Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

John Maxymuk wrote:Matt,

Are you saying you don't consider mike tomczak and joey harrington among the ten greatest QBs in history?

HA! Something like that.

So - in different breaths mind you - Russell Wilson is great because he wins, and the sack rate is meaningless because a guy with a high sack rate wins so much. But the Seahawks D is awesome despite a low (not horrible but really more league average) sack rate. Is it possible that Russell's winning percentage is great because his D was great?

Is logically crazy to think that any game with 22 people theoretically involved in every play can be broken down to a single number, that's why it's great to watch the game. I think Chase was doing the exact right thing by saying I noticed these numbers, have folks who watched observed anything that might explain them.

How do sacks happen, 1) a blocking breakdown, 2) a great pass rushing effort, 3) a QB hold the ball too long, 4) ancillary other stuff. The Johnson Flute example is one where gee it really seems like the QB's were the difference.

In the end sacks are an imperfect but coorelated proxy for pressure. And there does seem to be recent evidence based on data, and I would argue LOGIC, the QB's perform worse under pressure.

NWebster wrote:So - in different breaths mind you - Russell Wilson is great because he wins, and the sack rate is meaningless because a guy with a high sack rate wins so much. But the Seahawks D is awesome despite a low (not horrible but really more league average) sack rate. Is it possible that Russell's winning percentage is great because his D was great?

Giving W/L to QB's is ridiculous, it's a team sport. 'His' win % has nothing to do with why sack rate is meaningless.

Sack rate is meaningless because sack rate is meaningless (profound, I know.)

Seahawks D is great and they were below league average in sacks in 2 of the last 3 seasons. They somehow managed to get to the SB last year despite being 20th in sacks. Michael Bennett from the great Seahawks D has been asked about sacks and his response was: "sacks are overrated", almost like he knows defensive football or something. Only the best DL on the best defense in football.

Note: other best defenses since 2000.
2000 Ravens finished 22nd in sacks, below league average. (Their DC has been quoted numerous times as saying "sacks are overrated", the DC that took over for him also has said many times: "sacks are overrated.")
2002 Bucs T-6th in sacks
None of those legendary defenses (including past 3 years of the Seahawks) were Top 5 in sacks.

On the offensive side, Seahawks were dead last in QB sack % in 2013 - won the Super Bowl. 1988 49ers in the bottom five in sack % - won the Super Bowl. The better 1989 49ers finished in the bottom 7 in sack % (they improved!) - won the Super Bowl. The 2008 Steelers finished in the bottom 4 in sack % - won the Super Bowl.

Just because, the sack % leaders from 2000-2003:
2000: Vinny T (also led the league in ints thrown)
2001: Jim Miller
2002: Joey Harrington
2003: Joey Harrington

Yes, the immortal Joey Heisman is a multiple time leader in this all important statistical category.

Jay Cutler led the league in sack % in 2008, the year of the Broncos collapse. Putting aside that Cutler led the league in sack % and accounting for sacks being such a winning stat, in the finale when they were blown out by SD surely Cutler must have been sacked a bunch of times? Oh, no, he wasn't? Not sacked at all, not even once. While San Diego who won 52-21 was sacked twice. Hmm, sacks, telling the story of the game like usual . . .

2014
Bengals, defense was dead last in sacks (32nd, with 20 sacks). Went 10-5-1 and made the playoffs.
Bills, defense was #1 in sacks (ranked 1st, with 54 sacks). Didn't make the playoffs.

For the record the Bills were league average on offense in sack %. So average in "avoiding sacks", lead the league in getting sacks, and not even good enough to make the playoffs. Yup, sacks . . .

"The QB's perform worse under pressure", absolutely. That goes in a different category though, which is why great defensive minds - for example, Dick LeBeau - will say (and has said and been quoted as saying) putting pressure on the passer is more important than getting sacks. As if they're two separate things because pressure is important and as a statistic, sacks are overrated - as the great Bill Parcells used to tell his players. Famously - here in Seattle - recited by Greg Ellis after the Cowboys blew Seattle out and Dallas had 7 sacks - even then, a blowout win and their defense getting 7 sacks Ellis said "sacks are overrated".

The player with the single-season sack record has a long history of saying sacks are overrated. During his career, when he was a young player, when he was a veteran player, and post-career. Michael Strahan: "sacks are overrated."

Either way, as a Seattle fan I'm just happy I got to see the Seahawks win the last two NFC Championships. I don't know how they pulled it off? Two seasons ago Wilson was sacked 4 times and Kaep was only sacked twice in the NFC Championship, but Seattle won?!

Makes no sense since sacks are an important measure of winning and all . . .

Then last season, Wilson sacked FIVE times, no chance to win especially since Rodgers was only sacked once. Seattle wins, because sacks 'matter' . . .

Flutie was better than Johnson at something? Shocker. Definitely needed sack % to tell us that.

Reaser wrote:Jay Cutler led the league in sack % in 2008, the year of the Broncos collapse. Putting aside that Cutler led the league in sack % and accounting for sacks being such a winning stat, in the finale when they were blown out by SD surely Cutler must have been sacked a bunch of times? Oh, no, he wasn't? Not sacked at all, not even once. While San Diego who won 52-21 was sacked twice. Hmm, sacks, telling the story of the game like usual . . .

So the 1986 Cardinals finish 79-82 and hit the fewest HRs in the league. But in the last game of the year, the Cardinals lose 8-5 to the Pirates despite hitting 3 HRs while the Pirates hit none. The conclusion to be drawn is that HRs have a poor correlation to wining, which is further enforced by Whitey Herzog saying "HRs are overrated"?

