Why fans and media shouldn't assign sacks allowed

[TimGraham]

We've had some spirited discussions on this board -- usually in regard to whether Jason Peters was any good last year -- about the validity of "sacks allowed" as a stat.

 

I saw this blog from the Boston Globe's Mike Reiss and wanted to share it.

 

To see the sack Tom Brady endured against Cincy, you would say it was right tackle Nick Kaczur's fault all the way. Totally obvious, 100 percent. No other Patriot was remotely close to Robert Geathers, who ran around Kaczur and bolted in cleanly ...

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...siting_the.html

 

This is a reminder that unless you're in the huddle, you can't say for sure.

[Tcali]

We've had some spirited discussions on this board -- usually in regard to whether Jason Peters was any good last year -- about the validity of "sacks allowed" as a stat.

 

I saw this blog from the Boston Globe's Mike Reiss and wanted to share it.

 

To see the sack Tom Brady endured against Cincy, you would say it was right tackle Nick Kaczur's fault all the way. Totally obvious, 100 percent. No other Patriot was remotely close to Robert Geathers, who ran around Kaczur and bolted in cleanly ...

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...siting_the.html

 

This is a reminder that unless you're in the huddle, you can't say for sure.

yeah..interesting. But in fact..I think sack totals whether on D or O for an individual should only be considered as a small part of the picture.

I think anyone with football savvy can in general tell whether an O lineman or D lineman is doing a good job. Pressures,involvements in plays,proper positioning,disruptions,efficient routes to the QBs RBs etc. etc.

And further--giving up one nasty sack-even when it is the O linemans fault-or having one huge sack- doesn't necessarily mean that the player(s) are having a good or a bad game.

[GG]

True that. But I think that on specific plays that got some fans excited, there was no communication break down, just Joey Porter running past Peters.

[BillsVet]

We've had some spirited discussions on this board -- usually in regard to whether Jason Peters was any good last year -- about the validity of "sacks allowed" as a stat.

 

I saw this blog from the Boston Globe's Mike Reiss and wanted to share it.

 

To see the sack Tom Brady endured against Cincy, you would say it was right tackle Nick Kaczur's fault all the way. Totally obvious, 100 percent. No other Patriot was remotely close to Robert Geathers, who ran around Kaczur and bolted in cleanly ...

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...siting_the.html

 

This is a reminder that unless you're in the huddle, you can't say for sure.

 

It is such a subjective statistic, yet many fans who want nothing more than to malign Peters hang onto is as fact. Certainly pass protection schemes and other variables play into it, but tell that to those who flat out hate Peters and cite the 11.5 sacks allowed.

 

I vividly recall Abram Elam running around Peters in the away Jets game last December. Yet how many OLT's are called on to block blitzing DB's? Not many, primarily because it's a mismatch.

[Lori]

It is such a subjective statistic, yet many fans who want nothing more than to malign Peters hang onto is as fact. Certainly pass protection schemes and other variables play into it, but tell that to those who flat out hate Peters and cite the 11.5 sacks allowed.

 

I vividly recall Abram Elam running around Peters in the away Jets game last December. Yet how many OLT's are called on to block blitzing DB's? Not many, primarily because it's a mismatch.

Good point. Count me among those who wish Peters could have gotten a hand on Elam, but normally, I'd say it's Losman's responsibility to get the ball away before a blitzing DB can get there from that far outside. Bad playcall, bad execution.

 

Seems like Bills QBs get to see more than their share of unimpeded outside blitzers, though. (Elam and Adrian Wilson last year, and Darrelle Revis in the second Jets game in '07 come to mind.) In fact, once the Jets figured out that the Bills weren't picking up Revis, it seemed like they sent him on every damn play. I'd call that a fundamental flaw in the offense, one that's going to get Edwards killed if they don't take steps to change it.

[BillsVet]

Good point. Count me among those who wish Peters could have gotten a hand on Elam, but normally, I'd say it's Losman's responsibility to get the ball away before a blitzing DB can get there from that far outside. Bad playcall, bad execution.

 

Seems like Bills QBs get to see more than their share of unimpeded outside blitzers, though. (Elam and Adrian Wilson last year, and Darrelle Revis in the second Jets game in '07 come to mind.) In fact, once the Jets figured out that the Bills weren't picking up Revis, it seemed like they sent him on every damn play. I'd call that a fundamental flaw in the offense, one that's going to get Edwards killed if they don't take steps to change it.

 

I have a feeling that as the season progresses there will more frequent max protect blocking called. I just purchased the 2009 Football Outsiders offering and their analysis notes that only the Chiefs went max protect less than the Bills. I just don't think they can sacrifice receiving options for blockers and there should be plenty of 2 TE sets.

