Jump to content

Most Team QB Pressures …


jetsons

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Considering that they are like 21st in attempts against and I think it is only 214 attempts, that is pretty impressive.

Well I think the Jets and Cowboys are the only team in that list up top that has played 6 games rather than 7.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Adoni Beast said:

Sacks are overrated. The pressure is the key stat. Let’s keep creating turnovers though!

 

1 hour ago, MysticalJet2 said:

I agree.  Continuous pressure has a major impact on QBs late in the game. They start to feel pressure even when it’s not there, leading to quicker passes and bad throws.  

 

1 hour ago, Smashmouth said:

I think  pressures cause more turnovers than Sacks. It causes NFL QB's to make errant throws and bad decisions that lead to INT's. Would be nice to actually see a stat that shows which leads to more turnovers.

Also keep in mind on a pressure that forces the QB out of the pocket into the hands of someone that would not have had a chance to otherwise tackle the QB and force a turnover who really made the play happen the tackler or the guy who applied initial pressure

lol … you can have 100 pressures 0 sacks

& I’ll have 100 sacks & 0 pressures …

I’ll take the sacks Every Time … Sacks have the Same Effect on a QB in them hearing the footsteps & rushing the play, it has the Much Greater Effect of Hitting the QB EVERY TIME…

ps- sacks Lead to turnovers as well. 😉

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hex said:

I would be interested to see how directly pressure correlates to plays and drives.

Good question, although the Jets and Cowboys have both had their bye already, while for example, Detroit/Philly/Baltimore/SF have all played one additional game. 

I'm sure there is a correlation, but it might not be as strong as you would think

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I think you have it backwards.

A sack is a definitive positive play for the Defense.  The Offense loses a down and yards, period.

A pressure can be anything.  You can get a pressure, and the Offense still score a 50 yard passing TD.

Sacks require little context.

Pressures are 100% about their context.

Sacks are objective.  They happen or not.

Pressures are subjective, some one is deciding if a guy "pressured" the QB or not.

Especially when those pressures lead to QBs running all over us. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I think you have it backwards.

A sack is a definitive positive play for the Defense.  The Offense loses a down and yards, period.

A pressure can be anything.  You can get a pressure, and the Offense still score a 50 yard passing TD.

Sacks require little context.

Pressures are 100% about their context.

Sacks are objective.  They happen or not.

Pressures are subjective, some one is deciding if a guy "pressured" the QB or not.

A sack can be anything. 

A QB scrambles.  He runs out of bounds a centimeter behind the LOS and he is sacked.

I get your point that sacks are a little more objective and definitive. 

My argument is the Jets have 13 sacks.  They have 141 pressures.  While pressures might be more subjective, they are doing it at a much higher rate.  The two Bills have always said pressure is more important.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I think you have it backwards.

A sack is a definitive positive play for the Defense.  The Offense loses a down and yards, period.

A pressure can be anything.  You can get a pressure, and the Offense still score a 50 yard passing TD.

Sacks require little context.

Pressures are 100% about their context.

Sacks are objective.  They happen or not.

Pressures are subjective, some one is deciding if a guy "pressured" the QB or not.

Yep, I think you nailed it. I think both sacks and pressures are important, but I think you hit on the biggest issue with pressures, which is that they are subjective and difficult to reliably document. 

and, of course, for the reasons you described, sacks are also clearly superior to pressures. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, PFSIKH said:

A sack can be anything. 

A QB scrambles.  He runs out of bounds a centimeter behind the LOS and he is sacked.

I get your point that sacks are a little more objective and definitive. 

My argument is the Jets have 13 sacks.  They have 141 pressures.  While pressures might be more subjective, they are doing it at a much higher rate.  The two Bills have always said pressure is more important.  

I think pressures alone simply isn't a stat on it's own. 

Taking out the objection at it being subjective (was that really a "pressure", I say yes, but you say no, what then?) but the vital nature of context.

Pressures should never be listed as a stat alone, it should always include the net results of the "pressure" play as well. 

i.e. I have one pressure for an 0-1, no yards result.

Or I have one pressure for a 1-1, 80 passing yard TD

Or I have one pressure for a scramble run for 70 yards and a TD.

