We're Getting On Bunkley Now?

Kind of a weird article today in the Daily News about Brodrick Bunkley.  I wouldn't say it's unfair, but the tone is certainly negative.  And it's really missing a lot of context.

Here's a decent place to excerpt, but really, read the whole thing:

Bunkley's effort isn't in question; just the results.

After a holdout and a slow learning curve, Bunkley didn't start at all as a first-round rookie in 2006. He collected three sacks in 2007. He has two sacks now . . . but not for lack of trying.

"He's a competitor. He wants to do well," defensive coordinator Jim Johnson said. "Sometimes you get frustrated. I think he wants to play hard. I think sometimes he gets too excited, needs to be more disciplined."

Less excitement and more discipline might make Bunkley a good enough pass rusher to warrant him staying on the field in pass-rushing situations. Not only does he have only two sacks - one in the first nine games, before Sunday's sack-fest in Cincinnati - but he also doesn't provide much push.

I actually got on Bunkley a little bit after the Cowboys game.  When I did that rewind, I wrote the following:

The difference between Patterson and Bunkley on any given play is what happens after the initial engagement.  Bunk stands the guy up, holds his ground, and then generally just stays stalemated.  Patterson actually finds a way to get off the block and make some plays...

Again, I'm not saying Bunkley is "the problem" with this defense, but given where he was drafted and his obvious physical abilities, I thought we'd be seeing more from him by now.

I actually think some of the other stuff I wrote in there about Bunkley still holds up (follow that link), but in a big-picture sense, I was wrong.  For both the Steelers and Bears rewinds, I spent a lot of time watching Bunkley.  What I saw in those games convinced me that the Cowboys game was much more about how good Andre Gurode is than it was about how average Brodrick Bunkley is:

A couple weeks ago in the Cowboys video rewind, I questioned why Brodrick Bunkley wasn't making more disruptive plays.  He seemed fine holding his ground, but wasn't doing anything beyond that.

Two weeks later, I think we have our answer:  it wasn't Bunk -- Cowboys center Andre Gurode is just really, really good. 

I've watched Bunkley very closely the past couple weeks.  The guy's been making plays all over the place.  Against Chicago, he was frequently matched up against center Olin Kreutz, who by reputation is one of the better centers in the league.  Bunk whipped him.  Not every time and not in every situation, but enough to confirm the Pittsburgh observations.  I take it back, Bunk.  Keep doing your thing.

I didn't rewind the Redskins game, so I can't offer any specifics there, but my recollection of that game is that the edges and stretch plays were the issue, not the middle of the defense.

For the Giants, I did a first-half rewind, which unfortunately got immediately buried by the Cincy debacle.  In it, I wrote this:

Brodrick Bunkley was a man in this game.  I counted three plays in the first half alone where he straight-up beat his blocker and made the stop.  He was the one guy who stood out positively on the defense this day.  I just want to get that out there before I start ripping the other 10.

"The other 10" was a bit of hyperbole, but for the most part Bunkley was the one guy who really stood out in a good way.  And since I just happen to have video of those plays lying around, let me splice them into one clip and you can see for yourself:

The first two are both excellent plays on runs right at him.  The third highlights his quickness down the line.  The fourth isn't as good, but it's still a two-gap play on a day when there wasn't a whole lot of support behind the line.

I realize the immediate reaction to those plays might be a big dose of "so what?"  Taken by themselves, none of those plays was exactly LaVar Arrington hurtling the line to take a guy down in the backfield.  I know that.  But remember the Giants game.  We couldn't stop those guys all day.  Trust me, when things actually held up front, it stood out.

- - - - - -

Let's talk statistics next.  I was fooling around with the defensive statistics last night looking for trends.  It's a little tricky to do so -- since special teams plays are really, really hard to separate out -- but you can get some ideas.

The interesting thing with Bunkley is the improvement in his tackle statistics.  He's on pace to go from 31 tackles last year to 53 this year (and from 24 to 38 in solo stops). 

Actually, screw it, I don't even know if this stuff is interesting enough for its own post, so here's the table I was working up (the 2008 numbers are projections, by the way):

 

Truthfully, I'm not sure what that all means.  Patterson's tackle numbers are down, but I don't think it's because he's not playing as well.  I'm guessing teams across the league saw what he did last year and thought, "Hey, we better start doubling this guy more."

Also, Trent Cole continues to put up insane tackle statistics at the defensive end spot.  Among defensive linemen, only Shaun Rogers has accounted for more tackle or solos this year. 

But back to Bunkley for a minute, even if we don't totally understand all the intricacies of what's happening with these numbers, it certainly looks like he's improving there.  If you follow that Rogers link, you'll see that only eight DTs are ahead of Bunk right now in tackles.

Another way to gauge his performance is to see where teams are running effectively against the Eagles.  Fortunately, FO gives us those numbers here.  Again, there are plenty of complicating factors (not the least of which is where the linebackers generally line up), but the right side of the Eagles' defense seems stouter than the left.  (I am, however, somewhat surprised by how mediocre the "up the middle" numbers are.  Given what we know about how teams are attacking the Eagles, that doesn't feel right.)

At any rate, none of that is covered in the article, which focused mostly on his sack statistics.  But look at that table above again.  Leaving aside for the moment the issue of how you classify Darren Howard, it's actually Mike Patterson who seems to be having more difficulty getting to the QB this year.  Bunkley had three sacks last year and will have three again this year, at his current pace.  His linemate is headed from four down to zero.

I don't think there's any question Bunk needs to keep improving his pass rush.  On the other hand, he's rarely on the field in passing situations.  That presents something of a chicken-and-egg question about his numbers there.

- - - - - -

The bottom line here is honestly that I'm probably a bit too sensitive about these guys for my own good.  I'm tired of people seeing an article like this, then making a jump to "Well, clearly, Bunkley is the problem," then villifying him on message boards and talk radio for the rest of the year.  We've seen this play out exactly this way before.

I think the key points here are simply that:

1. Bunkley has a crapload of potential.
2. He's constantly improved since coming into the league, to the extent that he's a pretty good player already.
3. He obviously cares a lot.
4. He has quite broken through yet.

Johnson, as usual, said it best:

"For him to get to the next level, he needs to be a better pass rusher. He should be on the field every down. He shouldn't be coming out on third down," said Johnson, who has been driven to rotate four defensive ends into the game in obvious passing situations. "You want to get a push. He's too strong of a guy - and he knows that - not to get a better push."

Very fair.

- - - - - -

Last, somewhat related point.  I noticed against Cincy that Johnson seems to have changed his tackle rotation.  Before he had been keeping Patterson out there most of the time and only really using Trevor Laws to spell Bunk.  Last game, it seemed like Bunk and Laws were on the field together a fair amount.

- - - - - -

Ok, last last point, came across one more video while I was splicing the Bunkley stuff.  Speaking of interesting potential: