There are 116 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

So why isn't the team credited with 5 sacks?

Originally posted by TheG0RE49er:
Who cares what it was called, it ended the drive.

Ask a team like the New York Giants your question.
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by ziggy_gonna_rock:
Mcdonald -1
Haralson -2
smith - 2

Smith is credited with 1 . He had a sack on a 4th down play and at the end of game .

Haralson got Warner early on a bootleg type play . Why are they not credited for 2 sacks each ????

So who out there still believes that "SACKS" are not important?

So who out there still believes that today "SACKS" did not earn our team a WIN?

Like I been saying.... SACKS are game changers.

Pressure is scondary to actully getting the "SACK"

I still believe sacks arent that important.

What won us the game yesterday was the pressure we had on Warner all day, the pressure had him throwing ints, rushing his throws for tons of incompletions, the sacks were nice but that is not what won us the game.

Pressure applied correctly will result in sacks. Those of you arguing which is more important, pressure or sacks is like asking which beer gets you more drunk, Bud or Miller? When it comes down to it, both are the same thing.

Instead of "almost" knocking the crap out of a Q.B.

I'd rather they "Do' knock the crap out of a Q.B. therefore, I prefer the SACK!

I would rather apply pressure to the QB and force bad throws that end in INT's and fumbles. But hey to each their own.
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by ziggy_gonna_rock:
Mcdonald -1
Haralson -2
smith - 2

Smith is credited with 1 . He had a sack on a 4th down play and at the end of game .

Haralson got Warner early on a bootleg type play . Why are they not credited for 2 sacks each ????

So who out there still believes that "SACKS" are not important?

So who out there still believes that today "SACKS" did not earn our team a WIN?

Like I been saying.... SACKS are game changers.

Pressure is scondary to actully getting the "SACK"

I still believe sacks arent that important.

What won us the game yesterday was the pressure we had on Warner all day, the pressure had him throwing ints, rushing his throws for tons of incompletions, the sacks were nice but that is not what won us the game.

Pressure applied correctly will result in sacks. Those of you arguing which is more important, pressure or sacks is like asking which beer gets you more drunk, Bud or Miller? When it comes down to it, both are the same thing.

Instead of "almost" knocking the crap out of a Q.B.

I'd rather they "Do' knock the crap out of a Q.B. therefore, I prefer the SACK!

I would rather apply pressure to the QB and force bad throws that end in INT's and fumbles. But hey to each their own.

Uhmmmm.... I believe a SACK can also do that, no?
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by ziggy_gonna_rock:
Mcdonald -1
Haralson -2
smith - 2

Smith is credited with 1 . He had a sack on a 4th down play and at the end of game .

Haralson got Warner early on a bootleg type play . Why are they not credited for 2 sacks each ????

So who out there still believes that "SACKS" are not important?

So who out there still believes that today "SACKS" did not earn our team a WIN?

Like I been saying.... SACKS are game changers.

Pressure is scondary to actully getting the "SACK"

I still believe sacks arent that important.

What won us the game yesterday was the pressure we had on Warner all day, the pressure had him throwing ints, rushing his throws for tons of incompletions, the sacks were nice but that is not what won us the game.

Pressure applied correctly will result in sacks. Those of you arguing which is more important, pressure or sacks is like asking which beer gets you more drunk, Bud or Miller? When it comes down to it, both are the same thing.

Instead of "almost" knocking the crap out of a Q.B.

I'd rather they "Do' knock the crap out of a Q.B. therefore, I prefer the SACK!

I would rather apply pressure to the QB and force bad throws that end in INT's and fumbles. But hey to each their own.

Uhmmmm.... I believe a SACK can also do that, no?

Actually a sack can only result in a sack. It can not result in a fumble or an INT
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by ziggy_gonna_rock:
Mcdonald -1
Haralson -2
smith - 2

Smith is credited with 1 . He had a sack on a 4th down play and at the end of game .

Haralson got Warner early on a bootleg type play . Why are they not credited for 2 sacks each ????

So who out there still believes that "SACKS" are not important?

So who out there still believes that today "SACKS" did not earn our team a WIN?

Like I been saying.... SACKS are game changers.

