Sacks vs. INT's

[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?

Q: As an offense are you willing to trade a quarterback sack for a 25- 30 yard completion. Is that a good trade in your mind?

BB:I think that's one thing about Mike [Martz's] offense, they've always been able to overcome that. They've been able to overcome a 2nd and 20 or a 3rd and 15 because of their efficiency in throwing the ball down the field. 3rd and 10 is no big deal to them. They get those 20-yard in cuts to beat 3rd and 18 or 3rd and 6. They are going to pick it up either way. I think that's the offense. They score 30 points a couple weeks and throw for 300 plus yards and the running back's running good. It's a lot to defend and yeah the defense makes a couple plays here and there, but they are making a lot of play on offense to offset it and that's the trade off.

Transcript: Bill Belichick Conference Call


From Mike Nolan after the game:

“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.”

New England Patriots 30 - San Francisco 49ers 21: PostgameQuotes - Niners Nation

 

[Kontradiction]

I don't know about you all, but I'd rather have both. We can get the INTs and that is great. Nothing deflates an offense like an interception. But, at the same time, a sack is a great thing as well. I'm impressed with how we are able to create turnovers, but I'd like to see the QB on the turf a little more often than we do. What about the days in which we cannot create turnovers and, at the same time, cannot pressure the quarterback? Days like two weeks ago. Without adding pressure on (like we were able to do last year) to go with those INTs, the Chad Penningtons of the world will pick us apart.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

The INT gives you the ball and forces the opponent's D back out on the field.
Sacks are great to watch but in the long run the INT is what changes the game completely. You ALWAYS want the ball.

Sacks are fun tho One of my favs-when Big Willie Mac pounded Peyton Manning...back in the day when we played on real grass,tufts of sod were hanging from his helmet LOL great stuff .

 

[NYCPatsFan]

This might not be of any merit but still my query as a viewer: wouldn't sacks make the QB a little bit fearful about his protection and so slow him by making him take extra precautions? I thought that could be a mental edge that the defense can enjoy as opposed to giving the QB confidence that the defense can't touch him.

 

[JSn]

Well I don't know if the QB was just hard for them to catch or they were taking a shade off, but with a sack, you can put him back say... 6 yards and make it 2nd and 16 OR you can force him back ten or twelve yards (from the LOS) and make him throw on the run.

If that IS by design, it's pretty freaking brilliant.

 

[xmarkd400x]

INTs hurt your team more than sacks. CHFF has an article or two correlating number of picks vs. winning percentage (The correlation between throwing picks and losing is very strong).

I'd rather have a QB who (prudently) takes sacks over (imprudently) trying to make something out of nothing (see: Sage Rosenfels).

Sacks are drive killers, not game killers. INTs are game killers.

 

[old 55]

I'm really disheartened by the lack of sacks.
We were so close to getting the QB so many times yesterday and couldn't seem to finish.
Since this was against the team that had given up the most sacks in the NFL going into yesterdays game, it was really a bad sign.
Wasn't Thomas supposed to go wild this season and return to the force he was in Baltimore?
Isn't Seymour supposed to be totally healthy for a change?
If we don't get more pressure more often, we won't go anywhere as we face the better teams.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

This might not be of any merit but still my query as a viewer: wouldn't sacks make the QB a little bit fearful about his protection and so slow him by making him take extra precautions? I thought that could be a mental edge that the defense can enjoy as opposed to giving the QB confidence that the defense can't touch him.

It probably depends on the QB? Just thinking back to Brady last Feb. But if it's a QB who's new or easily rattled sacks would probably work like you describe, but the INT is what changes the game. Also,one sack may not accomplish much in that regard but consistently done,the QB would feel insecure thereby throwing an INT.

 

[Kontradiction]

INTs hurt your team more than sacks. CHFF has an article or two correlating number of picks vs. winning percentage (The correlation between throwing picks and losing is very strong).

I'd rather have a QB who (prudently) takes sacks over (imprudently) trying to make something out of nothing (see: Sage Rosenfels).

Sacks are drive killers, not game killers. INTs are game killers.

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.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

INTs hurt your team more than sacks. CHFF has an article or two correlating number of picks vs. winning percentage (The correlation between throwing picks and losing is very strong).

I'd rather have a QB who (prudently) takes sacks over (imprudently) trying to make something out of nothing (see: Sage Rosenfels).

Sacks are drive killers, not game killers. INTs are game killers.

Not to invalidate the argument, but more accurately, the correlation is between turnovers and win %age, not INTs alone.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

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]

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]

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

“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]

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]

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.