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

[Fritz88]

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?

[ShortRoundChief]

Originally Posted by RippedmyFlesh

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

Nor the same book....

[EyePod]

Originally Posted by FAX

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

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

[KCSupersized]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

This is basically the way i see it.

[EyePod]

Originally Posted by dj56dt58

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

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.

[EyePod]

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

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.

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

[crossbow]

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.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by EyePod

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.

Charles needs more carries.

[EyePod]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Charles needs more carries.

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

[KChiefs1]

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

[FAX]

Originally Posted by EyePod

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

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

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

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.

[cosmo20002]

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