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.

[DaveBrown74]

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.

Definitely the former, and it's not a difficult choice since you qualified it with the description "that completely wreck the play." Obviously not all pressures wreck plays, so that's an important part your hypothetical.

If you just said 10 pressures but did not specify what would happen, I'd still go with the pressures, but it would be a somewhat closer call.

As a separate but related thought, I wonder what the league-wide numbers are on INTs thrown per pressure and fumbles lost per sack. I have no idea myself, but I'm curious.

[Doc16LT56]

As a separate but related thought, I wonder what the league-wide numbers are on INTs thrown per pressure and fumbles lost per sack. I have no idea myself, but I'm curious.

A few years ago, PFF shared data that just over 3% of passes thrown under pressure resulted in an interception that season and just under 2% of passes from a clean pocket resulted in an interception.

This guy looked at data over 28 years and came up with just over 8% of sacks resulted in a fumble with a defensive recovery.

https://www.milehighreport.com/2022/4/26/23037065/strip-sacks-1994-2021

[Giant Obsession]

Heck...why choose ??

When playing against our OL you get to have both.

[SUPERSEE]

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.

agreed .. sacks stop drives


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jgrangers2]

Pressures aren't better than sacks, but I think the point is that constant pressure is better than the occasional coverage sack

[Painter]

If we can look at it sensibly for a change, and not meander off topic as some already have done, the answer should be obvious to us all. And in that regard, we should only use the term, Pressure when not distinguishing among Sacks, Hits w/wo a Knockdown, and Hurries, as such is not equal in impact and potential outcome of a given play. Thus, I can only address it in those more specific terms.

Simply put, there is nothing as damaging to both a particular play and an offense in general than is a Sack in terms of loss of down, yardage and also, perhaps, critical field position, or a possible turnover, or to consider any physical and/or mental stress on the QB.

But, of course, Sacks don't occur nearly as often as some other form of pressure: a Hit, w/wo a Knockdown, or a Hurry which I suppose lessens the importance of the former while we weigh the impact of the others in regard to whether or not it caused the intended play to fail. Cockadoodle Doo!

Cheers!

[/font]