill-in backer, great special teams) but I still do not see him as a full time starter.

Look at the numbers again. With Fox in there, teams that are normally averaging 136 YPG are averaging 56 YPG. With Timmons in there teams that are normally averaging 102 YPG are averaging 74.8.

FOX: 136-56 = 80 (the IMPROVEMENT in run D compared to a baseline)
Timmons: 102 - 74.8 = 27.2 (the IMPROVEMENT in run D compared to a baseline)

This means that compared to baseline, with Fox in there, the run D is 53 yards to the better. "Compare to baseline" means that THE STRENGTH OF THE COMPETITION IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN EVALUATING.

As an example,which is better D? Holding a team that normally passes for 500 yards per game to 300 yards or gving up 250 yards to a team that normally passes for 200 yards?

Yes, the difference between "Fox in there" and "Timmons in there" is 18.8 YPG in run D, but "Fox in there" has been doing it against much better run offenses. And actually 18.8 YPG is quite significant even if they were playing equal run offenses.

RuthlessBurgher
11-10-2009, 04:47 PM
Not even close IMO. Fox is a fantastic extra backer to have on the team. Classic Steeler free agent signing (a guy no one else knew about). Heck, he'd be a great starter to have if not for Timmons.

But Lawrence Timmons is a 22-year old Pro Bowler in the making, Fox is not. Like I said, Fox has filled in admirably, but he's not a more effective player than Timmons. You can't just pick out the overall team stats and apply them to one out of 11 players on the defense and say that it means Fox is more effective than Timmons.

Yes, you can. The bulk of the defensive difference between "Fox Starts" and "Timmons Starts" is straight up, Fox versus Timmons. Notice that with Fox in there, we have held teams that average 136 rushing YPG to 56. Think about that ... 80 yards UNDER their average. If you take away the Steeler Games in those teams' averages you are looking at an average for those teams of around 146 per game. So compared to the "untampered" sample, with Fox in there, they are really something like 90 rushing yards UNDER their normal average. That's a statistic you cannot ignore. And by the way, Timmons had two or three more games in there with the services of Sir Aaron Smith.

I believe the reason is that Timmons is a weak link on run D. That weakness is shored up with Fox in there.

The difference in those games is not just Timmons vs. Fox. In some of those games, you had Aaron Smith starting, Travis Kirschke starting, or Nick Eason starting at DE. In some of those games you had Troy at SS and others had Carter at SS, then there is the games with Clark at FS vs. the game with Carter at FS. So many different combinations of players in each of those games that it does not boil down simply to Timmons vs. Fox. There are too many different variables in effect to determine true cause-and-effect, statistically.

SteelAbility
11-10-2009, 04:52 PM
Not even close IMO. Fox is a fantastic extra backer to have on the team. Classic Steeler free agent signing (a guy no one else knew about). Heck, he'd be a great starter to have if not for Timmons.

But Lawrence Timmons is a 22-year old Pro Bowler in the making, Fox is not. Like I said, Fox has filled in admirably, but he's not a more effective player than Timmons. You can't just pick out the overall team stats and apply them to one out of 11 players on the defense and say that it means Fox is more effective than Timmons.

Yes, you can. The bulk of the defensive difference between "Fox Starts" and "Timmons Starts" is straight up, Fox versus Timmons. Notice that with Fox in there, we have held teams that average 136 rushing YPG to 56. Think about that ... 80 yards UNDER their average. If you take away the Steeler Games in those teams' averages you are looking at an average for those teams of around 146 per game. So compared to the "untampered" sample, with Fox in there, they are really something like 90 rushing yards UNDER their normal average. That's a statistic you cannot ignore. And by the way, Timmons had two or three more games in there with the services of Sir Aaron Smith.

I believe the reason is that Timmons is a weak link on run D. That weakness is shored up with Fox in there.