 

I do agree WRT to Elam, I wish Peters would have gotten a hand on the him. But it's absurd to make that play call, especially for a coach who's been in pro football more than 30 years.

[GG]

I do agree WRT to Elam, I wish Peters would have gotten a hand on the him. But it's absurd to make that play call, especially for a coach who's been in pro football more than 30 years.

 

In a sense, you put the game on the line in the hands of two players who have a propensity for mental lapses.

[KOKBILLS]

We've had some spirited discussions on this board -- usually in regard to whether Jason Peters was any good last year -- about the validity of "sacks allowed" as a stat.

 

I saw this blog from the Boston Globe's Mike Reiss and wanted to share it.

 

To see the sack Tom Brady endured against Cincy, you would say it was right tackle Nick Kaczur's fault all the way. Totally obvious, 100 percent. No other Patriot was remotely close to Robert Geathers, who ran around Kaczur and bolted in cleanly ...

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...siting_the.html

 

This is a reminder that unless you're in the huddle, you can't say for sure.

 

All I got out of that was Tom Brady got hit, and it made Me smile...

 

Did I miss something?

[bladiebla]

The issue goes beyond the assigning of sacks, it basicly is the issue for all stats. Interceptions are the same; a quarterback could be throwing what looks like a awfull pass that gets intercepted. Yet it could have been a timed ball that was spot on but the intended receiver failed to run the correct route or misunderstood the play. Yet the quarterback gets credited an interception. A quarterback his stats could look awesome throwing nothing more then 5 yard passes if he has receivers that consistently add 20 yards after the catch, yet in reality he could be terrible.

 

The nature of measurables in combination with the human factor creates a natural diviation, especially in a complex team sport like American Football which is basicly a high speed, aggressive version of chess. If you use stats understanding that there is always a deviation in play it doesn't matter. Also the higher the stat the less deviation it will contain and therefor the more telling the number will be. Shouldn't the stats be kept for that reason alone?

 

In the case of american football stats also provide entertainment value and are a tool for the spectator to help follow and understand the depth of the game. Looking at the sack stat; sacks are creditted towards a defender or defenders making the sack, however they wouldn't be able to make them if it weren't for the play of their teammates. Yet the sack as a stat caused by a defender is an official stat.

 

If you turn it around then the situation is exactly the same for offensive linemen compared to defensive line man. So there is no reason not to keep the sacks allowed stat on offensive linemen.

 

There is an argument not to keep the stat and that is that offensive linemen really are a team within the team, if that team breaks somewhere the whole team is in trouble. In my humble opinion that argument is a bit overrated though, it may be the case for the offensive line players in the form of a tandem but if you turn it around on the defensive line they won't be making sacks either if the rest of the d-line are failing their assignments.

 

My conclusion/opinion; make the sacks allow stat by offensive linemen official.

[BillsVet]

In a sense, you put the game on the line in the hands of two players who have a propensity for mental lapses.

 

I definitely agree...in that the coaching staff has a propensity to place their own players into positions for failure. We used to say in the Army that people are either set up to fail or succeed. It's the job of the on-field managers, i.e. coaches, to know their personnel's strengths and weaknesses. I don't have the feeling DJ does, or he's unwilling to acknowledge it.

 

How does a coach with 30+ seasons in the NFL not know what to do in pressure situations, or repeatedly make the wrong call? Personally, I believe he's just not that good and he knows it.

[Guest dog14787]

The issue goes beyond the assigning of stats, it basicly is the issue for all stats. Interceptions are the same; a quarterback could be throwing what looks like a awfull pass that gets interecepted. Yet it could have been a timed ball that was spot on but the intended receiver failed to run the correct route or misunderstood the play. Yet the quarterback gets credited an interception. A quarterback his stats could look awesome throwing nothing more then 5 yard passes if he has receivers that consistently add 20 yards after the catch.

 

The nature of measurables in combination with the human factor creates a natural diviation, especially in a complex team sport like American Football which is basicly a high speed, aggressive version of chess. If you use stats understanding that there is always a deviation in play it doesn't matter. Also the higher the stat the less deviation it will contain and therefor the more telling the number will be. Shouldn't the stats be kept for that reason alone?

 

In the case of american football stats also provide entertainment value and are a tool for the spectator to help follow and understand the depth of the game. Looking at the sack stat; sacks are creditted towards a defender or defenders making the sack, however they wouldn't be able to make them if it weren't for the play of their teammates. Yet the sack as a stat caused by a defender is an official stat.

 

If you turn it around then the situation is exactly the same for offensive linemen compared to defensive line man. So there is no reason not to keep the sacks allowed stat on offensive linemen.

