Sacking vs Pressuring the QB. Which is better (or more effective)?
 

I saw a segment on NFLN that caught my eye. Woodson asks Dick Lebeau about which is better and Dick said that it's pretty simple, pressuring is much better and more productive (for a defense).

Here's the video (the question starts :51 seconds in.

Does that make Tamba Hali much better than what some presume him now? Maybe pushes him to be on the verge of being an Elite Pass rusher?

I am unable to comprehend the logic.

A pressure typically results in an incompletion and a new down at the original LOS.

A sack typically results in loss of yardage and a beat-to-crap quarterback.

FAX

Dear Mr. FAX, did you watch the video?

Accept my warmest regards.

Personally I'd rather have sacks because with sack come the opportunities to force fumbles. I guess pressure give you opportunities for picks but there is nothing like blasting a qb from his blindside and watching the ball go flying.

No, Mr. Fritz88, I did not. My computer is going kinda wacky today and I'm connected via terminal services to a server downtown ... can't take the risk ... need the memory.

So, I presume from your statement that they explain why this claim causes all rules of logic and proportion to fall sloppy dead?

FAX

both are important

pressures are great but they become even better if you throw in a sack every once in awhile to let the QB know that you CAN get there. After a sack a pressure is almost as good because the QB starts getting nervous a does something stupid.

If you pressure but never really get there then i think it loses some impact on the QB

constant pressure is better than an occasional sack but obviously a sack is better than pressure..I've seen a lot of plays where the qb was pressured and threw a td pass or a long completion....usually against us

Maybe it would be better to ask sometyhing like:

Would you rather have consistent pressure and hurries (with no sacks) etc...or 1-2 sacks in a game and not much pressure otherwise....

The way you asked the question it is a no brainer -- a sack is obviously better.

I didn't either, but it is a stupid argument.

It would be like saying sex is better than an sex induced orgasm.

Sex is great in and of itself, but you can't have an orgasm from sex without having sex.

The pressure is all well and good, but the reason it is important is because it is was it takes to get a sack. If I had to choose between only 1 sack in 5 games or 20 pressures in that timespan, sure, give me the pressures, but that would be near the same as chooseing between 20 pressures or 5 pressures.

I'd think it depends a lot on the quarterback. If you're coming up with a gameplan against Peyton Manning, the end goal isn't going to be a lot of sacks, it's going to be a lot of pressure. If you're playing Michael Vick or another mobile QB, you want sacks.

Well Mr. Fax, I will do my best to convey the meaning of what Dick said.

He didn't even hesitate. He immediately responded and claimed that it's a no brainer. Pressuring the QB will affect his timing, his vision, his rhythm, thus making his throws worse and interceptable. A sack will come eventually due to the pressure.
He finally said that their best best games came when they probably had one sack.

Hali is still to slow if that's what you're getting at.

He said it himself: consistent pressure will inevitably lead to sacks anyway.

That's what you want, consistent pressure. Preferably up the middle. Disrupt the QBs vision and keep him out of rhythm. The sacks will come.

The way he answered the question seemed to me that sacks were not that important to him. He also said that their best games had one sack with a lot of QB pressure.

I personally think that pressuring someone like Manning is fruitless. You have to slip the mofo down or he will pick you apart.

Ah ... interesting. I can understand that point.

Still, I wonder if, given the choice, Dick would choose 10 pressures or 10 sacks in a game?

FAX

From what I understand, he'd rather have 9 pressures and probably a sack.

I think sacks are often something that comes when the QB feels he has time. Which means he's not really being pressured. Because when a guy is being pressured, his clock in the back of his mind is going to tell him he's got get the ball out of there, he hears footsteps, he has happy feet. Practically speaking it's harder to sack a guy when he's in that kind of mindset, because the ball's out so much faster, but faster generally leads to more mistakes...

I don't think you have to sack Manning... he works a lot on timing with his receivers, so throwing off that timing helps, especially if you're able to get pressure in his face. Of course, you can't give him a lot of time to throw the ball before getting the pressure on him, but it's so hard to sack him that I don't think it's a key for a defense. The Patriots and other teams have gotten some 3+ sack games, but they've also beat him with consistent pressure that ends with 0-1 sacks.

At the moment I do not have access to Pro Football Focus premium stats. But when I did, one of the things I noted was that some QBs are much more affected by pressure than others. If you look at QB ratings with and without pressure, guys like Manning, Brady, and Roethlisberger are very cool under pressure. Their passer ratings hardly change at all. You look the average NFL QB, and his productivity will drop by 30 to 40% when under pressure.

Nicely said. I guess a sack usually comes with an OL screwing his block or the QB holding on to the ball for a while longer (i.e. Cassel).

With Manning, I think you have to get pressure on him AND do something in the secondary such as keep the receivers from getting off the line or disguising the coverage. If you only have pressure he'll hit the hot routes. If you only disguise your coverage, he'll wait until one of his 5 receivers becomes open. You really have to play complete defense in the passing game, and defend the run. That's what makes the Colts so tough to contain.

