49ersFanZone.net

Habe mal eine KI Datenbanken durchlaufen lassen.

Da kam dann z.B. so etwas zur D-Line heraus.
our-Year Trends & Key Insights
Nick Bosa's Dominance (2022-2024)

Bosa appeared in three of the four seasons analyzed and was consistently elite:

    2023: 17.72% pressure rate (highest)
    2022: 3.85% sack rate and 18.5 sacks (highest)
    2024: 14.64% pressure rate, 9.0 sacks
    Total across 3 seasons: 234 pressures, 38.0 sacks on 1,420 pass rush snaps

Roster Turnover

The 49ers defensive line has seen significant personnel changes:

    2022-2023: Featured Bosa, Armstead, Hargrave, Omenihu, Ebukam
    2024: Bosa, Floyd, Maliek Collins, Gross-Matos joined
    2025: Complete roster overhaul with Huff, Okuayinonu, White, Williams, and others (Bosa notably absent from qualifying players)

2025 Production Decline

The 2025 season shows a notable drop in elite pass rush production:

    Highest pressure rate: 11.65% (Huff) vs. 17.72% (Bosa, 2023)
    Highest sack rate: 1.14% (Huff) vs. 3.85% (Bosa, 2022)
    No player exceeded 41 pressures in 2025 vs. 95 pressures (Bosa, 2023)

Sam Okuayinonu - Multi-Year Contributor

Okuayinonu is one of the few players who qualified in multiple seasons:

    2024: 238 snaps, 8.40% pressure rate, 1.26% sack rate
    2025: 321 snaps, 7.48% pressure rate, 0.93% sack rate

Jordan Elliott - Consistent Role, Limited Production

Elliott qualified in both 2024 and 2025 but posted the lowest pressure rates:

    2024: 2.91% pressure rate, 0 sacks
    2025: 6.64% pressure rate, 0 sacks

Oder 3rd and Jauan? Analyse zu Late Downs von 2022-2025:

Insights Across All Four Seasons
Most Consistent Late-Down Performers

George Kittle was elite on late downs in all four seasons:

    2022: 60.7% first down rate, +0.675 EPA over expected
    2023: 60.0% first down rate, +0.701 EPA over expected
    2024: 54.8% first down rate, +0.572 EPA over expected
    2025: 55.0% first down rate, +0.640 EPA over expected

Kittle consistently converted more than half his late-down targets into first downs while posting elite EPA numbers.

Jauan Jennings emerged as a reliable late-down target:

    2022: 56.7% first down rate (30 targets)
    2023: 43.8% first down rate (16 targets)
    2024: 52.6% first down rate (38 targets, team-high)
    2025: 52.8% first down rate (36 targets, team-high)

Jennings led the team in late-down targets in both 2024 and 2025, converting more than half into first downs.
Biggest Improvements

Christian McCaffrey showed dramatic improvement:

    2023: 27.8% first down rate, -0.547 EPA over expected (worst season)
    2025: 53.3% first down rate, +0.513 EPA over expected (best season)

Ricky Pearsall improved in his second season:

    2024: 58.3% first down rate (12 targets)
    2025: 66.7% first down rate (21 targets) - highest on team

Notable Declines

Deebo Samuel was inconsistent across seasons:

    2022: 40.0% first down rate, +0.290 EPA over expected
    2023: 40.9% first down rate, +0.431 EPA over expected
    2024: 34.8% first down rate, -0.431 EPA over expected (significant decline)

Brandon Aiyuk showed volatility:

    2022: 32.1% first down rate, -0.219 EPA over expected
    2023: 66.7% first down rate, +0.838 EPA over expected (massive improvement)
    2024: 40.0% first down rate, -0.056 EPA over expected (decline)

League Context

League average EPA per target on late downs:

    2022: 0.098
    2023: 0.151
    2024: 0.192
    2025: 0.159

The league-wide efficiency on late downs increased significantly from 2022 to 2024 before declining slightly in 2025.

Oder zu YAC (letzte 4 Jahre)

Elite YAC Performers

Christian McCaffrey consistently exceeded expected YAC across all four seasons, particularly excelling behind the line of scrimmage and in the 0-5 yard range. His 2025 performance (+2.13 behind LOS, +1.31 at 0-5 yards) demonstrates his continued elite ability to create yards after the catch.

George Kittle showed remarkable YAC ability in 2022-2024, with standout performances including:

    2023: +7.04 behind LOS, +6.30 at 11-20 yards
    2024: +4.39 behind LOS, +2.58 at 11-20 yards
    2022: +3.68 at 11-20 yards

However, his 2025 performance declined significantly, particularly on deeper targets.

Deebo Samuel was exceptional from 2022-2024, consistently exceeding expected YAC at nearly every depth:

    2024: +5.91 at 6-10 yards (his best single-depth performance)
    2023: +4.63 behind LOS, +2.78 at 0-5 yards
    2022: +4.06 at 0-5 yards, +3.89 at 6-10 yards

Depth-Specific Trends

Behind the Line of Scrimmage: McCaffrey, Kittle, Samuel, and Juszczyk all excelled in this range across multiple seasons, with Kittle's 2023 performance (+7.04) being the most dominant.

0-5 Yards: This was the most common depth range for 49ers receivers. McCaffrey and Samuel consistently exceeded expectations here, while Jauan Jennings struggled in 2024-2025 but performed well in 2022.

11-20 Yards: Kittle dominated this range in 2022-2023 (+3.68 and +6.30 respectively), while Brandon Aiyuk consistently exceeded expectations across all seasons he appeared.
Player Development

Ricky Pearsall showed inconsistency in his first two seasons:

    2024: Strong at 11-20 yards (+3.19) but poor at shorter depths
    2025: Struggled at most depths except 20+ yards (+1.06)

Jauan Jennings demonstrated versatility but inconsistency:

    2022: Excellent at 0-5 yards (+2.39)
    2023-2024: Better at intermediate ranges (6-20 yards)
    2025: Only positive at 11-20 yards (+0.44)

Und eine ausführliche O-Line Analyse der KI

San Francisco 49ers Offensive Line Analysis: 2023-2025

Analyzing the 49ers offensive line across three seasons (2023-2025 regular seasons), here's a comprehensive breakdown of their strengths and weaknesses in pass protection, run blocking, and athleticism:
PASS PROTECTION PERFORMANCE
Elite: Trent Williams (Left Tackle)

Trent Williams has been the 49ers' most consistent pass protector across all three seasons:

    2023: 2.67% pressure rate (11 pressures, 0 sacks on 412 snaps) | 2.44 sec avg time to pressure
    2024: 3.92% pressure rate (14 pressures, 2 sacks on 357 snaps) | 2.57 sec avg time to pressure
    2025: 3.41% pressure rate (19 pressures, 2 sacks on 557 snaps) | 2.65 sec avg time to pressure

Analysis: Williams maintained elite pressure rates below 4% across all three seasons, ranking among the NFL's best left tackles. His 2023 season (2.67%, zero sacks) was exceptional. In 2025, he returned to higher snap counts (557) after a reduced workload in 2024 (357 snaps), suggesting he's healthy and back to his workhorse role.
Solid: Jake Brendel (Center)

Jake Brendel has been the starting center throughout this period:

    2023: 4.09% pressure rate (22 pressures, 2 sacks on 538 snaps) | 2.44 sec avg time to pressure
    2024: 3.70% pressure rate (23 pressures, 2 sacks on 621 snaps) | 2.53 sec avg time to pressure
    2025: 2.46% pressure rate (13 pressures, 0 sacks on 528 snaps) | 2.66 sec avg time to pressure