 

There is an argument not to keep the stat and that is that offensive linemen really are a team within the team, if that team breaks somewhere the whole team is in trouble. In my humble opinion that argument is a but overrated though, it may be the case for the offensive line players in the form of a tandem but if you turn it around on the defensive line they guys there won't be making sacks either of the rest of the d-line are failing their assignments.

 

My conclusion/opinion; make the sacks allow stat by offensive linemen official.

 

 

Good post, and why are some folks still bending over backwards in defense of Jason Peters, he's an overrated, over paid, under achieving football player who is no longer Buffalo's problem.

[eball]

I definitely agree...in that the coaching staff has a propensity to place their own players into positions for failure. We used to say in the Army that people are either set up to fail or succeed. It's the job of the on-field managers, i.e. coaches, to know their personnel's strengths and weaknesses. I don't have the feeling DJ does, or he's unwilling to acknowledge it.

 

How does a coach with 30+ seasons in the NFL not know what to do in pressure situations, or repeatedly make the wrong call? Personally, I believe he's just not that good and he knows it.

I think DJ is a delegator, much the same as Levy was. He's a part of the game-planning, but lets his coordinators call the plays. That's a great thing when the coordinators are innovative and savvy. The jury is certainly out on Schonert, and Fewell is hit-and-miss. The play call by Schonert referenced in this thread against the Jets was inexcusable. DJ is on the hook for that, ultimately, either because he failed to stop it when it happened, or because he put the game in the hands of a "rookie" coordinator who hasn't shown a propensity for making particularly enlightened calls.

 

Either way, unless Schonert and Fewell raise their game, we're not going to see much of a change.

 

I disagree with your premise that DJ doesn't know the strengths and weaknesses of his players or that he "knows" he's not that good. It's simply a different coaching philosophy that only works if the right people are in place.

[Guest dog14787]

I think DJ is a delegator, much the same as Levy was. He's a part of the game-planning, but lets his coordinators call the plays. That's a great thing when the coordinators are innovative and savvy. The jury is certainly out on Schonert, and Fewell is hit-and-miss. The play call by Schonert referenced in this thread against the Jets was inexcusable. DJ is on the hook for that, ultimately, either because he failed to stop it when it happened, or because he put the game in the hands of a "rookie" coordinator who hasn't shown a propensity for making particularly enlightened calls.

 

Either way, unless Schonert and Fewell raise their game, we're not going to see much of a change.

 

I disagree with your premise that DJ doesn't know the strengths and weaknesses of his players or that he "knows" he's not that good. It's simply a different coaching philosophy that only works if the right people are in place.

 

 

I agree with you, DJ delegates and expects his OC and DC to handle their part of the bargain and in most cases he allows them to call the shots and steps in to take the blame when they fail.

 

Back to the sacks allowed discussion, as much as we would like to be able to single out each lineman's performance, its true, there is no real way of knowing what really transpired without being in the huddle or knowing all the circumstances.

 

Having good continuity is very important for an O-line and maybe its all the more reason not to assign individual sacks allowed count. if the whole line gets blamed and looks bad for sacks, chances are they will learn to play better together as a unit.

 

Pro's and cons both ways I suppose, myself personally, if its Jason Peters we're talking about, give him sacks allowed.

[Steely Dan]

We've had some spirited discussions on this board -- usually in regard to whether Jason Peters was any good last year -- about the validity of "sacks allowed" as a stat.

 

I saw this blog from the Boston Globe's Mike Reiss and wanted to share it.

 

To see the sack Tom Brady endured against Cincy, you would say it was right tackle Nick Kaczur's fault all the way. Totally obvious, 100 percent. No other Patriot was remotely close to Robert Geathers, who ran around Kaczur and bolted in cleanly ...

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...siting_the.html

 

This is a reminder that unless you're in the huddle, you can't say for sure.

 

 

The issue goes beyond the assigning of sacks, it basicly is the issue for all stats. Interceptions are the same; a quarterback could be throwing what looks like a awfull pass that gets intercepted. Yet it could have been a timed ball that was spot on but the intended receiver failed to run the correct route or misunderstood the play. Yet the quarterback gets credited an interception. A quarterback his stats could look awesome throwing nothing more then 5 yard passes if he has receivers that consistently add 20 yards after the catch, yet in reality he could be terrible.

 

The nature of measurables in combination with the human factor creates a natural diviation, especially in a complex team sport like American Football which is basicly a high speed, aggressive version of chess. If you use stats understanding that there is always a deviation in play it doesn't matter. Also the higher the stat the less deviation it will contain and therefor the more telling the number will be. Shouldn't the stats be kept for that reason alone?

