Sacks allowed

[mgteich]

If we only had Bruce Armstrong again! What did he allow, 2 sacks a year?

I think Yates is safely gone. We keep 5 interior linemen and he is presently #7 after:
Mankins, Koppen, Neal, Hochstein, Johnson, and Ohrenberger. That doesn't even consider Connelly and Bussey.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

If we only had Bruce Armstrong again! What did he allow, 2 sacks a year?

I think Yates is safely gone. We keep 5 interior linemen and he is presently #7 after:
Mankins, Koppen, Neal, Hochstein, Johnson, and Ohrenberger. That doesn't even consider Connelly and Bussey.

So you think Russ will stay? When factoring in his versatility, it probably does help his case. I was really hoping to upgrade the depth at guard this year. Im axiously awaiting TC to watch seabass, and Ohrenberger. :singing:

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Can anybody tell me why this thread was brought back from the dead? What is the point are you trying to make?

 

[unoriginal]

Here's a comparative list for everyone to ogle over, compiled from Stats Inc. —

Year    Games    Sacks Allowed

[COLOR=Red][B]Light[/B][/COLOR]
2001    14    10.0
2002    16    11.5
2003    16    3.75
2004    16    7.5
2005    03    0.5
2006    16    7.5
2007    16    6.5
[B]2008    16    7.5[/B]

[COLOR=Red][B]Mankins[/B][/COLOR]
2005    16    3.5
2006    16    1.5
2007    16    1.0
[B]2008    16    5.0[/B]

[COLOR=Red][B]Koppen[/B][/COLOR]
2003    16    0.5
2004    16    2.0
2005    09    0.25
2006    16    2.0
2007    15    0.0
[B]2008    16    4.5[/B]

[COLOR=Red][B]Neal[/B][/COLOR]
2004    16    3.5
2005    16    2.5
2006    13    1.5
2007    08    0.0
[B]2008    11    2.0[/B]

[COLOR=Red][B]Hochstein[/B][/COLOR]
2005    07    0.5
2007    08    1.5
[COLOR=Red][B]
Yates[/B][/COLOR]
[B]2008    07    6.25[/B]

[COLOR=Red][B]Kaczur[/B][/COLOR]
2005    14    8.25
2006    11    3.0
2007    15    6.5
[B]2008    14    3.0[/B]

[COLOR=Red][B]O'Callaghan[/B][/COLOR]
2006    06    4.5

Year    Games    Sacks Allowed

As you can see, the problem with 2008 was that our interior line fell to pieces. No doubt with Yates being in there — and considering what happened in the Super Bowl — it was cause for d-coordinators to focus more on bringing pressure up the middle, thus the rise in the stats of Mankins and Koppen.

If you add up all the lineman stats (including the spot play of Hochstein and LeVoir, totalling 2.5 sacks), you get ~31 sacks allowed. The other 16 sacks are apparently the obvious fault of the backs, tight ends or QB.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Here's a comparative list for everyone to ogle over, compiled from Stats Inc. —
As you can see, the problem with 2008 was that our interior line fell to pieces. No doubt with Yates being in there — and considering what happened in the Super Bowl — it was cause for d-coordinators to focus more on bringing pressure up the middle, thus the rise in the stats of Mankins and Koppen.

If you add up all the lineman stats (including the spot play of Hochstein and LeVoir, totalling 2.5 sacks), you get ~31 sacks allowed. The other 16 sacks are apparently the obvious fault of the backs, tight ends or QB.

Wow, Yates was as bad as I thought he was. Light and Mankins struggled as well. Koppen's worst games were against the elite NT's. In fact, I can remember him getting thrown like a rag doll by Kris Jenkins in Gillette. With that said, this is the first off season in awhile where the entire team has had lots of time off. It should pay off in '09.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Wow, Yates was as bad as I thought he was. Light and Mankins struggled as well. Koppen's worst games were against the elite NT's. In fact, I can remember him getting thrown like a rag doll by Kris Jenkins in Gillette. With that said, this is the first off season in awhile where the entire team has had lots of time off. It should pay off in '09.

Actually, Light was his usual dependable self. Mankins, Koppen, and Yates got torched with Cassel behind them. Kaczur appears to have made the transition from LT to RT where his moves are now more instinctive and not slowed by the need to think right vs. left.

Yates was very disappointing as a starter for Neal, surprisingly so for me when I was watching him last season. For his sake I hope there was an undisclosed injury slowing him down, but either way the competition for interior OL reserve is going to be fierce.

