Will Smith and Charles Grant: A Statistical and Financial Comparison
A quarter of the way through the season and there is one thing I'm sure all Saints fans can agree on thus far and it's definitely not Reggie Bush's running style. I'm talking about the return of Charles Grant and Will Smith, baby!
Okay, so they didn't really go anywhere, but there was a time when big play production seemed non-existent from these two defensive ends; certainly not as much as fans had expected given the big paychecks they'd been earning. But things seemed to have turned around this season as both players are currently on pace for career years in sack totals.
Let's take a look at how this year so far is stacking up for Will and Charles compared to the last two seasons. While we're at it, why not check out how much their production has equaled in terms of dollar value.
Will Smith
| Year | Games | Tackles | Solo | Assist | Sacks | Total Salary | Cost per Sack | Cost per Tackle |
| 2009 | 4 | 13 | 8 | 5 | 3.0 | $9.5 Million* | $791,666** | $182,692** |
| 2008+ | 16 | 61 | 43 | 18 | 3.0 | $12.95 Million | $4.3 Million | $212,295 |
| 2007 | 16 | 66 | 47 | 19 | 7.0 | $695,000 | $99,285 | $10,530 |
Charles Grant
| Year | Games | Tackles | Solo | Assist | Sacks | Total Salary | Cost per Sack | Cost per Tackle |
| 2009 | 4 | 10 | 9 | 1 | 4.0 | $5.7 Million* | $356,250** | $142,000** |
| 2008 | 8 | 33 | 27 | 6 | 3.0 | $9.35 Million | $3.1 Million | $283,333 |
| 2007+ | 14 | 48 | 39 | 9 | 2.5 | $12.8 Million | $5.1 Million | $266,666 |
* Projected based on contract trends.
** Based on quarterly performance and projected for season assuming 16 games played.
+ First year of new contract
From a strictly financial standpoint, Charles Grant and Will Smith are both on pace to be more cost effective this season than in recent years past. Good news there. In fact, as far as sacks are concerned they have already surpassed previous years cost effectiveness in just four games. Even more good news, it appears Smith and Grant have signed front-loaded contracts so we can expect their total salaries to continue to decrease over the next couple of years.
The money doesn't tell the whole story, however. From a statistical perspective, while they're doing a much better job of putting opposing quarterbacks into the ground this season, Smith and Grant are curiously lagging in the overall tackle department. They seemed to have pulled the ol' switcharoo. Both players have already tied or bested either of their previous two seasons sack totals; anything extra is just a bonus now. But Charles and Will need to pick up the pace if they want to even come close to total tackle production of years past.
So here are your questions to debate:
- Why the seeming resurgence in sack production from Charles Grant and Will Smith? Is it coaching? Something mental?
- Why does it appear overall production is being sacrificed for sacks? Is it Gregg Williams' aggressive all-or-nothing blitzing philosophy? Or are previous years figures skewed because of Gary Gibbs' bend-but-inevitably-break-anyway containment scheme?
- Do you think Smith and Grant will actually stay on this pace and get close to these projected totals?
0 recs |
23 comments
|
Comments
I said it in the offseason.
GW had to insert his boot … and it appears he did.
He has lit a fire and the two of them are playing possessed.
The correlation between sacks and tackles is interesting. I would have thought they both go up when they are more active but it makes sense when you think about it. You get 1 tackle, hopefully, every play. If you get them 3 and out, you have a hell of a lot less tackles.
MT
by MT_always on Oct 6, 2009 7:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Why are sacks and tackles seperate?
Isn’t a sack just a tackle on the QB behind the LOS? I think a sack should count as a tackle, as well. Maybe we should call them ‘sackles’?
If we could just sythesize life in a laboratory, we could prove that the creation of life requires no intelligence.
by Tigernut on Oct 6, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the scheme.
GW has an attacking philosophy, which takes advantage of Will Smith and Charles Grant’s talent and athleticism. They won’t repeat in tackle totals due in large part to their movement upfield each play. While they will be blowing up the backfield, the backs will likely react to that initial surge from both of them, and in avoiding, be tackled by the internal line/linebackers. I expect to see more sacks as well as tackles for a loss throughout the year from Smith and Grant and a larger number of tackles from Ellis and Hargrove as well as the linebackers of course.
