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?

[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.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Fritz88

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.

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...

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Fritz88

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.

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.

[cdcox]

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.

[Fritz88]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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...

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).

[cdcox]

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.

[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

[keg in kc]

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.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Laz

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.

[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

[cdcox]

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

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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.

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.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Laz

i think every coach would want the same thing ... consistent pressure with a few sacks sprinkled throughout.

That's the whole point...

[Marcellus]

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.