some interesting sack statistics for 06

[ouvan59]

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

Unless I missed it I don't think anybody ever implied that we got any kind of good pressure last year. There is no context where a team that gets 19 sacks is better than a team that gets 60 sacks. That is a clear indication of a team that gets good pressure and one that gets none. But there are instances where it isn't that clear cut.

Team A: 41 sacks (6th in NFL) = #20 defense

Team B: 30 sacks (26th in NFL) = #8 defense

Sacks are big but they aren't the stat that defines a defense.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

19 sacks = #31 defense

60 sacks = #1 defense

2004:

40 sacks = #3 defense

48 sacks = #14 defense

47 sacks = #10 defense

37 sacks = #11 defense

I sense a trend...

[elkabong82]

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.

I don't recall anyone saying sacks were over rated. Perhaps you could include a link to that thread. I and others have argued that the defensive line isn't the sole component on our D for generating sacks. In fact, we generate more from the linebackers and DBs when our D is a top 10 unit.

Also, if you want to play the blame game, I can easily point out we would have won games if not for Betts fumbles or Novak's misses. It's a team effort whether you win or lose, so the blame lies with the whole team.

And, eventhough you've shown our D-line was at least decent enough last year to help generate at least one sack in every game, save one, we still lost the majority of those games. The way we succeeded previously was by running the ball down oppponents throats, and having a D that stopped everybody. I'm not talking about tons of sacks, or tons of interceptions, just flat out stopping the opponent. When our D was #3 and #9, we weren't leading in sacks or INTs, we were somewhere around the middle. I agree though in that I would like to see more pressure this year, but every fan of every team wants to see that. I'm more hopeful that our D looks like they did when they were succesful, which is wherever the ball is, there's 5 guys already there.

[pjfootballer]

Sacks and Turnovers, Sacks and Turnovers. The only 2 words that should be spoken on defense this year.

[Touchdown Redskins]

Hmmm, maybe a good stat analysis would be to see whether or not getting a sack changed the outcome of a game, not the drive itself. After all, one could care less if a sack stopped a drive when your team is up or down by 35 points with 2:00 left in the game.

[sikizler]

numerous older individuals have claimed sacks are an overrated stat, and evidenced the fact that they werent even a credited stat until around 1982.

That's bogus. Just because tackling the QB behind the line of scrimmage wasn't called a "sack" until 1982 doesn't mean it didn't help the team. I think these old-timers are referring to giving individual accolades based on sacks (guys like Michael Strahan, Dwight Freeney or Simeon Rice). As other posters have touched on, tackles for loss and QB pressures are also very important. If Marcus Washington brings down Julius Jones in pursuit on a toss play 8 yards behind the line is that any less than if Andre Carter brings down Tony Romo sits to pee in the pocket before he get's a pass off? The only difference is terminology.

Anyway, sacks are huge, tackles for loss are just as huge and QB pressures create all sorts of havoc for an offense so they are big as well.

[nace14]

Hmmm, maybe a good stat analysis would be to see whether or not getting a sack changed the outcome of a game, not the drive itself. After all, one could care less if a sack stopped a drive when your team is up or down by 35 points with 2:00 left in the game.

i've got that stat right here....we had the fewest sacks last year in the nfc east. we had the fewest wins last year in the nfc east.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Hmmm, maybe a good stat analysis would be to see whether or not getting a sack changed the outcome of a game, not the drive itself. After all, one could care less if a sack stopped a drive when your team is up or down by 35 points with 2:00 left in the game.

I wonder which stat has the most direct correlation to games won (besides the point differential lol...). Sacks? 100 yard rusher on offense? Low ypc on defense? Turnover ratio? Penalties?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

i've got that stat right here....we had the fewest sacks last year in the nfc east. we had the fewest wins last year in the nfc east.

But maybe the few sacks we DID get lead to wins...lol

We also allowed the fewest number of sacks in the nfc east, yet we had the most losses.

[Touchdown Redskins]

I wonder which stat has the most direct correlation to games won (besides the point differential lol...). Sacks? 100 yard rusher on offense? Low ypc on defense? Turnover ratio? Penalties?

I would tend to think that turnover ratio has a huge impact on the game. That and stopping the run, so maybe ypc? Good question.

[nace14]

But maybe the few sacks we DID get lead to wins...lol

We also allowed the fewest number of sacks in the nfc east, yet we had the most losses.

hmmm....so what you are saying then is that more then one factor come into play when determining wins and losses? interresting...

[SkinsGuy]

3 and outs are overrated! (joking) Seriously though, I have not seen anyone say sacks are overrated.

That is b/c no one did. He is just setting up a straw man to knock down.