As for a QBs "sack %", I don't know how well it correlates to wins and losses. I would think (hope?) that people would be smart enough to not view sack % as a 1-to-1 correlation with a QBs 'greatness'. I just view it as 'interesting', such as Joey Harrington ranking so high on the list. My memory of him in Detroit is Harrington throwing about 20-25 short incompletions every game and being terrible. If you look at the stats, you can kind of see this...terrible comp%, terrible YPA, but a low sack%. Its hard for the defense to sack you when you are throwing the ball into the turf as soon as you dropback. As for Tomczak, he would always throw the ball away. Not great at extending the action, no playmaking ability whatsoever, a mediocre game manager.

John Maxymuk wrote:Matt,

All your points are duly noted, and I am in total agreement about the TEAM aspect of the game outweighing all else. However, it is interesting to look at stats like this to get clues about players. It's no surprise that scramblers like Wilson, Tarkenton and Young take a lot of sacks because they try to extend plays with their legs. Likewise, it's clear that quick release guys like Manning and Marino avoid sacks by making quick decisions with the ball. And the Rob Johnson/Doug Flutie comparison is striking...especially considering that Flutie was a scrambler.

Anyway, so going from these numbers we can have a discussion about Rob Johnson as a QB. Was he indecisive, oblivious or what? The Starr numbers are interesting, too, in that any old Packer fan will tell you that Bart would take a sack to avoid throwing a pick...the team also sent its backs out into pass patterns a lot so he didn't always have blocking help in the backfield. So how could he be among the leaders in this obscure stat? Makes me want to look into it to see if I'm missing something.

Hey John,

Starr is an interesting case. You're right, he does have a reputation for taking sacks to avoid throwing a pick.... and that reputation is well-earned!

I posted the raw data today at my site: http://www.footballperspective.com/esti ... 0-to-1968/

If you type "Starr" into the search engine and sort by year, you'll see something interesting. He had a sack rate of under 5% in '60, '61, and '63 -- that's really good. But in every other year, his sack rate was at least 9%, and it was at least 11% in four of those seasons!

Putting aside the statistical oddity of zero years between 5% and 9% (which is where most QBs are), I would say that something significant changed, and that fluctuation was not the result of random variation. Was it the trade of Jim Ringo? Did the line get worse? Was it other turnover on the roster? Or did Starr/Lombardi just decide to operate a different offense -- one that either focused more on deeper passes (which could lead to more sacks) or more conservative ones (taking sacks over INTs)?

I also think Starr's higher sack rate in '62 is interesting. That may have been the result of a conscious decision to play more conservatively, given how dominant the team's defense was that year.

John Maxymuk wrote:Anyway, so going from these numbers we can have a discussion about Rob Johnson as a QB. Was he indecisive, oblivious or what?

My recollection was that he was indecisive/terrified of throwing INTs.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/numbers/001212.html

My memory may be faulty, but I recall either rumors or a Johnson quote at one point saying that he "purposely" took sacks to inflate his passer rating.

Chase Stuart wrote:My memory may be faulty, but I recall either rumors or a Johnson quote at one point saying that he "purposely" took sacks to inflate his passer rating.

That was the same thing they said about Ken O'Brien.

My memory of Johnson was that he just didn't react to defensive pressure, so I guess oblivious would be the best way to put it. Its not like he was skittish or holding on the ball too long. I think Mark Rypien was kind of the same way with the Redkins...I remember one year he fumbled in like 9 straight games because he could never see the pass-rusher.

What qualifies as "analysis"? Is it compiling existing data that proves or disproves the past?

The best way to determine whether a metric is valid or relevant is to apply it to games that haven't been played. Spend a year forecasting games and you'll learn things about what wins and loses football games that you will learn no other way.

In the meantime, Pro-Football-Reference has made a lot of analysts out of grocery pickers.

by mwald » Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:19 am
"... In the meantime, Pro-Football-Reference has made a lot of analysts out of grocery pickers."


And, the line waiting for hand baskets grows longer every day.

Meanwhile, when the pocket breaks down and disaster is imminent, some men calmly and coolly loft the ball over outstretched arms into that vast area where Woody Hayes once claimed "only three things can happen and two of them are bad."

Rob Johnson was an outstanding athlete. He was as fast as any QB in the pre-Vick league, although he didn't have Kordell's shiftiness, or McNair's strength. He also had an outstanding arm. He could throw accurately and deep. His arm was far superior to Flutie's at 35 and 36.
I think Buffalo News columnist Bucky Gleason summed it up. Doug Flutie tended to hide the offensive line's weaknesses, whereas Johnson tended to magnify those weaknesses. Flutie still had decent speed at his age, along with outstanding quickness and a sixth sense for the pressure and where it was coming from.

Johnson tended to be the exact opposite. He seemed oblivious to the pressure, and would hold on to the ball too long. I don't think he was concerned about improving his stats because this trend continued even after he suffered numerous injuries. Johnson had a thin frame and was physically susceptible to injuries.
1998: SD- concussion. St. L- concussion. Ind-Rib injury
1999: Phi- concussion (he came in for one series in a blown out win)
2000: Ten- sprained ankle, Mia- General beating, likely concussion, SD- separated shoulder, TB- concussion, NE- concussion
2001: NYJ- neck injury, NE- separated shoulder