So why isn't the team credited with 5 sacks? | Page 3

Sep 14, 2009 at 7:11 PM

backontop
Veteran
Posts: 14,346

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.

I am with this guy. Sacks are a glory stat for DLinemen. The pressure was causing Warner to throw passes he didn't want to throw. Just look at the 2 INT's and numerous incomplete passes due to Warner being forced to throw the ball prematurely.

"A sack is just a glory stat"-The great minds on 49erswebzone.com

Sep 14, 2009 at 7:21 PM

#32

fzrdave
Veteran
Posts: 2,168

Four sacks, five sacks, whatever. I'm just really thankful they found a pass rush and put consistent pressure on Warner most of the game. Now I just hope they can keep it up against Seattle and even more so against the Vikes. I'd love to see Favre get punished, and for the first time in history, so would my born and bred cheesehead wife.

[ Edited by fzrdave on Sep 14, 2009 at 19:21:56 ]

Sep 14, 2009 at 8:14 PM

#33

smithgdwg
Veteran
Posts: 20,473

Can we go a year without playing against farve?

The guy is a cancer that won't go away.

Sep 14, 2009 at 11:33 PM

#34

49erRider
Veteran
Posts: 7,508

That blown handoff was a RUN. The fact that Warner had nobody to pass to means it will not be considered a sack. All the receivers were blocking, and when there's nobody to throw to, it simply cannot be a pass play.

[ Edited by 49erRider on Sep 14, 2009 at 23:34:18 ]

Sep 14, 2009 at 11:35 PM

#35

49erRider
Veteran
Posts: 7,508

Originally posted by AKfanster:
Originally posted by AB83Rules:
Originally posted by 9ermex:
I think the last play was a fumble, and the 4th down play Warner just threw the ball away, he should have been penalized.

Too bad but at least we were in Warners face all day lets hope we can keep this up.

go niners!

no he's right, on a fumble like that, where the defnder takes down the QB, and makes him fumble is also considered a Sack.

Can't the team appeal the stat ruling and get it changed????

He DID get credit for a sack and a forced fumble on that play. That's where his 1 sack came from.

Sep 14, 2009 at 11:39 PM

#36

49erRider
Veteran
Posts: 7,508

Originally posted by Sinsation:
we got 3 sacks...the pressure we caused led to ints...like i said in that other thread...if we're in the QB's face all day long, and hitting him as he throws, i could care less if we got 0 sacks.

Yep. The 2 INTs we got >>>>>> the 3 sacks we got.

Sep 15, 2009 at 12:08 AM

#37

BrianGO
Veteran
Posts: 10,300

Originally posted by 5280High:
It's a technicality but it makes sense, if a defense shuts down the wildcat should that be a sack too? or stuffing a QB sneak? The second it becomes a penalty to throw the ball a sack is no longer an eligibility, makes sense to me.

In this instance I would want it to be a sack too.... but thats cause we are on the right side of that play, once it happens to us I wouldn't want it to be a sack. But that's why theres a rule

You make a good point. But that can be easily corrected if you just allow the "sack" stat to exist only for "quarterbacks" on the roster.

The "rule" should be:
If a "quarterback" is tackled behind the line of scrimmage, it is a sack.
Likewise, if any other position is tackled behind the line of scrimmage, it is not a sack.

Stats are important for contract negotiations as well as Pro-Bowl voting.

If more of our players can get to the Pro-Bowl, then fewer idiot sports writers will talk about our "lack of talent."

Sep 15, 2009 at 12:12 AM

#38

DaFaro49ers
Veteran
Posts: 1,569

Originally posted by AKfanster:
Originally posted by Mex49:
Why doesn't Lawson have one?

Cause he sucks at rushing the passer, DUH!

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself

Shut up!

Sorry couldnt help myself

Sep 15, 2009 at 1:19 AM

#39

CorvaNinerFan
Veteran
Posts: 10,404

Go figure...but, what's most important is our defense really played together. Our DB's were very physical with 'Zona's receivers, which gave the DL/OLB's time to get to Warner. Sacks are great, but it's the constant pressure that took KW out of his comfort zone. We'll have to do the same thing w/Hasselbeck, who has better escapability than Warner.

Sep 15, 2009 at 1:22 AM

#40

RonMexico
Moderator
Posts: 74,792

Originally posted by crzy:
Because they didn't get 5 sacks.

/thread

Sep 15, 2009 at 5:19 AM

#41

WINiner
Veteran
Posts: 15,651

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.

Sep 15, 2009 at 7:10 AM

#42

4949
Veteran
Posts: 3

Originally posted by BrianGO:
Originally posted by Sinsation:
the point i'm making is...QB or not, u cant have a sack on a run play.

How do you define a "run play"?

If the quarterback fakes a hand off and then scrambles out of the pocket, he might decide to run it himself, or he might decide to throw a 50 yard touchdown.

The "rule" should be that a sack is any quarterback tackle behind the line of scrimmage.

That makes it simple, and avoids ambiguity, because there is no real way to define a "run play."

No he can't decide to throw a 50 Yard touchdown, the offensive lineman blocking downfield show that it is a run play so no matter what it can't be a pass play and therefore no one should get a sack on the play. There is a clear way to define a run play.

The rule is pretty simple in this regard. If the QB can only run you're not sacking the passer you are tackling a runner.

Sep 16, 2009 at 5:15 PM

#43

BigMar
Member
Posts: 1,004

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!

Sep 16, 2009 at 5:23 PM

#44

Ether
Veteran
Posts: 1,515

How are people saying that Pressure = Sack? On 2nd and 4 would you rather get "pressure" for a throw away or a Sack for -5 yards? Getting pressure is good, but just applying pressure isnt good enough...

Sep 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM

#45

GoreGoreGore
10HourChicken
Posts: 54,426

Who cares what it was called, it ended the drive.