some interesting sack statistics for 06

[Drex]

Sacks are essentially the by-product of getting pressure on the quarterback. Teams that sack the qb typically get more pressure on the qb, as evidenced by the amount of sacks.

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=12131

“Asked to describe his crew of defensive linemen, Blache replied: "We have big strong guys, we play square-shoulder defense, we don't run around blocks, we don't free-lance and we don't take chances. We play sound fundamental football.”

Take a look at Blache's comments towards the prospect of bringing in Dwight Freeney as a free agent a year or two ago:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128972

“I think the one thing you have to understand, I don’t think you can take a Corvette motor and put it in an SUV. People see all this flash and glitter and they think that’s the ultimate answer. And its not. If that were the answer the Colts would’ve won the Super Bowl already.”

Blache's own quotes suggest that putting pressure on the qb is not the main responsibility of his defensive linemen:

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

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.

again, thats tommie harris, a DT, not a DE. i dont think a DT should be judged on sacks, they should be judged on rerouting runners, and clogging holes. if they can get into the backfield, awesome, it helps teh team. and whats that last line in the first quote?:

"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."

[#98QBKiller]

BLC, I thought you blew your own brains out when we drafted Landry and neglected the DL?

Either way, good to see you're still alive.

[Dan T.]

Thanks for this thread BLC. Good stuff.

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!!!

I would have thought the same thing, and expected as much when I took a quick look at the 19 from last season. But only 4 1/2 (29%) of the sacks came from LB's or D-backs. The rest (13 1/2) of the 19 sacks came from defensive linemen. Granted, the N is woefully low for any kind of statistical significance, but still. . .

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Pancakes are overrated...

I'm a waffles kinda guy myself.

[Touchdown Redskins]

Thanks for this thread BLC. Good stuff.

I would have thought the same thing, and expected as much when I took a quick look at the 19 from last season. But only 4 1/2 (29%) of the sacks came from LB's or D-backs. The rest (13 1/2) of the 19 sacks came from defensive linemen. Granted, the N is woefully low for any kind of statistical significance, but still. . .

Well, the thing is, we were behind in a lot of games to begin with, so Williams did not blitz as often. I'm sure if you look back two years during that five game winning streak, you'll see a lot of sacks and a higher percentage overall by non-Dlinemen.

[illone]

It's high time to forget about 2006 and look forward to 2007.

I mean camp has already started, BLC.

We all know the d-line sucked in 2006. I for one want to forget about it and enjoy the team and the games in 2007. Football is a team game. It is possible for players and units to play better than they did last season. I feel the team is going to play with a chip on it's shoulder this year, as evidenced by Gibbs focus thus far, and GW has admitted to being embarrassed as well. There is no evidence to point that the team hasn't taken steps forward on the d-line.

[sikizler]

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

Actually Daniels was brought in as a pass rusher. Wynn is better against the run.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Well, the thing is, we were behind in a lot of games to begin with, so Williams did not blitz as often.

Actually, the Skins were really only "behind" in 5 games the entire season (and telling enough, all five were against division rivals). In the other 11 games, the lead was either going back and fourth through the first three quarters, or the Skins held the lead.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Actually Daniels was brought in as a pass rusher. Wynn is better against the run.

if thats really true, then wow.

ill ask again related to the dline, if blache isnt about rushing his lineman and just stopping the run and allowing other guys to rush the passer, why bring in andre carter? hes a pure rusher, nothing more. it makes no sense for a defensive staff that claims its about containment to bring in a guy who is 100% NOT containment.

[Touchdown Redskins]

Actually Daniels was brought in as a pass rusher. Wynn is better against the run.

I meant in comparison to Andre Carter...shoulda specified. In any case, we do have a DE that's specific to the run.

Actually, the Skins were really only "behind" in 5 games the entire season (and telling enough, all five were against division rivals). In the other 11 games, the lead was either going back and fourth through the first three quarters, or the Skins held the lead.

It seems Williams only likes to blitz with a lead. I noticed in games that we were close in score we would not blitz as often. Maybe I'm wrong here, but it just seems we didn't blitz as much, and we blitzed more often two years ago (esp. during the streak) because we had a lead to play with.

[GURU]

I would always be wary of oversimplification. Sacks are important, but don't always tell the whole story. Often pass rush pressure can be just as effective, or even more effective, than a sack. Pressure on the passer often produces incompletions, or better, turnovers. Unfortunately, pressure stats are often hard to come by, and sometimes they are subjectively compiled.

One of the best examples of how sack totals can be deceiving is the 2000 Ravens defense. They compiled a total of 35 sacks that season. That's a fairly paltry number on it's own. But that was one of the best defensive units of all time.

I wouldn't say that sack totals are an overrated stat. But what was really missing from last year's defense was consistent pressure on opposing passers. That's reflected in the turnover totals, as well as opposing QB ratings.