The difference in those games is not just Timmons vs. Fox. In some of those games, you had Aaron Smith starting, Travis Kirschke starting, or Nick Eason starting at DE. In some of those games you had Troy at SS and others had Carter at SS, then there is the games with Clark at FS vs. the game with Carter at FS. So many different combinations of players in each of those games that it does not boil down simply to Timmons vs. Fox. There are too many different variables in effect to determine true cause-and-effect, statistically.

Actually, Timmons had more games with the services of Sir Aaron Smith. However, I will definitely buy into Troy being an offsetting factor as Timmons played several games without Troy.

phillyesq
11-10-2009, 05:06 PM
It seems like a lot of people feel that there should be no discussion or no argument, but why? What has Timmons done this year? He has speed, potential, athleticism, upside, etc., but Fox has been more productive.

Mister Pittsburgh
11-10-2009, 05:21 PM
:stirpot

From what I've seen Fox is better as a starter. The two times Fox has started:

TEN 5 Tackles (2nd to Troy with 6)
DEN 8 Tackles (Led all tacklers with JH being next at 6)

Timmons has 6 starts with 20 total tackles.

This isn't a bust on Timmons. It is a bust on Timmons as an every down LB. His speed pass rush is diminished by playing every down. I think Fox should be starting and Timmons should be playing situational.

How about Timmons on the outside and Fox in the middle and sit Woodley in a similar fashion that Mendenhall sat to get his head right. Woodley isn't making mistakes, but, the number of big plays has diminished tremendously since last year. Timmons was drafted as an OLB, I'd like to see what he can do there.

Pappy

If Woodley gains 10 or 15 pounds, he weighs as much as Brett Keisel and is probably faster.

Mister Pittsburgh
11-10-2009, 05:24 PM
If Timmons keeps on getting dinged up, Fox will be your starter anyway.

frankthetank1
11-10-2009, 05:31 PM
i think they should maybe roatate timmons in for woodley on occasion and put fox at timmons's spot. woodley played pretty well last night, but he hasnt been half as effective as he was in his first two seasons. i wouldnt sit timmons for fox though. i love fox but he doesnt give you the pass rush as timmons does and he isnt as good in coverage. fox is probably more solid against the run but timmons has improved in that area. larry foote wanting out a season early was a blessing

Chadman
11-10-2009, 06:00 PM
For the people trying to use stats to determine if Timmons or Fox are better- do you get enamoured by 4.3 speed at the combine too?

Stats are there for those people that need to see something...measurable.

A simple eye test though will show you that Timmons is 'special', while Fox is 'good'. You don't remove special for good.

Timmons has the ability to create gamechanging plays. Fox doesn't. Fox is a 'react' player, while Timmons is an 'instigate' player. Both have their good & bad points.

Fact is, on such a good defence, the Steelers can easily 'carry' Timmons supposed weakness in run defence if the trade-off is the 'splash play factor'. If the defence was getting shredded, you'd think of moving things around. Timmons is superior to Fox in the passing game- more athletic, faster, and a better pass rusher. Fox is a better 'one on one' tackler in the run game.

Fox will likely get a start for Farrior in the next year or so. Teamed with Timmons, this is a good combination of smarts & athletic ability. But if Fox started every week, you'd soon complain that he's a little too much "Larry Foote" & that the defence needs an injection of skill.

As for the straight-up comparison, stat wise, between Timmons & Fox- don't forget to factor in the quality of the opposition running game. Of course, how do you decide on the strength of another teams running game vs Fox/Timmons? Think about it- Fox would be better against say...LaDanian Tomlinson, who will try to bowl over the LB, but Timmons will be better against Darren Sproles, simply because Fox won't have the foot speed to keep up. But both Tomlinson & Sproles play for the Chargers...oh the many X Factors to contemplate.

You know, statistically, Chris Hoke is the equal of Casey Hampton as a NT. Anyone want to put all their eggs in Hoke's basket for next year? Where is the argument for Hoke vs Hampton?

