Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Sep 01, 2014 at 08:57 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Sacks and average time allowed per sack  (Read 479 times)
jcharding
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: 1221
Offline Offline

Posts: 546



« on: Nov 13, 2009 at 13:26 »

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/11/13/between-the-lines-whos-allowing-the-most-sacks/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002

Starks has allowed 4.5 sacks thus far, good for 14th worst in the NFL.  Those 4.5 sacks have come with an average of 3.7 seconds per sack - which is the best in the NFL among players who have given up more than 1.5 sacks. 

Everyone who has given up a sack thus far in the NFL is included on the link.  It can also be sorted by team.
Logged

I don't need no stinking avatar!
Finnegans Wake
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 12189
Offline Offline

Posts: 22,242



« Reply #1 on: Nov 13, 2009 at 17:28 »

I've been surprised that Green Bay has been so fucking insipid, because they've been stocking some good (on paper) OL talent.  But the problem may be that they, like our OL of late, are too young, and unused to playing together. 

The Pack's Daryn Colledge (7.0) and Panthers' Jordan Gross (7.0) lead offenders, and both those guys seem like good players.  I wonder if there's not more to those stats.

The Eagles gave a big deal to Jason Peters to play LT, but he coughed up like 11 or 12 sacks last year, so I'm not surprised he's at 4.0.

Starks's 3.7 second median time is much higher than most, where the median is about 2.5-2.8.  That extra tick tells me two things.  One, Max is driving his man to loop wide, and two, Ben gets some of that for holding onto the ball too long.

Just going by the eye test, each and every one of our guys is doing a better job of keeping Ben clean.  The sack issue then gets shifted to being a problem with Ben holding onto the ball too long, but I've noticed that our receivers are getting covered well a lot of the time.  It's what smothers our drives early on, and it's what we counter with Ben being Ben and, increasingly, Wallace being Wallace.

For some reason, the sacks this year seem a lot more bearable.  Not as many pile-drivers/spinal crackers/bone shakers.
Logged

Out of my mind on Saturday night...
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,795



WWW
« Reply #2 on: Nov 14, 2009 at 21:45 »

Quote
For some reason, the sacks this year seem a lot more bearable.  Not as many pile-drivers/spinal crackers/bone shakers.

That seems to be a big difference.  On several sacks this year, the line is holding their own but just keeps giving ground until they run into Ben, who is still holding onto the ball.  They just go down in a cluster rather than Ben getting the Bart Scott treatment off the corner.

3.7 seconds is an awfully long time to hold a man off.  In addition to Ben holding the ball too long, we don't exactly call a ton of quick-hitters, screens, and slants in our offense.  Ben is looking to chuck it for 20+ most of the time, which (as stated) will translate into sacks even when the oline is doing a pretty good job.  Also, with so many guys trying to go wide on Starks, he's probably pushing him right into Ben on occasion, or Ben is turning to escape and runs right into Starks and/or his man.  Seems that we've had several plays where it looked like that happened. 

The good news is that Starks doesn't appear to be whiffing too often or just letting guys run right by him a la 2008.  Also, it seems that Mendenhall and Moore are doing a much better job of chipping and picking up blitzes than our backs have done in years past.  I seem to remember Dump Davenport standing about two feet from Ben to make a block and just getting his butt pushed back into Ben.

Seems like these stats could depend on a lot of factors.  For example, someone from the Browns is really high on # of sacks allowed (1), but has a low number for holding blocks.  Could this be because his QB is getting buried before his guy even has time to get there?  Could the good numbers for a guy from Seattle be due to the quick passing game they use out there?  Still, pretty interesting stuff--and good to see that the oline guys are getting a little statistical attention.

Notice that Kemo is around 2.9 in holding blocks, which really needs to improve.  However, we knew that was a weakness for him coming in, and I'll let that slide as long as he keeps plowing up turf for RM to run.  We'll work around to protection issues if he'll keep taking out two guys at a time on the pull.

Overall, this group looks immensely better than they did last year.  For the most part, I would not blame the losses that we have on the offensive line.

Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
Steelerdipwad
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3673
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,656



« Reply #3 on: Nov 20, 2009 at 09:06 »

Great link. Thanks man. Check out Willie Colon with no sacks given up. He needs to make the Pro-Bowl this year.
Logged

"Fanatics are picturesque. Mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reason." - Friederich Nietzsche
DrRockit
No longer a N00b!
**

Karma: 1293
Offline Offline

Posts: 92



« Reply #4 on: Nov 20, 2009 at 09:38 »

I've been re-watching games this year and really focusing on the O-line.  Kemo does seem to be the weakest link, but I think their real problem is assigning blockers and picking up blitzes.  If they get a block on their guy, they all seem to be doing fine, TBH.  The problem is the number of rushers who get into the backfield untouched.

Speaking of Starks, after a play breaks down I have frequently seen him stumbling around looking for someone to block.  The problem is Ben is already on his butt.

They are better than they were last year, but when they fail it's really ugly.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!