Sacks vs. INT's - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***ctpatsfan77*** · 10-06-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

Yes but then we can go back to last year and take a look. The team with the most sacks in the league (Giants) went on to win the Super Bowl. The team with the most INTs in the league (Chargers) lost in the AFC Championship game... after picking Brady off three times.

Welcome to small sample size theatre.

OTOH, don't forget that some sacks--by no means all, but at least a small percentage--lead to forced fumbles and turnovers. The best example of this, of course, being Mike Vrabel's performance in the Redskins game last season.

JMarr · 10-06-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSn

I thought of replying to the long, raging lunacy of the other thread on D and decided against it.

1.0 Sacks yesterday. I wonder if that was almost by design. They had no trouble flushing the QB out of the pocket with minimal rushers.

Think about what Bill said and weigh the idea: did we apply just the right pressure to get a result better than a sack?

By design in the sense that they got decent pressure on O'Sullivan at times but didn't delay blitz alot. So they didn't have the numbers to give him a wake up call once he scrambled out of the pocket.

I put this one down to defensive scheming and I think BB will take it all day long, even if alot of fans like stats and are frustrated by an apparent lack of production by the front seven.

The only thing is, once we go up against an experienced top level QB our D-line has to be able to apply better pressure in passing situations. It would be nice to be able to blow up more running plays in the backfield, as well as take the QB down once in a while if he's getting too relaxed. There has to be a fear element involved. I expect them to go after Rivers in a big way (or at least I want them to.)

***JSn*** · 10-06-2008, 12:37 PM

Thought I'd tack on this quote from Mike Nolan:

Quote:

“I know we brought pressure. It’s a good example of getting five sacks. (I know) how excited people get about sacks and how they think they’re directly related to winning. That should give you a great example that it really isn’t. To win is all about having more points than the other team. It gets down to staying on the field offensively on third down and getting off on defense, and a lot of other things but it’s never one area.”

***alamo*** · 10-06-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

I don't know about you all, but I'd rather have both.

Thanks for that insightful contribution, you really smacked down all those guys who don't want us to get sacks, as well as those who don't want us to make interceptions. However, you missed a good chance to reach out and embarrass the guys who would prefer we didn't recover fumbles.

***KontradictioN*** · 10-06-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alamo

Thanks for that insightful contribution, you really smacked down all those guys who don't want us to get sacks, as well as those who don't want us to make interceptions. However, you missed a good chance to reach out and embarrass the guys who would prefer we didn't recover fumbles.

Tell me again how it makes sense to criticize someone for not being as insightful as you would like then, in your only post in the thread, you do not make any points at all. To put it in layman's terms: I could take a picture of my grundle and put it in this thread and it would still be far more insightful than that post.