Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 i wanted to look at all the sacks we had in 06 and breakdown just what affect they had on our defense. pretty interesting breakdown. Week 1 vs Minnesota - 1 sack - Demetric evans, 2nd quarter - result: forced fumble, 3 and out, punt Week 2 vs Dallas - 1 sack - Lemar Marshall, 3rd quarter - result: 3rd down, loss of down, 8 yard loss, 3 and out, punt Week 3 vs Houston - 1 sack - Marshall/Golston, 1st quarter - result: 3rd down, loss of down, 8 yard loss, 3 and out, punt. Week 4 vs Jacksonville - 4 sacks - Carter, 1st quarter - result: 1st down, loss of down, 2 yard loss, 3 and out, Field goal from 28 yard line. - Daniels, 1st quarter - result: 3rd down, loss of down, 3 yard loss, 3 and out, punt. - Archuleta, 2nd quarter - result: 2nd down, loss of down, 5 yard loss, 51 yard TD completion on 3rd and 15. - Evans, 4th quarter - result: 1st down, loss of down, 5 yard loss, 31 yard completion on 2nd and 15. Week 6 vs Tennessee - 3 sacks - Golston/Montgomry, 2nd quarter - result: 2nd down, loss of down, 1 yard loss, field goal from 8 yard line. - Carter, 2nd quarter - result: 1st down, loss of down, 9 yard loss, 3 and out punt - Daniels, 3rd quarter - result: 1st down, loss of down, forced fumble, 9 yard loss, 3 and out, punt Week 9 vs Dallas - 2 sacks - Griffin, 3rd quarter - result: 2nd down, loss of down, 9 yard loss, 3 and out, punt. - Washington, 4th quarter - result: 2nd down, loss of down, 8 yard loss, 3 and out, punt. Week 10 vs Philadelphia - 1 sack - Holdman, 4th quarter - result: 2nd down, loss of down, 2 yard loss, 3 and out, punt. Week 12 vs Carolina - 1 sack - Daniels, 3rd quarter - result: 2nd down, loss of down, 5 yard loss, 3 and out, punt. Week 13 vs Atlanta - 1 sack - Carter, 1st quarter - result: 3rd down, loss of down, 9 yard loss, 3 and out, punt. Week 15 vs New Orleans - 2 sacks - Carter, 4th quarter - result: 1st down, loss of down, 7 yard loss, completion on 3rd and 19 for 24 yards. INT to Carlos Rogers on first play after. - Washington, 4th quarter - result: 1st down, loss of down, 1 yard loss, completion on 4th and 5 for 7 yards. Week 16 vs St. Louis - 1 sack - Carter, 2nd quarter - result: 2nd down, loss of down, 6 yard loss, pass interference on 3rd down, 43 yard penalty. Week 17 vs New York - 1 sack - Carter, 1st quarter - result: 2nd down, loss of down, 7 yard loss, field goal on 4th down from 16 yard line. so we had 19 total sacks for the season. of those 19, 11 of them resulted in 3 and outs. 3 of them resulted in field goals because the team was close enough to kick. so if you take away the 3 where the opposition was already in range to kick 3, youve got 16 sacks that could potentially stop a drive. 11 times out of those 16, we forced a punt. thats 69% of the time. of the 5 that we didnt stop, 2 were drew brees running 5 WRs trying to come back in the 4th quarter, 2 were byron leftwich carving up our secondary, and 1 was a 43 yard pass interference call on ade jimoh. i posted these because when i see people talking about how sacks are an "overrated" statistic, i always wonder what theyre talking about. when almost 70% of the time we forced a 3 and out due to a sack, you have to wonder how much better this team would have done if they could have generated even 10 more sacks. we won and lost 10 games last season that were decided by 1 possession. when 70% of the time, a sack can negate a possession, thats a pretty important stat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 so we had 19 total sacks for the season. of those 19, 11 of them resulted in 3 and outs. 3 of them resulted in field goals because the team was close enough to kick. so if you take away the 3 where the opposition was already in range to kick 3, youve got 16 sacks that could potentially stop a drive. 11 times out of those 16, we forced a punt. thats 69% of the time. of the 5 that we didnt stop, 2 were drew brees running 5 WRs trying to come back in the 4th quarter, 2 were byron leftwich carving up our secondary, and 1 was a 43 yard pass interference call on ade jimoh. i posted these because when i see people talking about how sacks are an "overrated" statistic, i always wonder what theyre talking about. when almost 70% of the time we forced a 3 and out due to a sack, you have to wonder how much better this team would have done if they could have generated even 10 more sacks. we won and lost 10 games last season that were decided by 1 possession. when 70% of the time, a sack can negate a possession, thats a pretty important stat. Nice study... but I already did the research earlier in the spring You can search through my old post for find it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Adama Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 3 and outs are overrated! (joking) Seriously though, I have not seen anyone say sacks are overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan080 Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Good Writeup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNoles21 Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 yea I mean its definitely a fact that sacks really mess things up for an offense(not being run by Peyton Manning, but hell he doesnt get sacked anyways.) This defense HAS to generate more sacks this year no one is in disagreement over that. What everyone disagrees on is, if they will get the sacks, and where the sacks will come from. I dont give a **** who is getting sacks as long as someone is and we are winning ball games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 3 and outs are overrated! (joking) Seriously though, I have not seen anyone say sacks are overrated. numerous older individuals have claimed sacks are an overrated stat, and evidenced the fact that they werent even a credited stat until around 1982. