Sacks: the fault of the OL or QB?
oldn...@mindspring.com
~~
... The median sack time has hovered between 2.7 and 2.8 seconds throughout the two years of the tracking...
Roethlisberger, Michael Vick, Colt McCoy and Joe Flacco join Cutler in picking up plenty of sacks that really shouldn't be blamed on the offensive line...
Over the past offseason we logged the time of pass for all Steelers pass attempts in 2010. Since Roethlisberger is considered to be prime example of a quarterback who creates big plays by holding the ball and escaping sacks, his statistics are useful.
In Roethlisberger’s case, his sack percentage (the percentage of pass plays that results in sacks) doubled when he held the ball for longer than three seconds -- seven percent for passes of 2.1 to 3.0 seconds, 14 percent for passes that took between 3.1 and 4.0 seconds.
Interestingly, his quarterback rating, yards per attempt and first down percentage all dipped when he held the ball for more than three seconds, so it’s difficult to say that holding the ball longer really pays off for Roethlisberger.
On the other end of the spectrum, when the Colts lost Peyton Manning to a neck injury, they not only lost one of the best quarterbacks in the league, but they also lost a quarterback who could make their offensive line's potential weaknesses seem to disappear.
Over the past two years, Manning has been sacked only 26 times. When you look at sacks that are created by a quarterback holding the ball too long, however, Manning is even more exceptional. No other quarterback can top Manning’s four sacks of three-plus seconds in 1,250 pass attempts (0.32 percent of attempts).
[Table for all QBs for 2009 and 2010 -- Sanchez is near the exact middle of them all]
LONGEST SACK OF THE WEEK
There were four sacks which took six seconds or longer ...
Tony Romo's 6.0-second sack is the one that may be most remembered: it came on the play where he attempted to dive for the end zone from the Jets 3-yard line. He lost the ball before he landed, didn't make it to the end zone and gave the Jets a second chance...
http://footballoutsiders.com/under-pressure/2011/under-pressure
~~~~~
"One potato, two potato, three potato, **throw the damn ball, Tony!**", ... starting week #2. :-)
Papa Carl
<oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:552708.509.1316297224818.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqgn17...
This is way too simplistic..extremely so. We need to examine each play, the
steps in the drop, the development of the play. And a QB who is seeing
pressure almost immediately after the snap will not react the same way as
when the protection execution is in tact from the start. Essentially, the
guy needs to be able to get into his drop as designed. Cutler is the one
I'd say is a huge problem though...Vick tries too hard at times and keeps
trying to buy time. But, Vick's mechanics are excellent even when he is
avoiding things. I think a lot of these statistics are generated just to
generate a number...they don't really mean anything, each play needs to be
analyzed to see what is going on.
Percy Flage
two or three yard line and Romo was tackled and fumbled at the one
(IIRC), ergo not a sack.
--
Percy Flage
"Life is too short to have to explain everyday."
Harlan Lachman
buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> Every drive, every set of downs, every play... is like a snowflake ;)
>
> Each is a unique set of circumstances.
> Last Sunday, in a certain situation, "A" happened.
> Today, in the exact same situation, there will be different factors at play.
>
> In the 1st quarter today, it's possible the Jets could score a TD, even with
> Schott
> designing the script, & calling the plays. Statistically, based on 16
> straight games,
> that would be impossible.
> But because of the snowflake factor, we'll all be watchin' & hopin' for a
> different
> outcome.
>
> Sacks are sometimes the fault of the QB... sometimes the fault of OL...
> sometimes both...
> sometimes because the D-coach, just happened to luck out & call the right
> alignment...
> sometimes because a WR slipped... sometimes, sometimes, sometimes...
Great post. While stats can be a guide for looking at snowflake
tendencies, until proven otherwise (and probably even it is), snowflakes
are just different.
harlan
oldn...@mindspring.com
So you guys really believe that QBs who hang around and are slow to get rid of the ball *don't* get sacked more often? Really??
And during all these years I'd heard so often that quick releases -- from Namath's to Marino's to Peyton's -- were great assets to a QB, for all the sacks it let them avoid. Go figure.
Another word for "stat" is "fact".
The fact that QBs who hold on to the ball longest get sacked the most doesn't indicate that QBs who hold on to the ball longest get sacked the most because of it, because all butterflies are different. I guess meaning QBs are butterflies.
By the same logic I'd take it that the fact that drunk drivers crash their cars the most doesn't indicate that being a drunk driver increases the risk of crashing a car, because all drunks are butterflies. Each drunk is different.
Papa Carl
<oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3463027.535.1316373085757.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqih9...
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
NO...never said that. However, you can not measure any of this based on
that simple statistic. You could have 25 plays where the ball is released
well under three seconds. Perhaps they could be quick outs to a wide
receiver, or a split screen or pop screen, the ball goes out quickly and the
result is a two yard gain or even no gain to a loss. It will still "pad"
the statistic in favor of a completion, no sack alligned with a quick
release. Now, the next thing that needs to be observed is exactly where the
pressure comes from, under blitzes, what was the breakdown in protection and
exactly how quickly did the pressure occur...THAT fact can influence how
long the QB holds the ball and has NOTHING to do with the QB's abilities.
If immediate pressure presents on a play that was supposed to be a quick
throw or a three step drop, and doing anything other than aborting the play
and scrambling would result in an interception or some other unwanted
action...then you can not measure that without creating a separate category
for it. On top of that there is an even more important factor and that is
how quick is the QB's release. He may need to hold the ball for two seconds
to allow a GOOD play to develop, but then when it does his release is quick
and accurate...that factor is way more important than the total time he held
the ball. There are 22 players on the field at any given time...so to not
take into account what is happening and create a meaningful stat without
knowing WHAT was going on in that situation makes no sense. Now...if you
want to break it all down to all the possible situations that could occur
post snap...go ahead, it may mean something then.PC
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And during all these years I'd heard so often that quick releases -- from
Namath's to Marino's to Peyton's -- were great assets to a QB, for all the
sacks it let them avoid. Go figure.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
I've always looked at quick RELEASE as how the ball is delivered once the
target is selected...not how long they held on to the ball...the QB may have
had to scramble, move around but when the receiver broke open the release is
QUICK...and delivered at the right time.PC
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Another word for "stat" is "fact".
The fact that QBs who hold on to the ball longest get sacked the most
doesn't indicate that QBs who hold on to the ball longest get sacked the
most because of it, because all butterflies are different. I guess meaning
QBs are butterflies.
By the same logic I'd take it that the fact that drunk drivers crash their
cars the most doesn't indicate that being a drunk driver increases the risk
of crashing a car, because all drunks are butterflies. Each drunk is
different.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bad analogy....try this model to look at this...Driver is a "host"...alcohol
is a "substance"...and H + S = measurable and predictable result. So drunk
driver's are impaired and it can be measured. To make the analogy fit you'd
have to start rating QB's who all have the same shoulder injury that makes
then slower. Look, the facts are some of the greatest plays in football
have been when a QB can elude the attack and use his skills and a "quick
release" to deliver a ball to the intended target...it may happen when he is
scrambling and when he has held the ball way too long. To create any
statistic you can not simply look at the QB...you must create a level and
type of QB, type of play and then level of the O line also. Everybody knows
that if you hold the ball too long something bad will happen..but to try and
place the blame simply on the QB doesn't work when there are significant
outliers to that premise. Still....I'd love the QB to get rid of the
ball...and in the game today it becomes even more important because of the
rules and the speed of the game.