Why fans and media shouldn't assign sacks allowed

[Fan in Chicago]

We all (except for me) seem to be missing the key point in the piece that TG linked.

 

brady* got scrambled

 

I would care a whole lot more if the scramblerer was a Bills player.

[bladiebla]

I still maintain that subjectivity or not is not the issue from this becoming an official stat, for the pure reason of the subjective nature. However Dean hit the nail with his comment "what do you do with sacks that come after 10 seconds", in the end the o-line it's job is not so much to stop the d-line as it is to delay them and the QB his job is that of getting the ball delivered within the time created by his o-line. That argument moves me to the let's not make this an official stat camp, again the subjectivity of it doesn't matter in the grand total as plenty of stats are subjective allready.

[Dan]

I still maintain that subjectivity or not is not the issue from this becoming an official stat, for the pure reason of the subjective nature. However Dean hit the nail with his comment "what do you do with sacks that come after 10 seconds", in the end the o-line it's job is not so much to stop the d-line as it is to delay them and the QB his job is that of getting the ball delivered within the time created by his o-line. That argument moves me to the let's not make this an official stat camp, again the subjectivity of it doesn't matter in the grand total as plenty of stats are subjective allready.

Precisely. There are multiple instances where the QB may get tackled behind the LOS and therefore he's sacked; yet there's no clear lineman to blame it on. So, it really is a pointless measure of a lineman's performance. However, that doesn't mean it's totally without merit. In an unofficial review of game tape, I would certainly do this.

 

If anyone can recall the youtube compilation of Peters' 11.5 sacks (I'm disinclined to find the link), clearly several of those sacks were on him - unless his assignment was to block air. While, for several more it's much harder to tell who, specifically, is to blame due to blocking assignments. However, with that being said, whether its your blocking assignment or not, shouldn't a lineman recognize a defender coming through untouched and try to get in his way - especially if the guy he's supposed to block isn't there?

 

For example, during the GB game, we had a nice run to the left side set up. The RB (#22, maybe) ran out and had plenty of room; #77 pulled out there was one DB coming in untouched. He ran right by #77 and hit the RB for a 2 or 4 yard loss. I call that a screw up. I'm sure #77 was coached up to seal the edge by stopping the DE, so that's where he was looking. But, the DE was held up at the line and no where in sight. So, why not look for someone else coming in free to block? Technically, he may have done his job, but realistically, he screwed the pooch.

 

I see much of the line play the same way. I don't care what your assignment is on Friday. I don't care what X's and O's are drawn on the chalkboard. When you hit the field, defenders don't know that their supposed to go to certain gaps. So, you have to adjust and react. If a player can't do that and continually lets guys run by him untouched, what good is he?

 

It's why the safety blitz is so effective against the Bills. You have a safety coming in untouched, with noone responsible to block him. Rather than someone do something about it, they all just keep their head down, hide behind their assignments and let the QB get clocked - the QB included. Someone has to recognize the breakdown and react to it. But, it's easier to stand around and say it wasn't my fault, I guess.

[Mr. WEO]

I still maintain that subjectivity or not is not the issue from this becoming an official stat, for the pure reason of the subjective nature. However Dean hit the nail with his comment "what do you do with sacks that come after 10 seconds", in the end the o-line it's job is not so much to stop the d-line as it is to delay them and the QB his job is that of getting the ball delivered within the time created by his o-line. That argument moves me to the let's not make this an official stat camp, again the subjectivity of it doesn't matter in the grand total as plenty of stats are subjective allready.

 

 

That's easy---the LT doesn't get tagged for the sack.

 

Officials at baseball games do this same calculus everytime an apparent error is made. They assess the circumstances of the play and make a decision as to whether the defender was at fault or it was a legitimate hit.

 

The same could be done by an NFL official reviewing sacks---except he would have all the time he wants, his ruling doesn't have to be made during the game.

 

Some calls may be arguable, but a couple of guys who know what they're looking at reviewing the film will make the right call the majority of the time.

 

Shouldn't be too mind-bending.

 

Besides---I don't see anybody taking the sacks OFF a QBs tally when he gets clobbered immediatley behind a jail-break line. He gets every one of them attributed to HIS stats.

[toddgurley]

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.

