PDA

View Full Version : Is it true that...


TacticaLion
01-03-2007, 12:42 AM
... a QB that passes more will get sacked more?

For some reason, "baronzeus" is trying to argue that a QB that passes more WILL get sacked more, and I don't feel it is true.

So you don't agree that in general a team that passes more will be sacked more? Seems like a silly argument. Using premium pass rush stopping O-lines as a counterexample doesn't really pose a good argument.

I even provided the following information:

QBs - Most Passing Attempts:

Brett Favre - 613 Attempts - 21 Sacks
Jon Kitna - 596 Attempts - 63 Sacks
Marc Bulger - 588 Attempts - 49 Sacks
Peyton Manning - 557 Attempts - 14 Sacks
Drew Brees - 554 Attempts - 18 Sacks

Peyton Manning and Drew Brees were two of the least-sacked QBs in the NFL, while Marc Bulger and Jon Kitna were two of the most. Brett Favre had a THIRD of the sacks that Jon Kitna had, and less than half of the sacks that Marc Bulger had. Green Bay, Indianapolis and New Orleans are 3 of the 5 teams that gave up the fewest sacks.

Other QBs - Passing Attempts - Sacks

Daunte Culpepper - 134 Attempts - 21 Sacks
Trent Green - 198 Attempts - 24 Sacks
Aaron Brooks - 192 Attempts - 26 Sacks
Andrew Walter - 276 Attempts - 46 Sacks
Bruce Gradkowski - 328 Attempts - 25 Sacks

Peyton Manning passed more times than Daunte Culpepper, Trent Green and Aaron Brooks combined (524 attempts), and was sacked less than each of them individually. Andrew Walter passed 312 times less than Marc Bulger, but was sacked only 3 times fewer.

How can he think this is true? I believe that the quality of the offensive line and the talent of the QB dictate how much the QB will get sacked, he believes the number of passing attempts dictates how much the QB will get sacked.

Which is it?

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-03-2007, 12:44 AM
It's a bit of both. If you run the ball alot, you won't get sacked as much, but if your O-Line is very good, or do alot of short drops, you cam pass alot with few sacks. That's why the "Dropbacks per sack" stat is important.

YAYareaRB
01-03-2007, 01:11 AM
I think if the pass protection is there, it ultimately falls upon whether or not the QB is afraid to pass the ball or not. Either your a gun slinger like Brett Favre or just don't have faith in your own arm.

Flyboy
01-03-2007, 01:12 AM
I think if the pass protection is there, it ultimately falls upon whether or not the QB is afraid to pass the ball or not. Either your a gun slinger like Brett Favre or just don't have faith in your own arm.

Or all your WRs or outlets are just plain covered and you have nowhere to throw...

YAYareaRB
01-03-2007, 01:17 AM
I think if the pass protection is there, it ultimately falls upon whether or not the QB is afraid to pass the ball or not. Either your a gun slinger like Brett Favre or just don't have faith in your own arm.

Or all your WRs or outlets are just plain covered and you have nowhere to throw...

Of course that happens at times... But its almost unreal for it to happen 300+ times.

yodabear
01-03-2007, 01:28 AM
Bulger's were due to the O-Line being dip-shits for a few weeks.

bigthonky7
01-03-2007, 01:35 AM
I think its a bit of both just like chris.

Namy
01-03-2007, 01:36 AM
There's more than one factor for a sack.

Passing more will up the chances of being sacked

Having a crappy OLine will guarantee being sacked more often (Put Manning behind the Raiders OLine)

A non-mobile QB will be sacked more (Bledsoe vs. Romo)

Tendency of the QB (Plummer would rather throw the pick than take the sack)

And give credit to the defensive team that generates the sacks

San Diego Chicken
01-03-2007, 01:47 AM
The style of offense is also a factor. Favre has lots of pass attempts and he doesn't have better than an average line, but since it's a west coast offense with a ton of three step drops, he is rarely sacked. Compare that with Kitna who runs Martz's offense, where every pass play is a seven step drop.

baronzeus
01-03-2007, 02:20 AM
You misconstrued what I said.

My claim was that in identical situations, QBs that pass more will be sacked more. You said you "don't want to deal" with hypothetical situations, then made this poll to prove something.