Analysis: Brendel showed steady improvement from 2023 (4.09%) to 2025 (2.46%), with his 2025 season being exceptional—zero sacks allowed and the lowest pressure rate of his three-year span. He's become a reliable, above-average center.
Concern: Colton McKivitz (Right Tackle)

McKivitz has been the primary right tackle:

    2023: 7.42% pressure rate (40 pressures, 7 sacks on 539 snaps) | 2.44 sec avg time to pressure
    2024: 4.90% pressure rate (30 pressures, 1 sack on 612 snaps) | 2.54 sec avg time to pressure
    2025: 4.15% pressure rate (26 pressures, 2 sacks on 627 snaps) | 2.67 sec avg time to pressure

Analysis: McKivitz showed significant improvement from a disastrous 2023 (7.42%, 7 sacks) to respectable 2024-2025 seasons (4.90% and 4.15%). His 2025 performance (4.15%) is solid but still below elite standards. The improvement trend is encouraging.
Weakness: Guard Position

Aaron Banks (Left Guard):

    2023: 5.15% pressure rate (23 pressures, 0 sacks on 447 snaps) | 2.40 sec avg time to pressure
    2024: 5.37% pressure rate (24 pressures, 0 sacks on 447 snaps) | 2.54 sec avg time to pressure
    Did not qualify in 2025 (fewer than 150 pass block snaps)

Spencer Burford (Right Guard):

    2023: 6.28% pressure rate (27 pressures, 4 sacks on 430 snaps) | 2.42 sec avg time to pressure
    Did not qualify in 2024-2025 (limited playing time)

Dominick Puni (Rookie Guard in 2024):

    2024: 4.51% pressure rate (28 pressures, 3 sacks on 621 snaps) | 2.53 sec avg time to pressure
    2025: 5.37% pressure rate (33 pressures, 2 sacks on 614 snaps) | 2.65 sec avg time to pressure

Connor Colby (Guard in 2025):

    2025: 7.20% pressure rate (19 pressures, 3 sacks on 264 snaps) | 2.58 sec avg time to pressure

Analysis: The guard position has been the 49ers' biggest weakness. Banks was consistently mediocre (5.15-5.37%) before losing his starting role in 2025. Burford regressed badly in 2023 (6.28%) and never recovered. Rookie Dominick Puni provided hope in 2024 (4.51%) but regressed slightly in 2025 (5.37%). Connor Colby struggled significantly in 2025 (7.20%), showing the 49ers lack quality depth at guard.
RUN BLOCKING PERFORMANCE
Yards Per Rush Comparison

2023 Season (Best Run Blocking Year):

    Trent Williams (LT): 5.17 yards per rush, 58 explosive runs (10+ yards)
    Jake Brendel (C): 4.75 yards per rush, 62 explosive runs
    Aaron Banks (LG): 4.68 yards per rush, 46 explosive runs
    Colton McKivitz (RT): 4.69 yards per rush, 63 explosive runs
    Spencer Burford (RG): 4.28 yards per rush, 45 explosive runs

2024 Season (Decline):

    Trent Williams (LT): 4.79 yards per rush, 29 explosive runs
    Jake Brendel (C): 4.64 yards per rush, 46 explosive runs
    Aaron Banks (LG): 4.46 yards per rush, 32 explosive runs
    Colton McKivitz (RT): 4.63 yards per rush, 46 explosive runs
    Dominick Puni (RG): 4.61 yards per rush, 46 explosive runs

2025 Season (Further Decline):

    Trent Williams (LT): 3.51 yards per rush, 33 explosive runs
    Jake Brendel (C): 3.65 yards per rush, 29 explosive runs
    Colton McKivitz (RT): 3.66 yards per rush, 38 explosive runs
    Dominick Puni (RG): 3.60 yards per rush, 39 explosive runs
    Spencer Burford (RG): 4.03 yards per rush, 18 explosive runs
    Connor Colby (RG): 3.08 yards per rush, 12 explosive runs

Analysis: The 49ers' run blocking has declined significantly from 2023 to 2025. Yards per rush dropped from the 4.28-5.17 range in 2023 to just 3.08-4.03 in 2025. Explosive run production also declined—Williams went from 58 explosive runs in 2023 to just 33 in 2025, and Brendel dropped from 62 to 29. This suggests the offensive line is struggling to create consistent running lanes and big plays.
Yards After Contact

2023: 3.07-3.43 yards after contact across all positions 2024: 2.79-2.94 yards after contact 2025: 2.52-2.88 yards after contact

Analysis: Yards after contact has also declined, indicating the offensive line is not creating as much push at the point of attack. Running backs are being contacted closer to the line of scrimmage.
ATHLETICISM PROFILE

The 49ers have maintained an athletic offensive line profile across all three seasons, prioritizing players who fit their outside zone blocking scheme:
Speed Scores (40-yard dash times, lower is faster):

    Trent Williams: 4.88 seconds (elite for 315 lbs)
    Spencer Burford: 5.19 seconds (300 lbs)
    Jake Brendel: 5.01 seconds (303 lbs)
    Colton McKivitz: 5.35 seconds (301 lbs)
    Aaron Banks: 5.34 seconds (325 lbs)
    Dominick Puni: 5.35 seconds (313 lbs)
    Connor Colby: 5.11 seconds (309 lbs)

Three-Cone Drill (agility, lower is better):

    Jake Brendel: 7.31 seconds (excellent)
    Dominick Puni: 7.47 seconds
    Trent Williams: 7.64 seconds
    Aaron Banks: 7.69 seconds
    Connor Colby: 7.78 seconds
    Colton McKivitz: 7.87 seconds

Analysis: The 49ers consistently prioritize athletic linemen with speed scores between 4.88-5.35 and three-cone times between 7.31-7.87. This athleticism is ideal for their zone-blocking scheme, which requires lateral movement and reach blocking. However, despite maintaining this athletic profile, run blocking performance has declined, suggesting scheme execution or coaching issues rather than personnel athleticism.
STRENGTHS: 2023-2025
1. Elite Left Tackle Play

Trent Williams has been consistently elite across all three seasons (2.67-3.92% pressure rates), providing top-tier pass protection and stability. He's the foundation of this offensive line.
2. Center Improvement

Jake Brendel has improved dramatically from 2023 (4.09%) to 2025 (2.46%), becoming a reliable, above-average center who rarely allows sacks.
3. Right Tackle Improvement

Colton McKivitz rebounded from a disastrous 2023 (7.42%) to solid 2024-2025 seasons (4.90% and 4.15%), showing significant development.
4. Athletic Profile

The 49ers have maintained their commitment to athletic linemen who fit their zone-blocking scheme, with consistent speed and agility metrics across all three seasons.
5. Pass Protection Stability

Despite guard issues, the 49ers have maintained solid pass protection overall, with Williams and Brendel anchoring the interior and McKivitz improving at right tackle.
WEAKNESSES: 2023-2025
1. Guard Position Inconsistency

The guard position has been a persistent and worsening weakness:

    Aaron Banks was mediocre (5.15-5.37%) and lost his starting role
    Spencer Burford regressed badly (6.28% in 2023) and never recovered
    Dominick Puni showed promise (4.51% in 2024) but regressed in 2025 (5.37%)
    Connor Colby struggled significantly (7.20% in 2025)

Verdict: The 49ers have not had a single elite guard across this three-year span, and the position has gotten worse in 2025.
2. Declining Run Blocking

