A gripe about sacks... (1 Viewer)

[SSOG]

I'm sick and tired of the NFL publishing sack numbers. It's such an inane and useless statistic. If the NFL is trying to gauge how frequently a defender pressures the QB, wouldn't "Pressures" be a better statistic to use? And if the NFL is trying to gauge how frequently a player puts a team in worse position than it was the down before, wouldn't "tackles for a loss" be a better statistic?It annoys me, since sacks are spoken of in reverential tones as one of the most important statistics a defender can amass. A difference in 3 sacks for a player can mean a difference of millions and millions of dollars in their contract... and yet sacks are a fundamentally flawed statistic that offers absolutely NO advantage over "pressures" and "tackles for a loss". If a DE is about to bring down a QB, and he flips out the ball to the RB at the last instant, and the DE brings that RB down behind the line, that play just cost that DE millions of dollars, because it became a lowly "tackle for a loss" instead of a sack. What a joke.Am I missing something here?

 

[Kleck]

There's a good point in there somewhere. Seattle is among the lead leaders in sacks, but they have issues on the defensive side of the ball. Serious issues.

 

[Big Papi]

I wonder if there are any sabermetric-type defensive stats out there? Anyone done any searches? There might be some stat that is perfect, but doesn't get the hype of a sack.

 

[Keys Myaths]

and yet sacks are a fundamentally flawed statistic that offers absolutely NO advantage over "pressures"

Why not?A sack takes an offense 7 yards back, and a loss of down. That's incredibly difficult for an offensive team to dig out of.

With "pressures", you're including incompletions (3rd and 5 is a LOT more manageable than 3rd and 12), and quarterbacks who escape pressure and do something good with the ball.

Actually taking down the quarterback, instead of just forcing him to run around is a better result.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'm sick and tired of the NFL publishing sack numbers. It's such an inane and useless statistic. If the NFL is trying to gauge how frequently a defender pressures the QB, wouldn't "Pressures" be a better statistic to use? And if the NFL is trying to gauge how frequently a player puts a team in worse position than it was the down before, wouldn't "tackles for a loss" be a better statistic?

It annoys me, since sacks are spoken of in reverential tones as one of the most important statistics a defender can amass. A difference in 3 sacks for a player can mean a difference of millions and millions of dollars in their contract... and yet sacks are a fundamentally flawed statistic that offers absolutely NO advantage over "pressures" and "tackles for a loss". If a DE is about to bring down a QB, and he flips out the ball to the RB at the last instant, and the DE brings that RB down behind the line, that play just cost that DE millions of dollars, because it became a lowly "tackle for a loss" instead of a sack. What a joke.

Am I missing something here?

I could not agree more with you.

What is better, sacking the quarterback for a three yard loss or tackling a RB who caught a screen five yards behind the line of scrimmage? The latter, of course, but it merely goes down as a tackle while the former goes down as a sack.

And I have seen QB's scramble forward to avoid the rush and get tackled for a one or two-yard sack.

Or what about defensive lineman who play on great teams who always have a lead. When your opponent is forced to throw often, you have a much greater chance at getting sacks, as opposed to a great defensive lineman who might be on a bad team.

 

[jwvdcw]

and yet sacks are a fundamentally flawed statistic that offers absolutely NO advantage over "pressures"

Why not?A sack takes an offense 7 yards back, and a loss of down. That's incredibly difficult for an offensive team to dig out of.

With "pressures", you're including incompletions (3rd and 5 is a LOT more manageable than 3rd and 12), and quarterbacks who escape pressure and do something good with the ball.

Actually taking down the quarterback, instead of just forcing him to run around is a better result.

I agree that a sack is better than a pressure, but I think that "pressures" should get more publicity, as a lineman who is getting a lot of pressures but not a lot of sacks is still helping his team a lot. And I also agree with the topic starter that it should be changed from 'sacks' to 'tackles fo a loss' to include tackling the RB(or WR) for a loss.

 

[thatguy]

Also, a lot of times if the QB is scrambling and gets tackled behind the line, the defender does not get credited with a sack. I guess if the official scorer determines that the QB had decided to give up on the pass and run, it is only a tackle. This happened when Darrent Williams tackles Bledsoe for a 2 yard loss in the Thanksgiving game. He was not credited with a sack.

 

[RAPTURE]

...but nice stats do not always translate into nice paydays for players (and visa versa). GM's, for the most part, recognize a defensive player's overall ability...not just sack and pass-rush ability. For example, let's look at Derrick Burgess. Prior to the '05 season, he only had 8.5 sacks and a boat-load of injuries for his three career seasons. The Raiders evulated Burgess on his ability...not his stats...and awarded him a five-year, $17.5mm deal. The result?? Burgess has 15 sacks and counting.The list goes on and on...Kyle Vanden Bosch ~ two blown ACL's and 3.5 career sacks prior to '05etcetcThe fans dwell on the stats. The GM's who write the paychecks dwell on ability.

