Greene versus Haley for HOF

[Veeshik_ya]

Saying something is overrated isn't the same as saying it isn't important.

Here's the scenario: late in fourth quarter, team needs a score to win. Other than a turnover, can you think of a bigger momentum killing play than a sack or an offensive holding penalty?

I can't.

QB, under extreme duress, defenders crashing down around him, outstretched hands of the DE grazes his jersey, just gets the pass off for a critical completion.

In this case, pass rush not enough. Sack would've made all the difference.

[Veeshik_ya]

Personally, am more interested in the merits of the players and if they are deserving. Whether they get in or not is almost beside the point.

Far less interested in the politics of who gets in, when they get in, why they got in, who or what city might vote for who, or who might be sacrificed for who. Boring. Let that ninny Peter King worry about such things. It's what he's paid to do. Lord knows he can't write about football.

But not everyone agrees. Some folks, like voters and/or historians, researchers, and writers who advise (or claim to) the voters, are fascinated by this dance because it makes them feel part of a game that they were never part of.

And human beings always make things about politics. We're a political animal, as someone once said.

[Byron]

I think a "pro" for Greene is that when he went to a new team, that team immediately became much better on defense. Greene played with high-energy for a very long time and I think thats why his statistical achievements are a tad bit better than most of his peers. Haley to me was more hit-or-miss when it came to giving a top effort, and I think there are just too many great pass rushers in Haley's era that should overshadow him (Greene for one).

I look at this argument and think, "how can you not apply that to Haley?". He went to Dallas in 1992 and immediately and significantly upgraded their defense. Haley never racked up big sack numbers for Dallas but he completely changed their defense. Teams had to account for him and he made everyone around him better. I'm not saying this means you pick Haley over Greene (or visa versa) but I do think the "...went to a new team, that team immediately became much better on defense" argument applies to both.

[Reaser]

Here's the scenario: late in fourth quarter, team needs a score to win. Other than a turnover, can you think of a bigger momentum killing play than a sack or an offensive holding penalty?

Ya, I get it. Though I just think back to the NFC Championship, second half down 16-0 Wilson sacked by Matthews for a loss of 15, end of that possession Seattle has 7. In OT, Wilson sacked by Peppers to bring up 3rd down, two plays later Seattle is going to the Super Bowl. Not meant to be 'cherry picked' examples, but it's what came to mind.

Speaking of Peppers, a player with a lot of sacks, some may remember him repeatedly saying "sacks are overrated" a few years ago, when he didn't get sacks: "sacks are overrated", when he did get sacks: "sacks are overrated."

Then there's Jason Taylor, former DPOY and a player with even more sacks, have seen him say "sacks are overrated", too.

For a more recent example there's SB champion and the best DL on the best defense over the past two seasons, Michael Bennett's recent rant about sacks being overrated. I don't like to misquote and I don't care to look it up so I'll just quote the part I remember exact with him saying "sacks aren’t that important."

Can go back to coaches and I remember the great Dick LeBeau being on NFLN years ago (wish I had recorded it, always like hearing him talk football philosophy) and he was talking about how you didn't have to get sacks, and he thought pressure was easily more important (similar to what I've posted a couple times about how I'd rather have hits/hurries, etc) ...

A few years ago I was researching Jim Finks and I kept coming across him saying "sacks are overrated" and it stuck with me because I thought "hey, I always tell people sacks are overrated, he should have been commissioner."

Then you can go the other way, and this is actually interesting, but if there was an example to show that sacks ARE a winning stat and that they're important, then the best recent example would be to use the Giants two most recent Super Bowls. Well I've seen multiple press conferences and interviews with Jerry Reese where he's said that sacks are an overrated statistic. The guy who won two Super Bowls with a franchise that got a lot of sacks and he thinks the stat is overrated ...

Lastly, as for leading to wins, I wonder how many teams this year with 45 or more sacks made the playoffs? Or how many teams that had players who had 10 or more sacks made the playoffs? How many played in the conference championships? How many are playing in the Super Bowl tomorrow? To me, it's just not a stat that equals wins or as I read Marvin Lewis say just yesterday; "sacks don't win games."

My thoughts at least.

[JohnTurney]

Can go back to coaches and I remember the great Dick LeBeau being on NFLN years ago (wish I had recorded it, always like hearing him talk football philosophy) and he was talking about how you didn't have to get sacks, and he thought pressure was easily more important (similar to what I've posted a couple times about how I'd rather have hits/hurries, etc) ...

I am not sure anyone disagrees with you. I think all of those who say sacks are overrated will also say pressure is very important. And my point is those with thee most sacks are usually the ones who put the most pressure on. Having looked at this issue kind of closely that has been my conclusion.

So, in my research, looking at more than sacks, he with the most sacks over a reasonable period of time is going to have the most hits/hurries, too. The guy who gets a lot of hits and hurries and few sacks is not a common occurrence.

There are plenty, though, who get plenty of sacks and hits and hurries that don't play the run. But there are posters who think that stopping the run doesn't really help in wins.

[Reaser]

I am not sure anyone disagrees with you.

I was just adding more, and at least one clearly didn't understand what I was saying, though obviously you and the rest did.

Plus there's multiple layers to it, pressure v. sacks, sacks as a stat, sacks importance to winning, etc ... Tried to cover it all, with my opinion and backing it up with examples. Pressure being more important than sacks (in my opinion), sacks as a stat being overrated (in my opinion) and sacks not being a winning stat (in my opinion).

No issue with people thinking otherwise, or agreeing. Just wanted to help in regards to understanding the line of thinking.

[NWebster]

I haven't, and really don't have time to, read the whole thread.

I do think sacks themselves can be overrated. Agree that 12 plays in any given season just aren't enough to measure a player on. However, I do believe that pressure on the quarterback is important, knockdown, hits, etc often happen on non sack plays and often impact a passer in meaningful ways.

A couple of years ago I looked at passer rating on plays where the passer was hit but not sacked - per the square brackets in the play by plays and the rating was something like 10 point lower. That may not sound like much but its the difference between facing Drew Brees (career rating 95) vs facing Andy Dalton (career rating 85) that seems like a pretty big difference to me. That was just one year, but seems logical.

So I do thing pressure is important, and I do think that sack - while they can be overrated - are the best admittedly imperfect measure we have of pass rush pressure. Finally, as individual plays they can often be very decisive, getting an offence off the field on third down without a shot at getting a pass downfield, or burying a team with 10+ yards to go.

As for Haley and Greene i'd go Greene over Haley. I tend to think Haley's quite overrated. He was no more, and probably less, a force against the run than Greene - this is not saying Greene was great, but Haley certainly wasn't. Neither played any real quality pass defense. And the rings are just a non argument to me.

[DukeSlater]

Personally, I would like to see more emphasis put on quarterback pressures; they are just as important as sacks, at times. In fact, I would not mind seeing quarterback pressures as official NFL stats, though that may be difficult, I do not know.

[NWebster]

Personally, I would like to see more emphasis put on quarterback pressures; they are just as important as sacks, at times. In fact, I would not mind seeing quarterback pressures as official NFL stats, though that may be difficult, I do not know.

Agree . . . but also agree that I think it's just too difficult to get a uniform definition. QB Hits started being compiled a few years ago, that was easier because they defined it as you hit the QB and he was knocked to the ground. Even that would be tougher absent the "knocked to the ground" aspect, but that's what I was charting when I measured the difference in QB Rating. FWIW, Watt has lead the league in that for the last three years.