RuthlessBurgher
11-10-2009, 07:32 PM
Anyone want to put all their eggs in Hoke's basket for next year? Where is the argument for Hoke vs Hampton?

Unfortunately, I think that one is going to be inevitable next season. Since the contracts are up for Hampton, Colon, Clark, Reed, Parker, Townsend, etc., Casey will likely be too expensive to keep around, so Hoke will likely be our starter at NT next season while the NT that they take in the early rounds is groomed to be ready to start in 2011.

stlrz d
11-10-2009, 08:50 PM
Not even close IMO. Fox is a fantastic extra backer to have on the team. Classic Steeler free agent signing (a guy no one else knew about). Heck, he'd be a great starter to have if not for Timmons.

But Lawrence Timmons is a 22-year old Pro Bowler in the making, Fox is not. Like I said, Fox has filled in admirably, but he's not a more effective player than Timmons. You can't just pick out the overall team stats and apply them to one out of 11 players on the defense and say that it means Fox is more effective than Timmons.

Yes, you can. The bulk of the defensive difference between "Fox Starts" and "Timmons Starts" is straight up, Fox versus Timmons. Notice that with Fox in there, we have held teams that average 136 rushing YPG to 56. Think about that ... 80 yards UNDER their average. If you take away the Steeler Games in those teams' averages you are looking at an average for those teams of around 146 per game. So compared to the "untampered" sample, with Fox in there, they are really something like 90 rushing yards UNDER their normal average. That's a statistic you cannot ignore. And by the way, Timmons had two or three more games in there with the services of Sir Aaron Smith.

I believe the reason is that Timmons is a weak link on run D. That weakness is shored up with Fox in there.

The difference in those games is not just Timmons vs. Fox. In some of those games, you had Aaron Smith starting, Travis Kirschke starting, or Nick Eason starting at DE. In some of those games you had Troy at SS and others had Carter at SS, then there is the games with Clark at FS vs. the game with Carter at FS. So many different combinations of players in each of those games that it does not boil down simply to Timmons vs. Fox. There are too many different variables in effect to determine true cause-and-effect, statistically.

Thanks for saving me some typing.

Stats don't tell the whole story. Never have and they never, ever will.

stlrz d
11-10-2009, 08:52 PM
For the people trying to use stats to determine if Timmons or Fox are better- do you get enamoured by 4.3 speed at the combine too?

Stats are there for those people that need to see something...measurable.

A simple eye test though will show you that Timmons is 'special', while Fox is 'good'. You don't remove special for good.

Timmons has the ability to create gamechanging plays. Fox doesn't. Fox is a 'react' player, while Timmons is an 'instigate' player. Both have their good & bad points.

Fact is, on such a good defence, the Steelers can easily 'carry' Timmons supposed weakness in run defence if the trade-off is the 'splash play factor'. If the defence was getting shredded, you'd think of moving things around. Timmons is superior to Fox in the passing game- more athletic, faster, and a better pass rusher. Fox is a better 'one on one' tackler in the run game.

Fox will likely get a start for Farrior in the next year or so. Teamed with Timmons, this is a good combination of smarts & athletic ability. But if Fox started every week, you'd soon complain that he's a little too much "Larry Foote" & that the defence needs an injection of skill.

As for the straight-up comparison, stat wise, between Timmons & Fox- don't forget to factor in the quality of the opposition running game. Of course, how do you decide on the strength of another teams running game vs Fox/Timmons? Think about it- Fox would be better against say...LaDanian Tomlinson, who will try to bowl over the LB, but Timmons will be better against Darren Sproles, simply because Fox won't have the foot speed to keep up. But both Tomlinson & Sproles play for the Chargers...oh the many X Factors to contemplate.

You know, statistically, Chris Hoke is the equal of Casey Hampton as a NT. Anyone want to put all their eggs in Hoke's basket for next year? Where is the argument for Hoke vs Hampton?