When you pass more, the D line has more chances at you, and your offense is more predictable, and so you get sacked more. It sucks but that's the way it is. Some people get away with it (Manning) by having amazing O-lines or running lots of screen play/short passes to keep the defense on its heels.


And yes, I think a better/smarter quarterback will be sacked less, in general.

NGSeiler
01-03-2007, 03:47 AM
Bulger's were due to the O-Line being dip-shits for a few weeks.

Only a few weeks? :lol:

Tubby
01-03-2007, 09:22 AM
Its both. No matter how bad your O-line is, if you dont pass you dont get sacked.

draftguru151
01-03-2007, 10:10 AM
If a QB throws more passes he will be sacked more, that's just plain common sense.

MaxV
01-03-2007, 10:45 AM
The number of sacks has A LOT to do with the play of the O-Line and the ability of the QB to make a decision quickly and get rid of the ball guickly.

Peyton, Brees and Favre all get rid of the ball very quickly.

Guys like Culpepper, Vick and Walter hold on to the ball WAY too long.

draftguru151
01-03-2007, 10:50 AM
The original poster made the question sound completely different. It is if everything is the same except the QB throws more in one and less in the other. Same OL, same QB, same offense, same WR, same everything, except one throws 40 times and one throws 30. It is quite obvious the guy who throws 40 times will be sacked more often.

MaxV
01-03-2007, 11:11 AM
The original poster made the question sound completely different. It is if everything is the same except the QB throws more in one and less in the other. Same OL, same QB, same offense, same WR, same everything, except one throws 40 times and one throws 30. It is quite obvious the guy who throws 40 times will be sacked more often.

Well off-course. But I don't think that was his question.

TacticaLion
01-03-2007, 11:15 AM
The original poster made the question sound completely different.
Did I? Lets see...
If a QB throws more passes he will be sacked more, that's just plain common sense.No, it is not just "plain common sense". If a QB throws more, he has the POTENTIAL to be sacked more... you keep saying "he will be sacked more", and it just isnt true. You're making it a fact, and it isnt a fact.

It has a lot to do with other factors.

The only way a QB will NEVER get sacked is if he NEVER passes the ball. No team in the history of the NFL has gone a full 16 games without attempting a pass, and there's a good chance it wont happen in the future. A QB can throw 500 times in a season and never be sacked, while another QB throws once and get sacked during his only attempt. You CAN NOT make it a fact... you CAN NOT say "if a QB throws more passes he will be sacked more"... because it IS NOT TRUE. You make hypothetical situations, and i've given you one there (in bold). If you bring real life situations into it, i've already proved it.
If a QB throws more passes he will be sacked more, that's just plain common sense.
That's the argument both you and "baronzeus" were trying to make, and it isnt true.

The original poster made the question sound completely different. It is if everything is the same except the QB throws more in one and less in the other. Same OL, same QB, same offense, same WR, same everything, except one throws 40 times and one throws 30. It is quite obvious the guy who throws 40 times will be sacked more often.Here... i'll give you an example.

You're suggesting that if both situations are exactly the same. Lets take a quarter. You're basically saying this:

"If I flip a quarter 10 times, and if I flip a quarter 20 times, i'll get more tails with 20 flips than 10 flips." And it isnt true. You can flip 20 times and get all heads, and flip 10 times and get all tails. Sure, the chance is 50/50, but it doesn't always maintain a 50/50 percentage. The CHANCE is the same, but the OUTCOME isnt an exact amount.

jackalope
01-03-2007, 05:46 PM
obviously if you pass more the odds are your sacks will be higher. however it's not always gonna be true. their are a lot of other variables.

TacticaLion
01-03-2007, 06:17 PM
obviously if you pass more the odds are your sacks will be higher. however it's not always gonna be true. their are a lot of other variables.My point exactly.

Of COURSE doing something more increases the odds, but "draftguru" made this statement:
If a QB throws more passes he will be sacked more, that's just plain common sense.
That is a false statement.

jkpigskin
01-03-2007, 06:18 PM
obviously if you pass more the odds are your sacks will be higher. however it's not always gonna be true. their are a lot of other variables.


such as oline, and tendancies to hold onto the ball..

guys like culpepper and vick hang on to the ball way to long...