Pressure is scondary to actully getting the "SACK"

I still believe sacks arent that important.

What won us the game yesterday was the pressure we had on Warner all day, the pressure had him throwing ints, rushing his throws for tons of incompletions, the sacks were nice but that is not what won us the game.

Pressure applied correctly will result in sacks. Those of you arguing which is more important, pressure or sacks is like asking which beer gets you more drunk, Bud or Miller? When it comes down to it, both are the same thing.

Instead of "almost" knocking the crap out of a Q.B.

I'd rather they "Do' knock the crap out of a Q.B. therefore, I prefer the SACK!

I would rather apply pressure to the QB and force bad throws that end in INT's and fumbles. But hey to each their own.

Uhmmmm.... I believe a SACK can also do that, no?

Actually a sack can only result in a sack. It can not result in a fumble or an INT

So you have NEVER seen a Q.B. while getting sacked fumble or throw up a ball that gets interecepted?
  • Antix
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 4,315
lmao @ this thread.

We are so used to not getting sacks that most of us don't even know how to count em.

Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by ziggy_gonna_rock:
Mcdonald -1
Haralson -2
smith - 2

Smith is credited with 1 . He had a sack on a 4th down play and at the end of game .

Haralson got Warner early on a bootleg type play . Why are they not credited for 2 sacks each ????

So who out there still believes that "SACKS" are not important?

So who out there still believes that today "SACKS" did not earn our team a WIN?

Like I been saying.... SACKS are game changers.

Pressure is scondary to actully getting the "SACK"

I still believe sacks arent that important.

What won us the game yesterday was the pressure we had on Warner all day, the pressure had him throwing ints, rushing his throws for tons of incompletions, the sacks were nice but that is not what won us the game.

Pressure applied correctly will result in sacks. Those of you arguing which is more important, pressure or sacks is like asking which beer gets you more drunk, Bud or Miller? When it comes down to it, both are the same thing.

Instead of "almost" knocking the crap out of a Q.B.

I'd rather they "Do' knock the crap out of a Q.B. therefore, I prefer the SACK!

I would rather apply pressure to the QB and force bad throws that end in INT's and fumbles. But hey to each their own.

Uhmmmm.... I believe a SACK can also do that, no?

Actually a sack can only result in a sack. It can not result in a fumble or an INT

So you have NEVER seen a Q.B. while getting sacked fumble or throw up a ball that gets interecepted?

NO BECAUSE THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A SACK!!!!!
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by ziggy_gonna_rock:
Mcdonald -1
Haralson -2
smith - 2

Smith is credited with 1 . He had a sack on a 4th down play and at the end of game .

Haralson got Warner early on a bootleg type play . Why are they not credited for 2 sacks each ????

So who out there still believes that "SACKS" are not important?

So who out there still believes that today "SACKS" did not earn our team a WIN?

Like I been saying.... SACKS are game changers.

Pressure is scondary to actully getting the "SACK"

I still believe sacks arent that important.

What won us the game yesterday was the pressure we had on Warner all day, the pressure had him throwing ints, rushing his throws for tons of incompletions, the sacks were nice but that is not what won us the game.

Pressure applied correctly will result in sacks. Those of you arguing which is more important, pressure or sacks is like asking which beer gets you more drunk, Bud or Miller? When it comes down to it, both are the same thing.

Instead of "almost" knocking the crap out of a Q.B.

I'd rather they "Do' knock the crap out of a Q.B. therefore, I prefer the SACK!

I would rather apply pressure to the QB and force bad throws that end in INT's and fumbles. But hey to each their own.

Uhmmmm.... I believe a SACK can also do that, no?

Actually a sack can only result in a sack. It can not result in a fumble or an INT

So you have NEVER seen a Q.B. while getting sacked fumble or throw up a ball that gets interecepted?

NO BECAUSE THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A SACK!!!!!

Correct.... but hitting the Q.B. is a SACK in my mind versus just simply almost getting there.
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by ziggy_gonna_rock:
Mcdonald -1
Haralson -2
smith - 2

Smith is credited with 1 . He had a sack on a 4th down play and at the end of game .

Haralson got Warner early on a bootleg type play . Why are they not credited for 2 sacks each ????