:Clap

SteelAbility
11-10-2009, 09:33 PM
For the people trying to use stats to determine if Timmons or Fox are better- do you get enamoured by 4.3 speed at the combine too?

Stats are there for those people that need to see something...measurable.

A simple eye test though will show you that Timmons is 'special', while Fox is 'good'. You don't remove special for good.

Timmons has the ability to create gamechanging plays. Fox doesn't. Fox is a 'react' player, while Timmons is an 'instigate' player. Both have their good & bad points.

Fact is, on such a good defence, the Steelers can easily 'carry' Timmons supposed weakness in run defence if the trade-off is the 'splash play factor'. If the defence was getting shredded, you'd think of moving things around. Timmons is superior to Fox in the passing game- more athletic, faster, and a better pass rusher. Fox is a better 'one on one' tackler in the run game.

Fox will likely get a start for Farrior in the next year or so. Teamed with Timmons, this is a good combination of smarts & athletic ability. But if Fox started every week, you'd soon complain that he's a little too much "Larry Foote" & that the defence needs an injection of skill.

As for the straight-up comparison, stat wise, between Timmons & Fox- don't forget to factor in the quality of the opposition running game. Of course, how do you decide on the strength of another teams running game vs Fox/Timmons? Think about it- Fox would be better against say...LaDanian Tomlinson, who will try to bowl over the LB, but Timmons will be better against Darren Sproles, simply because Fox won't have the foot speed to keep up. But both Tomlinson & Sproles play for the Chargers...oh the many X Factors to contemplate.

You know, statistically, Chris Hoke is the equal of Casey Hampton as a NT. Anyone want to put all their eggs in Hoke's basket for next year? Where is the argument for Hoke vs Hampton?

Actually "enamored of speed" was used in the pro-Timmons camp.

In situational downs yes. Fox has 33 tackles in two starts. Timmons has 29 tackles in 6 starts. I'd say Fox' play is more special there.

You mean like the one Fox DIDN'T create against the Vikings? Actually you make a good point. Fox' "react" play won the game for us. Instead of putting his head down like a bull-dog slobbering to take someone's head off, he waited to see how it would play out and made the absolute most of it. There's no stat for that.

No argument on the pass-rush. I made this point before. You have to be evaluated by BOTH pass and rush. From what I'm seeing, Fox is winning the combo. Fox is also better at plain old holding his ground and not getting pushed back. I believe this is the main reason our run D is so much better with Fox out ther.

I did that. With Fox in the lineup we have held teams that average 136 YPG (rushing) to 56 yards. With Timmons in there we have held teams that average 102 YPG to 74.8. Somehow this one flew over the cuckoo's nest with several posters.

So, I will repeat it again in ALL CAPS

WITH FOX STARTING WE ARE HOLDING TEAMS TO 80 YARDS UNDER THEIR NORMAL RUSHING AVERAGE. WITH TIMMONS STARTING WE ARE HOLDING TEAMS TO 27 RUSHING YARDS UNDER THEIR NORMAL AVERAGE.

stlrz d
11-10-2009, 09:54 PM
I'll repeat in all caps for you:

YOUR STATS ARE IN NO WAY SCIENTIFIC...AND EVEN IF THEY WERE STATS DON'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY. THEY NEVER HAVE AND THEY NEVER WILL.

/thread over

BATMAN
11-10-2009, 10:02 PM
It seems when Fox is in there, he always seems to make some headline play or two each game. In any event I will believe the coaches know the best of the two but, with Fox being as good as he is, give Timmons all the recovery time he needs.

As a fan that can't compare with the coaching staff, I would say Fox earned a spot as starter just like Mendy did. I'll still stick with the coaches choice.

stlrz d
11-10-2009, 10:07 PM
It seems when Fox is in there, he always seems to make some headline play or two each game. In any event I will believe the coaches know the best of the two but, with Fox being as good as he is, give Timmons all the recovery time he needs.

