Jump to content

Pff Agrees With Smitty (Dealing With Sacks)


atljbo
 Share

Recommended Posts

In yet another example of why sacks are the most ridiculously overrated statistic in football the Falcons grabbed five but only pressured Matt Flynn on 19% of drop-backs. Alternatively Matt Ryan was only sacked once but harassed on 47% of his pass attempts.

This is exactly what Smitty means... I do think sacks is very important but i do think pressures are very very important.. Ive seen a guy have 4 sacks and his team got blown out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

This is exactly what Smitty means... I do think sacks is very important but i do think pressures are very very important.. Ive seen a guy have 4 sacks and his team got blown out.

Equating sacks to pressure on the QB is like equating INT's to a CB being a good defender....

Thomas DeCoud would like to have a word with people who think this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Equating sacks to pressure on the QB is like equating INT's to a CB being a good defender....

Thomas DeCoud would like to have a word with people who think this

No its not,

Some ints are generated via tipped passes, not the same as sacks which are a very good indicator we are getting pressure from our des. That said we did get good pressure yesterday, however you have a problem when ine of your leading sackers is a S.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, they might as well be the same, since we get neither sacks nor pressure. Speaking of sacks, Jon Abraham, $2M, Osi Umenyiora, $5M. Dmitroff bad at math.

I would love Abe to be here but this season would still be this season if he was here... Our problems is wayyyy bigger then one man.. We was near the bottom last year also with sacks and other pass rush stats...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some ints are generated via tipped passes, not the same as sacks which are a very good indicator we are getting pressure from our des. That said we did get good pressure yesterday, however you have a problem when ine of your leading sackers is a S.S.

Some sacks are generated by coverage. Some sacks are generated by the QB rolling into the defense. Some sacks are generated by the QB holding onto the ball too long. Some sacks are generated by the offensive line tripping or letting someone come through unblocked do to a miscommunication.

People think because Corey Peters has 4 sacks, he's doing well. Randy Starks has 4 sacks, but also has 6 hits and 28 pressures on top of that, compared to Peters only having 2 and 6 respectively. Which one do you think is making a bigger impact? Sack numbers don't tell the whole story about disrupting the QB, or even about the sacks themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many times we see our guys get inches from getting a sack, only to see the QB step up or to the side and deliver a perfect pass on 3rd and long. Yeah, sacks are overrated.

Our anemic offense is why we lost. Not our defense getting 5 sacks.

Sacks are anything but overrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many times we see our guys get inches from getting a sack, only to see the QB step up or to the side and deliver a perfect pass on 3rd and long. Yeah, sacks are overrated.

Our anemic offense is why we lost. Not our defense getting 5 sacks.

Sacks are anything but overrated.

Do you know what the QB rating is for QBs with pressure vs QBs without?

Short answer: QBs under pressure almost universally **** when pressured, and are usually good to great without pressure.

Edited by Free Radical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many times we see our guys get inches from getting a sack, only to see the QB step up or to the side and deliver a perfect pass on 3rd and long. Yeah, sacks are overrated.

Our anemic offense is why we lost. Not our defense getting 5 sacks.

Sacks are anything but overrated.

You proved the whole point without even knowing it. The offense was anemic because Ryan was PRESSURED nearly 50% of drop backs while only being SACKED once. On the other hand our defense sacked Flynn 5 times but only got pressure 19% if drop backs. Here's another example of why sacks don't tell the story. Ryan was sacked what 7 times against Carolina? Who still won that game? Pressure and making drop back passers uncomfortable in the pocket has a bigger affect on the game than straight up sacks. Sacks matter the most on the right down. Like a 3rd down sack that ended a drive. Sacks don't mean jack if you sacked the qb on 2nd down and he completed a 3rd and 19 pass for a first down. If we had 10 sacks yesterday but none of them stopped a drive or came on an important down like 3rd and the offense converted all day what did the sacks matter? It just boosted players stat lines. If rather see a 3rd down sack in the most important drive to win the game than to have 5 on the day but couldn't get off the field on third down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You proved the whole point without even knowing it. The offense was anemic because Ryan was PRESSURED nearly 50% of drop backs while only being SACKED once. On the other hand our defense sacked Flynn 5 times but only got pressure 19% if drop backs. Here's another example of why sacks don't tell the story. Ryan was sacked what 7 times against Carolina? Who still won that game? Pressure and making drop back passers uncomfortable in the pocket has a bigger affect on the game than straight up sacks. Sacks matter the most on the right down. Like a 3rd down sack that ended a drive. Sacks don't mean jack if you sacked the qb on 2nd down and he completed a 3rd and 19 pass for a first down. If we had 10 sacks yesterday but none of them stopped a drive or came on an important down like 3rd and the offense converted all day what did the sacks matter? It just boosted players stat lines. If rather see a 3rd down sack in the most important drive to win the game than to have 5 on the day but couldn't get off the field on third down.