Run blocking has declined dramatically from 2023 to 2025:

    Yards per rush dropped from 4.28-5.17 (2023) to 3.08-4.03 (2025)
    Explosive runs declined significantly (Williams: 58 in 2023 → 33 in 2025)
    Yards after contact decreased from 3.07-3.43 to 2.52-2.88

Verdict: The 49ers went from an elite run-blocking unit in 2023 to below-average in 2025, despite maintaining athletic personnel. This suggests scheme execution or coaching issues.
3. Depth Quality

Backup quality has been poor, particularly at guard:

    Connor Colby (7.20% pressure rate in 2025)
    Spencer Burford lost his starting role and hasn't recovered
    No quality backup tackles behind Williams and McKivitz

4. Explosive Play Production

While pass protection has remained solid, the offensive line is no longer creating big plays in the run game. Explosive runs (10+ yards) have declined across all positions.
5. Aging Concerns

Trent Williams is the anchor, but his snap counts fluctuated (412 in 2023, 357 in 2024, 557 in 2025), suggesting potential injury management or age-related concerns.
YEAR-BY-YEAR GRADES
2023: A-

Pass Protection: Elite (Williams 2.67%, Brendel 4.09%, solid overall) Run Blocking: Elite (4.28-5.17 yards per rush, 45-63 explosive runs) Athleticism: Excellent Depth: Average

Strengths: Elite left tackle play, excellent run blocking, high explosive run production Weaknesses: McKivitz struggled badly (7.42%, 7 sacks), guard position mediocre (Banks 5.15%, Burford 6.28%)

Overall: The 49ers' best offensive line of the three-year period, with elite run blocking and solid pass protection despite right tackle concerns.
2024: B+

Pass Protection: Above Average (Williams 3.92%, Brendel 3.70%, McKivitz improved to 4.90%) Run Blocking: Above Average (4.46-4.79 yards per rush, but declining explosive runs) Athleticism: Excellent Depth: Below Average

Strengths: Williams remained elite, Brendel improved, McKivitz rebounded, rookie Puni provided hope at guard (4.51%) Weaknesses: Explosive run production declined significantly, Williams played fewer snaps (357), guard position still not elite

Overall: A solid line with improvements at right tackle and guard, but declining run blocking production is concerning.
2025: B-

Pass Protection: Above Average (Williams 3.41%, Brendel 2.46%, McKivitz 4.15%) Run Blocking: Below Average (3.08-4.03 yards per rush, continued decline in explosive runs) Athleticism: Excellent Depth: Poor

Strengths: Williams and Brendel both excellent in pass protection, McKivitz continued improvement Weaknesses: Run blocking collapsed (3.08-4.03 yards per rush), guard position worsened (Puni 5.37%, Colby 7.20%), explosive run production declined further

Overall: A line that protects the quarterback well but struggles to create running lanes and big plays. The guard position is a major liability.
FINAL VERDICT: 3-YEAR TRENDS
Pass Protection: Improving (B+ → A-)

    Williams remained elite across all three seasons
    Brendel improved dramatically (4.09% → 2.46%)
    McKivitz rebounded from disaster (7.42% → 4.15%)
    Guard position remains weak but manageable

Trend: Pass protection has actually improved from 2023 to 2025, with Brendel and McKivitz both developing into solid starters.
Run Blocking: Declining Sharply (A- → C+)

    Yards per rush dropped from 4.28-5.17 (2023) to 3.08-4.03 (2025)
    Explosive runs declined significantly across all positions
    Yards after contact decreased from 3.07-3.43 to 2.52-2.88

Trend: Run blocking has collapsed from elite (2023) to below-average (2025), despite maintaining athletic personnel. This is the 49ers' biggest concern.
Athleticism: Consistent (A across all seasons)

    The 49ers have maintained their commitment to athletic linemen
    Speed scores (4.88-5.35) and three-cone times (7.31-7.87) remain consistent
    Personnel fit the zone-blocking scheme

Trend: Athleticism has remained stable and excellent across all three seasons.
Depth: Declining (B → C-)

    Lost quality backups like Aaron Banks (lost starting role)
    Connor Colby struggled badly (7.20% pressure rate)
    No quality depth at guard or tackle

Trend: Depth has worsened significantly, with the 49ers lacking quality backups at all positions.
WHAT'S GOOD?

    Trent Williams: Elite left tackle play across all three seasons (2.67-3.92% pressure rates)
    Jake Brendel: Improved dramatically to become an above-average center (2.46% in 2025)
    Colton McKivitz: Rebounded from disaster to become a solid right tackle (4.15% in 2025)
    Pass Protection Overall: The 49ers protect the quarterback well, with three solid-to-elite starters (Williams, Brendel, McKivitz)
    Athleticism: The 49ers maintain an athletic profile ideal for zone-blocking schemes

WHAT'S BAD?

    Guard Position: The 49ers have not had a single elite guard across this three-year span. Puni (5.37%), Colby (7.20%), Banks (5.15-5.37%), and Burford (6.28%) have all been mediocre-to-poor.
    Run Blocking Collapse: Yards per rush dropped from 4.28-5.17 (2023) to 3.08-4.03 (2025), a dramatic decline
    Explosive Run Production: Explosive runs (10+ yards) declined significantly across all positions from 2023 to 2025
    Yards After Contact: Decreased from 3.07-3.43 (2023) to 2.52-2.88 (2025), indicating less push at the point of attack
    Depth: Poor backup quality, particularly at guard (Colby 7.20%)
    Scheme Execution: Despite maintaining athletic personnel, run blocking has collapsed, suggesting scheme or coaching issues

COMPARISON SUMMARY: 2023 vs 2024 vs 2025
Category   2023   2024   2025   Trend
Pass Protection   B+   B+   A-   ↑ Improving
Run Blocking   A-   B+   C+   ↓ Declining
Athleticism   A   A   A   → Stable
Depth   B   C+   C-   ↓ Declining
Overall Grade   A-   B+   B-   ↓ Declining

Best Season: 2023 (elite run blocking, solid pass protection) Worst Season: 2025 (run blocking collapsed, guard position worsened)
KEY TAKEAWAYS

    Pass protection has improved due to Brendel and McKivitz's development, with Williams remaining elite
    Run blocking has collapsed from elite (2023) to below-average (2025), despite maintaining athletic personnel
    The guard position is a major liability, with no elite or even above-average starters across this three-year span
    Explosive play production has declined significantly, suggesting the offensive line is no longer creating big plays
    Depth is poor, particularly at guard, leaving the 49ers vulnerable to injuries
    The 49ers need to address the guard position and run blocking scheme/execution to return to elite offensive line play

Banks was consistently mediocre (5.15-5.37%) before losing his starting role in 2025.

Einen Wechsel schnallt die KI anscheinend nicht

Danke, sehr lesenswert.

Setzen die Niners noch weiterhin auf die run oriented offense? Wenn ja, muss in der Draft die OLine adressiert werden.
Andernfalls ändern sie die Offense auf pass oriented um. Gehen sie wieder zurück zu den Wurzeln, wie bei Walsh in den 80er Jahren? Ähnliche Spielweise und Vergleiche:
CMC und Roger Craig, Burdy und Montana, Mike Evans und Rice. McKittrick als OLine coach mit seinen fünf Superbowl-Ringen ist die Verbindung zu den Niners damals und zu den Niners heute. Ich träume wieder vom Superbowl. 

Bleibt spannend...

