Belichick on sacks.

[jimnance]

The Patriots are 8th in pressure rate and 30th in sacks.

RotoPass - Pressure Rate | Football Outsiders

I think part of that discrepancy is due to BBs tendency to pressure " mobile" QBs but keep them in the pocket as much as possible- or "contain". I know this irks a lot of us. I admit it gets on my nerves sometimes too. That strategy would result in a high volume of pressures and a low volume of sacks, as BB doesn't WANT his D to try and sack them lest they lose contain and give up a 10-15 yd qb run. It has worked a lot in the past but seems like the Pats are giving up a lot of easy passes recently by " mobile" QBs.

 

[Hyped]

And that's why he's paying Trey. Just watch.

Regards,
Chris

I disagree, but let's see...

The DE market is utterly insane. BB has a high number in mind for Trey though, but it won't be enough, IMO.

 

[Deus Irae]

Looking back on all your posts, I think we were arguing about 2 different things. I was never arguing value of ONE sack vs. ONE pressure. Neither was BB. I was only arguing on a game by game basis, there are far more pressures and hits than there are sacks, ERGO, pressures/hits have a greater impact on any given game than sacks do. It's a no-brainer.
Not every team that generates a lot of pressures/hits, has a lot of sacks and vice versa.
If someone was arguing about just ONE sack vs. just ONE pressure then of course I'd rather have the sack. But that's not the argument here. The argument was simply: what has more value in one game- pressures or sacks? Nobrainer

Except it's not a no-brainer, at all. You seem intent on a narrative, but you don't really have anything to back it up.

No you're not reading it right.
Of course there's a greater chance of a fumble from a sack than an int from a pressure. Duh!
But that's not what BB was referring to and neither was I.
What we were referring to is that in an average NFL game, there are manyany more pressures and qb hits than there are sacks. There arealso FAR more ints in a game,in a season,than stripsacks.
So because of the sheer greater volume of pressures over sacks,they have a much greater impact than sacks.
BB was/is right. I was/am right. Deus was/is wrong. ( Although I think he was arguing about something totally different than either BB or myself.)

I suggested you revisit your posts and get things lined up more logically. I gave you 3 QBs to look at. If you had, you'd have seen that, in fact, they have not necessarily thrown "FAR more ints in a game,in a season,than stripsacks".

• Kirk Cousins, this season, has fumbled 8 times and lost 6. He's thrown 7 ints.
• Aaron Rodgers, this season, has fumbled 6 times and lost 3. He's thrown 1 int.
• Tom Brady, this season, has fumbled 4 times and lost 2. He's thrown 7 ints.

So, of the 3 QBs chosen off the front page of the board, only Brady falls into the category you're describing, and at least 3 of his INTs have come because his receivers failed to hold onto the ball, and not because of a cleanly picked throw.

 

[jimnance]

Except it's not a no-brainer, at all. You seem intent on a narrative, but you don't really have anything to back it up.



I suggested you revisit your posts and get things lined up more logically. I gave you 3 QBs to look at. If you had, you'd have seen that, in fact, they have not necessarily thrown "FAR more ints in a game,in a season,than stripsacks".

• Kirk Cousins, this season, has fumbled 8 times and lost 6. He's thrown 7 ints.
• Aaron Rodgers, this season, has fumbled 6 times and lost 3. He's thrown 1 int.
• Tom Brady, this season, has fumbled 4 times and lost 2. He's thrown 7 ints.

So, of the 3 QBs chosen off the front page of the board, only Brady falls into the category you're describing, and at least 3 of his INTs have come because his receivers failed to hold onto the ball, and not because of a cleanly picked throw.

Lol, so you're going to cherry pick 2 QBs,compared to the rest of the league.
I haven't looked up any stats and I don't need to.
I guarantee you there have been far more pressures than sacks this year and far more ints than stripsacks. Case closed.

 

[Nehalem]

When would you ever be better off getting, say, 10 pressures than 10 sacks? And I don't mean an "if you get 4 interceptions" sort of an answer, because that can be countered with "if you get 4 strip sacks and fumble recoveries".

I would think never. Which is why I would assume that BB doesn't actually believe this.

Just to add to this:

I think you're often better off with a lot of pressure than just a very small number of sacks without consistent pressure. You're going to be able to speed up the QB and make him question his OL and his time. But where the line is drawn is what I was talking about when I wrote "I expect he's lying, or carefully stating a minimized version of what he really means, about pressures."