 

[Kleck]

Pondered this for a bit. Couple of questions.

I'm sick and tired of the NFL publishing sack numbers. It's such an inane and useless statistic. If the NFL is trying to gauge how frequently a defender pressures the QB, wouldn't "Pressures" be a better statistic to use?

When I read this it sounds like you think the NFL is "pushing" this as some sort of glamour statistic. I don't see how publishing the stat does this on its own. Its just a stat.

And if the NFL is trying to gauge how frequently a player puts a team in worse position than it was the down before, wouldn't "tackles for a loss" be a better statistic?

Is the NFL trying to gauge how frequently a player puts a team in a worse position? Why would they care about this? Isn't it the reader that places emphasis on the statistic?I guess I don't get it. Are we looking for a better way to determine how good a defense is? Wouldn't points allowed be the best measure? Actually, if you're looking for an objective measure so you can compare teams points allowed might not be the best. Like I said above, the Seattle defense has serious issues, but they've had a slide schedule. Not sure how we could factor all that together.

 

[SSOG]

and yet sacks are a fundamentally flawed statistic that offers absolutely NO advantage over "pressures"

Why not?A sack takes an offense 7 yards back, and a loss of down. That's incredibly difficult for an offensive team to dig out of.

With "pressures", you're including incompletions (3rd and 5 is a LOT more manageable than 3rd and 12), and quarterbacks who escape pressure and do something good with the ball.

Actually taking down the quarterback, instead of just forcing him to run around is a better result.

If the NFL tracked Pressures *AND* Tackles for a loss, then a lineman would still get rewarded for a sack. He'd get a pressure, and he'd get a tackle for a loss. If he pressured without tackling, he'd get the pressure. If he tackled without pressuring, he'd get the tackle for a loss. See, isn't that much more descriptive of what actually happened on the field?

Pondered this for a bit. Couple of questions.

I'm sick and tired of the NFL publishing sack numbers. It's such an inane and useless statistic. If the NFL is trying to gauge how frequently a defender pressures the QB, wouldn't "Pressures" be a better statistic to use?

When I read this it sounds like you think the NFL is "pushing" this as some sort of glamour statistic. I don't see how publishing the stat does this on its own. Its just a stat.

And if the NFL is trying to gauge how frequently a player puts a team in worse position than it was the down before, wouldn't "tackles for a loss" be a better statistic?

Is the NFL trying to gauge how frequently a player puts a team in a worse position? Why would they care about this? Isn't it the reader that places emphasis on the statistic?I guess I don't get it. Are we looking for a better way to determine how good a defense is? Wouldn't points allowed be the best measure? Actually, if you're looking for an objective measure so you can compare teams points allowed might not be the best. Like I said above, the Seattle defense has serious issues, but they've had a slide schedule. Not sure how we could factor all that together.

I guess I just don't see the advantage sacks have as a statistic over pressures and tackles for a loss. It seems like a super-precise and non-descriptive statistic. Why doesn't the NFL keep track of tackles on WR screens? Why don't they keep track of completions of over 20 yards to TEs? These stats are just too precise and non-descriptive to be of much use. I feel like sacks fall in that same category.Anyway, you sound like the kind of guy who would be interested, so I'll try the pitch. I've been pushing this independent football stats site, www.footballoutsiders.com , all season. I really think they're the best thing to happen to football analysis since... well, since ever. What they do is they record the result of every single play in the entire NFL. They then chart whether this play was "successful" or not (with success being defined as getting 40% of the necessary yards on 1st down, 60% on 2nd down, or 100% on 3rd/4th down) and award "success points" based on how successful it was (an 8 yard completion on 1st and 10 = successful, an 8 yard completion on 3rd and 16 = unsuccessful). They then adjust this for down, distance, situation (i.e. score and time remaining), and quality of the opponent.

Say for instance a team runs for 4 yards on 1st down. That's normally an alright play. Now let's say that this team runs for 4 yards on 1st down with a 14 point lead against the Chicago Bears defense. The system would recognize that this was a VERY good play, given the situation and opponent, and reward it accordingly. Anyway, the end result is a rating of every team based on exactly how well it performed against the competition that it faced. They also have a whole bunch of other neat stats, and they update the stats every week, weighting them to place emphasis on more recent weeks.

