Belichick on sacks.

[RobertWeathers]

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.

Agree. I'm assuming the D recovers the fumble. If they don't then it's #3.

 

[luuked]

Personally, I found this nugget from the upcoming BB book much more interesting than most of the sack/pressure debate.

Also like the Curran tweet on top says. This week's QuickSlants podcast had pretty good stuff from Mayo.

 

[edkk323]

I like sacks. It sounds like sex. I will settle for M. In the end, they are all the same. Your D gets off...... the field.

 

[captain stone]

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.

I don't think that anybody will be found anywhere who believes that sacks are more valuable than turnovers, be it on 3rd down, 2nd down or 1st down.
However, most teams - except for Indy, Pitt & Tampa - have more sacks than turnovers, in many cases way more. Therefore, the chances of creating a sack is overall more likely than creating a turnover; so it would behoove a defense (especially this one) to figure out ways to create more sacks instead of hoping that the generally more-rare turnover will bail it out.
It's not as if this crappy defense is among the league leaders in turnovers created, either.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

People are unnecessarily complicating this. Pressures are much more common than sacks. I'd rather have 20 pressures and just one sack than 8 pressures and 3 sacks, assuming that none of the sacks are strip sacks. More opportunities to force turnovers.

 

[mgcolby]

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[/quote=Deus Irae]

I'll take your word for it. But honestly that is kinda surprising to me. I just doesn't seem that Brady fumbles anywhere near 1 in 4 sacks. But won't argue with the numbers cause I'm to lazy to look them up.

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.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I think we are looking at the same thing from two different directions emphasizing one outcome over the other. And I don't disagree with the bolded statement. I just think one is more realistic, is easier to make happen therefore will happen more frequently therefore having a bigger impact overall.

 

[Observer]

People are unnecessarily complicating this. Pressures are much more common than sacks. I'd rather have 20 pressures and just one sack than 8 pressures and 3 sacks, assuming that none of the sacks are strip sacks. More opportunities to force turnovers.

Even if none of the pressures resulted in an incompletion?

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Hey guys it’s simple:

- Pressures are like on base percentage (OBP) and sacks are like home runs (HR). A baseball analogy
- It also saves the team a lot of $ in a limited cap league from overpaying expensive sack artists
- This has a dual benefit of spending for other areas. Not overpaying for sacks is the same arbitrage insight as not overpaying for WRs or RBs

There.

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

RotoPass - Pressure Rate | Football Outsiders

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Even if none of the pressures resulted in an incompletion?

That many pressures are very likely to cause mistakes. That's the point. If you know the result, and it is the unlikely result that all pressures were ineffective, then of course you'd know it wasn't a good strategy. The point is to play the odds: more pressure = more opportunities for turnovers and stops. Granted, more sacks = more opportunities for turnovers and stops also, but those are more rare and they don't allow for the most likely turnover (INT).

 

[Hyped]

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.

1.) Per this link 10-11M is Michael Bennett/Cam Wake money....and those two guys are close to the end of their careers.

4-3 Defensive End Contracts and Salaries | Over The Cap

2.) Flowers is in his prime.

3.) This does not take into account that there will be 11 NFL teams in 2019 with 50M+ in ESTIMATED cap space. Including the Bills/Jetes/Colts....

NFL Salary Cap Space | Over The Cap

4.) Putting that all together...I bet Flowers gets a 75M/5 year deal. And we weren't willing to pay Chan...who is making about 16M annually now....

 

[tasmlab]

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.

Question: Don't you have to typically sell out on something to focus on the sack? E.g., have a dedicated guy or two with a spin move who becomes completely useless if the play is a run, screen, RPO, etc. And with a pressure/hurry, you can both achieve the pressure and have the guys play the quick short plays. I.e., a scheme based on getting sacks could cause other defensive objectives to be missed.

 

[Angelpats]

People are unnecessarily complicating this. Pressures are much more common than sacks. I'd rather have 20 pressures and just one sack than 8 pressures and 3 sacks, assuming that none of the sacks are strip sacks. More opportunities to force turnovers.

It’s unfair to compare quantitatively. Of course anyone would prefer 20 pressures to one sack. But if it’s a 1:1 ratio, a sack is much preferred since someone posted a stat earlier that for every 4 sacks and fumble occurs. I rather pressure all game than have a few sacks, unless they all occurred on third downs and we get the ball back, and vice versa. I remember the earlier in the season, we hardly Ever got off the field in third downs.

 

[tasmlab]

Just for funnzies, I believe the longest loss of yardage sack, delivered by the Patriots to a former-Patriot:

 

[Observer]

That many pressures are very likely to cause mistakes. That's the point. If you know the result, and it is the unlikely result that all pressures were ineffective, then of course you'd know it wasn't a good strategy. The point is to play the odds: more pressure = more opportunities for turnovers and stops. Granted, more sacks = more opportunities for turnovers and stops also, but those are more rare and they don't allow for the most likely turnover (INT).