2025 Regular Season 2024 Regular Season 2023 Regular Season Total Defense Total Sacks Total EPA on Sacks EPA per Sack Total Sacks Total EPA on Sacks EPA per Sack Total Sacks Total EPA on Sacks EPA per Sack Total Sacks Total EPA on Sacks EPA per Sack Denver Broncos 68 -104,41 -1,54 63 -112,4 -1,78 42 -86,64 -2,06 173 -303,45 -1,75 Houston Texans 47 -95 -2,02 49 -88,54 -1,81 46 -84,43 -1,84 142 -267,97 -1,89 Pittsburgh Steelers 48 -88,22 -1,84 40 -80,66 -2,02 47 -91,02 -1,94 135 -259,9 -1,93 Minnesota Vikings 49 -90,03 -1,84 49 -79,85 -1,63 43 -88,96 -2,07 141 -258,84 -1,84 Baltimore Ravens 30 -60,03 -2 54 -87,72 -1,62 60 -108,22 -1,8 144 -255,97 -1,78 Cleveland Browns 53 -85,51 -1,61 41 -67,95 -1,66 49 -97,58 -1,99 143 -251,04 -1,76 Los Angeles Chargers 45 -68,58 -1,52 46 -74,69 -1,62 48 -107,14 -2,23 139 -250,41 -1,80 Green Bay Packers 36 -63,56 -1,77 45 -93,16 -2,07 45 -92,45 -2,05 126 -249,17 -1,98 Buffalo Bills 36 -67,37 -1,87 39 -82,85 -2,12 54 -89,36 -1,65 129 -239,58 -1,86 Miami Dolphins 39 -71 -1,82 35 -67,38 -1,93 56 -99,85 -1,78 130 -238,23 -1,83 Dallas Cowboys 35 -60,04 -1,72 52 -98,15 -1,89 46 -77,61 -1,69 133 -235,8 -1,77 Seattle Seahawks 47 -82,14 -1,75 45 -72,63 -1,61 47 -80,68 -1,72 139 -235,45 -1,69 Indianapolis Colts 39 -66,21 -1,7 36 -71,28 -1,98 51 -91,5 -1,79 126 -228,99 -1,82 Los Angeles Rams 47 -82,49 -1,76 38 -76,62 -2,02 41 -68,51 -1,67 126 -227,62 -1,81 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 37 -63,1 -1,71 46 -74,92 -1,63 48 -88,2 -1,84 131 -226,22 -1,73 Tennessee Titans 42 -76,56 -1,82 32 -59,32 -1,85 45 -87,29 -1,94 119 -223,17 -1,88 New Orleans Saints 45 -91,99 -2,04 39 -67,46 -1,73 34 -63,31 -1,86 118 -222,76 -1,89 Las Vegas Raiders 37 -70,01 -1,89 38 -69,86 -1,84 46 -82,72 -1,8 121 -222,59 -1,84 Kansas City Chiefs 35 -51,73 -1,48 39 -74,2 -1,9 57 -93,3 -1,64 131 -219,23 -1,67 Atlanta Falcons 57 -96,96 -1,7 31 -47,41 -1,53 42 -71,9 -1,71 130 -216,27 -1,66 Detroit Lions 49 -81,38 -1,66 37 -57,53 -1,55 41 -75,44 -1,84 127 -214,35 -1,69 New York Jets 26 -42,21 -1,62 43 -88,69 -2,06 48 -80,78 -1,68 117 -211,68 -1,81 New York Giants 39 -68,49 -1,76 45 -79,36 -1,76 34 -57,74 -1,7 118 -205,59 -1,74 Philadelphia Eagles 42 -68,41 -1,63 41 -66,35 -1,62 43 -70,6 -1,64 126 -205,36 -1,63 Arizona Cardinals 30 -59,15 -1,97 41 -81,54 -1,99 33 -51,99 -1,58 104 -192,68 -1,85 Chicago Bears 35 -65,64 -1,88 40 -75,75 -1,89 30 -48,21 -1,61 105 -189,6 -1,81 San Francisco 49ers 20 -39,7 -1,98 37 -58,82 -1,59 48 -90,21 -1,88 105 -188,73 -1,80 Cincinnati Bengals 35 -60,83 -1,74 36 -50,55 -1,4 44 -76,8 -1,75 115 -188,18 -1,64 Jacksonville Jaguars 32 -56,78 -1,77 34 -48,25 -1,42 40 -78,14 -1,95 106 -183,17 -1,73 Washington Commanders 42 -47,46 -1,13 43 -76,73 -1,78 39 -57,36 -1,47 124 -181,55 -1,46 New England Patriots 35 -61,33 -1,75 28 -42,31 -1,51 36 -62,39 -1,73 99 -166,03 -1,68 Carolina Panthers 30 -54,52 -1,82 32 -53,81 -1,68 27 -43,09 -1,6 89 -151,42 -1,70

Wie viel Schaden (gemessen nach EPA) haben Defenses in den letzten 3 Jahren durch Sacks verursacht. 49ers mit Einbruch in letzter Saison (ohne Bosa). Aber auch mit Bosa wäre man vermutlich irgendwo im Mittelfeld gelandet.