 

[letekro]

Here's a comparative list for everyone to ogle over, compiled from Stats Inc. —

Year    Games    Sacks Allowed

[COLOR=Red][B]Light[/B][/COLOR]
2001    14    10.0
2002    16    11.5
2003    16    3.75
2004    16    7.5
2005    03    0.5
2006    16    7.5
2007    16    6.5
[B]2008    16    7.5[/B]

[COLOR=Red][B]Mankins[/B][/COLOR]
2005    16    3.5
2006    16    1.5
2007    16    1.0
[B]2008    16    5.0[/B]

[COLOR=Red][B]Koppen[/B][/COLOR]
2003    16    0.5
2004    16    2.0
2005    09    0.25
2006    16    2.0
2007    15    0.0
[B]2008    16    4.5[/B]

[COLOR=Red][B]Neal[/B][/COLOR]
2004    16    3.5
2005    16    2.5
2006    13    1.5
2007    08    0.0
[B]2008    11    2.0[/B]

[COLOR=Red][B]Hochstein[/B][/COLOR]
2005    07    0.5
2007    08    1.5
[COLOR=Red][B]
Yates[/B][/COLOR]
[B]2008    07    6.25[/B]

[COLOR=Red][B]Kaczur[/B][/COLOR]
2005    14    8.25
2006    11    3.0
2007    15    6.5
[B]2008    14    3.0[/B]

[COLOR=Red][B]O'Callaghan[/B][/COLOR]
2006    06    4.5

Year    Games    Sacks Allowed

As you can see, the problem with 2008 was that our interior line fell to pieces. No doubt with Yates being in there — and considering what happened in the Super Bowl — it was cause for d-coordinators to focus more on bringing pressure up the middle, thus the rise in the stats of Mankins and Koppen.

If you add up all the lineman stats (including the spot play of Hochstein and LeVoir, totalling 2.5 sacks), you get ~31 sacks allowed. The other 16 sacks are apparently the obvious fault of the backs, tight ends or QB.

No, the problem in 2008 was that Cassell lacked the pocket presence of TB. Which option is more likely: (1) Mankins and Koppen all the sudden suck; or (2) They were protecting an inexperienced quarterback who held on to the ball too long, ran right into defenders that were being pushed past the pocket, and just ran more in general, which led to more stops behind the line?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

No, the problem in 2008 was that Cassell lacked the pocket presence of TB. Which option is more likely: (1) Mankins and Koppen all the sudden suck; or (2) They were protecting an inexperienced quarterback who held on to the ball too long, ran right into defenders that were being pushed past the pocket, and just ran more in general, which led to more stops behind the line?

I'll cheerfully grant that adjusting to Cassel adjusting to live fire after all those years of dummy rounds didn't make their job any easier, but...I did see a couple plays where Mankins and/or Koppen just plain "got beat."

 

[Deus Irae]

No, the problem in 2008 was that Cassell lacked the pocket presence of TB. Which option is more likely: (1) Mankins and Koppen all the sudden suck; or (2) They were protecting an inexperienced quarterback who held on to the ball too long, ran right into defenders that were being pushed past the pocket, and just ran more in general, which led to more stops behind the line?

There was more than just adjusting to Cassel and his lesser pocket presence that was wrong with that line last season. Here are Cassel's sack totals:

2
4
4
5
4


Now, that's through the first 6 weeks of the season. Why is this significant? Because not only was Cassel trying to get used to playing football in the NFL, Stephen Neal was on the PUP list.

Neal came off the list and worked himself into the lineup over the next two weeks before regaining his starting position. Sack numbers in the two transitional games:

6
3

Neal then became the starter for the rest of the season. The sack numbers:

0
1
3
2
5 (Pittsburgh)
3
3
1
1

It was pretty clearly a tale of two seasons when it came to sacks. The team surrendered 28 sacks in the 7 games that Neal was not the starter, and 19 sacks in the 9 games he started. Given time, we could break it down even more, but the Neal influence seems to have made a great deal of difference.

 

[unoriginal]

No, the problem in 2008 was that Cassell lacked the pocket presence of TB. Which option is more likely: (1) Mankins and Koppen all the sudden suck; or (2) They were protecting an inexperienced quarterback who held on to the ball too long, ran right into defenders that were being pushed past the pocket, and just ran more in general, which led to more stops behind the line?