Strictly speaking he said pressures are most correlated to doing well defensively. I would suspect that this is for 2 reasons. First, given the same players a defense the prioritizes sacks might leave itself vulnerable in other areas. And second, a defense that gets a lot of sacks is only going to average probably 1-2 sacks more per game over a team that gets few. So basically increasing sacks are only going to have a positive impact on one or two plays a game.

 

[Deus Irae]

I would think never. Which is why I would assume that BB doesn't actually believe this.



Strictly speaking he said pressures are most correlated to doing well defensively. I would suspect that this is for 2 reasons. First, given the same players a defense the prioritizes sacks might leave itself vulnerable in other areas. And second, a defense that gets a lot of sacks is only going to average probably 1-2 sacks more per game over a team that gets few. So basically increasing sacks are only going to have a positive impact on one or two plays a game.

I don't think we're far off in thought, on this. What I'd said earlier (not quoting, but paraphrasing) is that there is a cutoff type of situation here: 1 sack = 3 pressures, for example. And that's going to be just a variable, and not a firm ratio. As I showed with the Rodgers/Cousins/Brady data, there's not any sort of 1:1 situation here. Some QBs will fold under the slightest pressure and smallest number of pressures, and some will all but ignore it. Brady, for example, almost feeds off of pressure(s) from the outside, and often knowingly holds a throw even knowing he's going to be the 'victim' of what will be called a pressure (The throw to Edelman, for example), though he does than less than he used to.

I think the reality is likely that BB realizes the question of pressure v. sack is more complicated than just a one or two word answer, and so he focused on what's both the avenue where his current defense is most successful and the avenue that's easier to generalize as impactful.

 

[letekro]

Belichick on snacks

 

[mgcolby]

...says the HC whose "defense" doesn't get Nearly enough of them.

It makes sense. A sack is much safer than throwing while under pressure. As a coach myself albeit at a much lower level, I have always emphasized disruption and containment over just get to the QB.

He said it perfectly, bad throws have a high percentage level if being good for the defense, it will either be incomplete, intercepted or caught. 2 out of 3 ain't bad and a turnover is clearly more valuable than 3 or 4 yards gained on a sack. Especially on 3rd downs.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Except it's not a no-brainer, at all. You seem intent on a narrative, but you don't really have anything to back it up.



I suggested you revisit your posts and get things lined up more logically. I gave you 3 QBs to look at. If you had, you'd have seen that, in fact, they have not necessarily thrown "FAR more ints in a game,in a season,than stripsacks".

• Kirk Cousins, this season, has fumbled 8 times and lost 6. He's thrown 7 ints.
• Aaron Rodgers, this season, has fumbled 6 times and lost 3. He's thrown 1 int.
• Tom Brady, this season, has fumbled 4 times and lost 2. He's thrown 7 ints.

So, of the 3 QBs chosen off the front page of the board, only Brady falls into the category you're describing, and at least 3 of his INTs have come because his receivers failed to hold onto the ball, and not because of a cleanly picked throw.

QBs seem to throw between 1.5 to 2.5 INTs for every fumble.

Source: I just cherry picked a few players from the career fumble leader list:

NFL Fumbles Career Leaders | Pro-Football-Reference.com

If you guess that 75% of QB fumbles are from strip sacks (pure guess on my part) then your ratio of 3:1 is on the high end for all QBs, but certainly a reasonable estimate.

 

[Angelpats]

Well, a strip sack is still a sack.

 

[TheRainMaker]

I disagree, but let's see...

The DE market is utterly insane. BB has a high number in mind for Trey though, but it won't be enough, IMO.

What do you think Trey will get?

He will need DeMarcus Lawrence and Frank Clark to get Franchised or he will lose a ton of money on the open market. Regardless, I think he's in the $10-$11M dollar range. This "$80M" talk by the media is utterly insane.

 

[Deus Irae]

It makes sense. A sack is much safer than throwing while under pressure.

Where are you getting this notion from?

 

[TBR]

How many of the Patriots' interceptions this year have come due to pressure on the QB?

 

[TBR]

In order of importance...

1. Strip sack
2. QB hurry + hit which leads to an INT
3. Sack
4. QB hurry + hit which leads to an incomplete pass
5. QB hurry which leads to an incomplete pass

The other aspect to these is the actual game situation. Depending on down, distance, score, field position one may be more preferred than the other.

I'd swap 1 and 2. The INT is a guaranteed change of possesion and often better field position than a punt. The other team could recover the strip sack.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

In order of importance...