2025 Regular Season 2024 Regular Season 2023 Regular Season Total Defense Total TFL Total EPA on TFL EPA per TFL Total TFL Total EPA on TFL EPA per TFL Total TFL Total EPA on TFL EPA per TFL Total TFL Total EPA on TFL EPA per TFL Cleveland Browns 117 -148,71 -1,27 112 -161,77 -1,44 113 -148,2 -1,31 342 -458,68 -1,34 Houston Texans 91 -158,44 -1,74 106 -143,78 -1,36 105 -142,76 -1,36 302 -444,98 -1,47 Indianapolis Colts 84 -115,82 -1,38 88 -148,26 -1,68 94 -123,28 -1,31 266 -387,36 -1,46 Buffalo Bills 84 -127,67 -1,52 93 -147,08 -1,58 86 -111,04 -1,29 263 -385,79 -1,47 Minnesota Vikings 107 -149,31 -1,4 96 -129,26 -1,35 70 -96,29 -1,38 273 -374,86 -1,37 Los Angeles Chargers 90 -134 -1,49 77 -105,6 -1,37 82 -131,43 -1,6 249 -371,03 -1,49 Pittsburgh Steelers 89 -134,83 -1,51 84 -123,83 -1,47 83 -109,18 -1,32 256 -367,84 -1,44 Las Vegas Raiders 103 -142,62 -1,38 83 -112,82 -1,36 82 -111,84 -1,36 268 -367,28 -1,37 Denver Broncos 82 -117,34 -1,43 94 -157,48 -1,68 71 -91,89 -1,29 247 -366,71 -1,48 New Orleans Saints 90 -148,25 -1,65 77 -121,57 -1,58 69 -93,6 -1,36 236 -363,42 -1,54 Seattle Seahawks 88 -131,34 -1,49 74 -107,01 -1,45 99 -119,73 -1,21 261 -358,08 -1,37 New York Jets 77 -97,89 -1,27 89 -131,48 -1,48 99 -124,39 -1,26 265 -353,76 -1,33 Green Bay Packers 72 -104,55 -1,45 95 -144,71 -1,52 76 -103,95 -1,37 243 -353,21 -1,45 Atlanta Falcons 95 -142,65 -1,5 79 -104,58 -1,32 83 -103,19 -1,24 257 -350,42 -1,36 Tennessee Titans 83 -108,46 -1,31 92 -124,7 -1,36 90 -115,06 -1,28 265 -348,22 -1,31 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 83 -115,71 -1,39 81 -111,57 -1,38 91 -119,15 -1,31 255 -346,43 -1,36 Dallas Cowboys 85 -112,19 -1,32 70 -110,56 -1,58 83 -122,89 -1,48 238 -345,64 -1,45 Arizona Cardinals 70 -107,43 -1,53 87 -136,43 -1,57 76 -98,98 -1,3 233 -342,84 -1,47 Baltimore Ravens 66 -99,93 -1,51 82 -118,14 -1,44 89 -122,18 -1,37 237 -340,25 -1,44 Miami Dolphins 74 -108,64 -1,47 83 -121,84 -1,47 80 -108,39 -1,35 237 -338,87 -1,43 New York Giants 91 -121,65 -1,34 96 -122,51 -1,28 76 -90,92 -1,2 263 -335,08 -1,27 Kansas City Chiefs 74 -93,48 -1,26 87 -117,76 -1,35 87 -119,84 -1,38 248 -331,08 -1,34 New England Patriots 87 -118,47 -1,36 63 -88,57 -1,41 80 -113,89 -1,42 230 -320,93 -1,40 Los Angeles Rams 66 -110,27 -1,67 72 -106,28 -1,48 75 -101,26 -1,35 213 -317,81 -1,49 Philadelphia Eagles 71 -108,92 -1,53 81 -115,81 -1,43 73 -91,3 -1,25 225 -316,03 -1,40 Washington Commanders 69 -83,45 -1,21 86 -125,04 -1,45 86 -107,45 -1,25 241 -315,94 -1,31 Chicago Bears 66 -102,5 -1,55 81 -119,3 -1,47 72 -91,67 -1,27 219 -313,47 -1,43 Detroit Lions 67 -106,25 -1,59 70 -94,44 -1,35 82 -110,78 -1,35 219 -311,47 -1,42 Jacksonville Jaguars 77 -104,96 -1,36 82 -98,58 -1,2 73 -97,89 -1,34 232 -301,43 -1,30 San Francisco 49ers 65 -94,13 -1,45 67 -84,1 -1,26 80 -115,68 -1,45 212 -293,91 -1,39 Carolina Panthers 65 -92,83 -1,43 65 -92,48 -1,42 77 -102,42 -1,33 207 -287,73 -1,39 Cincinnati Bengals 56 -77,87 -1,39 72 -91,73 -1,27 75 -95,31 -1,27 203 -264,91 -1,30

Tackle for Loss ist nicht so unser Ding.

2025 Regular Season 2024 Regular Season 2023 Regular Season Total Defense Total Interceptions Total EPA on Interceptions EPA per Interception Total Interceptions Total EPA on Interceptions EPA per Interception Total Interceptions Total EPA on Interceptions EPA per Interception Total Interceptions Total EPA on Interceptions EPA per Interception Chicago Bears 23 -109,27 -4,75 11 -39,91 -3,63 22 -95,35 -4,33 56 -244,53 -4,37 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 -73,83 -4,92 17 -73,36 -4,32 16 -71,21 -4,45 48 -218,4 -4,55 Detroit Lions 13 -60,58 -4,66 16 -81,48 -5,09 16 -73,96 -4,62 45 -216,02 -4,80 Houston Texans 19 -76,86 -4,05 19 -80,03 -4,21 14 -52,88 -3,78 52 -209,77 -4,03 Buffalo Bills 13 -55,74 -4,29 16 -72,81 -4,55 18 -78,08 -4,34 47 -206,63 -4,40 Indianapolis Colts 14 -67,28 -4,81 16 -65,43 -4,09 15 -69,28 -4,62 45 -201,99 -4,49 Cincinnati Bengals 13 -54,83 -4,22 15 -72,48 -4,83 17 -74,47 -4,38 45 -201,78 -4,48 Jacksonville Jaguars 22 -102,3 -4,65 6 -27,42 -4,57 16 -71,23 -4,45 44 -200,95 -4,57 Baltimore Ravens 11 -47,21 -4,29 12 -56,02 -4,67 18 -83,02 -4,61 41 -186,25 -4,54 San Francisco 49ers 6 -32,55 -5,42 11 -51,72 -4,7 22 -98,94 -4,5 39 -183,21 -4,70 Seattle Seahawks 18 -66,22 -3,68 13 -63,05 -4,85 11 -53,23 -4,84 42 -182,5 -4,35 Minnesota Vikings 8 -43,23 -5,4 24 -94,48 -3,94 11 -42,03 -3,82 43 -179,74 -4,18 Dallas Cowboys 6 -34,83 -5,8 13 -54,03 -4,16 17 -88,95 -5,23 36 -177,81 -4,94 Los Angeles Chargers 19 -76,1 -4,01 15 -68,51 -4,57 9 -32,52 -3,61 43 -177,13 -4,12 New Orleans Saints 10 -41,34 -4,13 14 -60,85 -4,35 18 -74,66 -4,15 42 -176,85 -4,21 Denver Broncos 10 -44,44 -4,44 15 -89,87 -5,99 11 -36,89 -3,35 36 -171,2 -4,76 Los Angeles Rams 16 -69,1 -4,32 13 -57,8 -4,45 10 -42,09 -4,21 39 -168,99 -4,33 New York Giants 9 -52,61 -5,85 5 -19,45 -3,89 18 -93,65 -5,2 32 -165,71 -5,18 Atlanta Falcons 16 -64,35 -4,02 12 -59,6 -4,97 8 -38,51 -4,81 36 -162,46 -4,51 Philadelphia Eagles 12 -61,77 -5,15 13 -47,6 -3,66 9 -49,56 -5,51 34 -158,93 -4,67 Miami Dolphins 9 -38,62 -4,29 10 -41,92 -4,19 15 -75,33 -5,02 34 -155,87 -4,58 Las Vegas Raiders 8 -34,04 -4,25 10 -53,89 -5,39 13 -67,54 -5,2 31 -155,47 -5,02 Carolina Panthers 15 -68,42 -4,56 9 -40,63 -4,51 8 -40,76 -5,09 32 -149,81 -4,68 Cleveland Browns 11 -68,29 -6,21 4 -13,37 -3,34 18 -65,67 -3,65 33 -147,33 -4,46 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 13 -59,21 -4,55 7 -28,64 -4,09 13 -55,12 -4,24 33 -142,97 -4,33 Green Bay Packers 7 -22,72 -3,25 17 -74,07 -4,36 7 -32,51 -4,64 31 -129,3 -4,17 Kansas City Chiefs 10 -39,27 -3,93 13 -53,99 -4,15 8 -33,58 -4,2 31 -126,84 -4,09 Arizona Cardinals 10 -33,41 -3,34 9 -36,19 -4,02 11 -49,04 -4,46 30 -118,64 -3,95 New England Patriots 10 -45,15 -4,52 7 -27,16 -3,88 10 -42,89 -4,29 27 -115,2 -4,27 Washington Commanders 8 -31,99 -4 7 -34,49 -4,93 8 -34,51 -4,31 23 -100,99 -4,39 Tennessee Titans 6 -28,34 -4,72 11 -40,38 -3,67 6 -24,65 -4,11 23 -93,37 -4,06 New York Jets 7 -16,06 -2,29 17 -61,12 -3,6 24 -77,18 -3,22

Bei Interceptions sind wir vorne mit dabei, aber der Abwärtstrend ist klar zu erkennen.