The people who say, "Winning isn't everything," don't win very often.
by Hooahsaint on Oct 6, 2009 8:26 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Also
they’re both healthy. Don’t forget that. Motivated, healthy, and playing in a system that maximizes their talents.
Super Bowl 44: "If you play in this league and it's not your goal, there's something wrong with you." -- Marques Colston
by MtnExile on Oct 6, 2009 8:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Another reason
their sack totals may be up and tackles down is because the Saints have yet to trail in a game this season. That inevitably equates to more passing attempts by opposing quarterbacks, i.e., less opportunities for tackles, more opportunities for sacks. Unless it’s a screen, a defensive lineman is pretty much relegated to sacks on passing plays. There’s no one else to tackle BUT the quarterback.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Oct 6, 2009 9:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Right again, as usual, CP.
I was also thinking, ya know, you sign your first big contract and suddenly you’re rich. You spend the first year or two buying mom a new house and dad new truck and yourself a new house and all the tail you can afford, gifts for them, not to mention the pair of diamond earrings you always wanted. After the first two or three seasons, the nouveau (sp?) wears off the nouveau riche and they start concentrating more on what got them their riche in the first place. Not to mention, your coach starts putting his foot up your trunk when he starts getting tired of you partying all the time and not playing football.
If we could just sythesize life in a laboratory, we could prove that the creation of life requires no intelligence.
by Tigernut on Oct 6, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
String of bad, inexperienced quarterbacks...
Stafford, Kolb, Edwards, Sanchez….
Any of you guys have these folks on your fantasy teams? Actually, that’s besides the point, sort of.
We haven’t played an experienced quarterback on a good team yet. And we won’t until we play the Giants. Looking at our schedule, the sack totals should improve as the season moves along:
Giants: Eli Manning, has a foot condition, but is experienced and surrounded by talent
Miami: Chris Henne, they’ll run the ball four times for every pass, so sacks will be hard here.
Atlanta: Matt Ryan, the Patriots couldn’t sack him opting to contain their vertical attack.
Carolina: Jake Delhomme, come to papa…
St. Louis: Many defensive trophies to be had here…
Tampa Bay: Another potential bonanza
New England: A game where pressure will be paramount to winning
Washington: Campbell is a turnover, fumbling machine
Atlanta: See above
Dallas: Romo is elusive. Sharper will probably more likely to get an int here.
Tampa and Carolina again: See above.
Very good matchups lie ahead, so I anticipate production to actually rise a bit. .
by TigerPaw on Oct 6, 2009 11:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think all of the explanations above make sense
and it is very clear that GG’s approach sucked and was the opposite of aggressive pressure,pressure,pressure. I think Smith and Grant have more pass rush responsibility and less run-stop responsibility, or at least they are more responsible for everything off the edge as oppsoed to closing down and driving the OT or TE inwards. But, clearly GW ’s scheme and fire are working. Have to watch now for screen plays and draw plays more, I think we will see a lot of that soon.
Also, in fairness, some injuries played a part in the past as well.
"Indecision may or may not be my biggest problem" - Jimmy Buffett
by Philinwood on Oct 6, 2009 12:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
one major point
the saints O has been chewing up MUCH more clock this year than last, and the D has been dominating with 3-in-outs, pass deflections, multiple turnovers, all cutting down on actual play count for the other team. the Defense last year just let everyone march down the field at a stead pace, and at a faster pace, whatever the other team felt like doing at the time, and this lead to more snaps on D for our team, thus logicaly more tackles from ALL positions, not just Dline.
expect this decline in overall tackles to be consistant across the board for nearly every other position.
point being, yes, grant and smith are doing magnificently better, and their superior play against the pass this season has resulted in fewer overall plays for opposing offenses. when you can knock a team to 3rd and wtfineverthoughtidseegrantdominatelikethis distance, then the chances for a first down are cut down dramatically, turning into fewer overall potential tackles.
short of it, D creates more turnovers, more 3rd down stops, less POTENTIAL tackles to be had. law of averages says tackle numbers will be down.