 

 

I disagree. I saw the interview and Tom Brady said it was his fault for the sack, but watch the highlight. Just cause Tom was being a nice guy and said the sack was his fault-does'nt mean it was.

 

And yes peters was terrible last year!!

[Guest dog14787]

Although its easy to see there are to many variables involved as previously posted such as coverage sacks, ect. There should be a way to develop a proper grading system to better distinguish one lineman from another besides just visual opinions. On one hand folks presume we can tell how well lineman are playing just by observation, therefor whats the problem. The problem is, as already been explained, without being in the huddle or knowing all the circumstances, simple observations will not work, not accurately.

 

So we have some of the highest paid athletes in the NFL with no accurate method to grade them. In my opinion a grading system should be created and used to better gauge individual performance. If you based your grading system on proximity to the breakdown, we might get a decent representation of whats going on. For instance when a sack occurs the whole O-line gets marks against them, but the closer you are to the missed block, the higher the mark is against you. Coverage sack could be based simply on the time span at which the sack occurs. O-line gets marks against them, but not as severe in a coverage sack. At the end of the season you would be able to look at each offensive line and get an accurate gauge on just how well they performed. Then the offensive line and the offense as a whole all partake in the final line grade and it creates continuity across the board in an effort to increase overall O-line grade. Individuals will receive an independent grade based on individual performance including RB's on the blitz pickup.

 

Grading individuals like Jason Peters would be fun, don't you think

[toddgurley]

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.

 

 

THAT WHOLE PLAY WAS MAURON (JAURONS) FAULT!!! HE WAS STUPID FOR CALLING IT. Good lord, I hope he learned from it (and thank god no more jp loserman)

[Steely Dan]

I would care a whole lot more if the scramblerer was a Bills player.

 

That would be eggciting.

[Thurman#1]

I still maintain that subjectivity or not is not the issue from this becoming an official stat, for the pure reason of the subjective nature. However Dean hit the nail with his comment "what do you do with sacks that come after 10 seconds", in the end the o-line it's job is not so much to stop the d-line as it is to delay them and the QB his job is that of getting the ball delivered within the time created by his o-line. That argument moves me to the let's not make this an official stat camp, again the subjectivity of it doesn't matter in the grand total as plenty of stats are subjective allready.

 

 

 

Name a single official football stat that consistently blames the wrong person entirely for a bad play, as this one does.

 

And interceptions don't blame anyone if you're leaning in that direction. No official football stat is anywhere near as subjective as this one. Nowhere near it.

[Beerball]

And interceptions don't blame anyone if you're leaning in that direction. No official football stat is anywhere near as subjective as this one. Nowhere near it.

hmmm, learning all the time

 

always thought ints went on a QBs line.

[Thurman#1]

Although its easy to see there are to many variables involved as previously posted such as coverage sacks, ect. There should be a way to develop a proper grading system to better distinguish one lineman from another besides just visual opinions. On one hand folks presume we can tell how well lineman are playing just by observation, therefor whats the problem. The problem is, as already been explained, without being in the huddle or knowing all the circumstances, simple observations will not work, not accurately.

 

So we have some of the highest paid athletes in the NFL with no accurate method to grade them. In my opinion a grading system should be created and used to better gauge individual performance. If you based your grading system on proximity to the breakdown, we might get a decent representation of whats going on. For instance when a sack occurs the whole O-line gets marks against them, but the closer you are to the missed block, the higher the mark is against you. Coverage sack could be based simply on the time span at which the sack occurs. O-line gets marks against them, but not as severe in a coverage sack. At the end of the season you would be able to look at each offensive line and get an accurate gauge on just how well they performed. Then the offensive line and the offense as a whole all partake in the final line grade and it creates continuity across the board in an effort to increase overall O-line grade. Individuals will receive an independent grade based on individual performance including RB's on the blitz pickup.

 

Grading individuals like Jason Peters would be fun, don't you think

 

 

Any decent grading system would be dependent on knowing the play and the blocking scheme. And teams just don't give out that info. Which leaves you dependent on stuff like salary, how the players vote for Pro Bowls, and pundit opinions. And just looking at the film.

 

One other thing, though, if you don't hear the guy's name mentioned much during the telecast, odds are you're talking about a very good player.