Without the result, the pressure itself carries no real inherent meaning for evaluation.  Yes, you (may) have gotten close to a QB, but what actually happened is what matters, not what ALMOST happened.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PFSIKH said:

A sack can be anything. 

A QB scrambles.  He runs out of bounds a centimeter behind the LOS and he is sacked.

I get your point that sacks are a little more objective and definitive. 

My argument is the Jets have 13 sacks.  They have 141 pressures.  While pressures might be more subjective, they are doing it at a much higher rate.  The two Bills have always said pressure is more important.  

Pressures are very important and all good pass defenses pressure the QB, BUT to be clear, sacks aren't merely "a little more objective and definitive" - they are objective and definitive, while pressures are not.

The QB is stopped with the ball at or behind the LOS - that's a sack. It's objective and not open to interpretation. A pressure is fundamentally not like that. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

I think pressures alone simply isn't a stat.  Taking out the offense at it being subjective (was that really a "pressure, I say yes, but you say no, what then?) but the vital nature of context.

Pressures should never be listed as a stat alone, it should always include the net results of the "pressure" play as well. 

i.e. I have one pressure for an 0-1, no yards result.

Or I have one pressure for a 1-1, 80 passing yard TD

Or I have one pressure for a scramble run for 70 yards and a TD.

Without the result, the pressure itself carries no real inherent meaning for evaluation.  Yes, you (may) have gotten close to a QB, but what actually happened is what matters, not what ALMOST happened.

Even so.. The jets have the most pressures playing 1 less game than most teams... Even if you cancel out some of them because they are not in your terms reliable stats... Every team in the NFL is measured by the same metric... 

You can denegrate the statistic all you want it is still very impressive whether or not it effects the play or not.. But you could see from the eagles game that hurts was seeing ghosts by the end of the game, not from sacks but pressures.. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, PFSIKH said:

 

My argument is the Jets have 13 sacks.  They have 141 pressures.  While pressures might be more subjective, they are doing it at a much higher rate.  The two Bills have always said pressure is more important.  

Let's put it this way, if the Jets had 141 sacks instead of 141 pressures, we'd be undefeated and the greatest defense of all time through 6 weeks of play. 

That's why sacks are superior to pressures, lol. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Reasonable Jets Fan said:

Even so.. The jets have the most pressures playing 1 less game than most teams... Even if you cancel out some of them because they are not in your terms reliable stats... Every team in the NFL is measured by the same metric... 

You can denegrate the statistic all you want it is still very impressive whether or not it effects the play or not.. But you could see from the eagles game that hurts was seeing ghosts by the end of the game, not from sacks but pressures.. 

oh yea, It's definitely important. 

It's also impressive how many we have compared to certain teams. Our DL definitely win a lot of one on one battles - that is hard to dismiss. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I think you have it backwards.

A sack is a definitive positive play for the Defense.  The Offense loses a down and yards, period.

A pressure can be anything.  You can get a pressure, and the Offense still score a 50 yard passing TD.

Sacks require little context.

Pressures are 100% about their context.

Sacks are objective.  They happen or not.

Pressures are subjective, some one is deciding if a guy "pressured" the QB or not.

Both are important; it's not an either/or. Sacks are more definitive re the play, of course. But constant pressure is disruptive in its own right. Context does matter with pressure... where the pressure occurs vis-a-vis the style of the QB, for example, can collapse a play or affect it minimally... see Brady vs. pressure up the middle vs. from the edge. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Adoni Beast said:

Sacks are overrated. The pressure is the key stat. Let’s keep creating turnovers though!

Exact opposite, pressures are overate sacks underrated.

A 'pressured' QB can dump it off for a huge gain, beat the pressure and make a big play, all sorts of positive plays can happen when a QB is pressured.

With a sack the vast majority of the time the drive is over with the loss of down and yards and actually getting your hands on the QB is what cause turnovers more so than just 'pressure'

Pressures?   Good (especially when the jets rarely blitz)

Sacks?  Much better

  • Upvote 1
  • WTF? 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Reasonable Jets Fan said:

Even so.. The jets have the most pressures playing 1 less game than most teams... Even if you cancel out some of them because they are not in your terms reliable stats... Every team in the NFL is measured by the same metric... 