To pursue this further would only be irritatingly argumentative. So I will.

I understand that he might "prefer" to have 9 pressures, 1 sack, a bottle of bourbon, and a big howdy do.

However, if given the choice of two - and only two - options; 1) 10 pressures or 2) 10 sacks, I wonder which he would choose?

FAX

A more feasible question would be whether he'd choose 10 pressures and 1 sack of a QB with no time to make his reads, or 4 pressures and 3 sacks of a QB who has all day to pick his shots.

well that's just it ... if you compare 1 pressure to 1 sack then the sack is clearly better.

If you saying 10 pressure vs 1 sack then you take the pressures

almost a apples to oranges type question tbh

It is, but not in the way you mean. 3 sacks in a game where a QB has all kinds of time to throw is not as valuable as constant pressure in a game where you might only put him on the ground once. A guy in that 3-sack game can still throw for 400 yards because he's not hurried. A guy under constant pressure is going to have a more difficult go of it, and that's probably going to lower his completion numbers, lower his yardage numbers and likely raise his turnover numbers. That's the real difference between sacks and pressure.

10 Pressures coupled with an opportunistic secondary.
Posted via Mobile Device

FWIW, Pro Football Focus rates a hurry has having 75% of the value as a sack. I don't remember the logic they used to come up with this number

it's still comparing uneven numerical values

constant vs few
15 vs 3

If you compare an even number of sacks vs pressures then you take the sacks every time. Ideally i think every coach would want the same thing ... consistent pressure with a few sacks sprinkled throughout.

That's the whole point...

Pressure = sex

Sack = orgasm

Need to have one to have the other.

Sex is great in itself but you do it for the orgasm.

Like asking would you rather have sex or an orgasm?

I will take orgasm because I get to have sex that way too.

That would work if masturbation wasn't there to confuse things.

I think the question is wrong
sacks or hurries would be more valid

with a hurry the Qb is not doing what HE wants he's doing what we has to

FYP

pressure= foreplay
hurry = sex
sack = orgasm

sack with int = blow job

sack with pick 6 = blow job from her and her friend ( know the hot one with the ass)

I saw that and laughed out loud at Lebeau's answer. Basically he said, "Pressure is more important. If you get pressure, you're also going to get some sacks."

If I remember my set theory from seventh grade math, if you get sacks, you're always going to get pressure. If you get pressure, you're sometimes going to get sacks. The whole question is dumb. Sacks are a subset of pressure and produce a better result, so no one except Lebeau and maybe Greg Robinson would prefer pressure over sacks.

Spinner defense = viewing of Schindler's list at a senior center.

This

I don't understand what's to comprehend here. Consistant pressure can effect every play. If you're very lucky you'll get 5 or 6 sacks. I'd rather see that my defense pressured a guy all game then to see they got 6 sacks from 15 pressures. Duh.

Rain Mans theory makes sense only if you expect your defense to get 55 sacks a game.
But what do Dick LeBeau and Greg Robinson know anyways. They only win Super Bowls, while Rain Man is a true football genius.

Apologies for mistake in previous posts. I mixed up the Gregs. Thinking of Williams not Robinson. In any case, pressure every play that leads to sacks anyway is a hell of a lot more important than 5 sacks.

I will take the 6 sacks and 9 additional pressures...that is 15 pass plays disrupted and 6 HUGE plays.

Pressure on each snap FTW.

LeBeau and Robinson don't belong in the same sentence.

A sack can be a result of the qb hanging onto the ball to long, maybe pushing it to the limit of what the defense is allowing.

Pressure is dictated by the defense alone regardless of qb play.

Kinda the sparkling wine analogy...

all Champagne is sparkling wine, but not all sparkling wine is Champagne...

all sacks are pressure, but not all pressures are sacks.

Nor the same book....

I think that sacks are less reproducible. Pressure means that you're in the backfield causing issues. Sacks are icing on the cake.

This is basically the way i see it.

This reminds me of Football Outsiders statistics. They favor consistent RB's who gain 4 yards rather than homerun ones who break a 20 yarder every now and then without the consistency.

It's similar to FF. Recovering them is basically random. It's not something that's practice-able or trainable.

QB can't complete a pass when he is on his back. He can't throw an interception after he is sacked either. I can see the benefit of both but would rather get a sack if he was passing on 1st or 2nd down so you can have a chance at an INT on third and long. I definately want a sack if it takes them out of field goal range and forces a punt.

Charles needs more carries.

See, he's the best of both worlds. Consistently great and a homerun threat. Very Chris Johnson-like.

"The QB must go down & must go down HARD."

I get the idea the "pressure" is good. I'm just not sure it's as good as a "sack".

You know, given the rules of the game and all.

FAX

I love the excitement of sacks, but continuous disruption of the QB's timing and hard hits at the release of the ball seem to be a more disruptive element.

Next up for debate--Which is better for the defense:

No gain or 10-yard loss?
2nd & 10 or 3rd & 20?
Touchdown or Field Goal?
Field Goal or punt?

Ridiculous question