 

It's just one of those things that can't be easily broken down. Except by the team, of course. And that 's the opinion that really counts. And run blocking is much easier to quantify than pass blocking.

 

Looking at the line as a whole though, you're right, is much more easily done, and more important to team success.

[Thurman#1]

hmmm, learning all the time

 

always thought ints went on a QBs line.

 

 

Yes. It shows who threw the ball. Not who is to blame. You are indeed learning all the time.

[Beerball]

Yes. It shows who threw the ball. Not who is to blame. You are indeed learning all the time.

Still learning...so, the int is listed against the QB, but the QB isn't responsible for the pick?

[Thurman#1]

That's easy---the LT doesn't get tagged for the sack.

 

Officials at baseball games do this same calculus everytime an apparent error is made. They assess the circumstances of the play and make a decision as to whether the defender was at fault or it was a legitimate hit.

 

The same could be done by an NFL official reviewing sacks---except he would have all the time he wants, his ruling doesn't have to be made during the game.

 

Some calls may be arguable, but a couple of guys who know what they're looking at reviewing the film will make the right call the majority of the time.

 

Shouldn't be too mind-bending.

 

Besides---I don't see anybody taking the sacks OFF a QBs tally when he gets clobbered immediatley behind a jail-break line. He gets every one of them attributed to HIS stats.

 

 

Read the Dean's original post. That is only one of the questions which would have to be answered before you could even begin to treat things evenly. And if 10 seconds goes on the QB, how about 6? 5? 4? Where is the line?

 

What happens on a screen pass when the lineman's assignment is to briefly block his guy and then let him through? And how can you always accurately identify screen passes? What about sacks on broken plays? Who's to blame if a run is called and you block the guy to the side as ordered, which is where the QB is desperately running around hoping something will happen. Who do you blame it on when a blitzer runs between two o-linemen locked up with their correct assignments, because right now the guy who makes the stat tosses a coin in his head. There are a million possible variables.

 

And right now, every single sack is blamed on an o-lineman. There's no such thing as a coverage sack in this train wreck of a stat.

[Thurman#1]

Still learning...so, the int is listed against the QB, but the QB isn't responsible for the pick?

 

 

I guess it's me who is learning. I hadn't noticed the words "responsible" or "against" in that stat. Guess I'll go look for it now. ... Nope. All it says is "Interceptions." Not "Interceptions Against" or " ... At Fault For the Interception" or "Responsible for Interceptions." Just interceptions. It doesn't try to figure out if the reciever popped it up in the air on a platter or ran the wrong route or if the o-line allowed a jail break which caused the interception.

 

So, no, the QB is not listed as responsible for the pick. He is listed as the guy who threw the pick.

[Beerball]

I guess it's me who is learning. I hadn't noticed the words "responsible" or "against" in that stat. Guess I'll go look for it now. ... Nope. All it says is "Interceptions." Not "Interceptions Against" or " ... At Fault For the Interception" or "Interceptions Against." Just interceptions. It doesn't try to figure out if the reciever popped it up in the air on a platter or ran the wrong route or if the o-line allowed a jail break which caused the interception.

 

So, no, the QB is not listed as responsible for the pick. He is listed as the guy who threw the pick.

So, kind of like a 'team' stat like final score, wins vs. losses etc.?

 

Really interesting stuff here. Fumbles are handled the same way I imagine?

[Bufluv]

The sacks allowed stat is surely subjective, but I view it a little like the plus-minus stat in hockey. You get stuck with the minus when your linemates or goalie has a breakdown. But when you look at the cumulative results over the season, its still a pretty accurate account of your play. Your shifts either produced or didn't, overall.

 

For sacks allowed, good excuses or not, if you lead in that category consistently you have problems to fix at that position.

[Thurman#1]

So, kind of like a 'team' stat like final score, wins vs. losses etc.?

 

Really interesting stuff here. Fumbles are handled the same way I imagine?

 

 

 

Gee, your sarcasm is really pouring through. To no purpose, of course. But just in case you thought it was too subtle, I'm here to tell you that I get it. You are the one who doesn't get it. The guy who threw the INT gets it next to his name, regardless of who was at fault. The guy who fumbled gets the fumble next to his name, regardless of who is at fault. Fault is not part of the equation in these stats.

 

Look, the stat is just a stat. Any emotional content comes from the guy trying to use the stat.