1. Strip sack
2. QB hurry + hit which leads to an INT
3. Sack
4. QB hurry + hit which leads to an incomplete pass
5. QB hurry which leads to an incomplete pass

The other aspect to these is the actual game situation. Depending on down, distance, score, field position one may be more preferred than the other.

Exactly. On third down, 3, 4 and 5 above are often roughly equivalent unless the sack takes the opponent out of field goal range or it's an unusual situation where they will go for fourth down and the actual yards matter a lot.
Forcing an offensive hold on first down can be nearly as good as a sack that only pushes them back a few yards.

 

[mgcolby]

Where are you getting this notion from?

If a QB turtles and takes a sack (without being stripped) the ball either stays in their possession or they punt. There is no further negative to the play there..such as drastic field position change, defensive score etc...

 

[Deus Irae]

If a QB turtles and takes a sack (without being stripped) the ball either stays in their possession or they punt. There is no further negative to the play there..such as drastic field position change, defensive score etc...

First, sacks can lead to drastic field change.

Second, you had to add the "without being stripped" caveat, which isn't a valid caveat to a sack. Take Brady, for example. While there are probably a few non-sack related fumbles to his career numbers, he has been sacked 468 times and fumbled 118 times. That means that, without adjusting for non-sack fumbles (You're welcome to dive into the numbers for that), Brady puts the ball on the ground about once every 4 times he's sacked. The fumble is a result of the sack, after all, so leaving it out as an option isn't really any more sensible than only counting interceptions where the ball is then fumbled and given back to the offense.

Historically, he sure as hell isn't throwing a pick, or a near pick, once every 4 times he's under pressure. And your comment was

It makes sense. A sack is much safer than throwing while under pressure.

Generically speaking (though the whole point of my posts in this thread is that we can't just look at this generically, as you and others are doing), a sack is much more dangerous to an offense than a pressure, on a time-for-time basis. Where pressures gain is when the number of pressures are high and that starts to impact the play of the QB, and sack totals remain low (because high sack totals would also be likely to impact the play of the QB, among its other impacts). So, yeah, you want to have 10+ pressures instead of one sack. But you want 10 sacks instead of 10 pressures.

Lastly, with a sack nothing bad can happen to the defense (I'm not looking at bizarre exceptions here), absent a second action (i.e. penalty). With a pressure, the QB can still complete a pass for positive gain of minor or major impact.

 

[luuked]

@Deus Irae appears to be right about sack fumbles. It looks like Belichick isn't giving us the whole picture here. There's a WAY higher chance of fumbling on a sack than throwing an interception due to pressure, if I'm reading these right.

Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats): Fumble Rates by Play Type



It's okay, PatsFans family. You can admit that Saint Belichick isn't always right, or forthcoming, and still be a big fan of the coach and the team.

Lombardi has been arguing the opposite for years now. You can see it all over the last 3 years since he started his media personality career. He has been saying "pressures are more valuable than sacks because they lead to bad QB decisions and turnovers" vehemently. It might be mostly about volume and not on a single given play. Lets also not ignore that sacks (and QB hits) nowadays have a absurdly high chance of resulting in RTP penalties.

Given how comprehensive his research projects for Walsh, Davis and BB have always been I would be extremely surprised if his words are not backed up by history. Now can it be that sometimes in a season there is an outlier like some internet bros apparently found out for 2017 ? Maybe.

But then again I think this also goes into a more holistic view where roster value and positional premiums come in.

According to NFL stats our "garbage D" is one with the highest pressure rates in the league and we are tied for the team with 7th most takeaways. How much cap space do we have allocated to the players in the DL to be up there ?

The other teams up there in terms of turnovers are mostly the ones you would expect: Chicago, Cleveland, Rams, Washington, Seattle, Denver. All having on paper considerably more (expensive) talent up front than we do.

 

[DarrylS]

What seems to get lost here if the value BB places on "holding the edge", Jamie Collins can attest to that now that he is banished to the "gulag" known as Cleveland...

An issue here are the metrics, saw something posted on Twitter yesterday ( thought to be generated by the NFL) that showed the Pats in the top ten in pressures, today as I search for that stat there are so many different ways of counting and looking at the way these numbers are articulated..

 

[Observer]

It appears to me that every time a QB is sacked he is also pressured but every time a QB is pressured he is not necessarily sacked. Therefore I submit that sacks are better than pressures. If you can’t get the sack, pressure is the second best option.