- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 15,532
- Reaction score
- 27,559
....mean less than most fans think. I got this off the extremeskins site and found it interesting. It is a list how many sacks a team recorded per 100 pass attempts last year.. Of course the skins fans were in a draft discussion and wanted to prove why they need a pass rusher with their first pick. But for me, it confirmed a couple of things, BUT it also made me ask some questions as well. BTW- this list is from worst to first.
3.91 Washington
4.91 Tennessee
5.01 Minnesota
5.07 Tampa Bay
5.56 Houston
5.61 Cleveland
5.64 New York (N)
5.87 Detroit
6.02 Indianapolis
6.31 Cincinnati
6.32 Kansas City
6.51 Denver
6.56 San Francisco
6.58 New York (A)
6.65 Dallas
6.69 Jacksonville
6.88 Chicago
7.18 Atlanta
7.28 Arizona
7.37 Pittsburgh
7.54 St. Louis
7.62 Philadelphia
7.80 Buffalo
8.02 New Orleans
8.13 Seattle
8.20 Carolina
8.29 Oakland
8.49 New England
8.93 Green Bay
9.46 Miami
11.34 San Diego
11.79 Baltimore
1. I have always known that INDIVIDUAL sack totals don't mean a damned. Over the last 6 year run of the Pats, I don't think they have had a double digit sack leader, yet are constantly in the top 5 or so in the league in getting sacks. It confirms my belief that most sacks are more team oriented, and are a product of design. When you combine those, along with coverage sacks, the percentages of one defensive player just 'beating' an offensive player and making the sack are fairly low.
2. My next assumption would be that the teams with the most team sacks, would be the teams with the best records, by and large. But clearly that wasn't the case. How else can you explain the presence of GB, Miami, and OAKLAND (of all teams) in the top 6. Or for that matter the league champion Colts, in the bottom 10
BOTTOM LINE: Sacks are by and large good things to have. More often than not, they are drive enders. However right next to QB ratings, a players individual sack total rarely is an indication of his overall performance to his team, and even team sack totals don't SEEM to have much of a correlation to EITHER success or failure..... interesting.
Just something to think about while we wait for the draft
3.91 Washington
4.91 Tennessee
5.01 Minnesota
5.07 Tampa Bay
5.56 Houston
5.61 Cleveland
5.64 New York (N)
5.87 Detroit
6.02 Indianapolis
6.31 Cincinnati
6.32 Kansas City
6.51 Denver
6.56 San Francisco
6.58 New York (A)
6.65 Dallas
6.69 Jacksonville
6.88 Chicago
7.18 Atlanta
7.28 Arizona
7.37 Pittsburgh
7.54 St. Louis
7.62 Philadelphia
7.80 Buffalo
8.02 New Orleans
8.13 Seattle
8.20 Carolina
8.29 Oakland
8.49 New England
8.93 Green Bay
9.46 Miami
11.34 San Diego
11.79 Baltimore
1. I have always known that INDIVIDUAL sack totals don't mean a damned. Over the last 6 year run of the Pats, I don't think they have had a double digit sack leader, yet are constantly in the top 5 or so in the league in getting sacks. It confirms my belief that most sacks are more team oriented, and are a product of design. When you combine those, along with coverage sacks, the percentages of one defensive player just 'beating' an offensive player and making the sack are fairly low.
2. My next assumption would be that the teams with the most team sacks, would be the teams with the best records, by and large. But clearly that wasn't the case. How else can you explain the presence of GB, Miami, and OAKLAND (of all teams) in the top 6. Or for that matter the league champion Colts, in the bottom 10
BOTTOM LINE: Sacks are by and large good things to have. More often than not, they are drive enders. However right next to QB ratings, a players individual sack total rarely is an indication of his overall performance to his team, and even team sack totals don't SEEM to have much of a correlation to EITHER success or failure..... interesting.
Just something to think about while we wait for the draft
Last edited: