Do you agree?

[MightyGiants]

https://x.com/PFF/status/1796227619215569215

[londonblue]

Not if I am offered a choice.

Pressures were undervalued historically but that does not mean they are as or more valuable on a play. Sacks usually gain field position and loss of down and the possibility of a fumble (an important % of NFL fumbles are sack fumbles year on year). Pressures bring a chance of loss of down and a slightly elevated chance of an interception per the data metrics.

Sacks are clearly more impactful as an individual play but they are less frequent so perhaps in total over an average game (rather than as an individual play) pressures might make a bigger combined contribution. Maybe in that specific way he has a point.

[AZGiantFan]

Seems absurd to me.  A QB under pressure can still complete a pass and even make a big play. 

I seem to remember a QB under extreme pressure completing one of the most meaningful big plays in SB history.  And then 4 years later while under serious pressure complete one of the biggest sideline passes in SB history.  How many big plays has a guy like Mahomes made while running for his life.

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/highest-qb-rating-under-pressure-2023

But no QB has ever made a big play after being sacked.

[Jolly Blue Giant]

I disagree that it is "equally" important. When a QB gets sacked, it leaves a lasting impression on him, and he gets more skittish that if he's forced to rush his throw, not to mention, he can get hurt. Maybe not enough to leave a game, but it can have a negative effect on his game if he's playing sore

[DaveBrown74]

I disagree that sacks "aren't that big of a deal." Sacks destroy drives.

Pressures surely matter but QBs can still complete passes or at least get throwaways and not lose yardage under pressure.

Huge, huge difference.

[Ed Vette]

Sacks can result in turnovers and loss of yardage. Hits and Hurries certainly have their effect. I somewhat agree. Don't discount pressure.

[Philosophers]

Sacks destroy the morale of an offense.  Gets players questioning each other.

[MightyGiants]

Mike Lombardi says pressure can cause INTs

[madbadger]

Not if I am offered a choice.

Pressures were undervalued historically but that does not mean they are as or more valuable on a play. Sacks usually gain field position and loss of down and the possibility of a fumble (an important % of NFL fumbles are sack fumbles year on year). Pressures bring a chance of loss of down and a slightly elevated chance of an interception per the data metrics.

Sacks are clearly more impactful as an individual play but they are less frequent so perhaps in total over an average game (rather than as an individual play) pressures might make a bigger combined contribution. Maybe in that specific way he has a point.

Which would you prefer to have a game with zero sacks but ten pressures that completely wreck the play, or a game with two sack and four pressures? I know which one I prefer. Pressures also lead to interceptions which are awesome too.