I'm not as concerned about sacks as I am about pressure. We just have to stop giving the opposing QB enough time to knit a sweater back there.

It was so frustrating watching Matt Ryan just stand there and make throws. The Falcons were in a funk leading up to the game and Ryan is terrible under pressure. He just stood there and made the throws to ice the game. Same with Rivers and Brees.

---

Shock the world

The sack stat is an odd one when rating a defense. This year, 9 of the top 10 teams in sacks made the playoffs. In 2014, it was only 4 out of the top 12, with the Jags being in there.

Seattle has been in the bottom half the last two years.

As other posters have said, the eye test is going to give more significant markers of the defense, rather than the sack stat.

I would just like a more consistent rush. More disruption. It felt like there were stretches of quarters game to game where the qb didnt even get touched last year.

---

Whether it's Dante Fowler or a new pass rusher, I'd liek to see someone get double-digit sacks.

---

'02

True only to an extent. Having that dominant guy opens up so much more for the rest of the line, affects the offensive scheme, etc.

 

If one player does everything except sack the quarterback and another does nothing except that in a game, give me the dominant player who has no sacks.

 

People focus so much on sacks. They are overrated and a useless stat. What I expect is to see whoever we sign in the backfield often and contributing to a disruptive pass rush along with other players.

 

I have been saying for years statistics are meaningless by themselves, but "useless stat" is pretty harsh. If you combine the sack number with hits, pressures, knockdowns, ball tips, and forced fumbles, you get a much better picture than if you only looked at sacks. It is about the overall body of work, which includes sack totals.

---

If worry over this has Bullseye awake at 4:00 am, he's going to have a long off season.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

If worry over this has Bullseye awake at 4:00 am, he's going to have a long off season.

Routine has me awake at 4 am. 

 

This subject just creeped in my mind...not so much on the worry level.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

If worry over this has Bullseye awake at 4:00 am, he's going to have a long off season.

 

LOL If I posted a question about our defense at 4:00 a.m. would you think I am worried about it? The truth is no matter where it comes from, we will get some major upgrades on that side of the ball, starting with pass rushers.

---

I'll consider it a success if opposing QB's have a combined passer rating of below 90.


(Last year the passer rating of opposing QB's was 97.2)

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I'm not as concerned about sacks as I am about pressure. We just have to stop giving the opposing QB enough time to knit a sweater back there.

 

Uh, that's what all the smart people in this thread have already said. Did you think I wouldn't catch you trying to steal my thoughts?!

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Uh, that's what all the smart people in this thread have already said. Did you think I wouldn't catch you trying to steal my thoughts?!

You said smart people...

---

You said smart people...

 

because stupid people put too much emphasis on sacks.

---

because stupid people put too much emphasis on sacks.

 

:blink:

---

:blink:

 

You were saying?

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

because stupid people put too much emphasis on sacks.

 

 

I'd still like to see the sacks. Boy oh boy do I miss the year Bobby McCray had with one picture-perfect textbook sack after another. In lieu of sacks sure I'd be ok with a stat saying "well, we didn't actually get the sacks, but we led the league in qb hits." But short of being able to say something like that, show me the sacks.

---

'02

I would be happy with making the QB move when he didn't want to move, throwing before he wanted to throw, and throwing the ball away to avoid a sack...anything else would be a bonus  

---

I'd still like to see the sacks. Boy oh boy do I miss the year Bobby McCray had with one picture-perfect textbook sack after another. In lieu of sacks sure I'd be OK with a stat saying "well, we didn't actually get the sacks, but we led the league in QB hits." But short of being able to say something like that, show me the sacks.

 

Bobby McCray celebrated that sack by doing Gator chomps. I thought that was awesome.

 

Obviously I would rather see sacks than knockdowns. Who wouldn't? My point is fans should not say a player sucks just because he has fewer sacks than we want. Give me forced interceptions and fumbles, tips at the LOS, etc. too, not just sacks.

---

You were saying?

That was awesome  :thanks:

---

If better pass rush means more int's, more fumble's, less 1st downs, and fewer back up QB's looking like HOF'ers against our Defense..... I'm all for it.

---

I ain't no monkey... I'm an ape.

If better pass rush means more int's, more fumble's, less 1st downs, and fewer back up QB's looking like HOF'ers against our Defense..... I'm all for it.

/thread

---

Signature goes here.

People focus so much on sacks. They are overrated and a useless stat. What I expect is to see whoever we sign in the backfield often and contributing to a disruptive pass rush along with other players.

I wouldn't quite say sacks are a useless stat, but constant pressure and hitting the QB, whether it's a sack or not, is definitely very important.

---