Lombardi on Seymour trade

[captain stone]

Lastly, I always remembered a quote from Belichick:
"It's not sacks, sacks are overrated....it's QB pressure".
That's why, in a 4-3 set Jarvis Green has more value than Seymour.

Sacks are only over-rated by those coaches (or followers) of teams who do not generate sacks.

How in the world is a play, during which a QB is hit & tackled to the ground, and a loss of yardage is recorded, considered over-rated? This has always boggled my mind.

 

[italia44]

Sacks are only over-rated by those coaches (or followers) of teams who do not generate sacks.

How in the world is a play, during which a QB is hit & tackled to the ground, and a loss of yardage is recorded, considered over-rated? This has always boggled my mind.

What BB said is exactly spot on....he's descibing a situation,whereas a team has 5 sacks plus 2 pressures vis a vis a team that has 2 sacks and 13 pressures (A lot like the 2004 team).

On paper,the sacks look better,but it is the pressure that wins games and causes int.He's not saying he doesn't want sacks,but that he prefers constant pressure on the QB.

Got it,now?

 

[cartmen]

I did this very same trade once upon a time. I gyed the lions out of their #1 for Seymour and got the 1st pick in the draft. hahahaha who says you can't run your team like a Madden franchise

 

[Patspsycho]

What BB said is exactly spot on....he's descibing a situation,whereas a team has 5 sacks plus 2 pressures vis a vis a team that has 2 sacks and 13 pressures (A lot like the 2004 team).

On paper,the sacks look better,but it is the pressure that wins games and causes int.He's not saying he doesn't want sacks,but that he prefers constant pressure on the QB.

Got it,now?

I think you may have meant to say that BB prefers QB pressure because that is an easier stat to "pile up" than sacks.

Advanced stats may have proven that a sack has a negligible influence on stopping a drive, whereas piling up the number of QB pressures increases the odds of stopping the drive.

 

[bigfandan]

I think you may have meant to say that BB prefers QB pressure because that is an easier stat to "pile up" than sacks.

Advanced stats may have proven that a sack has a negligible influence on stopping a drive, whereas piling up the number of QB pressures increases the odds of stopping the drive.

3 straight QB pressure will stop a drive right there; one sack on the 1st down will still leave opponents with 2 chances for a first down.

But everything else being equal, sack is better than QB pressure. No doubt about that.

 

[BradyFTW!]

3 straight QB pressure will stop a drive right there; one sack on the 1st down will still leave opponents with 2 chances for a first down.

But everything else being equal, sack is better than QB pressure. No doubt about that.

Technically, you could say that it's ideal for a pressure to directly lead to an INT, but that's just nitpicking at best. Given that a sack is inherently a negative offensive plays, and pressures can still be converted into successful plays for the offense, it's definitely true that on the whole you'd always take the sack. The question, I guess, becomes whether you prefer 2 pressures in a row vs. 1 sack and a clean throwing attempt. You'd probably take the two pressures, since the chances of both of them becoming positive plays aren't great.