Prowler
01-03-2007, 08:39 PM
technically if you're doing the 'all things being equal' stipulation...then if peyton manning drops back 3000 times, he's going to be sacked more than if he dropped back 3 times....which still proves nothing but that point should be correct

JT Jag
01-03-2007, 08:44 PM
It's a bit of both.

Understand that the quality of the offensive line and the coaching will be the primary driving factor in the quality of the blocking, or the lack thereof.

However, every time a player drops back to pass is another time that he could get sacked.

A team with just as bad an offensive line as another that passes the ball half as much as the other, with all things being equal, will logically have half as many sacks.

Jim Jim
01-03-2007, 08:45 PM
A lot of factors, but Brett Favre does a good job of scrambling away or just getting away from pressure.

Tubby
01-03-2007, 08:51 PM
The original poster made the question sound completely different. It is if everything is the same except the QB throws more in one and less in the other. Same OL, same QB, same offense, same WR, same everything, except one throws 40 times and one throws 30. It is quite obvious the guy who throws 40 times will be sacked more often.

I dont think that TL has any kind of legit argument against this (TL, I read the whole topic, and your argument is the equivalent of a four year olds). He completely butchered the question in the topic which resulted in a lopsided vote. As a mod, abuse your powers. Please.

KILLERSANTA
01-03-2007, 08:59 PM
No.....

TheChampIsHere
01-03-2007, 09:44 PM
For the Raiders as an example. Andrew Walter was getting sacked almost every time he dropped back. The team mostly ran the ball b/c our passing game was innefective but every 3rd and long we passed and Walter would get sacked b/c 1) our OL is pathetic 2) he is a statue....thats why he got sacked all day every game, not because the Raiders passed too much...

yodabear
01-03-2007, 11:57 PM
Bulger's were due to the O-Line being dip-shits for a few weeks.

Only a few weeks? :lol:

No, I was trying to be nice.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-04-2007, 12:00 AM
Bulger's were due to the O-Line being dip-shits for a few weeks.

Only a few weeks? :lol:

No, I was trying to be nice.

A few can be used to classify seventeen.






BTW, what thread was this in?

PalmerToCJ
01-04-2007, 12:12 AM
How about this one....

Take two QB's... Lets say QB #1 is named Hank and QB #2 is Jon Kitna and put them behind the same Oline. Hank will get sacked less because he is not Jon Kitna, Jon Kitna's decisions in the pocket knock his Oline down a notch. I should know, I watched that small handed man play for way too long.

TacticaLion
01-04-2007, 06:13 AM
The original poster made the question sound completely different. It is if everything is the same except the QB throws more in one and less in the other. Same OL, same QB, same offense, same WR, same everything, except one throws 40 times and one throws 30. It is quite obvious the guy who throws 40 times will be sacked more often.

I dont think that TL has any kind of legit argument against this (TL, I read the whole topic, and your argument is the equivalent of a four year olds). He completely butchered the question in the topic which resulted in a lopsided vote. As a mod, abuse your powers. Please.No... if you read the argument, go back and try again.

If a QB throws more passes he will be sacked more, that's just plain common sense.That's what he said... that was the argument he was trying to make. And, it isnt true. This is the NFL, and you see it every week. It doesn't matter how many times the QB drops back to pass in the NFL... if Peyton Manning drops back to pass 30 times, he may get sacked once. If Walter drops back to pass 15 times, he may get sacked 3 times. How, after looking at the stats, can you argue this?

I'm not going to sit here and say "If a QB has the same everything and drops back to pass 30 times, then 20 times, he'll get sacked more with the 30 times". Why? First of all, this is the NFL. We have proof. We dont need these little hypothetical situations when we have REAL FACTS that we can use. You can sit there and think of all of the imaginary situations you'd like to that help prove your point... but none of them are true and none of them happen. Then, you've got my situation... the NFL. In the NFL, there are many reasons as to why a QB gets sacked... and it IS NOT JUST THE NUMBER OF PASSING ATTEMPTS!

If a QB throws more passes he will be sacked more, that's just plain common sense.

I'll post it again.

If a QB throws more passes he will be sacked more, that's just plain common sense.