If that were the case that doesn't explain why Light had a normal year and Kaczur had his best year from a pass blocking perspective, despite having Yates next to him for 7 games. Much of Brady's pocket presence, as we know, is having eyes in the back of his head so he knows when to vacate the spot Matt Light is escorting his defensive end through.

In 2008, 16 sacks are unaccounted for if you add up the o-line totals above. In 2007, it's only 4.5 sacks. In 2006, it's 6 sacks. I think a lot of your Matt-Cassel-discretionary sacks are in that difference.

 

[BionicPatriot]

Vollmer > Light you heard it here first ;]

 

[letekro]

There was more than just adjusting to Cassel and his lesser pocket presence that was wrong with that line last season. Here are Cassel's sack totals:

2
4
4
5
4


Now, that's through the first 6 weeks of the season. Why is this significant? Because not only was Cassel trying to get used to playing football in the NFL, Stephen Neal was on the PUP list.

Neal came off the list and worked himself into the lineup over the next two weeks before regaining his starting position. Sack numbers in the two transitional games:

6
3

Neal then became the starter for the rest of the season. The sack numbers:

0
1
3
2
5 (Pittsburgh)
3
3
1
1

It was pretty clearly a tale of two seasons when it came to sacks. The team surrendered 28 sacks in the 7 games that Neal was not the starter, and 19 sacks in the 9 games he started. Given time, we could break it down even more, but the Neal influence seems to have made a great deal of difference.

You're making my point. As Cassell became more experienced and comfortable, the sacks went down. I'm sure Stephen Neal had something to do with it, but let's not make the guy into John Hannah.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You're making my point. As Cassell became more experienced and comfortable, the sacks went down. I'm sure Stephen Neal had something to do with it, but let's not make the guy into John Hannah.

The 2007 SB also suggests that Neal has a much, much bigger impact than most of us had realized.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're making my point. As Cassell became more experienced and comfortable, the sacks went down. I'm sure Stephen Neal had something to do with it, but let's not make the guy into John Hannah.

Why on Earth not? He's the clear difference. The rest is just speculation on your part. One can go back to the Super Bowl for further confirmation of Neal's importance, as well. I don't see how an obvious correlation to something that's precisely NOT your point can make your point.

But whatever floats your boat.

 

[letekro]

Why on Earth not? He's the clear difference. The rest is just speculation on your part. One can go back to the Super Bowl for further confirmation of Neal's importance, as well. I don't see how an obvious correlation to something that's precisely NOT your point can make your point.

But whatever floats your boat.

Do you ever take the time to actually read your drivel before you post it? Posts like this suggest that you do not.

You used the right word yourself - "correlation". There is certainly a negative correlation between Stephen Neal's presence and the Patriots sack totals in the sample you have chosen. However, your conclusion that this makes him the "clear difference", and that this was "confirmed" in the super bowl, shows that you have no understanding of the difference between correlation and causation. I do not argue with people such as yourself, because confusion over fundamental logical concepts like correllation and causation makes rational argument impossible.

In my opinion, the early season cassell had zero pocket presence - he would routinely step out of a perfect pocket and into trouble; he would routinely hold on to the ball way too long. Later, he became more comfortable - he would deliver the ball on time, and he could sense the rush better. This is what I saw, and I don't think I'm the only one. What you term "speculation" is actually my conclusions drawn from observation. In the super bowl, I saw a complete and total breakdown in offensive line protection - from Matt Light to Nick Kaczur and everybody in between. But, according to you, had Stephen Neal played, everything would've been great. Well, as you say, whatever floats your boat.

 

[mgteich]

I listed 9 OL's. I listed six ahead of Yates. As of now, I expect the last spot to be decided among Hochstein, Johnson and Bussey.

So you think Russ will stay? When factoring in his versatility, it probably does help his case. I was really hoping to upgrade the depth at guard this year. Im axiously awaiting TC to watch seabass, and Ohrenberger. :singing:

 

[BradyFTW!]

Do you ever take the time to actually read your drivel before you post it? Posts like this suggest that you do not.

You used the right word yourself - "correlation". There is certainly a negative correlation between Stephen Neal's presence and the Patriots sack totals in the sample you have chosen. However, your conclusion that this makes him the "clear difference", and that this was "confirmed" in the super bowl, shows that you have no understanding of the difference between correlation and causation. I do not argue with people such as yourself, because confusion over fundamental logical concepts like correllation and causation makes rational argument impossible.