I've dueled it out with BLC on this. I never said sacks are overrated. I said sacks are not the be all and end all of a d-line's performance.

However much he tries to deny it, he bases how good a d-line is strictly on how many sacks they get. That is all he talks about in his posts.

Sacks are a great visual play. Watching an opposing QB get slammed to the ground by a 300+ pound lineman is fun to watch.

However, it is not what any d-lineman should be solely judged on.

Run defense support and consistent pressure are far more important things in Williams' defense than sack totals.

I want to see more sacks this season, obviously, but I won't judge any d-lineman strictly on that stat.

Unlike BLC, who seems to have the opinion that if a d-lineman doesn't get 15+ sacks a season, they suck.

As someone on another thread said so well, BLC is dangerously close to becoming to the defensive line what the poster "A.J Skins" was to the Patrick Ramsey situaion.

Obsessed!

[sikizler]

Sacks and Turnovers, Sacks and Turnovers. The only 2 words that should be spoken on defense this year.

I respectfully disagree. I think we need to focus on limiting the opponents' 3rd down conversions and allowing fewer 1st downs all together. That Minnesota game was painful, we could not get off the field on 3rd down and we paid dearly for it all night. I get that sacks and turnovers contribute significantly to getting off the field and they are great for momentum and excitemet. However, they should not be the focus of a great defense, rather the product of one.

Look at 2005, the 'skins D was suffocating but not taking the ball away or at the top of the league in sacks and how did that turn out? The Bengals that year led the league in take-a-ways but were no where near the top in total D. And I defy anyone to argue which side of the ball was the strength of those two teams.

If we play a sound defense, controlling the line of scrimmage and stopping the run, we can put the opposition in lots of 3rd and longs and thats when Gregg Williams releases the hounds. The sacks and turnovers will come.

[Drex]

3 and outs are overrated! (joking) Seriously though, I have not seen anyone say sacks are overrated.

Our very own defensive line coach Greg Blache, once said that sacks don't matter.

http://www.bearshistory.com/lore/passrushrevival.aspx

“In 2003, Dick Jauron disciple Greg Blache told the media that "sacks don't matter" in the scheme of his defense, and his players backed up his words, finishing with a franchise-low 18.

Contrary to Blache's feelings, new coach Lovie Smith has gone on the record stating that his defense will live or die by the presence or absence of a pass rush from his front four linemen.”

http://www.bearshistory.com/seasons/2004chicagobears.aspx

“Along with playing much cover-2 and reintroducing the blitz to Chicago, Smith’s defense also required a different type of defensive lineman. Smith’s predecessor, Greg Blache, made a profound statement when he said “sacks don’t matter,” and his line was built to reflect that. Instead of sleek, fast linemen, the line the new coach inherited was designed to stop the run first and contain the quarterback at the expense of pressuring him. The new scheme would require slimmer, faster linemen that would play a “one gap” scheme, instead of one that tied up linemen to allow linebackers to make plays. In fact, the new “Lovie Ball” defense would encourage all defenders to get up the field to the ballcarrier.”

I believe some tend to overlook the influence that Greg Blache's philosophy has on the personel and makeup of this defensive line, for better or worse.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

That is b/c no one did. He is just setting up a straw man to knock down.

I've dueled it out with BLC on this. I never said sacks are overrated. I said sacks are not the be all and end all of a d-line's performance.

However much he tries to deny it, he bases how good a d-line is strictly on how many sacks they get. That is all he talks about in his posts.

Sacks are a great visual play. Watching an opposing QB get slammed to the ground by a 300+ pound lineman is fun to watch.

However, it is not what any d-lineman should be solely judged on.

Run defense support and consistent pressure are far more important things in Williams' defense than sack totals.

I want to see more sacks this season, obviously, but I won't judge any d-lineman strictly on that stat.

Unlike BLC, who seems to have the opinion that if a d-lineman doesn't get 15+ sacks a season, they suck.

As someone on another thread said so well, BLC is dangerously close to becoming to the defensive line what the poster "A.J Skins" was to the Patrick Ramsey situaion.

Obsessed!

ive never said that a dline as a whole should be judged on sacks. frankly i could care less how many sacks a DT gets, as their main job is to plug holes. but our DEs should be judged a great deal on sacks, and we dont get a lot of them.

griffin in 04 had 6 sacks 17 stuffs for loss. as someone already pointed out, and stuff for loss is just as good as a sack. thats 23 takedowns in the backfield out of one player. that is BEAST. griffin had 1 takedown in the backfield last year. do the math. if a sack 70% of the time last year led to a three and out, and griffin had the equivalent of 23 of them in 04, thats incredible. but he doesnt do that anymore.

but yes, i think DEs should be judged a great deal on how many sacks they get. if there was a stat of "how many times a DE forced his runner inside" id be all ears on that one, but there most likely isnt.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Our very own defensive line coach Greg Blache, once said that sacks don't matter.

http://www.bearshistory.com/lore/passrushrevival.aspx

“In 2003, Dick Jauron disciple Greg Blache told the media that "sacks don't matter" in the scheme of his defense, and his players backed up his words, finishing with a franchise-low 18.