I am thinking about the question in terms of which would be the better policy:
1. Sack the quarterback
2. Pressure the quarterback but don’t sack him so that we have a chance of an int.

It seems that the second policy is an automatic byproduct of the first so in my mind the first is superior.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Question: Don't you have to typically sell out on something to focus on the sack? E.g., have a dedicated guy or two with a spin move who becomes completely useless if the play is a run, screen, RPO, etc. And with a pressure/hurry, you can both achieve the pressure and have the guys play the quick short plays. I.e., a scheme based on getting sacks could cause other defensive objectives to be missed.

I think I follow your point. I guess my answer is no. A sack can be achieved with regular pressure which is why guys like Donald are so valuable.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I am thinking about the question in terms of which would be the better policy:
1. Sack the quarterback
2. Pressure the quarterback but don’t sack him so that we have a chance of an int.

It seems that the second policy is an automatic byproduct of the first so in my mind the first is superior.

yes, on average, one sack is better than one pressure, but sacks are more rare so it is not a one-to-one comparison.

Would you rather have a 0.350 hitter in baseball who rarely hits home runs or a 0.200 hitter who hits way more home runs?

 

[TheRainMaker]

1.) Per this link 10-11M is Michael Bennett/Cam Wake money....and those two guys are close to the end of their careers.

4-3 Defensive End Contracts and Salaries | Over The Cap

2.) Flowers is in his prime.

3.) This does not take into account that there will be 11 NFL teams in 2019 with 50M+ in ESTIMATED cap space. Including the Bills/Jetes/Colts....

NFL Salary Cap Space | Over The Cap

4.) Putting that all together...I bet Flowers gets a 75M/5 year deal. And we weren't willing to pay Chan...who is making about 16M annually now....

That's a good website for quick info on contracts.

So you say $15M a year for Flowers? That would put him higher than Danielle Hunter and Everson Griffen. He'd be at the same level as Calais Campbell. Flowers has no business being in that range. Cameron Jordan makes $11M per year and Carlos Dunlap makes $13M per year. He's not better than either of those guys and should not exceed their contracts but it does happen (TE's making more than Gronk, Oliver Vernon even though he was declining). That's where my value came from.

You also said he's in his prime. He's been on a decline each year he's been in the league according to what it shows statistically.

It would be quite bizarre if BB pays Flowers what you predict over Chandler Jones. I'd rather have Jones between the two. I like Flowers, but I don't think he's all that great. He's a high motor guy, but he's not a game changer. The media has really done a good job hyping him up and his agent will run with that in the off season.

 

[Hyped]

That's a good website for quick info on contracts.

So you say $15M a year for Flowers? That would put him higher than Danielle Hunter and Everson Griffen. He'd be at the same level as Calais Campbell. Flowers has no business being in that range. Cameron Jordan makes $11M per year and Carlos Dunlap makes $13M per year. He's not better than either of those guys and should exceed their contracts but it does happen (TE's making more than Gronk, Oliver Vernon even though he was declining). That's where my value came from.

You also said he's in his prime. He's been on a decline each year he's been in the league according to what it shows statistically.

It would be quite bizarre if BB pays Flowers what you predict over Chandler Jones. I'd rather have Jones between the two. I like Flowers, but I don't think he's all that great. He's a high motor guy, but he's not a game changer. The media has really done a good job hyping him up and his agent will run with that in the off season.

It isn't really Flowers' production/dollars vs. other DEs with contracts. It is Flowers in the open market vs. other available DE's plus how desperate a team is x it's cap space. For instance, the Bills/Jets could sign him for 15/m a year without blinking their eye because it is a double edged sword with them taking Flowers away from the Pats D.

 

[TheRainMaker]

It isn't really Flowers' production/dollars vs. other DEs with contracts. It is Flowers in the open market vs. other available DE's plus how desperate a team is x it's cap space. For instance, the Bills/Jets could sign him for 15/m a year without blinking their eye because it is a double edged sword with them taking Flowers away from the Pats D.

Yeah I totally get it. The one thing Flowers has going for him is he is becoming a "name" player. Teams like you mentioned above will have money to burn and wouldn't mind sticking it to the Pats while hopefully improving their team. It will be really interesting what happens in the off season with Flowers as his value seems divided among us. The way Oliver Vernon got paid worries me that someone will do the same for Flowers.

 

[RayClay]

Sacks = big payday for DE-olb etc.
Pressures are often a result of multiple rushers confusing, rattling, disrupting QB and rushing lanes.
Of course you get the sack if you can, but team approach is always more effective over the course of a game.
Interesting the Hightower and Van Noy from the inside was disruptive recently.
The great Pats D of the early dynasty depended on rushes from different angles.