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 Nice study... but I already did the research earlier in the spring You can search through my old post for find it you win! my bad, i never saw it, wish i had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siven Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 No way? Sacks stop drives? Newsflash to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nace14 Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 - Archuleta, 2nd quarter - result: 2nd down, loss of down, 5 yard loss, 51 yard TD completion on 3rd and 15. guess he took the next play off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 - Archuleta, 2nd quarter- result: 2nd down, loss of down, 5 yard loss, 51 yard TD completion on 3rd and 15. guess he took the next play off well he sacked the QB, then had to cover somebody, and arch vs maurice jonesdrew, i pick pinball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Not to be a dick...but it is really necessary to research the theory that sacks essentially end drives? In every case, a team loses a down and yardage so they are behind the eight ball. I'd be shocked if any teams sacks didn't stack up similarly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 Not to be a dick...but it is really necessary to research the theory that sacks essentially end drives? In every case, a team loses a down and yardage so they are behind the eight ball. I'd be shocked if any teams sacks didn't stack up similarly. ive heard numerous people claim that sacks arent an important stat, thats the only reason i did this, because i wanted to see the actual number of drives we killed due to sacks. it was around 70%. obviously none of the people that disagreed are here to claim that sacks are still "overrated". i also just wanted to see the percentage. 70% is pretty damn telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana Clause Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Not to be a dick...but it is really necessary to research the theory that sacks essentially end drives? In every case, a team loses a down and yardage so they are behind the eight ball. I'd be shocked if any teams sacks didn't stack up similarly. These posts always perplex me. Sure most of this stuff is sorta common sense, but he took the time to research it, package it and make a point. This thread is more substantive than 95% of the threads I browse everyday. If you think it's meaningless, don't read it. I could understand complaining if it was one of those really retarded threads like the one about "Jason Taylor going against Stefon Heyer this Saturday" but c'mon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nace14 Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Not to be a dick...but it is really necessary to research the theory that sacks essentially end drives? In every case, a team loses a down and yardage so they are behind the eight ball. I'd be shocked if any teams sacks didn't stack up similarly. not to be a dick, but is really necessary to have a message board dedicated to every tiny facet of the game from the ramifications of sacks to the pronunciation of ade jimoh when we all have jobs that we should be working at...or some of don't have jobs and should be looking for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 These posts always perplex me. Sure most of this stuff is sorta common sense, but he took the time to research it, package it and make a point. This thread is more substantive than 95% of the threads I browse everyday. If you think it's meaningless, don't read it. I could understand complaining if it was one of those really retarded threads like the one about "Jason Taylor going against Stefon Heyer this Saturday" but c'mon. i could have made a "who would win in a fight against a rabid grizzly bear: sean taylor or john riggins". i probably would have gotten more replies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nace14 Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 i could have made a "who would win in a fight against a rabid grizzly bear: sean taylor or john riggins". i probably would have gotten more replies! i'll make that thread. there i made it. lets see what gathers more replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 numerous older individuals have claimed sacks are an overrated stat, and evidenced the fact that they werent even a credited stat until around 1982. I don't recall anybody saying that sacks are overrated. I think the issue is that your number of sacks doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. Getting consistent pressure on the QB is more important than getting less consistent pressure but recording more sacks. Here is an example: Team A consistently gets more pressure but the QB throws it away to avoid the sack. They only get to him once. Team B blitzes quite often and gets 3 sacks but is much less consistent with their pressure. In the above example Team A will force their opponent adjust their offensive scheme and are much less likely to get big yardage. Team B will be much more susceptible to giving up big yardage. Unfortunately we aren't likely to be Team A. In the end what will matter most for our defense is stopping the run and getting better secondary play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Touchdown Redskins Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Sacks ARE an overrated statistic. Well, let me rephrase that: sacks are misleading. A sack can be caused by many things, including a secondary that gives its linemen an extra second to get to the QB, a great blitz, or pressure from the D-Line. That said, sometimes the person who got the initial pressure on the QB does not get credit for a sack because he forced the QB to step into the arms of his teammate. In a sense, a sack is an individual statistic that records a team effort. Many things must go right in order for a team to sack a quarterback, not just some incredibly talented defensive end doing a spin move. A better statistic is QB pressures, because it credits the person who actually got the pressure initially, whether they recorded the sack or not. And as we all know from watching Brunell throw it out of bounds every other play, sometimes a pressure is as good as a sack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 I don't recall anybody saying that sacks are overrated. I think the issue is that your number of sacks doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. Getting consistent pressure on the QB is more important than getting less consistent pressure but recording more sacks. Here is an example:Team A consistently gets more pressure but the QB throws it away to avoid the sack. They only get to him once. Team B blitzes quite often and gets 3 sacks but is much less consistent with their pressure. In the above example Team A will force their opponent adjust their offensive scheme and are much less likely to get big yardage. Team B will be much more susceptible to giving up big yardage. Unfortunately we aren't likely to be Team A. In the end what will matter most for our defense is stopping the run and getting better secondary play. true, but i would think the amount of sacks