In my opinion, the early season cassell had zero pocket presence - he would routinely step out of a perfect pocket and into trouble; he would routinely hold on to the ball way too long. Later, he became more comfortable - he would deliver the ball on time, and he could sense the rush better. This is what I saw, and I don't think I'm the only one. What you term "speculation" is actually my conclusions drawn from observation. In the super bowl, I saw a complete and total breakdown in offensive line protection - from Matt Light to Nick Kaczur and everybody in between. But, according to you, had Stephen Neal played, everything would've been great. Well, as you say, whatever floats your boat.

Correlation is not causation in of itself, but all causation is mirrored by correlation (obviously). Where there's correlation, it's basically either a result of direct causation or common cause. What Deus brought to the table certainly wouldn't stand on its own if it was subjected to any kind of scrutiny, but neither would your argument. Most of the posts on this board wouldn't.

In short, yeah, there is no proven causation between Neal and sack totals dropping, but is there any proven causation in your observation? The argument is no less technically valid than yours. FWIW I think that the improvement in pass protection was caused by a variety of factors, and you and Deus have probably pinpointed the biggest ones. It's not like this is an either/or situation. But really, let's not pretend that we're conducting highly precise and formal logical debates here.

 

[Deus Irae]

Do you ever take the time to actually read your drivel before you post it? Posts like this suggest that you do not.

You used the right word yourself - "correlation". There is certainly a negative correlation between Stephen Neal's presence and the Patriots sack totals in the sample you have chosen. However, your conclusion that this makes him the "clear difference", and that this was "confirmed" in the super bowl, shows that you have no understanding of the difference between correlation and causation. I do not argue with people such as yourself, because confusion over fundamental logical concepts like correllation and causation makes rational argument impossible.

In my opinion, the early season cassell had zero pocket presence - he would routinely step out of a perfect pocket and into trouble; he would routinely hold on to the ball way too long. Later, he became more comfortable - he would deliver the ball on time, and he could sense the rush better. This is what I saw, and I don't think I'm the only one. What you term "speculation" is actually my conclusions drawn from observation. In the super bowl, I saw a complete and total breakdown in offensive line protection - from Matt Light to Nick Kaczur and everybody in between. But, according to you, had Stephen Neal played, everything would've been great. Well, as you say, whatever floats your boat.

He is the clear difference. However, I called it a correlation because we can't actually "prove" causation. There was no other clear difference. That you're even debating this point is likely because you realize the inherent problems with your original position and the damage that the Neal difference does to that position.

Look, it's not my fault that you're arguing a point with a huge weakness to it: it's yours by choice. What's funny is that you're sniping at me when I agree that part of the 'problem' was Cassel's needing to improve in the pocket. These things are not happening in a vacuum out there, after all. However, there's a clear difference in the pre and post Neal 'era' from last season. There's not such clarity with regards to Cassel and his pocket awareness.

As for the Super Bowl, I don't know what to tell you. I've talked about the loss of Neal, the injury of Brady's, the lack of blocking at the tight end position and the terrible game by Mankins. Again, though, despite all of that, I found that there was a clear difference when Neal was lost. If you don't see it, such is life.

 

[Deus Irae]

Correlation is not causation in of itself, but all causation is mirrored by correlation (obviously). Where there's correlation, it's basically either a result of direct causation or common cause. What Deus brought to the table certainly wouldn't stand on its own if it was subjected to any kind of scrutiny, but neither would your argument. Most of the posts on this board wouldn't.

In short, yeah, there is no proven causation between Neal and sack totals dropping, but is there any proven causation in your observation? The argument is no less technically valid than yours. FWIW I think that the improvement in pass protection was caused by a variety of factors, and you and Deus have probably pinpointed the biggest ones. It's not like this is an either/or situation. But really, let's not pretend that we're conducting highly precise and formal logical debates here.

Just to clarify: I didn't misapply the term. Letekro used a meaning of clear that was not intended and not the most likely given the context. Had I known in advance that "clear" would be misunderstood, I could have tried "obvious" in its stead. He still would likely have argued, imo.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Just to clarify: I didn't misapply the term. Letekro used a meaning of clear that was not intended and not the most likely given the context. Had I known in advance that "clear" would be misunderstood, I could have tried "obvious" in its stead. He still would likely have argued, imo.

Hahaha, I know, I corrected that before you quoted it. You never claimed that the correlation could be proven as causation, so I switched it out.