How many times over the past 6 years have we seen our guys right at the feet of Brees, Rodgers, Cam, Kap and many others on 3rd and long complete a pass. A sack there and it's punt time. Sacks are not overrated, no matter how much you try to convince otherwise. And I'm not saying pressure is not important, but to say a sack on 3rd and long is, is ignorant.

There is a reason why our D sucks on 3rd down. It's because we don't get to the QB and bring him down.

And Ryan is good avoiding sacks, cause he gets rid of the ball fast. He knows he only has 2 seconds max. If Ryan were to freeze up and hold the ball a second sooner, his sack numbers would skyrocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some sacks are generated by coverage. Some sacks are generated by the QB rolling into the defense. Some sacks are generated by the QB holding onto the ball too long. Some sacks are generated by the offensive line tripping or letting someone come through unblocked do to a miscommunication.

People think because Corey Peters has 4 sacks, he's doing well. Randy Starks has 4 sacks, but also has 6 hits and 28 pressures on top of that, compared to Peters only having 2 and 6 respectively. Which one do you think is making a bigger impact? Sack numbers don't tell the whole story about disrupting the QB, or even about the sacks themselves.

Yes sacks are a terrible thing to have,

There's no correlation between top defenses and the top sacking teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am one who despises the overemphasis on stats. Maybe if they kept the right ones that actually meant something in a team sport, than I would care. Sacks should not be the stat, pressures or hits after release should be. Not illegal hits. Hit within the rules or even just a hand shove, but these would be better indicators of consistent pressure by D linemen than sacks.

I could go through every position and develope a more proper stat that would indicate the players actual effectiveness. In my opinion, most of the stats kept today promote flashy, inconsistent play. They also gives us an incorrect assessment of players, and thus we end up with either overhyped or underhyped players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times over the past 6 years have we seen our guys right at the feet of Brees, Rodgers, Cam, Kap and many others on 3rd and long complete a pass. A sack there and it's punt time. Sacks are not overrated, no matter how much you try to convince otherwise. And I'm not saying pressure is not important, but to say a sack on 3rd and long is, is ignorant.

There is a reason why our D sucks on 3rd down. It's because we don't get to the QB and bring him down.

And Ryan is good avoiding sacks, cause he gets rid of the ball fast. He knows he only has 2 seconds max. If Ryan were to freeze up and hold the ball a second sooner, his sack numbers would skyrocket.

You don't have to sack a qb on 3rd but you can bring pressure to force a bad throw or a pass short of the first down. Our problem on third and kind is instead of bringing pressure we send 3 and drop everybody else in zone coverage. THATS why we don't get to the qb. If you notice when we DO bring pressure on 3rd and longs most times we get off the field. How many times for the last 6 years have u heard ppl complaining about rushing 3 and dropping 8? Sacks are very overrated unless they are meaningful sacks. How many times was ryan sacked in the buffalo game? They lost tho. Sacks isn't gonna beat Brady, manning, Bree's, Rodgers, Ryan etc...Constant pressure is tho. Secondly to get sacks you have to have what? Pressure. That's what sacks come from. Or coverage, or line miscommunication. I'm not saying that I don't like sacks. I love seeing the qb brought down but ANY qb will tell you he hates being constantly pressured vs being sacked. He can fight another day. Example. Abe sacked Kurt warner in the Arizona game to move them out of fg range and and leave them in 3rd and loooong. Guess what? No PRESSURE on 3rd because everybody dropped back and boom. First down. He didn't have to be sacked but pressure would've killed the play OR caused a turnover. Most int's come from what? Pressure. I'd rather a sack fumble than just a sack because the next play may be a first down. We coulda had 10 sacks yesterday and GB still woulda won because we didn't get them off the field on 3rd. No pressure. And all good qb's get rid of the ball fast. It isn't just Matt Ryan. Peyton has one if the fastest releases ever. Brady too. Bree's gets sacked because he holds the ball too long looking for a big play sometines. Sacks are important but they can be vastly overrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes sacks are a terrible thing to have,

There's no correlation between top defenses and the top sacking teams.

We're only 7 sacks behind Denver, 5 sacks behind San Fran. 3 sacks behind Indy, 2 sacks behind Philly, tied with Detroit. These are all playoff teams. Ironically buffalo leads the league in sacks and they pretty much are out. The thing about sacks is most of them come from pressure up front or great coverage on back. We lack consistent pressure. It all starts from pressure. Great pressure turns in to sacks. Better pressure =sacks and or turnovers. Sacks gotta come from somewhere. They don't make themselves. Sacks also come because outside AND inside pressure. We get outside pressure but there is just about always and escape lane in the middle. We'll also have more sacks if the middle got more push and clogged running lanes.

Edited by TheFatboi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...