There are 141 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Is getting pressure just as good as a sack?

Well if you can get consistent pressure, sure it is. but I rather have a 2nd & 17 then 2nd & 10.
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Hitting the QB 20 times a game, is better than getting 4 sacks a game.

this
Originally posted by crzy:
Yes.

I was having this discussion the other day with a Redskins fan.

I believe that one of the worst moves Mike Nolan made was to trade away Andre "Step-Away" Carter. Carter was a guy who was always one or two steps away from a sack, but always was consistently in the backfield when he was here. Thus, his numbers were never impressive, but his impact on the team was very underrated.

And after stupidly rying to convert him into a 3-4 OLB , Mike Nolan traded him away for scraps and have been searching for an effective pass rusher since.

Andre Carter wasn't traded. He signed by Washington as an unrestricted free agent. It should also be noted that Carter was more productive in is first three years in San Francisco (25 1/2 sacks) than he has been in three seasons in Washington (20 1/2 sacks).

He and Peterson didn't fit into the team's scheme, and as a result walked away in free agency.
Had this discussion not so long ago, and on here as well. I know I'm tired of someone pointing to our sack ranking (even though only tied for #16 with 30 on the year) as if to say that we were not that bad in getting pressure. Yes, we really were.... we were terribly at generating consistent pressure, and that can kill a D regardless. Can't judge a team's pass rush on sack totals alone.
Originally posted by hondakillerzx:
pressure can cause turnovers. sacks are good too but constant pressure is good for interceptions

Bingo!!!
Pressure's just as good if a QB is flustered by the pressure. However, some QBs like Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or Kurt Warner are rarely unaffected by an on-coming defender.

Pressure leads to incompletions, check-downs, and check-downs.

All in all, looking at sacks is really the only full-season way to evaluate a team's ability to generate pressure on a QB (I think. They DO show the statistic for hurries, knockdowns, and blitzes during games).
  • DJD
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,806
One thing about pressure vs sack, you can't get interceptions from a sack. Turnovers are the biggest defensive play. So if pressure produces more than sacks then you are on to something.
not AS good obviously but it's very close.
As said before, a QB can make a big play under pressure. when he´s sacked he can´t. Also a sack is always negative yardage. An incompletion is not.

Pressure is only then as good and even better when the pass is picked, well not always if a sack resultet in a safety then the sack is better.
[ Edited by JeuSF49 on Aug 25, 2009 at 8:31 AM ]
Sometimes it is better. Sometimes it results in interceptions.
Just getting pressure obviously isn't as good as getting a sack, but consistent pressure is what we're shooting for. With consistent pressure, sacks, stops, and interceptions will come.
At a 1 to 1 ratio a QB pressure is not as good as a sack which is what I think the poster was asking.

Consistent pressure is a different story.
  • WestCoastNut
  • Info N/A
Originally posted by Method:
Rather get constant pressure then a few sacks a game.

Sacks =/ pressure.

This.

But you need a few good knocks on the glamour boy to make the rushes "feel" like impending disaster.
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Hitting the QB 20 times a game, is better than getting 4 sacks a game.
sure 1:1 you'd always rather have a sack. but u srsly cannot get 20 sacks a game. if u can lay 1 good hit on the QB and get him flustered the rest of the game, pressure will be good enough. Get him frustrated enough to fluster his teammates, esp the oline, and its even better. I'd be happy with 0 sacks a game if we were always in the qb's face and got that hit right when he's throwing the ball. those hits add up and it'll definitely be in our favor.