Last year's defense was putrid in almost every statistical aspect, other than rushing TDs against, where the Skins were near the top. Again, I think that blaming last year's failure on any one particular defensive unit is an oversimplification. Lack of pass rush pressure was certainly a big one. But coaching strategy, injuries, lack of experience at certain positions were other big ones. Poor performance -- that is, players not playing up to their potential -- was another. Attitude, another.

Last season's defensive performance was a snowballing, catastrophic freefall. No easy fixes, but the Skins have tried to address many of them. It is eyebrow raising that they haven't made any personnel changes on the D-line. But I'm not convinced that personnel was the chief culprit for the unit-wide failures. The Skins have declined to sign any free agents, but when you really look, who's been available that will realistically help the pass rush? None of the free agent DTs were known for their pass rushing ability. And DEs? Simeon Rice is available. Where's he going to play? Could he start on the left side? Is the salary he's probably going to command appropriate to be a situational pass rusher?

Lotta questions. I'm interested to see how some of us think the Skins should have -- or still could -- address the pass rush this season.

[Aston]

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.

Solid post/thread BLC. While the idea of sacks ending drives may not be revolutionary or even new, I definately agree that in a game like football where things like momentum and rhythm are so cruicial, sacks really do wonders for effing things up for an offense.

The best part of your argument though is the idea of one sack changing the outcome of a game, which I agree it certainly can. We were a 5-11 team last year, but we could have been 3 sacks away from being an 8-8 playoff team. Our stats for the year were pretty awful in many aspects, but the truth of the matter is, we were competitive in just about every game last year, save about 3.

That's what the pessimest need to see. The difference between a 5-11 team and a 11-5 team can honestly be one sack a game. Or one turnover a game. One goalline stand that results in 3 instead of 7.

[Taylor 36]

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.

:applause: Great post!!!

[sikizler]

I meant in comparison to Andre Carter...shoulda specified. In any case, we do have a DE that's specific to the run.

It seems Williams only likes to blitz with a lead. I noticed in games that we were close in score we would not blitz as often. Maybe I'm wrong here, but it just seems we didn't blitz as much, and we blitzed more often two years ago (esp. during the streak) because we had a lead to play with.

You're right both Daniels and Wynn are better than Carter against the run.

Williams (and any other D-coordinator) will blitz more with the lead because the other team will be throwing more when they are behind.

[SonOfWashington]

Great stats. Now lets get more of those. :logo:

[pjfootballer]

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.

I do agree with you also that some good 3 and outs will help. But 19 and 12 are two of the lousiest and embarrassing numbers I've ever seen. Sacks, Turnovers and Stops need to go hand in hand obviously for a defense to do their job. But just like the Bengals example you used, there's always another defense like the Ravens (pick a year) that show that sacks and TO's make a difference also.

[BKSkinsFan]

We seem to be bringing up the Ravens quite a bit when comparing sack totals. Do you think it's not beneficial that they are playing with dbacks Samari Rolle, Chris McAlister, Landry, and Ed Reed?

Meanwhile we had Carlos Rogers, Kenny Wright/Sean Springs when half healthy/Mike Rumph, Adam Archuletta/Troy Vincent/Vernon Fox, and Sean Taylor as our starting lineup.

[sikizler]

I do agree with you also that some good 3 and outs will help. But 19 and 12 are two of the lousiest and embarrassing numbers I've ever seen. Sacks, Turnovers and Stops need to go hand in hand obviously for a defense to do their job. But just like the Bengals example you used, there's always another defense like the Ravens (pick a year) that show that sacks and TO's make a difference also.

I totally agree. I may have been unclear in my original explanation. When you said sacks and turnovers should be the only two words..., I was just saying that they shouldn't be the focus.

This time last year, Williams said he wanted to take the ball away more because that's what the great defenses do. Look at two great Super Bowl winning defenses in the last decade. Baltimore did it by flat out stopping the opponent. Tampa did it by making big plays (int. returns, etc.). But Baltimore had their share of big plays that were game changers. I think we can return to the '05 form and when the opportunities present themselves (which they will if we play well), we have to take advantage.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

We seem to be bringing up the Ravens quite a bit when comparing sack totals. Do you think it's not beneficial that they are playing with dbacks Samari Rolle, Chris McAlister, Landry, and Ed Reed?

Meanwhile we had Carlos Rogers, Kenny Wright/Sean Springs when half healthy/Mike Rumph, Adam Archuletta/Troy Vincent/Vernon Fox, and Sean Taylor as our starting lineup.

if you are meaning to say that the ravens had a lot of "coverage" sacks because their secondary held their opponents in check so long i would have to disagree. i think the intense pressure they got makes those guys look even better. ed reed supposedly had some of the worst coverage metrics last year according to joyner.

im not saying our secondary could have helped, but we had the worst pass rush in nfl history. theres a difference.

