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

[FAX]

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

[Fritz88]

Originally Posted by FAX

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.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by Fritz88

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

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

[Fritz88]

Originally Posted by FAX

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

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