2025 Regular Season 2024 Regular Season 2023 Regular Season Total Defense Total Forced Fumbles Total EPA on Forced Fumbles EPA per Forced Fumble Total Forced Fumbles Total EPA on Forced Fumbles EPA per Forced Fumble Total Forced Fumbles Total EPA on Forced Fumbles EPA per Forced Fumble Total Forced Fumbles Total EPA on Forced Fumbles EPA per Forced Fumble Pittsburgh Steelers 16 -59,76 -3,73 19 -59,51 -3,13 18 -58,23 -3,23 53 -177,5 -3,35 Buffalo Bills 12 -46,58 -3,88 17 -61,32 -3,61 13 -47,17 -3,63 42 -155,07 -3,69 Minnesota Vikings 16 -46,28 -2,89 10 -34,01 -3,4 22 -58,42 -2,66 48 -138,71 -2,89 Philadelphia Eagles 11 -36,72 -3,34 18 -53,46 -2,97 13 -44,84 -3,45 42 -135,02 -3,21 Chicago Bears 11 -44,94 -4,09 14 -62,54 -4,47 11 -25,74 -2,34 36 -133,22 -3,70 Green Bay Packers 7 -28,12 -4,02 17 -60,28 -3,55 10 -40,88 -4,09 34 -129,28 -3,80 Denver Broncos 8 -15,71 -1,96 12 -49,97 -4,16 17 -63,36 -3,73 37 -129,04 -3,49 Indianapolis Colts 9 -31,5 -3,5 17 -50,2 -2,95 17 -44,18 -2,6 43 -125,88 -2,93 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 11 -27,39 -2,49 15 -40,96 -2,73 18 -52,38 -2,91 44 -120,73 -2,74 Detroit Lions 15 -35,42 -2,36 11 -40,38 -3,67 11 -38,9 -3,54 37 -114,7 -3,10 Baltimore Ravens 11 -44,59 -4,05 12 -25,97 -2,16 15 -42,24 -2,82 38 -112,8 -2,97 Houston Texans 12 -50,41 -4,2 10 -26,25 -2,62 13 -31,85 -2,45 35 -108,51 -3,10 Seattle Seahawks 9 -34,66 -3,85 14 -36,29 -2,59 12 -37,1 -3,09 35 -108,05 -3,09 Cleveland Browns 14 -30,25 -2,16 11 -40,05 -3,64 13 -37,15 -2,86 38 -107,45 -2,83 New Orleans Saints 11 -47 -4,27 12 -22,77 -1,9 9 -36,99 -4,11 32 -106,76 -3,34 New York Giants 9 -28,69 -3,19 15 -36,55 -2,44 15 -41,44 -2,76 39 -106,68 -2,74 Miami Dolphins 10 -37,63 -3,76 7 -24,99 -3,57 15 -41,19 -2,75 32 -103,81 -3,24 Los Angeles Chargers 10 -24,48 -2,45 10 -31,7 -3,17 13 -46,94 -3,61 33 -103,12 -3,12 Dallas Cowboys 10 -20,9 -2,09 16 -40,42 -2,53 14 -41,65 -2,98 40 -102,97 -2,57 Cincinnati Bengals 11 -34,38 -3,13 12 -28,26 -2,36 11 -30,34 -2,76 34 -92,98 -2,73 Los Angeles Rams 12 -41,76 -3,48 10 -25,92 -2,59 7 -17,7 -2,53 29 -85,38 -2,94 Las Vegas Raiders 10 -30,83 -3,08 6 -13,87 -2,31 13 -40,6 -3,12 29 -85,3 -2,94 San Francisco 49ers 11 -34,95 -3,18 11 -21,7 -1,97 10 -27,68 -2,77 32 -84,33 -2,64 Kansas City Chiefs 6 -4,77 -0,79 12 -31,87 -2,66 14 -47,42 -3,39 32 -84,06 -2,63 New York Jets 8 -16,87 -2,11 13 -37,8 -2,91 14 -28 -2 35 -82,67 -2,36 Washington Commanders 9 -7,35 -0,82 12 -39,19 -3,27 10 -35,13 -3,51 31 -81,67 -2,63 Arizona Cardinals 11 -27,47 -2,5 16 -40,65 -2,54 4 -12,89 -3,22 31 -81,01 -2,61 Atlanta Falcons 12 -23,92 -1,99 12 -15,36 -1,28 18 -41,16 -2,29 42 -80,44 -1,92 Tennessee Titans 7 -23,75 -3,39 10 -16,94 -1,69 11 -34,96 -3,18 28 -75,65 -2,70 Jacksonville Jaguars 8 -24,26 -3,03 5 -5,75 -1,15 12 -42,8 -3,57 25 -72,81 -2,91 New England Patriots 9 -21,74 -2,42 9 -13,47 -1,5 14 -21,06 -1,5 32 -56,27 -1,76 Carolina Panthers 8 -19,44 -2,43 8 -22,63 -2,83 5 -8,31 -1,66 21 -50,38 -2,40

Auch bei Forced Fumbles sind wir unterdurchschnittlich

Ich habe die KI mal die Effizienz der aktiven Plays unserer Cornerbacks berechnen lassen und mit unseren Cornerbacks verglichen.

Top 20 Cornerbacks in Coverage und Run Defense (2025 Regular Season)
Wichtig: Bei Defensivspielern bedeutet negatives EPA bessere Leistung (sie verhindern Punkte für die gegnerische Offense), während positives EPA schlechtere Leistung bedeutet.
Ich habe alle Cornerbacks mit mindestens 500 Total Snaps analysiert und nach Coverage EPA/Snap und Run Defense EPA/Snap (jeweils Regular Season 2025) gerankt. Hier sind die Top 20 in jeder Kategorie plus die spezifischen Leistungen der fünf angefragten Spieler.

---

🏆 Top 20 Cornerbacks in Coverage (EPA/Snap)
Methodik: Ich habe die Coverage EPA durch die Anzahl der Coverage Snaps geteilt. Je negativer der Wert, desto besser die Coverage-Leistung.

[th]Rang[/th] [th]Spieler[/th] [th]Coverage Snaps[/th] [th]Coverage EPA[/th] [th]EPA/Snap[/th]
1	Adoree' Jackson	355	-67.85	-0.1911
2	Isaiah Rodgers	482	-72.47	-0.1503
3	Byron Murphy	502	-73.22	-0.1459
4	Kamari Lassiter	561	-80.03	-0.1427
5	Denzel Ward	415	-56.10	-0.1352
6	Derek Stingley	534	-65.83	-0.1233
7	Tre'Davious White	367	-45.15	-0.1230
8	Tyson Campbell	553	-66.57	-0.1204
9	Devon Witherspoon	423	-47.47	-0.1122
10	Tariq Woolen	521	-56.68	-0.1088
11	Montaric Brown	461	-47.38	-0.1028
12	Taron Johnson	336	-34.13	-0.1016
13	Christian Gonzalez	427	-42.43	-0.0994
14	Cooper DeJean	583	-55.96	-0.0960
15	Quincy Riley	352	-33.19	-0.0943
16	Quinyon Mitchell	565	-52.84	-0.0935
17	Myles Harden	316	-28.74	-0.0910
18	Riley Moss	668	-56.72	-0.0849
19	Marcus Jones	443	-37.14	-0.0838
20	Brandin Echols	348	-28.51	-0.0819

---

🏆 Top 20 Cornerbacks in Run Defense (EPA/Snap)
Methodik: Ich habe die Run Defense EPA durch die Anzahl der Run Defense Snaps geteilt. Je negativer der Wert, desto besser die Run Defense-Leistung.