As a fan that can't compare with the coaching staff, I would say Fox earned a spot as starter just like Mendy did. I'll still stick with the coaches choice.

The coach's choice is Timmons. Fox is starting because Timmons is injured.

I remember when Troy was hurt in 2007 and we shut out Seattle...the trib forum was rife with "the D is better without Troy" threads.

That's what this is starting to remind me of.

SteelAbility
11-10-2009, 10:29 PM
I'll repeat in all caps for you:

YOUR STATS ARE IN NO WAY SCIENTIFIC...AND EVEN IF THEY WERE STATS DON'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY. THEY NEVER HAVE AND THEY NEVER WILL.

/thread over

None of this discussion from anyone is scientific. The point of the numbers is that they are an indicator of strengths and weaknesses. A strong running team puts up more running YPG. A weak running team ... etc.

The challenge was put forth that when comparing Fox' run D to Timmons' run D you had to take into consideration the strength of the opposing running games. I did that three or four times already. I put in the all caps because that emphatic point was conveniently ignored. So, here's another non-scientific way to put it. With Fox in the lineup we are holding significantly stronger running games to significantly less yards. In my book that is significant.

phillyesq
11-10-2009, 11:27 PM
It seems when Fox is in there, he always seems to make some headline play or two each game. In any event I will believe the coaches know the best of the two but, with Fox being as good as he is, give Timmons all the recovery time he needs.

As a fan that can't compare with the coaching staff, I would say Fox earned a spot as starter just like Mendy did. I'll still stick with the coaches choice.

The coach's choice is Timmons. Fox is starting because Timmons is injured.

I remember when Troy was hurt in 2007 and we shut out Seattle...the trib forum was rife with "the D is better without Troy" threads.

That's what this is starting to remind me of.

With all due respect, Timmons cannot hold a candle to Troy. Troy has redefined the safety position. Timmons doesn't have near that body of work yet.

Fox has really produced. It is hard to not reward that production, and also hard to take a producer out of the lineup for potential, IMO.

Timmons looked a lot better last year in a limited role. He was fresh and explosive when he came in on passing downs. I think playing Fox and Timmons the way Foote and Timmons were used last year could get the most out of both.

steelsnis
11-10-2009, 11:50 PM
Timmons looked a lot better last year in a limited role. He was fresh and explosive when he came in on passing downs.

Timmons has played in only two full games this season with a healthy ankle. He missed the Titans game and was clearly not full speed for the next couple of weeks against Chicago, Cincy and San Diego.

He finally started looking explosive against Detroit and Cleveland (sacks, tackles and forced fumbles) and than got his other ankle rolled up on by Hampton vs. Minnesota.

That's why it's so great to have a guy like Fox around as a backup. Timmons is clearly the starter (not just in my opinion, but in the coaches too) and will be when he gets his ankle right again.

stlrz d
11-11-2009, 12:45 AM
I'll repeat in all caps for you:

YOUR STATS ARE IN NO WAY SCIENTIFIC...AND EVEN IF THEY WERE STATS DON'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY. THEY NEVER HAVE AND THEY NEVER WILL.

/thread over

None of this discussion from anyone is scientific. The point of the numbers is that they are an indicator of strengths and weaknesses. A strong running team puts up more running YPG. A weak running team ... etc.

The challenge was put forth that when comparing Fox' run D to Timmons' run D you had to take into consideration the strength of the opposing running games. I did that three or four times already. I put in the all caps because that emphatic point was conveniently ignored. So, here's another non-scientific way to put it. With Fox in the lineup we are holding significantly stronger running games to significantly less yards. In my book that is significant.

Did your numbers take into account injuries on either team? Offensive and defensive game plans? All personnel on the field? Weather? Field conditions? How those individual players are used in the defense? Or any of the other numbers of variables involved?