[Touchdown Redskins]

if you are meaning to say that the ravens had a lot of "coverage" sacks because their secondary held their opponents in check so long i would have to disagree. i think the intense pressure they got makes those guys look even better. ed reed supposedly had some of the worst coverage metrics last year according to joyner.

im not saying our secondary could have helped, but we had the worst pass rush in nfl history. theres a difference.

I think it's somewhere in between. Obviously they have more talent in their secondary than we do, which helps. The pass rush and the secondary go hand-in-hand, and each helps the other out. The Ravens have more talent in both places. As for the Joyner article, I read that a while back, and I wasn't impressed with the statistics he used. Yes, he's a professional, and I'm just an amateur, but there were definitely some flaws with his reasoning...plus some of these so-called analysts (read: Deion/Irvin) are idiots.

[skins4eva]

This is the kind of research I like to see here on Extremeskins. Nice job, BLC!

[skinny21]

I think it's somewhere in between. Obviously they have more talent in their secondary than we do, which helps. The pass rush and the secondary go hand-in-hand, and each helps the other out. The Ravens have more talent in both places. As for the Joyner article, I read that a while back, and I wasn't impressed with the statistics he used. Yes, he's a professional, and I'm just an amateur, but there were definitely some flaws with his reasoning...plus some of these so-called analysts (read: Deion/Irvin) are idiots.

In terms of Ed Reed, I think you're better off arguing that his coverage metrics weren't great because (as joyner mentions I believe) he was going for the big play quite often.

My impression was that last year we were doing a lot of things we were'nt comfortable with due to injuries, trying to get cute (I love you Gregg but you know what I'm talking about), lack of depth (and maybe scouting too - rumph and wright? seriously?) bad luck and bad bounces (see poster boy mr. rogers) and - first and foremost - not stopping the run.

Not stopping the run is going to slow down a pass rush and soften the secondary (the whole 8th guy in the box thing), especially w/ play action.

I'm guessing that Daniels, Griffin, Salave'a, Washington and Marshall were some of our best run stuffers the previous two years - with all of them injured last year our run D was screwed, which meant our pass D was screwed.

My hope is those guys healthy and the addition of fletcher and landry (not to mention mcintosh replacing holdman) helps us return to form.

Let's pray for good (maintained) health, more TOP by offense, better run d, more 3rd and longs. With these, I think sacks and turnovers will come.

[chiramu]

Great work. To me, it's almost like saying TDs are important. Of course they are! But TDs and sacks are the outcome of a lot of little things done right. They are not something you can point to one player to do and say go get more sacks/TDs.

The big question in my mind is what can a team do to maximize sacks. What are those little things that allow a team to have lots of sacks (that is in their control). GW's defense was a pressure defense in '05. In '06 they seemed to want to contain more than pressure (due to injuries and new players). What can coaches/players be doing this year to get their sacks up? Is it even in their control? Is it just a matter of D-line or LBs breaking through? Or is there something in how the safeties are used or what schemes are deployed that helps get more sacks? Anyone know?

[Smoot Point Really]

I'm going to throw in another interesting statistic... This was already done for the Chargers, but we shouldn't ignore the other team that everyone praises statistically on defense... The Ravens:

Ravens

Opponent - sacks in game (Sacks allowed by opponent all season)

@Tampa Bay - 3 (33)

Oakland - 6 (72)

@Cleveland - 7 (54)

San Diego - 1 (28)

@Denver - 1 (31)

Carolina - 1 (32)

@New Orleans - 2 (23)

Cincinnati - 2 (36)

@Tennessee - 2 (29)

Atlanta - 5 (47)

Pittsburgh - 9 (49)

@Cincinnati - 2 (36)

@Kansas City - 5 (41)

Cleveland - 6 (54)

@Pittsburgh - 5 (49)

Buffalo - 3 (47)

Indiannapolis - 1 (15)

Totals - 61 (676)

Average - 3.6 (39.7)

Subtracting Ravens sacks - 615

Average minus Ravens - 36.2

Redskins

Minnesota - 1 (43)

@Dallas - 1 (37)

@Houston - 1 (43)

Jacksonville - 4 (30)

@N.Y. Giants - 0 (25)

Tennessee - 4 (29)

@Indianapolis - 0 (15)

Dallas - 2 (37)

@Philadelphia - 1 (28)

@Tampa Bay - 0 (33)

Carolina - 1 (32)

Atlanta - 1 (47)

Philadelphia - 0 (28)

@New Orleans - 2 (23)

@St. Louis - 1 (49)

N.Y. Giants - 1 (25)

Totals - 20 (525)

Average - 1.3 (32.8)

Subtracting Redskins sacks - 505

Average minus Redskins sacks - 31.6

The Ravens played 7 games with teams who had given up 45 sacks or more on the season. The Redskins played only 2. BTW, I counted up game for game what each sack total was. I know the season stats only show the Redskins with 19, but oddly if you count up game sack totals it comes to 20. I think this is due to the fact that the Redskins had 1 sack that was for 0 yards and counted in game totals, but not on season totals.