They've run several regressions, and their stats correlate better with future wins than points scored, points allowed, scoring differential, winning percentage, yards per attempt, or any other straight NFL stat out there. A couple of the loyal readers have been charting all season and their stats ALSO correlate better to wins than any of the other Power Rankings published by the major sports site (ESPN, SI, CBS Sportsline). So obviously the stats work.

Like I said, I've been pimping them all season, because I really think it's great, insightful stuff. If you've always wished better statistics existed than simple yards and points allowed, this is the site for you.

Earlier this season, they got picked up by Fox Sports, who uses their stats for their power rankings, so you might have been exposed to the numbers, even if you didn't know what they were. They caught a LOT of heat last offseason and even more early this season because their stats maintained that the Atlanta Falcons were essentially a mediocre team... and we all know how that worked out. Their stats also predicted this recent explosion by the Redskins, as well as last year's midseason turnaround of the Panthers and the Packers. Even MORE impressively, their stats predicted Seattle's offensive explosion this last offseason, and the year before predicted that San Diego would have one of the best offenses in the entire NFL (remember, SD was just coming off of a 4-12 season and a SD columnist joked that they were the worst team on their own schedule). And last season, they won King Kaufman's preseason prediction award, which he hands out to the media outlet or prognosticator whose preseason playoff predictions most closely predicted the actual playoff teams.

 

[Bri]

I'm sick and tired of the NFL publishing sack numbers. It's such an inane and useless statistic. If the NFL is trying to gauge how frequently a defender pressures the QB, wouldn't "Pressures" be a better statistic to use? And if the NFL is trying to gauge how frequently a player puts a team in worse position than it was the down before, wouldn't "tackles for a loss" be a better statistic?

It annoys me, since sacks are spoken of in reverential tones as one of the most important statistics a defender can amass. A difference in 3 sacks for a player can mean a difference of millions and millions of dollars in their contract... and yet sacks are a fundamentally flawed statistic that offers absolutely NO advantage over "pressures" and "tackles for a loss". If a DE is about to bring down a QB, and he flips out the ball to the RB at the last instant, and the DE brings that RB down behind the line, that play just cost that DE millions of dollars, because it became a lowly "tackle for a loss" instead of a sack. What a joke.

Am I missing something here?

well rooted post but I think it's extreme. ALL defensive stats are different at different sites. Teams keep their own and, as you know, break down the film themselves. If I'm not mistaken, Strahan got his last giant contract after a poor season(sack wise) not after a stellar one. Before Osi he was triple teamed and his #s were going down. It didn't matter in negotiations. What matterred is his presence cuts the field in half for the offense.

 

[Demian]

There are three easy reasons why sacks are important:1. Offense is moving backwards2. It's basically a loss of down3. A hit was definitively put on the QB (which could pay off immediately or later)

 

[Chaos Commish]

Why doesn't the NFL keep track of tackles on WR screens?

I'm exhausted from a rare day of excessive labor (cleaning the garage), so I cannot elaborate, but I disagree very strongly with everything your're saying. So, I left only the sentence above to say: THEY DO. For pete's sake the media lionizes sacks, not NFL management. These guys squeeze stats to the nth degree in regard to every situation and angle imagineable. To believe they don't seems terribly naive. And to believe a player loses millions because his pressure wasn't a sack or his tackle for a loss wasn't a sack is silly. These are big businesses run by men desperate for every possible edge. An article on the Vikings stats crunchers in the preseason is out there somewhere and they make Football Outsiders look novice. That's the Vikings. Parcells is a stats freak. Belichick is a stats freak. These guys (all of them) live for this stuff and get paid alot of money for looking at every possible angle, for seeking any edge they can find. Criminy have you ever seen the scouting film these guys have access to? Even the players have to sit through hours of it, studying every single player in every single situation. NFL players are scrutinized for every single play of every single game by every single team.

 

[KevT]

How about a stat that's for stopping a RB for 0 or negative yards?

 

[thatguy]

How about a stat that's for stopping a RB for 0 or negative yards?

I think they have this. It's called a stuff.

 

[KevT]

How about a stat that's for stopping a RB for 0 or negative yards?

I think they have this. It's called a stuff.

I don't see it, looked at Burgess.http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/235199

 

[thatguy]

How about a stat that's for stopping a RB for 0 or negative yards?

I think they have this. It's called a stuff.

I don't see it, looked at Burgess.http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/235199

They are not listed everywhere, and I'm not sure why, but here is a place they are listed:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=4680

These are for Al Wilson. However, they only list them for his game logs, and not in his overall stats.