So who out there still believes that "SACKS" are not important?

So who out there still believes that today "SACKS" did not earn our team a WIN?

Like I been saying.... SACKS are game changers.

Pressure is scondary to actully getting the "SACK"

I still believe sacks arent that important.

What won us the game yesterday was the pressure we had on Warner all day, the pressure had him throwing ints, rushing his throws for tons of incompletions, the sacks were nice but that is not what won us the game.

Pressure applied correctly will result in sacks. Those of you arguing which is more important, pressure or sacks is like asking which beer gets you more drunk, Bud or Miller? When it comes down to it, both are the same thing.

Instead of "almost" knocking the crap out of a Q.B.

I'd rather they "Do' knock the crap out of a Q.B. therefore, I prefer the SACK!

I would rather apply pressure to the QB and force bad throws that end in INT's and fumbles. But hey to each their own.

Uhmmmm.... I believe a SACK can also do that, no?

Actually a sack can only result in a sack. It can not result in a fumble or an INT

So you have NEVER seen a Q.B. while getting sacked fumble or throw up a ball that gets interecepted?

NO BECAUSE THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A SACK!!!!!

Correct.... but hitting the Q.B. is a SACK in my mind versus just simply almost getting there.


Sir your definition of a sack is actually called QB pressure
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by ziggy_gonna_rock:
Mcdonald -1
Haralson -2
smith - 2

Smith is credited with 1 . He had a sack on a 4th down play and at the end of game .

Haralson got Warner early on a bootleg type play . Why are they not credited for 2 sacks each ????

So who out there still believes that "SACKS" are not important?

So who out there still believes that today "SACKS" did not earn our team a WIN?

Like I been saying.... SACKS are game changers.

Pressure is scondary to actully getting the "SACK"

I still believe sacks arent that important.

What won us the game yesterday was the pressure we had on Warner all day, the pressure had him throwing ints, rushing his throws for tons of incompletions, the sacks were nice but that is not what won us the game.

Pressure applied correctly will result in sacks. Those of you arguing which is more important, pressure or sacks is like asking which beer gets you more drunk, Bud or Miller? When it comes down to it, both are the same thing.

Instead of "almost" knocking the crap out of a Q.B.

I'd rather they "Do' knock the crap out of a Q.B. therefore, I prefer the SACK!

I would rather apply pressure to the QB and force bad throws that end in INT's and fumbles. But hey to each their own.

Uhmmmm.... I believe a SACK can also do that, no?

Actually a sack can only result in a sack. It can not result in a fumble or an INT

So you have NEVER seen a Q.B. while getting sacked fumble or throw up a ball that gets interecepted?

NO BECAUSE THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A SACK!!!!!

Correct.... but hitting the Q.B. is a SACK in my mind versus just simply almost getting there.


Sir your definition of a sack is actually called QB pressure

Nope.... thats called almost getting there
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by ziggy_gonna_rock:
Mcdonald -1
Haralson -2
smith - 2

Smith is credited with 1 . He had a sack on a 4th down play and at the end of game .

Haralson got Warner early on a bootleg type play . Why are they not credited for 2 sacks each ????

So who out there still believes that "SACKS" are not important?

So who out there still believes that today "SACKS" did not earn our team a WIN?

Like I been saying.... SACKS are game changers.

Pressure is scondary to actully getting the "SACK"

I still believe sacks arent that important.

What won us the game yesterday was the pressure we had on Warner all day, the pressure had him throwing ints, rushing his throws for tons of incompletions, the sacks were nice but that is not what won us the game.

Pressure applied correctly will result in sacks. Those of you arguing which is more important, pressure or sacks is like asking which beer gets you more drunk, Bud or Miller? When it comes down to it, both are the same thing.

Instead of "almost" knocking the crap out of a Q.B.

I'd rather they "Do' knock the crap out of a Q.B. therefore, I prefer the SACK!

I would rather apply pressure to the QB and force bad throws that end in INT's and fumbles. But hey to each their own.

Uhmmmm.... I believe a SACK can also do that, no?

Actually a sack can only result in a sack. It can not result in a fumble or an INT

So you have NEVER seen a Q.B. while getting sacked fumble or throw up a ball that gets interecepted?