You can denegrate the statistic all you want it is still very impressive whether or not it effects the play or not.. But you could see from the eagles game that hurts was seeing ghosts by the end of the game, not from sacks but pressures.. 

Happy to agree to disagree, for reasons and objections already stated. 

I would argue that one has no idea if it's 'impressive' or not without having the context of play result on those so-called pressures.  For example, we do not know (with just the pressures 'stat" alone) that the Jets might actually be dead last in the league for allowing offensive success rate on pressures, do we.  If that were true (and to be clear, I have no idea, I don't have the context data at-hand either) simply leading the league in pressures would not, in fact, be impressive because the pressures were not resulting in positive defensive results. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

Both are important; it's not an either/or. Sacks are more definitive re the play, of course. But constant pressure is disruptive in its own right. Context does matter with pressure... where the pressure occurs vis-a-vis the style of the QB, for example, can collapse a play or affect it minimally... see Brady vs. pressure up the middle vs. from the edge. 

It may sound a bit philosophical, but is a pressure that results in an 80 yard TD pass a 'good" thing?

Is a pressure that leads to a QB scrambling for a 50 yard TD run a 'good' thing?

The pressure stat does not comment on that. 

It just says "hey, you got sorta close to a QB when he had the ball, and we subjectively think it caused him to move or react to you". 

That's it really.

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smashmouth said:

I think  pressures cause more turnovers than Sacks. It causes NFL QB's to make errant throws and bad decisions that lead to INT's. Would be nice to actually see a stat that shows which leads to more turnovers.

Also keep in mind on a pressure that forces the QB out of the pocket into the hands of someone that would not have had a chance to otherwise tackle the QB and force a turnover who really made the play happen the tackler or the guy who applied initial pressure

The only way a sack can cause a turnover is a strip sack. Has to be INTs under pressure. But agree, a study on this would be nice to see.

But not sure it’s that black and white. A sack puts an offense in a 2nd or 3rd and long situation. Sacks are drive killers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, jetsons said:

 

 

lol … you can have 100 pressures 0 sacks

& I’ll have 100 sacks & 0 pressures …

I’ll take the sacks Every Time … Sacks have the Same Effect on a QB in them hearing the footsteps & rushing the play, it has the Much Greater Effect of Hitting the QB EVERY TIME…

ps- sacks Lead to turnovers as well. 😉

Sacks don't mean sh*t if you aren't getting constant pressure.  If you only pressure the QB one time in a game but you get a sack, that won't mean much when said QB throws 6 TD's because he's had all day to throw the ball. 

Similar to that though is the fact that constant pressure with no sacks means sh*t if you are constantly pressuring a QB but he manages to escape said pressure and scramble for 1st downs all day long.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, jetsons said:

 

 

lol … you can have 100 pressures 0 sacks

& I’ll have 100 sacks & 0 pressures …

I’ll take the sacks Every Time … Sacks have the Same Effect on a QB in them hearing the footsteps & rushing the play, it has the Much Greater Effect of Hitting the QB EVERY TIME…

ps- sacks Lead to turnovers as well. 😉

Haha. Exactly. Sacks are more important than pressures. 1 sack vs 1 pressure. Give me the 1 sack.

The debate gets interesting when you change that ratio - how many pressures equal the value of 1 sack? Like would you rather have 10 pressures or 1 sack?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jetsons said:

 

 

lol … you can have 100 pressures 0 sacks

& I’ll have 100 sacks & 0 pressures …

I’ll take the sacks Every Time … Sacks have the Same Effect on a QB in them hearing the footsteps & rushing the play, it has the Much Greater Effect of Hitting the QB EVERY TIME…

ps- sacks Lead to turnovers as well. 😉

Most of us live in reality though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, jetsfan4life72 said:

Especially when those pressures lead to QBs running all over us. 

Always a problem. Most teams have trouble containing the guy who can run. Luckily for the jets they have faced QBs who can run in 5 of their 6 games so they should know how to contain them pretty well.  Danny dimes isn’t noted as being a runner and neither is tyrod so they might have some pretty good success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...