Originally Posted by randomk1
I wasn't saying anything negative about Cunningham. My point was that sacks+hurries+hits= X formula is kind of flawed.
Let's say guy A has 10 sacks, 0 hurrires, 0 hits.
And guy B has 0 sacks, 12 hurries, 2 hits.
By that formula guy B would be the better rusher if they both had equal amount of snaps rushing the passer.
A sack should be worth atleast 3 points or something like that.
There really is another consideration in all of this. A full-time pass rusher will be in on over 400 pass plays. Granted that a lot of those plays aren't real opportunities (screens, quick slants, etc.) but even cutting the number in half, a guy with 10 sacks has a 95% failure rate.
I believe a key for the Patriots is what players do in those other 190+ snaps. Much like a "useful out" in baseball, there are many meaningful outcomes that don't show up as stats:
- Keeping a QB contained in the pocket
- Being physical and wearing out an OT
- Getting hands up and disrupting the QB's line of sight
- Requiring extra blocking focus to allow others to get better matchups
- Engaging a RB/TE and not letting them out into their pass route cleanly
There are probably more but you get the idea. The Pats have avoided guys that dive into the backfield with their hair on fire every play. If they just wanted sacks and "pressures", that strategy wouldn't make much sense. So they must be looking for something more in players that make up their pass rush. Getting 10 sacks but getting neatly escorted around the pocket with a single blocker on another 200 plays doesn't seem like a good tradeoff.