NO BECAUSE THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A SACK!!!!!

Correct.... but hitting the Q.B. is a SACK in my mind versus just simply almost getting there.


Sir your definition of a sack is actually called QB pressure

Nope.... thats called almost getting there

QB pressure: Almost getting there; failure to fully acheive a sack
Sack: Tackling the QB for a loss before he gets the chance to attempt a pass.
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by ziggy_gonna_rock:
Mcdonald -1
Haralson -2
smith - 2

Smith is credited with 1 . He had a sack on a 4th down play and at the end of game .

Haralson got Warner early on a bootleg type play . Why are they not credited for 2 sacks each ????

So who out there still believes that "SACKS" are not important?

So who out there still believes that today "SACKS" did not earn our team a WIN?

Like I been saying.... SACKS are game changers.

Pressure is scondary to actully getting the "SACK"

I still believe sacks arent that important.

What won us the game yesterday was the pressure we had on Warner all day, the pressure had him throwing ints, rushing his throws for tons of incompletions, the sacks were nice but that is not what won us the game.

Pressure applied correctly will result in sacks. Those of you arguing which is more important, pressure or sacks is like asking which beer gets you more drunk, Bud or Miller? When it comes down to it, both are the same thing.

Instead of "almost" knocking the crap out of a Q.B.

I'd rather they "Do' knock the crap out of a Q.B. therefore, I prefer the SACK!

I would rather apply pressure to the QB and force bad throws that end in INT's and fumbles. But hey to each their own.

Uhmmmm.... I believe a SACK can also do that, no?

Actually a sack can only result in a sack. It can not result in a fumble or an INT

So you have NEVER seen a Q.B. while getting sacked fumble or throw up a ball that gets interecepted?

NO BECAUSE THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A SACK!!!!!

Correct.... but hitting the Q.B. is a SACK in my mind versus just simply almost getting there.


Sir your definition of a sack is actually called QB pressure

Nope.... thats called almost getting there

QB pressure: Almost getting there; failure to fully acheive a sack
Sack: Tackling the QB for a loss before he gets the chance to attempt a pass.

^This is correct, anyways who cares all that matters is the W!!!
NINER PRIDE
  • OREGONomics
  • Info N/A
Originally posted by Antix:
lmao @ this thread.

We are so used to not getting sacks that most of us don't even know how to count em.


Seriously! LOL
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by valrod33:
Originally posted by BigMar:
Originally posted by ziggy_gonna_rock:
Mcdonald -1
Haralson -2
smith - 2

Smith is credited with 1 . He had a sack on a 4th down play and at the end of game .

Haralson got Warner early on a bootleg type play . Why are they not credited for 2 sacks each ????

So who out there still believes that "SACKS" are not important?

So who out there still believes that today "SACKS" did not earn our team a WIN?

Like I been saying.... SACKS are game changers.

Pressure is scondary to actully getting the "SACK"

I still believe sacks arent that important.

What won us the game yesterday was the pressure we had on Warner all day, the pressure had him throwing ints, rushing his throws for tons of incompletions, the sacks were nice but that is not what won us the game.

Pressure applied correctly will result in sacks. Those of you arguing which is more important, pressure or sacks is like asking which beer gets you more drunk, Bud or Miller? When it comes down to it, both are the same thing.

Instead of "almost" knocking the crap out of a Q.B.

I'd rather they "Do' knock the crap out of a Q.B. therefore, I prefer the SACK!

I would rather apply pressure to the QB and force bad throws that end in INT's and fumbles. But hey to each their own.

Uhmmmm.... I believe a SACK can also do that, no?

Actually a sack can only result in a sack. It can not result in a fumble or an INT

So you have NEVER seen a Q.B. while getting sacked fumble or throw up a ball that gets interecepted?

NO BECAUSE THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A SACK!!!!!

Correct.... but hitting the Q.B. is a SACK in my mind versus just simply almost getting there.


Sir your definition of a sack is actually called QB pressure

Nope.... thats called almost getting there

QB pressure: Almost getting there; failure to fully acheive a sack
Sack: Tackling the QB for a loss before he gets the chance to attempt a pass.

can you guys exchange numbers or something?