 

[BoltBacker]

You could make the same argument about plenty of defensive stats. For instance "passes defensed", tackles, and INT's are often a result of a CB that doesn't cover neary as well as his own teamate so he gets picked on all the time. Often times the best CB's in the game get the worst stats because nobody wants to get the ball anywhere near them.

 

[BoltBacker]

How about a stat that's for stopping a RB for 0 or negative yards?

I think they have this. It's called a stuff.

I think stuffs should have the same point total as sacks in IDP leagues. With sacks there are often yardage associated, do they also have yardage associated with stuffs?

 

[thatguy]

How about a stat that's for stopping a RB for 0 or negative yards?

I think they have this. It's called a stuff.

I think stuffs should have the same point total as sacks in IDP leagues. With sacks there are often yardage associated, do they also have yardage associated with stuffs?

I think they do keep track of yards lost. I used to be able to find the stat on ESPN, but now the only place I can find it is in the link above for Al Wilson, and that doesn't show yards.I remember looking at the stat last season though, when I thought DJ Williams was just as deserving of DROY as Vilma, and one of the arguments for it was he had significantly more stuff.s

 

[BoltBacker]

I remember looking at the stat last season though, when I thought DJ Williams was just as deserving of DROY as Vilma, and one of the arguments for it was he had significantly more stuff.s

Tough call, they are both so good. I can see you working, tackles behind the line of scrimmage should count a ton more than just any tackle(be they 6 yards past the line of scrimmage or wherever).Perhaps we should be rewarding players in FF less on stats that don't mean as much(like tackles and pass receptions for instance) and more for stats that are much more meaningful(like stuffs and receptions for first downs for instance). I've long felt first downs was a very meaningful stat that doesn't get included in many scoring systems but catching a ball for a first down means so much more than some silly 3 yard slant or screen pass.

 

[Helm]

I'm sick and tired of the NFL publishing sack numbers. It's such an inane and useless statistic.

Sacks do not feel the same as tackling for a loss, or any other kind of tackle. I'm talking about actually playing the game, there is more to football that statistics.

If the NFL is trying to gauge how frequently a defender pressures the QB, wouldn't "Pressures" be a better statistic to use? And if the NFL is trying to gauge how frequently a player puts a team in worse position than it was the down before, wouldn't "tackles for a loss" be a better statistic?

Pressuring the QB is already used in the game of football. Tackling for a loss is already used in the game of football. QB's are not suppose to get hit... ever. RB's job is to get hit... a lot. This is where the importance of protecting the QB from a sack is extremely important for an OL, and highly regarded for a defensive lineman.

It annoys me, since sacks are spoken of in reverential tones as one of the most important statistics a defender can amass. A difference in 3 sacks for a player can mean a difference of millions and millions of dollars in their contract... and yet sacks are a fundamentally flawed statistic that offers absolutely NO advantage over "pressures" and "tackles for a loss".

I'd say it has a big advantage over pressures since with a sack it means you actually bring down the QB. Saying it has no advantage is like saying a tipped ball has no advantage over an interception. Yards lost is already incorporated with sacks, as it is with tackles. More of a subcategory, as it should be.

If a DE is about to bring down a QB, and he flips out the ball to the RB at the last instant, and the DE brings that RB down behind the line, that play just cost that DE millions of dollars, because it became a lowly "tackle for a loss" instead of a sack. What a joke.

Am I missing something here?

Maybe it did cost him some money, but are we still talking about football or money? I guess what I'm trying to say, and it is hard to put into words... is that football is a very fun sport to watch and to play. You can't analyze the meaning or importance of several football terms unless you have experienced them yourself and no the differerence not by words but by feeling.................................................................................

........................................

Do people just delete threads in here they don't understand? Sounds kind of nazi to me.

 

[rhawkins68]

Why doesn't the NFL keep track of tackles on WR screens?

NFL players are scrutinized for every single play of every single game......

This is the correct answer. Everything the player does is evaulated period end of story. From walking onto the practice field, into the gym, arriving to meetings, how they play, study, etc. A fan stat is not the end all of signing a player.

 

[SSOG]

Pressuring the QB is already used in the game of football. Tackling for a loss is already used in the game of football. QB's are not suppose to get hit... ever. RB's job is to get hit... a lot. This is where the importance of protecting the QB from a sack is extremely important for an OL, and highly regarded for a defensive lineman.

Well, then why doesn't someone track "knocked down" stats? I mean, a QB can get hit a TON without ever getting sacked. If hitting the QB was so important, why wouldn't more emphasis be put on that stat?I don't know, I just think the sack is too specific and undescriptive of a statistic.

Just look at it for fantasy football purposes, if nothing else. A player is rewarded more for tackling the QB for a 1 yard loss than for tackling the RB for a 38 yard loss.