Contrary to Blache's feelings, new coach Lovie Smith has gone on the record stating that his defense will live or die by the presence or absence of a pass rush from his front four linemen.”

http://www.bearshistory.com/seasons/2004chicagobears.aspx

“Along with playing much cover-2 and reintroducing the blitz to Chicago, Smith’s defense also required a different type of defensive lineman. Smith’s predecessor, Greg Blache, made a profound statement when he said “sacks don’t matter,” and his line was built to reflect that. Instead of sleek, fast linemen, the line the new coach inherited was designed to stop the run first and contain the quarterback at the expense of pressuring him. The new scheme would require slimmer, faster linemen that would play a “one gap” scheme, instead of one that tied up linemen to allow linebackers to make plays. In fact, the new “Lovie Ball” defense would encourage all defenders to get up the field to the ballcarrier.”

I believe some tend to overlook the influence that Greg Blache's philosophy has on the personel and makeup of this defensive line, for better or worse.

thank you. morneblade has posted these quotes a few time and people seem to just overlook it.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

hmmm....so what you are saying then is that more then one factor come into play when determining wins and losses? interresting...

Not at all. I think that wins and losses are determined by the average shoe size of each teams' long snapper.

[nace14]

Not at all. I think that wins and losses are determined by the average shoe size of each teams' long snapper.

anyone beat a 12 E?

(anyone pick up the caddyshack referrence? i hate having to explain my jokes)

[Califan007 The Constipated]

anyone beat a 12 E?

(anyone pick up the caddyshack referrence? i hate having to explain my jokes)

:laugh:

[nemocystem]

i don't recall anyone making a logical argument that proposed sacks being an overrated statistic.

however...sacks by D-lineman in today's NFL is an overrated statistic. you'll see...of our 30+ (hopefully many more) sacks we will acquire this year, at least 40%-60% will be come from the Secondary or a LB. i GAURANTEE it!!!

[SkinsGuy]

Our very own defensive line coach Greg Blache, once said that sacks don't matter.

http://www.bearshistory.com/lore/passrushrevival.aspx

“In 2003, Dick Jauron disciple Greg Blache told the media that "sacks don't matter" in the scheme of his defense, and his players backed up his words, finishing with a franchise-low 18.

Contrary to Blache's feelings, new coach Lovie Smith has gone on the record stating that his defense will live or die by the presence or absence of a pass rush from his front four linemen.”

http://www.bearshistory.com/seasons/2004chicagobears.aspx

“Along with playing much cover-2 and reintroducing the blitz to Chicago, Smith’s defense also required a different type of defensive lineman. Smith’s predecessor, Greg Blache, made a profound statement when he said “sacks don’t matter,” and his line was built to reflect that. Instead of sleek, fast linemen, the line the new coach inherited was designed to stop the run first and contain the quarterback at the expense of pressuring him. The new scheme would require slimmer, faster linemen that would play a “one gap” scheme, instead of one that tied up linemen to allow linebackers to make plays. In fact, the new “Lovie Ball” defense would encourage all defenders to get up the field to the ballcarrier.”

I believe some tend to overlook the influence that Greg Blache's philosophy has on the personel and makeup of this defensive line, for better or worse.

The thing is, Drex, Blache's approach worked in '04 and '05.

The Redskins' defense were great even if we didn't have the most ferocious d-line in the league.

In '06, the defense collapsed. Primarily due to crippling injuries. Injuries were so bad, we had guys out there on Sundays playing that weren't even on the team when training camp was wrapping up.

That made the depth on the team bad. The players out there couldn't be put on islands. He had to put LBs out to help them (the LBs were also banged-up), which in turn caused the d-line (which was also banged-up) to suffer b/c they were not getting the support from the LBs, who usually make the plays while the d-linemen occupy the blockers.

With the failure of the Archuletta experiment, and the injuries mounting up, Williams was forced to play a type of "cover-2" D which neither he nor his players were accustomed too.

These were the main reasons for the defense's collapse in '06. Not b/c the d-line is old and they suck.

If the coaches are right, and the problems were in the back 7, then the d-line should do well b/c the back 7 (primarily the secondary) will be able to do their assignments, and Williams won't have to make moves to cover for them.