That's what he said... that was the argument he was trying to make. "But! But! If he throws it 3,000 times or 5 times!..." NO! That isn't just "more"... "more" is "If he throws it 3,000 times or 2,995 times, is it a FACT that he will be sacked more?" The answer is no. It is not a fact.

jag
01-04-2007, 10:02 AM
Ok heres my thoughts. The talent of the QB is a part of how many times they will be sacked.. But DG is right in saying "the more you pass...." because, Peyton Manning gets sacked however many times throwing the ball 30 times a game. Now, if he throws the ball 40 times a game he WILL be sacked more than if he threw it 30 times.

You can't compare QB's because the talent is diffrent.

TacticaLion
01-04-2007, 11:11 AM
Ok heres my thoughts. The talent of the QB is a part of how many times they will be sacked.. But DG is right in saying "the more you pass...." because, Peyton Manning gets sacked however many times throwing the ball 30 times a game. Now, if he throws the ball 40 times a game he WILL be sacked more than if he threw it 30 times.

You can't compare QB's because the talent is diffrent.
Ok. To put this to rest, read this. This whole thing started with this statement made by "baronzeus".
And given that Kitna threw the second most passes in the league (around 600 whereas the raiders threw about 450 times) he's expected to be sacked the (second) most.
I found a HUGE flaw in that statement, considering the overall number of attempts does NOT match the overall number of sacks. Then, "draftguru" made the following statement:
If a QB throws more passes he will be sacked more, that's just plain common sense.
Which is incorrect.

If Kitna is expected to be sacked the (second) most because he threw the second most passes in the league, shouldn't the QB that threw the MOST passes get sacked MOST in the league (using that logic)? The following research is provided:

QBs - Most Passing Attempts
1. Brett Favre - 613
2. Jon Kitna - 596
3. Marc Bulger - 588
4. Peyton Manning - 557
5. Drew Brees - 554

QBs - Most Times Sacked
1. Jon Kitna - 63
2. Marc Bulger - 49
3. J.P. Losman - 47
4. Ben Roethlisberger - 46
5. Andrew Walter - 46

Using his logic, How did Peyton Manning and Drew Brees pass more than J.P. Losman, Big Ben and Walter and get sacked less?

Which was my exact point, from the start to now: a QB that passes more will not necessarily get sacked more than another QB. It gives him the CHANCE to get sacked more, but it wont necessarily happen. And why not?

Answer this, and you'll see my point: why isnt Brett Favre one of the most sacked QBs of the year?

(If you can answer that question with ANY response, you've proven my point.)

njx9
01-04-2007, 11:50 AM
And given that Kitna threw the second most passes in the league (around 600 whereas the raiders threw about 450 times) he's expected to be sacked the (second) most.

you missed a key word. the original quote doesn't say he WOULD be, just that he would be EXPECTED to be. this is a reasonable assertion. saying he HAS to be is not. you're apparently arguing two different things, one is true (that A does not result in B always) the other is not (that A would be more likely to result in B).

Eaglez.Fan
01-04-2007, 11:57 AM
This is just like do WR's that get the ball most drop the most passes, well yah they do becaus ethey get the most opportunites but somone should figure out the percentage of QB's that get sacked out of every pass attempted

TacticaLion
01-04-2007, 11:59 AM
And given that Kitna threw the second most passes in the league (around 600 whereas the raiders threw about 450 times) he's expected to be sacked the (second) most.

you missed a key word. the original quote doesn't say he WOULD be, just that he would be EXPECTED to be. this is a reasonable assertion. saying he HAS to be is not. you're apparently arguing two different things, one is true (that A does not result in B always) the other is not (that A would be more likely to result in B).There's the problem: he's making an argument, saying that the Lions' OLine isnt nearly as bad because Kitna passed the (second) most in the NFL.

I don't think its reasonable to say that the player that passes the most is EXPECTED to be. I think it IS reasonable to say the player that has the worst OLine is expected to be sacked the most.

To me, the talent of the OLine is a more accurate indicator than the number of passing attempts.

TacticaLion
01-04-2007, 12:11 PM
This is just like do WR's that get the ball most drop the most passes, well yah they do becaus ethey get the most opportunites but somone should figure out the percentage of QB's that get sacked out of every pass attemptedThat's a similar argument, and I also disagree with it.

I think the WR's that get the ball most have the chance to drop the most passes, but I think the WR's with the worst hands/concentration drop the most passes. To me (as with the QB/sacks argument), it's a matter of talent and ability... it isn't JUST opportunity.