It is better to fail historical, than the live in mediocrity- Unknown
by Silo10 on Oct 6, 2009 1:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point
and pretty much what I was hitting upon earlier. If you wanted to make a fair comparison, you’d have to know the number of defensive plays each player was on the field this season and in each season prior, then arrive at a ratio of tackles-to-plays, sacks-to-plays, etc. Without that fixed “opportunity” variable in place — as served by “rushing attempts”, “passing attempts”, etc., in other instances of comparison — these totals are no more indicative of consistency than any other cumulative statistic out there.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Oct 6, 2009 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To illustrate the point
what if Smith and Grant have actually played more snaps in these past four games than they did all of last last season? I seriously doubt that to be the case, but if it were, would their production totals still speak of improvement? On a per game basis, yes. On the whole, no.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Oct 6, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Numbers
It seems to me that the defensive being more aggressive, would allow for higher sack numbers for our DE’s. Putting more pressure on the QB using corners and LB’s will allow these guys to get to QB more often. HB’s blocking our pass blitz or the QB forced out of the pocket will make these guys jobs easier.
by Saint4LifeYo on Oct 6, 2009 1:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
As long as their sack #s stay up
idc if they get the tackles or not. Mostly because I haven’t seen them miss a tackle and if you’re rushing around the outside, you’re not at the point of attack any more but actually behind it. Smith and Grant have shown they can be good tacklers and not really miss any. The sacks need to keep going up. The tackles are ok with me thus far because our DTs are hitting them and our LBs are not letting up the big runs with good tackling. What I’ve been wondering for these games is…where’s Big Sed? 11 tackles and 1 sack. Wonder if he is clogging up the middle letting the linebackers get the takles? BTW, i just looked at the defensive stats and Harper leads the team followed by all 3 linebackers then Sharper and our CBs. Our Dline is last in tackles on our starting defense. Dline causing double teams allowing our LBs to get the tackles or our Dline just isn’t doing a good job?
Superbowl bound!!!...I know! do you?! Go Saints!!
by skinnykinney on Oct 6, 2009 2:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
last year
both players were injured. Tough comparison. I think health and luck not being suspended are as much to do with the return to form as anything.
by saints-nation on Oct 6, 2009 2:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
thats true
but Will still played 16 games. If his injury was affecting his performance, he shouldn’t have been playing.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Saintsational on Oct 6, 2009 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Global warming
might also have something to do with it. Gaps in the opposing OL heat up and expand … fat boys blow up the backfield, like oversized champagne corks. It’s all in the physics.
"It feels like a tiny prick " -Reggie Bush
by coldpizza on Oct 6, 2009 2:31 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Change in scheme has allowed them to return to old playing weight
In the past, Smith and Grant were heavily relied on for run support in defense and coaches had asked both to beef up to 290-300 lbs. Apparently, both came in at their lowest weight in years (270-280) and it’s allowed them to regain some of the quickness they lost… unlike past years when the coaches asked them to be more of a bruiser.
by Michaelw552 on Oct 6, 2009 3:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
$$$$$
Wait till next year with no salary cap!! Geez
by Nomoaints on Oct 6, 2009 4:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
As far as playing injured, you have to give them a little slack
what I mean is if it’s a scenario that you either play injured and get paid or go on IR and don’t get paid, you really can’t blame a player for trying to plsy. Most of us would. Also, you don’t know what the coaches said to the injured player- did they want them to stay in the lineup even though they were only 80% ? Might have happened. All in all, the coaches make the decision whether or not the player sits or plays or get put on IR, so if a player is struggling thru the season doing his best and both he and coaches aren’t real sure if there are any backups who can outplay that player,
maybe it’s not the player’s fault if he is suiting up every game and playing.
"Indecision may or may not be my biggest problem" - Jimmy Buffett
by Philinwood on Oct 7, 2009 1:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs





















