New England 24th in NFL in sacks through week 7

[NG Pats Fan]

In 2015 New England finished 2nd in the nfl in sacks.

Why the big drop off? Is this an issue going forward?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

The obvious starting point would be Chandler Jones, but I think a lot of it has to do with scheme.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

They have different personnel than they had last year, plus they are using different defensive schemes. It's as simple as that

And yes, this might prove to be an issue, especially on 3rd down

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'm not sure what to make of this site but last year the team was in the bottom 1/2 in defensive hurries. Obviously their sack numbers were in the upper 1/2.

This year they are in the top 10 in hurries.

Total Team Defensive Hurries: 2015 NFL Season

 

[jimnance]

The defense is better so far than last year's-so it's irrelevant. You cant just cherry-pick a single stat and have it mean anything-unless iit's put into proper context. For example, vs. steelers Pats only rushed 3 most of the game-there is not a single team in the nfl-not denver, not seattle,nobody-who would have produced more sacks or pressures than the Pats did, rushing only 3. It worked. One of the best offenses in the nfl-even w/o ben-was held to 16 pts. I think BB knows what hes doing.

 

[jimnance]

I'm not sure what to make of this site but last year the team was in the bottom 1/2 in defensive hurries. Obviously their sack numbers were in the upper 1/2.

This year they are in the top 10 in hurries.

Total Team Defensive Hurries: 2015 NFL Season

And almost any defensive coach will tell you that pressures and hurries are more important than sacks. Sacks are an incredibly overrated stat.

 

[RobertWeathers]

And almost any defensive coach will tell you that pressures and hurries are more important than sacks. Sacks are an incredibly overrated stat.

Yep. Hurries are key.

 

[Deus Irae]

Before this thread degenerates too far into the "Chandler!"/"Not Chandler!" discussion, I'd like to ask a few questions, just to sort of get things rolling in a more thoughtful direction:

1. What good passers have the Patriots faced?
2. What unknowns/stiffs/running QBs have the Patriots faced?
3. With regards to sacks v. pressure/contain what do the Patriots do when faced with unknowns/stiffs/running QBs?

 

[FrodoBagginz]

Points allowed per game
New England 15.3 Rank: 4


The only stat that matters.

 

[ALP]

And almost any defensive coach will tell you that pressures and hurries are more important than sacks. Sacks are an incredibly overrated stat.

ummm...pressures and hurries are VERY important, but they're LESS important than sacks...

if you get a sack, its a more successful pressure/hurry, in a way a pressure/hurry is .8as good as a sack because
1. no yardage is lost
2. there is definetely not reception, but w/ a pressure or hurry a reception can still happen

saying pressure and hurries are better than sacks is mind boggling from an intelligence perspective

 

[farn]

6-1

 

[patfanken]

They have different personnel than they had last year, plus they are using different defensive schemes. It's as simple as that

And yes, this might prove to be an issue, especially on 3rd down

Really? They had exactly ZERO sacks and the fewest QB pressures of the season, yet had the their best 3rd down efficiency rating of the season. So exactly how can you make the lack of a pass rush with a poor 3rd down ratio comparison? You see the fact is that it doesn't always work they way. It does SOMETIMES, but not always or even regularly

 

[venecol]

If the Pats had better sack stats, who knows, maybe they could be 6-1 by now.

 

[jimnance]

ummm...pressures and hurries are VERY important, but they're LESS important than sacks...

if you get a sack, its a more successful pressure/hurry, in a way a pressure/hurry is .8as good as a sack because
1. no yardage is lost
2. there is definetely not reception, but w/ a pressure or hurry a reception can still happen

saying pressure and hurries are better than sacks is mind boggling from an intelligence perspective

No youre wrong my friend.Heres why theyre less important-even the top sacking teams -like the 2015 Pats-are only going to get a few sacks a game. Yes, a key sack in a crucial situation can be a big play-almost on the level of an int or fumble recovery. But most sacks are not game-changers. But if a teams goal is to get pressure on a qb(-and you must understand that is NOT always a teams goal-e.g. yesterday the Pats were deliberately NOT trying to pressure the qb-rushing only 3-and it worked-holding pitts to 16 pts), then getting a whole bunch of pressures and hurries is WAY more effective than getting a few sacks. Hurries can lead to ints, which are biggger plays than sacks. both hurries and pressures also lead to incompletions.There are many teams that will have several isolated sacks on a qb, most not game-changing-but not have a lot of pressures or hurries-if theyre facing a good qb-you can bet the farm those teams are losing thaose games.

