Just another proof that individual sacks....

[patfanken]

....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

 

[363839]

I think BB himself has been quoted saying that sacks are overrated.
Would rather have the INT.

 

[patsox23]

thanks for posting, ken.

And I think we all concur with 363839's bit of wisdom that we'd "rather have the INT."

 

[363839]

thanks for posting, ken.

And I think we all concur with 363839's bit of wisdom that we'd "rather have the INT."

I'm just saying I think that BB values pressure on the QB more than the sack itself. Trying to terrorize a QB to throw up a lame duck.

 

[n1patsfan]

I'm just saying I think that BB values pressure on the QB more than the sack itself. Trying to terrorize a QB to throw up a lame duck.

I agree, I also love to see tip balls and fumbles for a DT. (BRUSCHI!)

GO PATS !!:singing: #1

 

[gomezcat]

Those are interesting stats. Sacks, and sacks allowed, can be slightly misleading; some QBs have such quick releases that it makes the O line look better than it is.The opposite is true for a team with a static QB, who takes his time. One wonders how many more sacks the Atlanta line would allow with Bledsoe rather than Vick. . What the stats also don't show is the number of times that D lines and blitzers got their hands up, chipped guys coming out of the backfield and so on.
I guess another reason that the stats don't correlate could be that many teams get sacks because they blitz so much. Their sack numbers may be high, but so might be TDs and yards allowed, due to risky coverage schemes.

 

[rhubma]

My view is that a controlled rush (staying in lanes, collasping the pocket, etc.) combined with good team coverage miminizes the big play that often happens when the QB gets outside the rush. I think I saw a BB quote once about cutting down on the big play being as or more important than actually reaching the Qb (couldn't supply a link though).


Another thought provoking post PFK. IMO your byline is always a must read... and posts like yours keeps PatsFans at the top of the available sites. Thanks and keep posting.

 

[TealSox]

Sacks are demoralizing for an offense. They provide a great opportunity to take a QB out of the game (mentally or physically). I would love to have a defense that struck fear in its opponents early with the sacks/pressure and used the rest of the game to create turnovers (ie INTs).

Burgess, Kearse and Strahan seem to be liabilities against the run. How good can a defense be when it has d linemen weak against the run or a d linemen that can only come in on passing downs but eats a big part of the cap?

 

[maverick4]

The most important defensive stat is points allowed per game, followed by red zone defense. All other defensive stats are pointless.

On the flip side, receiving yards and passing yards are crap. What matters is points per game, and red zone offense.

 

[Fencer]

The most important defensive stat is points allowed per game, followed by red zone defense. All other defensive stats are pointless.

On the flip side, receiving yards and passing yards are crap. What matters is points per game, and red zone offense.

When you phrase something that arrogantly, please be right.

You forgot to mention turnovers.

 

[jczxohn1]

The more you think about this game, the "righter" BB looks, huh.