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