The don't. Know how I know? Because they can't. You're trying to quantify something that is not quantifiable. You can't do it. It doesn't work. It may look nice because it all sets up so neat but really what you get is something that can be easily picked apart.

One guy is a Larry Foote type player. Solid, understands the scheme and plays the position well.

The other is a Chad Brown type player. Fast, explosive, can play inside or outside, can rush the passer and can play the run.

The choice is obvious...you play the guy that gives you more options. Timmons is the starter so it's clear the guys who are paid the big bucks to make these decisions agree.

Philly - I was using that as an example. You may not remember as well as I do, but there were people making the same argument for Carter. "Sure, Troy is flashy and all over the field, but Carter is solid and makes plays, blah blah blah".

It really is turning into the same type of argument. I'm glad that in both cases the coaches see it the same way I do. :)

SteelAbility
11-11-2009, 08:26 AM
Look. I see the potential in Timmons, yes. As far as potential goes, no doubt Timmons has the higher potential. Right now, I like what I'm seeing out of Fox better. You could argue that Timmons needs reps to get to that potential. In other words, starting him is like an investment. I'll buy into that investment approach up to a point, the point where you sacrifice best overall defense. What I'm seeing with Timmons is that his beast of a pass-rush is getting diminished by playing every down. After you've played 1st and 2nd down it's much harder to come up with a Timmons-esque pass-rush than when you come in situationally.

As far as the player injuries explaining the difference, I'll buy into that ... again ... somewhat. When the opponent running game strength has been taken into account, there is about a 50 yard disparity between Fox starting and Timmons starting. All of those factors you mentioned can work for you or against you. The probability is that they "come out in the wash."

My theory about the run D difference is that Fox has a combination of

A. being more disciplined and can't be fooled into over-pursuing
B. just plain old better at holding ground and not getting knocked out of space.

... that translates into overall run D. Holding ground goes a long way for contributing to overall run D. That's how you keep a back from generating more momentum that defenders have to overcome. So, even though you didn't get a tackle, the fact that you held ground kept the running back in-check.

stlrz d
11-11-2009, 09:23 AM
I'm glad you see the potential in Timmons, but one thing you're missing is that he gives the potential for pass rush on first and second downs too...not just third down. Teams have to be conscious of that. It changes the way they call the game.

Anyway, I really think your statistical analysis does not take into account that Timmons and Fox are used differently in the defense. It doesn't take into account what other players were or were not in on the defense. It doesn't take into account a lot of things.

I gave you the Troy/Carter argument from a few years ago. Two very different players...and people wanted to see Carter instead of Troy because Carter is the solid, steady guy. Well here's another one for you that I forgot about: last season people wanted to see Lefty starting instead of Ben. Again, Lefty is the solid, steady guy. What a mistake that would have been, eh?

At any rate, regardless of who is on the field, our D holds opponents to an average of 70.4 yards rushing. Doesn't matter if they averaged 180 yards rushing or 110 yards rushing...we hold 'em to 70.4.

Our coaches obviously know what they're doing...just enjoy the ride because it'll be over before you know it. XLIV will be here and gone soon enough and the quest for 8 will begin!

steelblood
11-11-2009, 09:53 AM
Timmons is the superior athlete and is better in pass coverage and as a blitzer. Fox, however, is a better tackler and fills holes with more consistency than Timmons.

Here is what I'd do. Timmons is the starter. But, if we play a team that favors the run or is in a running situation. I'd get Fox some snaps and Timmons some rest.

feltdizz
11-11-2009, 11:16 AM
Are the injuries and schemes of other teams taken into account when Timmons is the starter? Who cares who is injured on the other team, it's football and the stats are the stats. I'm not sure what the Denver stats are but we shut down the run in impressive fashion.

Plenty of people see the results and like Fox and I'm one of them. I hope he starts the cincinnati game and Timmons plays in space. I'll cheer for both. Timmons is no where close to Troy at this point and we can't reward potential over production.