 

[TennisBallHead]

I think they let one too many guys go (Jones, Hicks, etc). It is amazing watching the entire D-Line get stonewalled. Never mind pressuring him, nobody even gets behind the QB to push him up into the pocket. Not one guy can win a 1-on-1 battle.

Just watch them. They all get stood up. The futility is pretty incredible, actually.

 

[FourierSeries]

In 2015 New England finished 2nd in the nfl in sacks.

Why the big drop off? Is this an issue going forward?

First, you should actually watch the games and understand what the Pats were trying to do in each one. Each week we see a different gameplan tailored for the opponent. For example - yesterday, we only rushed 3 guys for most of the game. Obviously, that's not going to generate a significant amount of pressure.

We get it, you love sacks - perhaps sometimes even when they're hairy and pressed up against your forehead - but judging a defense by a single stat without any context is absurd.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

ummm...pressures and hurries are VERY important, but they're LESS important than sacks...

if you get a sack, its a more successful pressure/hurry, in a way a pressure/hurry is .8as good as a sack because
1. no yardage is lost
2. there is definetely not reception, but w/ a pressure or hurry a reception can still happen

saying pressure and hurries are better than sacks is mind boggling from an intelligence perspective

I don't think anyone is saying a hurry is better than a sack. But looking at just one number alone in isolation doesn't really tell us much. I mean we were 13th in 2014 and still won the Super Bowl, while the league leader didn't even make the playoffs. Sacks just don't have the same correlation to wins that other numbers do.

Again, looking only at one number doesn't tell us much. For example, turnovers are important, everyone acknowledges that. But we are only 14th in INTs this season. In 2011, we were 2nd in INTs. Does that mean the 2011 defense was better? I don't think so. It finished 15th in points allowed, 31st in yards allowed compared to 4th and 14th respectively this season.

There are a lot of other factors besides just sacks or turnovers or passer rating or 3rd down defense. And nobody can be in the top 5 of every single stat. But none of those numbers paint a full picture of what a defense is or isn't. It's important to not get carried away by one number here or there.

 

[Gumby]

ummm...pressures and hurries are VERY important, but they're LESS important than sacks...

if you get a sack, its a more successful pressure/hurry, in a way a pressure/hurry is .8as good as a sack because
1. no yardage is lost
2. there is definetely not reception, but w/ a pressure or hurry a reception can still happen

saying pressure and hurries are better than sacks is mind boggling from an intelligence perspective

I dont think the argument was hurries are better, but rather that the ranking (1-32) for hurries is more important than the ranking for sacks.
(You could make a similar argument if counting eaches rather than rankings, but would clearly have to have some worth-ratio 1 sack = worth to X hurries [as you suggested]. But that x is so subjective: 1.5, 2, 3? Who knows?)

Clearly 1 sack >> 1 hurry. But the question is: was your Defense better if you had twice as many hurries, but less sacks. For example, 16 hurries and 2 sacks OR 8 hurries and 4 sacks?
Assume a 60% completion qb, 10yd pass avg: when hurried-40% and not hurried 75%
1. 16 x .4 x 10 - 2 x 8 = 64 - 16 = 48 yds
2. 8 x .4 x 10 - 4 x 8 + 8 x .75 x 10 = 32 - 32 + 60 = 60 yds
So my made up defense-qb combo given less offensive output with more hurries than sacks.

Also, although you are right that some hurries can still be positive plays, the opposite is also true: a hurry can be an even more negative-disasterous play (for Off) than a sack. maybe a hurry leads to an int, or even a pick-6. they can still turn 2d-18 around into a new set of downs, cant if dont have the ball anymore.

 

[Tuck]

I see a defense that is definitely better overall but there is no doubt, at least in my mind that they miss Jones' pass rush to some degree.

That said, i believe the numbers look worse than they really are because of Ninko's suspension and will get better if he can finish the season healthy.

 

[PatriotsPimp136]

You need to put some type of pressure on the qb. Bill rushed 3 yesterday. I don't know if he can do that if they face big ben in january. Eventually the secondary will be exposed.