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

Fritz88 · 10-02-2010, 02:39 PM

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?

FAX · 10-02-2010, 02:42 PM

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

Fritz88 · 10-02-2010, 02:43 PM

Quote:

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

Dear Mr. FAX, did you watch the video?

Accept my warmest regards.

FAX · 10-02-2010, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fritz88

Dear Mr. FAX, did you watch the video?

Accept my warmest regards.

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

Fritz88 · 10-02-2010, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX

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

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.

FAX · 10-02-2010, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fritz88

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.

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

EyePod · 10-02-2010, 09:12 PM

Quote:

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.

FAX · 10-02-2010, 09:57 PM

Quote:

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

crispystl · 10-02-2010, 02:45 PM

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.

Mr. Laz · 10-02-2010, 02:49 PM

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

dj56dt58 · 10-02-2010, 02:50 PM

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

EyePod · 10-02-2010, 09:14 PM

Quote:

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.

Marcellus · 10-02-2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

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 · 10-02-2010, 09:22 PM

Quote:

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.

**Ming the Merciless** · 10-02-2010, 02:50 PM

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.

10-02-2010, 02:39 PM	Topic Starter
Fritz88 Custom User Title Join Date: Nov 2008 Casino cash: $8505943	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?
Posts: 12,706

10-02-2010, 02:42 PM	#2
FAX testing ... 1, 2, 3 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Tennessee Casino cash: $6753759	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
Posts: 44,492

10-02-2010, 02:45 PM	#9
crispystl MVP Join Date: Jun 2004 Casino cash: $-2214860	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.
Posts: 7,219

10-02-2010, 02:49 PM	#10
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	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 __________________
Posts: 95,626

10-02-2010, 02:50 PM	#11
dj56dt58 Banned Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Missouri Casino cash: $9960055	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
Posts: 6,361

10-02-2010, 02:50 PM	#15
Ming the Merciless Emporer of Mongo Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Milky Way Casino cash: $-682444	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.
Posts: 46,213