Big Blue Huddle

For years, we have heard coaches and the analytic community say when you measure a pass rusher, you should look at pressures, not sacks.   Yet on Hard Knocks, when discussing if the Giants should trade for Burns, Daboll's question was-  How many sacks does he have?


I think one thing that troubled me is that Mara's nephew answered he gave his career sacks (good), but then instead of comparing those sacks with the league he made the odd choice of comparing his sack production to the players in his draft class (I can think of no logical reason to use that as the basis of comparison)

If you recall, Schoen said that if they didn't get a Pass Rusher they would focus in the Draft. They gave up Draft Capital to get him.

Quote from: Ed Vette on July 18, 2024, 07:26:20 AMIf you recall, Schoen said that if they didn't get a Pass Rusher they would focus in the Draft. They gave up Draft Capital to get him.

I appreciate that, and I agree with the Giants need for a pass rusher.  I was more interested in the metric of sacks and how important that measure is.  I am wondering if Daboll is out of touch or if we, the fans/pundits, are the ones out of touch.

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 18, 2024, 07:28:35 AMI appreciate that, and I agree with the Giants need for a pass rusher.  I was more interested in the metric of sacks and how important that measure is.  I am wondering if Daboll is out of touch or if we, the fans/pundits, are the ones out of touch.

I think the mantra of pressure over sacks leaves something to be desired. Having a man who can reach the target is very important, not that pressure isn't. Sacks lead to turnovers or at least turnover of downs. As do hits but sacks are the ultimate disruption.

Sacks are nice because they stop the offense, push them back, and make the QB hear footsteps afterwards

pressure alone does none of those things....as a matter of fact simple pressure leaves a screen hole in the defense that smart QBs like say Aaron Rogers make you pay for

of course that means you need a QB who can dance backwards and lob the ball over the charging line with precision.  easier said than done

Quote from: Ed Vette on July 18, 2024, 07:42:39 AMI think the mantra of pressure over sacks leaves something to be desired. Having a man who can reach the target is very important, not that pressure isn't. Sacks lead to turnovers or at least turnover of downs. As do hits but sacks are the ultimate disruption.

Ed (and @BluesCruz ),


They say that a pass rusher is more consistent with pressures from season to season than are sacks (which tend to vary significantly).   One other argument for pressure is that pressures can create their own turnover in the form of INTs (because the QB is being rushed)

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 18, 2024, 10:51:44 AMEd (and @BluesCruz ),


They say that a pass rusher is more consistent with pressures from season to season than are sacks (which tend to vary significantly).   One other argument for pressure is that pressures can create their own turnover in the form of INTs (because the QB is being rushed)

Dont get me wrong I love pressure and loved Wink BUT
He wasn't getting to the QB. and we all saw what happened to pressure alone

I hope the new guy blitzes more creatively, overloading and looping the rush
He is a big question mark.....cant wait to see what he cooks up

He has big shoes to fill.....I see him as more Nike Nolan type DC

BTW  I'm glad we are on a first name basis Rich despite my being a pain in Arse LOL. self described

You know you are right

Unfortunately Wink was not getting home or creating massive INTs

The other thing about pressure is you really have to maintain your lane and keep your antennea up......the run was killing us last year as the Dline was so rush focused the RBs were slipping through

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 18, 2024, 07:23:12 AMI think one thing that troubled me is that Mara's nephew answered he gave his career sacks (good), but then instead of comparing those sacks with the league he made the odd choice of comparing his sack production to the players in his draft class (I can think of no logical reason to use that as the basis of comparison)

I believe it was because those guys mentioned (Sweat, Gary and Allen) have recently either been traded and extended or just extended and he was comparing money plus sacks.

Quote from: Puffy on July 18, 2024, 11:57:05 AMI believe it was because those guys mentioned (Sweat, Gary and Allen) have recently either been traded and extended or just extended and he was comparing money plus sacks.

I appreciate that.  However, his sacks should be averaged by season and compared to the league leaders.   That way you fully appreciate Burns' value both in trade and contact.  Focusing on just his draft class is needlessly limiting in my opinion.

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 18, 2024, 07:28:35 AMI appreciate that, and I agree with the Giants need for a pass rusher.  I was more interested in the metric of sacks and how important that measure is.  I am wondering if Daboll is out of touch or if we, the fans/pundits, are the ones out of touch.

Sacks and Pressures are not at all comparable in terms of impact. The impact of a Sack is much clearer, better defined and more immediately consequential than that of a Pressure. In the case of the former, the result is a non-completed pass play with a loss of Down, most often with a significant loss of yardage, and sometimes a critical loss of field position. Nor does it necessarily account for any subsequent physical and/or mental stress on the QB.

Pressure is defined as a pass-rush play where the rusher affects the quarterback before the pass is thrown. According to Next Gen Stats and AWS, and endorsed by ESPN, it includes sacks- I would argue that it ought not to-, QB hits, QB hurries and other plays where the pass rusher comes into close proximity with the quarterback. Except for Sacks where the result is more obvious, the probability of proximity (70%?) seems to define "Pressure" which, in some greater or lesser way, affects an intended or attempted pass play.

While such estimates may be of statistical importance to a player and his team, they are less informative and meaningful to someone watching the game than are academic comparisons after the fact. In any case, if I was to chant something more specific than Deefense! Deefense!, it would be Sack! Sack!.

Cheers!
 

Nothing messes with a QBs state of mind, than getting crushed and being unable to get rid of the ball. Once he's skittish, his head just isn't in the game the same way. QBs can shrug off pressures, but when there's turf hanging from his grill and grass stains and mud on his back, he starts thinking of self-preservation. In most cases, I would think

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 18, 2024, 10:51:44 AMEd (and @BluesCruz ),


They say that a pass rusher is more consistent with pressures from season to season than are sacks (which tend to vary significantly).  One other argument for pressure is that pressures can create their own turnover in the form of INTs (because the QB is being rushed)

I do get the point about pressures being a more consistent and less luck-driven measure of the degree to which a pass rusher impacts the QB. I think that is a perfectly sound comment. Most coaches would still have a pretty good idea of a pro bowl or all pro caliber defender's sack production though if he's about to be a Giant.

Is it possible that Daboll knew Burns' total pressures and other even more advanced metrics to a tee but somehow had no idea what sort of sack production he has had? I guess that's not completely impossible, but based on what I watched, that seems like the far less likely explanation than that Daboll simply did not know very much about this player the Giants had been flirting with the Panthers' front office about for months and were getting ready to pay almost $30mm a year to.

As for the debate about what is more important (putting Daboll aside), obviously an actual sack accomplishes a lot more in a game than a pressure. That is obvious, and we all know that. I think the point or question being proposed in the OP though is which metric tells by itself tells you more about the player. The arguments for why pressures are a more indicative stat than sacks is pretty convincing to me. What I'm not convinced of is that Daboll knew much of anything about this player when that scene was shot, but I realize that may be a side point in this thread.

What caused the destruction of Daniel Jones last season, hurries and hits or Sacks? A lot of you whined about how the Giants gave up a record number of sacks last season and how it made it impossible for Jones to flourish.

Of course they are important.  Look at what taking 85 of them did to our offense.