SteelAbility
11-11-2009, 12:34 PM
I'm glad you see the potential in Timmons, but one thing you're missing is that he gives the potential for pass rush on first and second downs too...not just third down. Teams have to be conscious of that. It changes the way they call the game.

Anyway, I really think your statistical analysis does not take into account that Timmons and Fox are used differently in the defense. It doesn't take into account what other players were or were not in on the defense. It doesn't take into account a lot of things.

I gave you the Troy/Carter argument from a few years ago. Two very different players...and people wanted to see Carter instead of Troy because Carter is the solid, steady guy. Well here's another one for you that I forgot about: last season people wanted to see Lefty starting instead of Ben. Again, Lefty is the solid, steady guy. What a mistake that would have been, eh?

At any rate, regardless of who is on the field, our D holds opponents to an average of 70.4 yards rushing. Doesn't matter if they averaged 180 yards rushing or 110 yards rushing...we hold 'em to 70.4.

Our coaches obviously know what they're doing...just enjoy the ride because it'll be over before you know it. XLIV will be here and gone soon enough and the quest for 8 will begin!

Well, I'm a BIG TIME Ben homer, so I was never in the Lefty camp. Although he did play very well in the Skins game last year with some sharp passing. Agreed on 1st and 2nd down analysis.

feltdizz
11-11-2009, 01:58 PM
No one wanted Lefty to be the starter for the season... They wanted Lefty to start when it was obvious Ben was injured and out of sync with the O when we went 9 or 10 quarters without a TD.

Lefty came in and we marched downfield the next possession. Ben then practices all week and the O was back on track.

Thia is the problem with fans memories when it comes to the debate of starting this guy over that guy. Rarely has it ever been 2 healthy guys side by side and people wanting to see the 2nd string guy starting over the proven healthy star. Well, except for the haters....

With Timmons it's a little different since he clearly is new to the ILB position and has shown talent more in space then in traffic. I also think there are enough plays for both to prosper. Casey Hampton may start but if Hoke comes in and gets 4 series after that and plays well then what is the issue? Is starting that important when we have so many packages and everyone is making plays?

With Fox I see a guy who isn't flashy and isn't a splash player but he always seems to be in the backfield and making tackles. He deserves more time and I think once timmons is healthy they will split time or timmons will be used more like last year. I knw timmons gives more options but sometimes you just need a guy to stop the run on first or second down.

Are D is looking pretty good at the LB position right now.

stlrz d
11-11-2009, 11:08 PM
Are the injuries and schemes of other teams taken into account when Timmons is the starter? Who cares who is injured on the other team, it's football and the stats are the stats. I'm not sure what the Denver stats are but we shut down the run in impressive fashion.

Plenty of people see the results and like Fox and I'm one of them. I hope he starts the cincinnati game and Timmons plays in space. I'll cheer for both. Timmons is no where close to Troy at this point and we can't reward potential over production.

All they are is numbers without context. ;)

feltdizz
11-11-2009, 11:32 PM
The real question is the definition of context? I have a funny feeling context is nothing
more than the opinion/bias of a fan of one player over another. Using injury or scheme for one players success while using the same for anothers shortcomings.. :wink:

stlrz d
11-11-2009, 11:52 PM
The real question is the definition of context? I have a funny feeling context is nothing
more than the opinion/bias of a fan of one player over another. Using injury or scheme for one players success while using the same for anothers shortcomings.. :wink:

Context is taking all things into consideration...including how one player is used in a D vs how another player is used in that D.

Fox and Timmons are not used in the same manner.

http://www.atkinsoninsurance.ca/images/ApplesAndOranges.jpg

*WINK*.

Oviedo
11-12-2009, 08:53 AM
Timmons practciced yesterday. Good sign that he will be available because I want to see him on an inside blitz flatten Palmer a few times.

