Question for you stat junkies

[rams24/7]

Is there a reputable site where I can find accurate TFL numbers? The numbers I've seen for TMac and Donald are all over the place.

 

[Blue and Gold]

http://nytimes.stats.com/fb/teamstats.asp?teamno=14&type=stats

Then add one today for Long, Hayes and 1/2 each for McD and JL

Rams have 43 stuffs (tackle for loss) and 35 sacks. In 2012 they had 51 sacks and 59 stuffs and in 2013 they had 60 sacks and 59 stuffs.

When you add sacks plus stuffs in 2012-2013 Rams had 223, next best was Tampa at 201 3rd was Buf and Det tied for 178.

I have not looked ant Tampa this year, but I thin after season Rams will be #1 in sacks plus stuffs for 2012-2014 inclusive

 

[rams24/7]

Yeah. I just wish all these sites could agree on TFL numbers. Almost feels like an unofficial stat

 

[TheDYVKX]

Yeah. I just wish all these sites could agree on TFL numbers. Almost feels like an unofficial stat

It's not official by NFL standards, they don't track them I think but people like the stat. If you want the best up to date accurate stats, PFF is probably your best bet, their grades may suck but their stats are amazing.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Yeah. I just wish all these sites could agree on TFL numbers. Almost feels like an unofficial stat

The NFL has an offical tackles for loss stats, Stats, LLC. has their own version. The NFL official TFL is not useful. If, for example, Robert Quinn sacks a QB, he gets credit for a tackle for loss and a sack. If he knocks the ball out of a QB's hand, he gets credit for a sack and forced fumble, but not for a tackle for a loss. The NFL version dos not distinguish between a sack and tackle for a loss on a running back (with the caveot I explainded)

Stats, LLC, since 1991 has been tracking stuffs, which is a tackle for a loss on a running or passing play that does not involve the QB. If a RB is tackled for a loss on a screen pass, it's a stuff. If a running back loses a yard in a running play it's a stuff. If two tacklers make a tackle on a running back they get 1/2 a stuff each.

Stats, LLC has the most useful number because you can add stuffs plus sacks as plays behind the LOS. The NFL number does not work that way, you can add sacks plus tackles for a loss and you get a higher number because it double counts sacks and excludes plays in which the QB and Rb lose the ball.

 

[Blue and Gold]

 

[Blue and Gold]

 

[rams24/7]

I think the first stat sheet you posted is more accurate. Donald definitely has more than 9 TFLs as the second stat sheet indicates. 15 sounds about right. That's crazy considering he didn't start til game 5

 

[Blue and Gold]

I think the first stat sheet you posted is more accurate. Donald definitely has more than 9 TFLs as the second stat sheet indicates. 15 sounds about right. That's crazy considering he didn't start til game 5

They are both accurate, they just count different things. It is accurate that Donald has tackled the rb for a loss 9 times and has 7 sacks. Add them together it's 16. The top one, for some reason, does not count his sack that caused a fumble. So, take that away, it's 16

Both sheets use the same source, the play by play, but the top one adds sacks plus tackles for a loss minus sacks that involved forcing a fumble. The bottom one shows sacks and stuffs, but they don't have a column that adds them together. The top one does not have a separate column for tackles for loss on running plays (stuffs)

there is also a way they count tackes differently, but that's a whole different matter . . .and it's lengthy to explain . .

Both are accurate, they just have differnnt account methods.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Pro Football Focus--they count things on their own, not from gamebooks

 

[Blue and Gold]

Here is example
"Sunday was another big day for Texans defensive end J.J. Watt. Watt had three sacks, four tackles for losses and knocked down a pass during Houston’s 27-13 victory over the Jaguars."

Okay, that's how NFL and Elias Sports Bureau scores it. Watt had 3 sacks and tackled one running back for a loss. That's the 4 tackles for a loss.

Stats, LLC would score that 3 sacks and 1 stuff. Add those together and it's 4.

Now, had one of those sacks been where Watt knocked the ball out of the Qbs hand, he would not get credit for a tackle for loss. he would have had 3 sacks and 3 tackles for loss. A casual fan will see that and not know that 2 sacks were tackles for a loss, one was not, and not catch he had one tackle on a Rb for a loss

 

[DaveFan'51]

I find "Pro-Football-Reference.com" the most accurate!

 

[Blue and Gold]

I find "Pro-Football-Reference.com" the most accurate!

They just copy their stuff from Elias. However, they are good, but don't take all of their information as gospel.

They list Merlin Olsen as a right defensive tackle from 1973 through 1976. He never played RDT, was always the LDT. They have been told of this error and given documentation . . . but they ignore it.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/O/OlseMe00.htm

All I can say is they are all good, but you have to know what you are looking for.

 

[Blue and Gold]

-

 

[Blue and Gold]

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/stuffs-and-stuff-yards/1992/

You can go year-to-year here. But, be advised, these are rounded . . . so someone listed at 11 may be 10.5