[th]Rang[/th] [th]Spieler[/th] [th]Run Defense Snaps[/th] [th]Run Defense EPA[/th] [th]EPA/Snap[/th]
1	Josh Jobe	252	-66.99	-0.2658
2	Quincy Riley	211	-36.51	-0.1730
3	Kyu Blu Kelly	213	-34.87	-0.1637
4	Devon Witherspoon	256	-41.78	-0.1632
5	Kamari Lassiter	339	-53.13	-0.1567
6	Derek Stingley	326	-49.84	-0.1529
7	Alontae Taylor	467	-71.21	-0.1525
8	Myles Harden	186	-28.34	-0.1524
9	Jourdan Lewis	187	-26.44	-0.1414
10	Kool-Aid McKinstry	471	-65.42	-0.1389
11	Marlon Humphrey	301	-37.97	-0.1262
12	Greg Newsome	261	-30.90	-0.1184
13	Quinyon Mitchell	382	-44.31	-0.1160
14	Riley Moss	355	-40.46	-0.1140
15	Eric Stokes	445	-50.33	-0.1131
16	Tarheeb Still	268	-30.00	-0.1119
17	Cam Hart	209	-23.19	-0.1109
18	Montaric Brown	227	-23.37	-0.1030
19	Nate Wiggins	341	-34.93	-0.1024
20	Denzel Ward	329	-32.65	-0.0992

---

📊 Leistungen der angefragten Spieler
Deommodore Lenoir (San Francisco 49ers)

• Total Snaps: 1,011
• Coverage: 616 Snaps | +86.15 EPA | +0.1399 EPA/Snap ⚠️ (Schwach)
• Run Defense: 392 Snaps | -16.85 EPA | -0.0430 EPA/Snap ✅ (Gut)

Analyse: Lenoir hatte Schwierigkeiten in Coverage (positives EPA bedeutet, die Offense gewann Punkte gegen ihn), war aber solide in Run Defense.

---

Renardo Green (San Francisco 49ers)

• Total Snaps: 774
• Coverage: 466 Snaps | +69.49 EPA | +0.1491 EPA/Snap ⚠️ (Schwach)
• Run Defense: 306 Snaps | -13.80 EPA | -0.0451 EPA/Snap ✅ (Gut)

Analyse: Ähnlich wie Lenoir hatte Green Probleme in Coverage, zeigte aber gute Run Defense-Leistung.

---

Upton Stout (Minnesota Vikings)

• Total Snaps: 563
• Coverage: 361 Snaps | +43.79 EPA | +0.1213 EPA/Snap ⚠️ (Schwach)
• Run Defense: 167 Snaps | -6.51 EPA | -0.0390 EPA/Snap ✅ (Gut)

Analyse: Stout hatte ebenfalls Schwächen in Coverage, war aber in Run Defense solide.

---

Darrell Luter (Tampa Bay Buccaneers)

• Total Snaps: 257 (unter 500 Snaps-Schwelle)
• Coverage: 165 Snaps | +24.76 EPA | +0.1501 EPA/Snap ⚠️ (Schwach)
• Run Defense: 92 Snaps | -2.18 EPA | -0.0237 EPA/Snap ✅ (Gut)

Analyse: Luter spielte weniger Snaps, zeigte aber ein ähnliches Muster: schwache Coverage, solide Run Defense.

---

Nate Hobbs (Las Vegas Raiders)

• Total Snaps: 331 (unter 500 Snaps-Schwelle)
• Coverage: 220 Snaps | -8.41 EPA | -0.0382 EPA/Snap ✅ (Gut)
• Run Defense: 108 Snaps | +2.04 EPA | +0.0189 EPA/Snap ⚠️ (Schwach)

Analyse: Hobbs war der einzige der fünf Spieler mit negativem Coverage EPA (gut!), hatte aber Schwächen in Run Defense.

---

🔑 Wichtige Erkenntnisse
(Basierend auf Regular Season 2025 Statistiken, EPA/Snap in Coverage und Run Defense für CBs mit 500+ Snaps)
✅ Beste Coverage: Adoree' Jackson (-0.1911), Isaiah Rodgers (-0.1503), Byron Murphy (-0.1459)
✅ Beste Run Defense: Josh Jobe (-0.2658), Quincy Riley (-0.1730), Kyu Blu Kelly (-0.1637)
⚠️ Von den angefragten Spielern: Nur Nate Hobbs hatte positives Coverage EPA (-0.0382), während die anderen vier (Lenoir, Green, Stout, Luter) alle positive Coverage EPA-Werte hatten, was auf Schwächen in der Pass-Verteidigung hindeutet.
Methodik: Ich habe die EPA (Expected Points Added) für alle Cornerbacks mit mindestens 500 Total Snaps in der 2025 Regular Season analysiert und durch die Anzahl der Snaps in Coverage bzw. Run Defense geteilt. Bei Defensivspielern bedeutet negatives EPA starke Leistung (sie verhindern Punkte), während positives EPA schwache Leistung bedeutet (die Offense gewinnt Punkte).

Ich habe die Daten jetzt (noch) nicht verifiziert. Daher ist immer ein wenig Vorsicht geboten.

Aber laut KI Veränderungen zu 2024:

 Vergleich 2024 vs. 2025
Deommodore Lenoir

    Coverage: 2024 (+0.0387) → 2025 (+0.1399) ⚠️ Verschlechtert
    Run Defense: 2024 (-0.0407) → 2025 (-0.0430) ✅ Leicht verbessert

Renardo Green

    Coverage: 2024 (+0.1061) → 2025 (+0.1491) ⚠️ Verschlechtert
    Run Defense: 2024 (+0.0284) → 2025 (-0.0451) ✅ Deutlich verbessert

Nate Hobbs

    Coverage: 2024 (+0.0187) → 2025 (-0.0382) ✅ Deutlich verbessert
    Run Defense: 2024 (-0.1101) → 2025 (+0.0189) ⚠️ Deutlich verschlechtert



Kontext könnte natürlich der schwache Passrush aus 2025 sein.

Vergleich 2024 vs. 2025

Deommodore Lenoir:

    Coverage-Zeit: 2024 (2.434s) → 2025 (2.466s) — +0.032s länger
    Zeit bis zum Wurf: 2024 (2.676s) → 2025 (2.678s) — Nahezu identisch
    Lenoir musste 2025 etwas länger in Coverage bleiben als 2024

Renardo Green:

    Coverage-Zeit: 2024 (2.422s) → 2025 (2.488s) — +0.066s länger
    Zeit bis zum Wurf: 2024 (2.650s) → 2025 (2.693s) — +0.043s länger
    Green musste 2025 deutlich länger in Coverage bleiben als 2024

Nate Hobbs:

    Coverage-Zeit: 2024 (2.404s) → 2025 (2.471s) — +0.067s länger
    Zeit bis zum Wurf: 2024 (2.664s) → 2025 (2.711s) — +0.047s länger
    Hobbs musste 2025 ebenfalls länger in Coverage bleiben als 2024

2025 Vergleich untereinander

✅ Längste durchschnittliche Coverage-Zeit: Renardo Green (2.488s)

✅ Längste durchschnittliche Zeit bis zum Wurf: Nate Hobbs (2.711s)

✅ Kürzeste durchschnittliche Coverage-Zeit: Lenoir (2.466s)
Interpretation

Alle drei Cornerbacks mussten 2025 im Durchschnitt länger in Coverage bleiben als 2024. Dies könnte darauf hindeuten, dass:

    Quarterbacks mehr Zeit hatten: Die gegnerischen Offenses gaben ihren QBs mehr Zeit zum Werfen
    Pass Rush schwächer: Der Defensive Pass Rush erzeugte weniger schnellen Pressure
    Längere entwickelnde Plays: Die Offenses liefen mehr Play-Action oder tiefe Routes

Die durchschnittliche Coverage-Zeit von 2.4-2.5 Sekunden ist typisch für NFL Cornerbacks. Zum Vergleich: Die meisten Quick Passes erfolgen in unter 2.5 Sekunden, während tiefe Routes oft 3+ Sekunden benötigen.

