- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 4,368
Sacks are important. Pressuring the QB is important. But how does it equate to win-loss record?
Here are the top 10 teams in sacks and how they have fared record-wise.
Dallas 7 GP, 29 Sacks, 5-2 record
San Fran 7 GP, 24 Sacks, 3-4 record
Denver 7 GP, 22 Sacks, 2-5 record
Tampa 7 GP, 22 Sacks, 3-4 record
N.England 7 GP, 21 Sacks, 3-4 record
Baltimore 7 GP, 20 Sacks, 4-3 record
Buffalo, 6 GP, 19 Sacks, 5-1 record
K.C., 7 GP, 19 Sacks, 5-2 record
Washington 7 GP, 19 Sacks, 3-4 record
The Rams have 12 sacks (#25) and are #32 in QB pressures, #31 in QB knock downs. Terrible right? Except they have the lowest depth of target against (5.9 yards) and the lowest air yards per completion. Clearly, offenses are hurried because they get the ball out quickly and not very far downfield. The Rams have given up the least number of first downs passing (59) and the second lowest number of first downs rushing (32). So what's more important, sacks or first downs? It's a philosophy. The Rams have given up 300 yards per game, which is top 5 in the NFL, despite having a very low number of sacks. Seems, to me, like the defense is playing pretty good. They're #8 vs the pass (without a lot of negative yards from sacks) and #9 yards per game vs the run. The way offenses are playing the Rams D, acquiring an edge rusher won't change the sacks numbers very much IMHO.
Here are the top 10 teams in sacks and how they have fared record-wise.
Dallas 7 GP, 29 Sacks, 5-2 record
San Fran 7 GP, 24 Sacks, 3-4 record
Denver 7 GP, 22 Sacks, 2-5 record
Tampa 7 GP, 22 Sacks, 3-4 record
N.England 7 GP, 21 Sacks, 3-4 record
Baltimore 7 GP, 20 Sacks, 4-3 record
Buffalo, 6 GP, 19 Sacks, 5-1 record
K.C., 7 GP, 19 Sacks, 5-2 record
Washington 7 GP, 19 Sacks, 3-4 record
The Rams have 12 sacks (#25) and are #32 in QB pressures, #31 in QB knock downs. Terrible right? Except they have the lowest depth of target against (5.9 yards) and the lowest air yards per completion. Clearly, offenses are hurried because they get the ball out quickly and not very far downfield. The Rams have given up the least number of first downs passing (59) and the second lowest number of first downs rushing (32). So what's more important, sacks or first downs? It's a philosophy. The Rams have given up 300 yards per game, which is top 5 in the NFL, despite having a very low number of sacks. Seems, to me, like the defense is playing pretty good. They're #8 vs the pass (without a lot of negative yards from sacks) and #9 yards per game vs the run. The way offenses are playing the Rams D, acquiring an edge rusher won't change the sacks numbers very much IMHO.