is directly related to the pressure being applied. take the redskins for example. i refuse to believe that with their 19 sacks they were getting pressure a lot and the QB was forced to thrwo the ball away and hence our sack numbers went down. whereas the ravens who had 60 sacks, were constantly getting pressure as evidenced by their high sack totals means the QB either took the sack or threw the ball away. id bet that if there was a stat of how many times a defense forced a QB to throw the ball away, we'd be at the bottom of the barrell. so while i do agree that constant pressure can sometimes be better than a sack itself, i think they are both directly related and teams with the highest sacks are the teams getting the most pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 Sacks ARE an overrated statistic. Well, let me rephrase that: sacks are misleading. A sack can be caused by many things, including a secondary that gives its linemen an extra second to get to the QB, a great blitz, or pressure from the D-Line. That said, sometimes the person who got the initial pressure on the QB does not get credit for a sack because he forced the QB to step into the arms of his teammate. In a sense, a sack is an individual statistic that records a team effort. Many things must go right in order for a team to sack a quarterback, not just some incredibly talented defensive end doing a spin move. A better statistic is QB pressures, because it credits the person who actually got the pressure initially, whether they recorded the sack or not. And as we all know from watching Brunell throw it out of bounds every other play, sometimes a pressure is as good as a sack. but thats looking at an individual. while i would agree that a sack for an individual can be misleading, team sack numbers are not. a team with 60 sacks was getting pressure, regardless where it came from. a team with 19 sacks was getting no pressure. 19 sacks = #31 defense 60 sacks = #1 defense and brunell is a bad example that we are used to seeing because id bet that he throws the ball away more than any other QB in the league, or at least more than 90% of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailSkinz1 Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Sacks ARE an overrated statistic. Well, let me rephrase that: sacks are misleading. A sack can be caused by many things, including a secondary that gives its linemen an extra second to get to the QB, a great blitz, or pressure from the D-Line. That said, sometimes the person who got the initial pressure on the QB does not get credit for a sack because he forced the QB to step into the arms of his teammate. In a sense, a sack is an individual statistic that records a team effort. Many things must go right in order for a team to sack a quarterback, not just some incredibly talented defensive end doing a spin move. A better statistic is QB pressures, because it credits the person who actually got the pressure initially, whether they recorded the sack or not. And as we all know from watching Brunell throw it out of bounds every other play, sometimes a pressure is as good as a sack. You can pretty much say that about every statistic. Every stat can be made to seem misleading. Sacks however are clearly NOT overrated. Sacks indicate pressure. Sacks indicate coverage. Sacks lead to turnovers. Sure, pressures are important too, but just because pressures are important doesn't minimize the significance of sacks. Sacks don't make a defense good, but good defenses tend to have more sacks. Hail, H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Touchdown Redskins Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 but thats looking at an individual. while i would agree that a sack for an individual can be misleading, team sack numbers are not. a team with 60 sacks was getting pressure, regardless where it came from. a team with 19 sacks was getting no pressure. 19 sacks = #31 defense 60 sacks = #1 defense and brunell is a bad example that we are used to seeing because id bet that he throws the ball away more than any other QB in the league, or at least more than 90% of others. Oh yes of course. But I think what the initial poster was referring to was why they are called overrated. Individually, it doesn't make as much sense as pressures, but I'm sure that #total sacks correlates with #total QB pressures, which in turn (like you said) correlates with defensive rankings. Sigh, and Brunell is ALWAYS a bad example for something . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 Oh yes of course. But I think what the initial poster was referring to was why they are called overrated. Individually, it doesn't make as much sense as pressures, but I'm sure that #total sacks correlates with #total QB pressures, which in turn (like you said) correlates with defensive rankings.Sigh, and Brunell is ALWAYS a bad example for something . i was the initial poster whether or not the posters i was refering to claimed they were overrated for whatever reason, they really are an important stat. like i showed, 70% of the time we forced a 3 and out from a sack, and 10 of our games were decided by one possession. can you imagine if we had 15 more sacks, thats over 10 extra drives this team could have had. most of our games came down to the wire and hopefully we see more pressure this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Touchdown Redskins Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 i was the initial poster whether or not the posters i was refering to claimed they were overrated for whatever reason, they really are an important stat. like i showed, 70% of the time we forced a 3 and out from a sack, and 10 of our games were decided by one possession. can you imagine if we had 15 more sacks, thats over 10 extra drives this team could have had. most of our games came down to the wire and hopefully we see more pressure this year. Hahaha...oops :doh: . In any case, of course they are important for what they represent, but you could say the same thing about tackles for loss, and yet not many analysts seem to do that even though they happen more frequently! In response to HailSkinz1, yes any statistic can be misleading, but some are LESS misleading than others. If we are going to constantly be using a statistic like sacks to determine a defender's worth, maybe we should try something less misleading to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Field goals are overrated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.