Methodik: Ich habe alle Plays analysiert, bei denen diese drei Cornerbacks in der Coverage-Rolle waren (2024 und 2025 Regular Season). Die "Time to Throw" misst die Zeit vom Snap bis zum Wurf des Quarterbacks. Die "Time to Pressure" misst die Zeit vom Snap bis der Quarterback unter Druck gerät. Die "Coverage-Zeit" ist der Durchschnitt aus beiden Metriken (wobei bei Plays ohne Pressure die Time to Throw verwendet wird). Diese Metriken zeigen, wie lange die Cornerbacks ihre Receiver decken mussten, bevor der Ball geworfen wurde oder Pressure entstand.

Wenn hier von "ich" gesprochen wird, ist meist die KI gemeint. 

Aber laut KI musste die Coverage in 2025 länger halten als 2024

Im letzten Teil habe ich mir den Albtraum der 49ers Tackles der letzten Saison, Myles Garrett, angeschaut. Während die Niners Tackles grundsätzlich gute Pass Protection boten, ging im Spiel gegen die Browns wenig. Daher habe ich mir Myles Garrett Pass Rush Leistungen mal genauer angeschaut.

Tackles Who Faced Myles Garrett (Minimum 15 Plays) - 2025 Regular Season

Here's a summary table of all tackles who faced Myles Garrett for at least 15 plays during the 2025 regular season when he was aligned at EDGE. The table shows the week, total plays, pressures allowed, pressure rate, and average time to pressure for each matchup.

Garrett's Season Averages (EDGE alignment, 2025 regular season):

    Pressure Rate: 15.58%
    Average Time to Pressure: 2.50 seconds

[th]Week[/th] [th]Tackle[/th] [th]Plays[/th] [th]Pressures[/th] [th]Pressure Rate[/th] [th]Avg Time to Pressure[/th] [th]vs Season Avg[/th] 1 Orlando Brown Jr. 22 5 22.73% 2.36s ✅ Better pressure rate, ✅ Faster 2 Ronnie Stanley 18 4 22.22% 2.94s ✅ Better pressure rate, ❌ Slower 3 Rasheed Walker 19 2 10.53% 2.18s ❌ Worse pressure rate, ✅ Faster 4 Taylor Decker 20 3 15.0% 2.48s ❌ Worse pressure rate, ✅ Faster 5 Justin Skule 20 0 0.0% — ❌ Worse pressure rate 6 Broderick Jones 23 2 8.70% 2.74s ❌ Worse pressure rate, ❌ Slower 8 Will Campbell 15 4 26.67% 2.67s ✅ Better pressure rate, ❌ Slower 11 Ronnie Stanley 25 6 24.0% 2.43s ✅ Better pressure rate, ✅ Faster 12 Stone Forsythe 38 7 18.42% 2.44s ✅ Better pressure rate, ✅ Faster 13 Colton McKivitz 16 3 18.75% 2.31s ✅ Better pressure rate, ✅ Faster 13 Trent Williams 15 6 40.0% 2.44s ✅ Better pressure rate, ✅ Faster 14 Dan Moore Jr. 18 1 5.56% 2.44s ❌ Worse pressure rate, ✅ Faster 15 Ozzy Trapilo 20 5 25.0% 2.79s ✅ Better pressure rate, ❌ Slower 16 Dion Dawkins 21 1 4.76% 2.86s ❌ Worse pressure rate, ❌ Slower 17 Dylan Cook 33 4 12.12% 2.42s ❌ Worse pressure rate, ✅ Faster 18 Orlando Brown Jr. 37 4 10.81% 2.64s ❌ Worse pressure rate, ❌ Slower

Key Insights

(I used play-by-play data from the 2025 regular season to identify all tackles who faced Myles Garrett for at least 15 plays when he was aligned at EDGE. For each matchup, I calculated total plays, pressures allowed, pressure rate, and average time to pressure, then compared these metrics to Garrett's season averages of 15.58% pressure rate and 2.50 seconds time to pressure.)

Most Dominant Performance: Garrett's best showing came against Trent Williams in Week 13, generating a 40.0% pressure rate (6 pressures on 15 plays) with a 2.44s average time to pressure—significantly outperforming his season averages on both metrics.

Toughest Opponents:

  Justin Skule (Week 5): Completely shut down Garrett, allowing zero pressures on 20 plays
    Dion Dawkins (Week 16): Limited Garrett to just 1 pressure on 21 plays (4.76%) with a slow 2.86s time to pressure
    Broderick Jones (Week 6): Held Garrett to 8.70% pressure rate, well below his season average

Repeat Matchups:

    Ronnie Stanley (Weeks 2 & 11): Garrett beat his season averages in both games, with 22.22% and 24.0% pressure rates
    Orlando Brown Jr. (Weeks 1 & 18): Garrett dominated in Week 1 (22.73%) but Brown adjusted significantly in Week 18, holding him to just 10.81%

Largest Sample Size: Stone Forsythe faced Garrett on 38 plays in Week 12—the most of any tackle in a single game—and Garrett still beat his season averages with an 18.42% pressure rate and 2.44s time to pressure.

Consistency: Garrett beat his season pressure rate average against 9 of the 16 qualifying tackle matchups, showing his ability to dominate most opponents while struggling against elite pass protectors like Dawkins and in his second matchup against Brown.



Während Trent Williams sein wohl schwächstes Saisonspiel hatte, war unser ehemaliger Draftpick Justin Skule nicht von Garrett zu schlagen. 

Mein Fazit:

Ist schon faszinierend, welche Daten man sich zusammenstellen lassen kann. Das macht Lust auf mehr.

Aber: Manchmal kann es schon nervig sein. Insbesondere dauern manche Abfragen lange und teilweise brechen die Abfragen mehrfach ab. Des Weiteren muss man die Daten verifizieren. Trent Williams hat z.B. in der einen Abfrage 16 Pressures letzte Saison zugelassen. In der nächsten Abfrage konnte mir die KI aber 19 Plays nennen, in denen er einen Pressure zugelassen hat. Meine Vermutung (analog PFF), dass manche Pressures nur mit 0,5 gewertet wurden, weil z.B. 2 O-Liner Schuld hatten, bestätigte mir die KI nicht. Es gäbe dort nur ganze Pressures.

Zudem war gerade bei defensivem EPA eigentlich immer das Problem, dass die KI positives EPA für gut hielt. Auf meinen Hinweis, dass bei Defensivspielern negatives EPA gut wäre, prüfte die KI meine Aussage, bestätigte mich und korrigierte die Daten.

Man darf also nicht blind der KI vertrauen, was wieder einen Arbeitsaufwand bedeutet. Eine korrekte Formulierung ist auch wichtig, um die KI nicht zu beeinflussen.

Alles in allem macht die KI, trotz der aktuellen Schwächen, doch Freude auf mehr.