I was reading the Couples/Wilkerson thread and kept hearing how important getting more sacks were, and it got me thinking. The Jets had 35 sacks in 2011, and 40 in 2010. This made me think that the league was catching up with Rex's schemes. Then I checked the 2009 stats to confirm my theory, because I remembered that in that season the Jets had the #1 defense in the league Well to my surprise and chagrin, in the year when they had the top defense in the league in yards allowed, the Jets had only 31 sacks What can you make of that? Well I THINK it means that the key to success for a Ryan Defense is NOT how many sacks the Jets have, but rather how fast you can make the QB get rid of the ball. Ryan's D is ALL about making the opposing QB feel uncomfortable For example by overloading one side, you have already put it in the QB's head that he's going to have to get rid of the ball quickly even before the snap. So even if he completes the pass it will be to receiver in the short zones, which minimizes the potential damage The Jets pass defense is built on man principles and by design, they will be at its most effectiveness in the first few seconds of the route. The longer the QB can hold on to the ball, the LESS effective the coverage becomes. Often times by mere alignment and reputation, Ryan can cause a QB to get rid of the ball before he wants to. OF course there's no sack, but fewer overall yards gained. All this begs the question just how important are sacks to the overall success of a defense. Over the last 3 years the Jets have ranked 1st, 3rd, and 5th in total defense yet have finished 18th, 8th, and 16th in sacks, respectively. It makes us ask the question does improving the pass rush mean you have to have more sacks, or is improving you pass rush really mean, increasing the number of times you made the QB throw to ball faster than he wanted to. Just something to ponder on until camp starts
Pressures are not a stat so It's an unspoken word. Sacks are flashy and just like Dunks get all the attention. You get Consistent Pressure in a Qb's Face or on the edge it will lead to bad passes eventually or lead to --> Sacks Pressure is what this team has been lacking for a long time. QBs have all the time in the world to set their footwork and all over our Sacks were mostly Coverage Sacks
Pressure that leads to hurried throws, is often just as effective as an actual sack. In 2009 and 2010, the Jets defense was dictating to opposing offenses what they could and could not do. This led to poor decision making, even by Brady and Manning.
I think the big issue is getting pressure, not sacks. The Jets were blitzing QBs and getting stonewalled pretty often. The 2000 Ravens defense, one of the more legendary defense of our team was wrecking people, yet they didnt get alot of sacks. Rather their pressure on the QB led to many turnovers. So Wilk and Coples dont necessarily need to sack QBs, just make him run for dear life and chuck the ball up in the air too soon
Rex said in 09 that part of his defense was getting QB's to rush and the best place to pass the ball was to Revis the way the defense worked.
Coples will get sacks. He is not a one-trick pony like Gladys Gholston. Couples exhibited multiple pass rush moves in college. Gholston only had a bull rush in college. That's all he could do. Well, that and look good with his shirt off. Mike Tannenbaum, are you bisexual maybe? I think you might be. So, yeah, Gholston had one pass rush move in college and he had success with it against a number of lineman who would not go on to play in the NFL. Of course, there was that one time when Gholston abused Jake Long, so he has that going for him which is nice.
You know Dirk, back in the 1850's they named a political party after you.....the Know Nothings. Congratulations.
You know who else this is true for? The other 31 teams in the league. But your overall point is 100% on the money. In terms of what makes a defense successful, pressure is key and sacks are practically irrelevant. It's not just about forcing quick throws either, although obviously that is a major help. Every offense strives to give it's QB a pocket to throw in. Creating pressure tests a QBs discipline to move within the pocket, something not all starters can effectively do. There are plenty of guys who have the arm strength and accuracy to consistently make throws against quality coverage when there is no one around them, there are fewer guys who can do it with bodies around them and at their feet. Mechanics and temperament become even more important in those situations, it's what separates the men from the boys. Plus, ya know, all the turnovers :wink: Seems to me the group "us" should not include the majority of posters on this board.
Of course, because without your brilliant insight I'd never have learned that getting pressure on a QB is an important part of football. Tell us again about the Pop Warner team you coached.
Another thought on sacks and Rex Ryan's defenses: Rex has a reputation in the NFL of building a top defense, and teams plan for that when scripting their offense for that game. Tons of 3 step drops. Tons of 2 TE formations. Lots of running plays. Everything and anything an OC can do to get the ball out fast against a Rex defense. Teams know if they play a standard offense against a Rex Ryan defense, they'll get their QB killed more times than not. When teams see a Rex Ryan defense up next on the calendar, OC stay up late figuring ways to get the ball out early to try and slow Rex's exotic blitzes, overloads, and treacherous trickery he loves to play on opposing QB's. Something OC's would never bother with if they're playing, say, the Bills.
You guys really think its "all about pressure" and not sacks, huh? Don't know about you, but I'd rather have a 2nd and 20 on defense because of a sack than a 2nd and 10 because the QB was hurried and threw the ball before he wanted to.
A sack is the ultimate achievement, but the question being answered was whether the number of sacks is the best statistical measure of whether a team is successfully rushing the passer. For all the reasons stated in this thread, sack totals can be an imperfect measure of whether a team ( or an individual player) is good at rushing the passer. Because once you reach a certain effectiveness at it, teams start altering what they do to avoid sacks.
Obviously on any given pass play a sack is a better result than an incomplete pass, no one is arguing otherwise. But the question is, are sacks a good measuring stick for how effective a defense (specifically the pass-rush) was over the course of the game or the season. Would you rather have A) A team that has five plays where they tackle the QB behind the LOS but fail to be disruptive on all the other plays OR B) A team that doesn't get any sacks but is constantly harassing the QB and forcing bad throws and turnovers I'll take B every time
I get what you're saying and you're absolutely correct. I just dont want to diminish the value of the actual sack. I understand its about pressure, but its is also most beneficial to get the sack. You arent just hoping to get pressure, you're hoping to sack the QB and that should be the goal (not just being satisfied with pressure).