 

In the case of american football stats also provide entertainment value and are a tool for the spectator to help follow and understand the depth of the game. Looking at the sack stat; sacks are creditted towards a defender or defenders making the sack, however they wouldn't be able to make them if it weren't for the play of their teammates. Yet the sack as a stat caused by a defender is an official stat.

 

If you turn it around then the situation is exactly the same for offensive linemen compared to defensive line man. So there is no reason not to keep the sacks allowed stat on offensive linemen.

 

There is an argument not to keep the stat and that is that offensive linemen really are a team within the team, if that team breaks somewhere the whole team is in trouble. In my humble opinion that argument is a bit overrated though, it may be the case for the offensive line players in the form of a tandem but if you turn it around on the defensive line they won't be making sacks either if the rest of the d-line are failing their assignments.

 

My conclusion/opinion; make the sacks allow stat by offensive linemen official.

 

What he said!

 

Thanks for saving me a lot of typing.

[BillsWatch]

Of course fans should assign sacks allowed - it goes along with fantasy GM mentality!

 

I thought Peters was bad not because of sacks but because he had no heart and showed no effort.

[BillsVet]

I think DJ is a delegator, much the same as Levy was. He's a part of the game-planning, but lets his coordinators call the plays. That's a great thing when the coordinators are innovative and savvy. The jury is certainly out on Schonert, and Fewell is hit-and-miss. The play call by Schonert referenced in this thread against the Jets was inexcusable. DJ is on the hook for that, ultimately, either because he failed to stop it when it happened, or because he put the game in the hands of a "rookie" coordinator who hasn't shown a propensity for making particularly enlightened calls.

 

Either way, unless Schonert and Fewell raise their game, we're not going to see much of a change.

 

I disagree with your premise that DJ doesn't know the strengths and weaknesses of his players or that he "knows" he's not that good. It's simply a different coaching philosophy that only works if the right people are in place.

 

DJ's biggest issue in nearly 9 seasons as a NFL HC is an inability to find good coordinators. No one he's hired as a DC or OC has ever been considered for a NFL HC job. Thus far, he's gone through six coordinators in 8 seasons of being a full time HC. None of them (Gary Crowton, John Shoop, Greg Blache, Steve Fairchild, Perry Fewell, and Turk Schonert) should be considered innovative or up and coming coordinators.

 

If the man can't pick a coordinator, then I can't see him knowing his own players.

[flomoe]

DJ's biggest issue in nearly 9 seasons as a NFL HC is an inability to find good coordinators. No one he's hired as a DC or OC has ever been considered for a NFL HC job. Thus far, he's gone through six coordinators in 8 seasons of being a full time HC. None of them (Gary Crowton, John Shoop, Greg Blache, Steve Fairchild, Perry Fewell, and Turk Schonert) should be considered innovative or up and coming coordinators.

 

If the man can't pick a coordinator, then I can't see him knowing his own players.

 

That's a good Bingo!

 

If the man can't pick a coordinator, then I can't see him knowing his own players. Or be able to use them to their strengths and defend them against their weaknesses.

[C.Biscuit97]

We've had some spirited discussions on this board -- usually in regard to whether Jason Peters was any good last year -- about the validity of "sacks allowed" as a stat.

 

I saw this blog from the Boston Globe's Mike Reiss and wanted to share it.

 

To see the sack Tom Brady endured against Cincy, you would say it was right tackle Nick Kaczur's fault all the way. Totally obvious, 100 percent. No other Patriot was remotely close to Robert Geathers, who ran around Kaczur and bolted in cleanly ...

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...siting_the.html

 

This is a reminder that unless you're in the huddle, you can't say for sure.

 

 

Good info for sure but I've never seen people defend sacks against for Pace, Walter Jones, or Odgen. Probably because they were true elite LTs. Peters is a good LT but is completely overrated and struggles to stay injury free. He's Philly's problem now.

[John from Riverside]

i try not to assign players blame on the ol for sacks.......because yu dont know the assignment it is the UNITS fault

[Thurman#1]

True that. But I think that on specific plays that got some fans excited, there was no communication break down, just Joey Porter running past Peters.

 

 

 

That is indeed what you think.

 

The article's thrust is simple: Even on "obvious" plays, what seems to be true isn't always true as far as sacks assigned.

 

Your response: Yeah, but the Peters plays were obvious.

 

I assume you didn't miss the point, so you seem to be saying that it's true, but you hate Peters so much that you're going to keep going ahead and saying it even if it's likely not true. Fair enough, but certainly shows that your response is way more emotional than having anything to do with a logical argument.