I'm not predicting a stellar 'D' this season. We have much better depth now, everyone is pretty much healthy, and we have a great (potentially sensational) prospect in Landry.

We will have to wait and see.

[ouvan59]

Contrary to Blache's feelings, new coach Lovie Smith has gone on the record stating that his defense will live or die by the presence or absence of a pass rush from his front four linemen.”

Funny that Lovie Smith didn't say that they would live or die by the sack. And that Blache comment is always taken out of context. People overreacted to his point which was that the number of sacks a team or player gets isn't important if they do other things well. He never said we don't want to pressure the QB.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20061227/ai_n17076823

"Brown contends that sacks are vastly overrated and don't take into account the total picture, such as every run down. He has a point, but sacks do pay -- and the Bears need to put a premium on reaching the quarterback the way their pass defense has performed in surrendering nine touchdowns in the last three games."

"Sometimes when you look at defensive linemen, you just look at their sacks and assume that you're playing well or you're not playing well," Smith said. "Tommie Harris had a stretch where he didn't get any sacks, but he was a dominant factor throughout that time."

[SkinsGuy]

but yes, i think DEs should be judged a great deal on how many sacks they get. if there was a stat of "how many times a DE forced his runner inside" id be all ears on that one, but there most likely isnt.

I'd suggest you read ouvan59's post above.

It shows how coaches do not judge a DE simply (or even greatly) on sacks alone.

[Touchdown Redskins]

ive never said that a dline as a whole should be judged on sacks. frankly i could care less how many sacks a DT gets, as their main job is to plug holes. but our DEs should be judged a great deal on sacks, and we dont get a lot of them.

griffin in 04 had 6 sacks 17 stuffs for loss. as someone already pointed out, and stuff for loss is just as good as a sack. thats 23 takedowns in the backfield out of one player. that is BEAST. griffin had 1 takedown in the backfield last year. do the math. if a sack 70% of the time last year led to a three and out, and griffin had the equivalent of 23 of them in 04, thats incredible. but he doesnt do that anymore.

but yes, i think DEs should be judged a great deal on how many sacks they get. if there was a stat of "how many times a DE forced his runner inside" id be all ears on that one, but there most likely isnt.

Griffin didn't do that anymore because he was hurting for one, and also our secondary (which was also hurting) wasn't giving him enough time to get to the QB.

DEs should not be judged primarily on sacks. In a perfect offensive scheme, the offense would run 50% of the time and pass 50% of the time. Since sacks only come on pass plays, you're saying that a DE should be judged by how he performs in HALF THE GAME??? What about the other half? If a DT's only job is to stuff the run, are they useless in passing situations? Does that mean that offenses only run at DTs and leave DEs alone because they are only pass rushers? You've never seen an offense run a toss or off tackle right at a DE? Are you watching the Arena league?

The whole reason we have someone like Phillip Daniels is because he plays the run as a DE, thus shoring up our run defense.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

The thing is, Drex, Blache's approach worked in '04 and '05.

The Redskins' defense were great even if we didn't have the most ferocious d-line in the league.

In '06, the defense collapsed. Primarily due to crippling injuries. Injuries were so bad, we had guys out there on Sundays playing that weren't even on the team when training camp was wrapping up.

That made the depth on the team bad. The players out there couldn't be put on islands. He had to put LBs out to help them (the LBs were also banged-up), which in turn caused the d-line (which was also banged-up) to suffer b/c they were not getting the support from the LBs, who usually make the plays while the d-linemen occupy the blockers.

With the failure of the Archuletta experiment, and the injuries mounting up, Williams was forced to play a type of "cover-2" D which neither he nor his players were accustomed too.

These were the main reasons for the defense's collapse in '06. Not b/c the d-line is old and they suck.

If the coaches are right, and the problems were in the back 7, then the d-line should do well b/c the back 7 (primarily the secondary) will be able to do their assignments, and Williams won't have to make moves to cover for them.

I'm not predicting a stellar 'D' this season. We have much better depth now, everyone is pretty much healthy, and we have a great (potentially sensational) prospect in Landry.

We will have to wait and see.

the redskins dline was great in 04. griffin - 23 takedowns in the backfield. i dont know what else youd want from a dline. i guarantee if griffin is able to duplicate that again we will have a sick defense. i jsut dont think he will. remember that was also 3 years ago, and in football years that a lot, especially for guys as aging as our dline.

if our dline is banged up (which it should be considering the injuries they had last year and their history with injuries and their age) i have no clue how you could see any improvement from them. why would they just magically stay healthy for a whole season after 2 straight seasons of hurting? its not logical. our only hope is that golston is good and that carter got better at stopping the run. you cannot count on griffin to do what he did in 04 when our defense was great. hes never come close to duplicating that performance again.