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. 8)
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. 8)
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.