SteelAbility
11-12-2009, 11:42 AM
The real question is the definition of context? I have a funny feeling context is nothing
more than the opinion/bias of a fan of one player over another. Using injury or scheme for one players success while using the same for anothers shortcomings.. :wink:

Context is taking all things into consideration...including how one player is used in a D vs how another player is used in that D.

Fox and Timmons are not used in the same manner.

http://www.atkinsoninsurance.ca/images/ApplesAndOranges.jpg

*WINK*.

The way I see it, you should serve oranges to guests who prefer oranges and you should serve apples to guests who prefer apples. But if you ALWAYS serve one or the other, a percentage of your guests are going to be unhappy whereas you could have made them all happy. Now it's just a question of knowing your individual guests and what best serves them. Sometimes you end up getting the best result by first bringing out the apples, then the oranges. That goes back to knowing your guests and what best serves them. If you discover, by trial and error, that 1st-apple-2nd-orange works really well with a lot of guests, then you kind of have a "statistical" view into the minds of your guests that reduces your guesswork.

Now if you have some kind of delicious French pastry that serves well to all guests (aka James Harrison) well then you just keep serving French pastry too.

RuthlessBurgher
11-12-2009, 12:01 PM
http://www.totalprosports.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/c4james-harrison.jpg http://www.decodeunicode.org/en/u+003d/data/glyph/196x196/003D.gif http://pendekarlorong.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/croissant.jpg

:?: :!: :?: :!: :? :lol:

SteelAbility
11-12-2009, 12:33 PM
http://www.totalprosports.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/c4james-harrison.jpg http://www.decodeunicode.org/en/u+003d/data/glyph/196x196/003D.gif http://pendekarlorong.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/croissant.jpg

:?: :!: :?: :!: :? :lol: :wft

I added the :wft for you for good measure. :P

In the metaphorical world, I suppose. Actually, I'm thinking Casey Hampton is more appropriate for pastry. You know, Big Snack and all. I guess Harrison would be more like NY Strip Steak ... served RAW!

RuthlessBurgher
11-12-2009, 01:17 PM
http://www.totalprosports.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/c4james-harrison.jpg http://www.decodeunicode.org/en/u+003d/data/glyph/196x196/003D.gif http://pendekarlorong.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/croissant.jpg

:?: :!: :?: :!: :? :lol: :wft

I added the :wft for you for good measure. :P

In the metaphorical world, I suppose. Actually, I'm thinking Casey Hampton is more appropriate for pastry. You know, Big Snack and all. I guess Harrison would be more like NY Strip Steak ... served RAW!

http://www.totalprosports.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/c4james-harrison.jpg http://www.decodeunicode.org/en/u+003d/data/glyph/196x196/003D.gif http://www.thrushwoodfarms.com/images/uploads/0000/0035/New_York_Strip.jpg

Strip Steak with the Strip Sack!!! :lol:

phillyesq
11-12-2009, 01:20 PM
I'm suddenly quite hungry.

SteelAbility
11-12-2009, 01:37 PM
http://www.totalprosports.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/c4james-harrison.jpg http://www.decodeunicode.org/en/u+003d/data/glyph/196x196/003D.gif http://pendekarlorong.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/croissant.jpg

:?: :!: :?: :!: :? :lol: :wft

I added the :wft for you for good measure. :P

In the metaphorical world, I suppose. Actually, I'm thinking Casey Hampton is more appropriate for pastry. You know, Big Snack and all. I guess Harrison would be more like NY Strip Steak ... served RAW!

http://www.totalprosports.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/c4james-harrison.jpg http://www.decodeunicode.org/en/u+003d/data/glyph/196x196/003D.gif http://www.thrushwoodfarms.com/images/uploads/0000/0035/New_York_Strip.jpg

Strip Steak with the Strip Sack!!! :lol:

Well done! Uh, I mean, well stated!