 

If you can find me one case, just one, of somebody but the QB who threw it recieving the sack, then you will have proved your point. I can find you dozens of cases where the INT is not the fault of the QB. I'm sure you can too. Cases where the reciever ran the wrong route, or slapped the ball up into the air. Cases where the reciever didn't look back and the ball hit him between the shoulder blades, popped up in the air and was intercepted. Or maybe just didn't come back for the ball when he should have. Yet, oddly, the INT doesn't get listed for the reciever. Because the reciever didn't throw it. The QB did.

 

And yeah, same as fumbles. Find me one case of the o-lineman who plants his helmet into the ball accidentally being credited with the fumble. Thanks for the comparison. It's a good one. You totally sussed out the fact that fault is not a component in either one. Excellent observations.

 

Well, I'm gone for eight hours or so. I'll be looking forward to your pithy reply, Beerball.

 

Again, if you think fault or responsibility is part of the equation, find me one case where anyone but the guy who threw the INT finds it next to his name in the stats. Just one.

[Thurman#1]

The sacks allowed stat is surely subjective, but I view it a little like the plus-minus stat in hockey. You get stuck with the minus when your linemates or goalie has a breakdown. But when you look at the cumulative results over the season, its still a pretty accurate account of your play. Your shifts either produced or didn't, overall.

 

For sacks allowed, good excuses or not, if you lead in that category consistently you have problems to fix at that position.

 

 

 

Plus-minus is quite a different proposition.

 

First, plus-minus isn't opinion-based. A goal is either scored when you're on the ice or it isn't. Nobody has to decide whose fault the goal was.

 

But also, how many points, plus or minus, do you recieve over the course of a season? Not your total, but how many minus points and then how many plus points do you recieve over the course of a season? A lot, basically. Enough that it is quite statistically significant.

 

But in sacks allowed, the highest league totals over the course of several years would be, what, fiftenn or twenty at the maximum. Around 11 last year. So if a guy gets two mistakes made, two coverage sacks charged to him, two blown opinions, two Kaczur-type plays, by last year's totals his stats will have gotten 20% worse through no fault of his own. Considering that four or five of the sacks allowed credited to Peters, for instance, were pretty clearly coverage sacks, taking longer than five seconds, and you get the picture.

 

Take a guy in the middle of the pack with around 5 sacks allowed. Now say that the guy who does the official guessing made three mistakes and credited sacks which should have been given to our guy to the guy next to him. A guy who is bad looks average. Or the approximator makes two mistakes, this time crediting two sacks to our guy that were really the fault of the guy next to him. He should have had three and he had five. Now a guy who is really good looks average.

 

The numbers are so small that even one mistake has a major effect on perceptions of the player.

 

A horrible stat.

[Mr. WEO]

I guess it's me who is learning. I hadn't noticed the words "responsible" or "against" in that stat. Guess I'll go look for it now. ... Nope. All it says is "Interceptions." Not "Interceptions Against" or " ... At Fault For the Interception" or "Responsible for Interceptions." Just interceptions. It doesn't try to figure out if the reciever popped it up in the air on a platter or ran the wrong route or if the o-line allowed a jail break which caused the interception.

 

So, no, the QB is not listed as responsible for the pick. He is listed as the guy who threw the pick.

Really?? What kind of BS is that?

 

You're just trying to be clever here and backpedal.

 

If it's so hard to assign "responsibility" for a sack, then why is it, officially listed under only one individual's stats--the QB? And the same for ints. Why aren't you arguing for clearing out those two stats from the QBs line? You've now pointed out that they, too, are "too subjective" and it is improper to blame one individual, no?

 

10 seconds, 8,7,6...look, a knowledgeable official can watch the film, see what the play is, who was covering who, where the receivers are and how the QB reacted---and then make a reasonble assignment of "responsibility" for the sack. It is certainly doable and better than the way it is reported (unofficially) now. This stuff about "being in the huddle" is nonsense. Now way a majority of sacks come from "miscmmounication"/blown plays. Again, the analogy is in baseball. An official is charged with watching the play, the replay, and deciding, based on all factors, should the fielder have made the play (thus an "error") or was it unlikely anyone could have made the same play (thus a "hit").

 

Your argument is that since it is not done well now, it can't be done at all.