Standard Sack Deviation

Share this page

Looks good for Brady at 2nd best. Brees at #1 is what I would have guessed.
 
chevss454 said:
Looks good for Brady at 2nd best. Brees at #1 is what I would have guessed.
Click to expand...

Can you explain a bit on what this is actually saying. Are they saying how long Qb is in the pocket before a sack?
 
For some reason I thought this thread subject was about hernias...
 
midgar8784 said:
Can you explain a bit on what this is actually saying. Are they saying how long Qb is in the pocket before a sack?
Click to expand...

Just that statistics backs up the thought that the longer a QB holds the ball the more he gets sacked.
 
midgar8784 said:
Can you explain a bit on what this is actually saying. Are they saying how long Qb is in the pocket before a sack?
Click to expand...

It seems a bit confusing to me, too.

The second chart, the year-by-year, seems to show the time (in seconds) after the snap that a sack occurred, (median and average). What I get from that is, for example:

In 2010, Eli was only sacked on 2.88% of his drop backs. However, when he WAS sacked, it happened fast - 2.6 seconds on average (tied w/ Palmer for lowest on the 2010 list). To me, this would indicate pass-blocking breakdowns that didn't occur very often.

In contrast, Cassel was sacked at about twice Eli's rate, but the sacks occurred nearly a full second later, on average. To me, this would indicate the QB holding onto the ball too long.

Another contrast might be Brady vs. Alex Smith in 2009. Brady's sacks occurred, on average, 3.1 seconds after the snap while Smith's sacks occurred nearly a half second quicker. And Smith's sack rate was a bit more than double Brady's. That would lead me to conclude that the Pats OL was giving Brady quite a bit more time to throw (though he didn't use the time all that often, perhaps).

Does that reading make sense to anyone else? Or am I way off base?
 
BostonTim said:
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_4926_Holding_the_lead,_controlling_the_game.html

CHFF looking at correlation between time leading in games and winning. Pats third (behind GB, Houston). Interesting stat, Pats have led in games this Year 4.17 HOURS longer than the Jets (Jets 186 mins., Pats 436 Mins)

Cheers, BostonTim
Click to expand...

The first thing I thought of, before clicking the link, was, "What about Tebow?" Sure enough, he represents a major outlier to the general correlation: 5-1 when leading for less time than their opponent.
 
MaineMan said:
It seems a bit confusing to me, too.

The second chart, the year-by-year, seems to show the time (in seconds) after the snap that a sack occurred, (median and average). What I get from that is, for example:

In 2010, Eli was only sacked on 2.88% of his drop backs. However, when he WAS sacked, it happened fast - 2.6 seconds on average (tied w/ Palmer for lowest on the 2010 list). To me, this would indicate pass-blocking breakdowns that didn't occur very often.

In contrast, Cassel was sacked at about twice Eli's rate, but the sacks occurred nearly a full second later, on average. To me, this would indicate the QB holding onto the ball too long.

Another contrast might be Brady vs. Alex Smith in 2009. Brady's sacks occurred, on average, 3.1 seconds after the snap while Smith's sacks occurred nearly a half second quicker. And Smith's sack rate was a bit more than double Brady's. That would lead me to conclude that the Pats OL was giving Brady quite a bit more time to throw (though he didn't use the time all that often, perhaps).

Does that reading make sense to anyone else? Or am I way off base?
Click to expand...

This makes sense to me.
 
chevss454 said:
Just that statistics backs up the thought that the longer a QB holds the ball the more he gets sacked.
Click to expand...

The numbers show that, on average, QB's who get the ball out under in 2.5 seconds do not get sacked. QBs must have an internal clock based on play type (protection) to avoid getting sacked. The ball should be out in less than 1.5 seconds in the quick game, the intermediate game from 1.8 to 3.0 and the deep game between 2.2 and 3.4. Obviously teams that make heavy use of the 5 and 7 step game better have a line that can protect the passer and a QB who understands the pocket and how to use it.

These numbers and something many NFL (probably all) coaches believe in called Explosive Play Theory accounts for many of the decisions we see from NFL Offensive coordinators.

An "Explosive Play" in the NFL is any pass play that gains at least 16 yards or run play that gains 12 yards. Plays that reach these marks are considered to raise the chance of scoring on any particular drive. In fact the difference between scoring or not is pretty significant.

The average drive in the NFL is between 6 & 7 plays long. If there are no "explosive plays" on that drive, the chance of scoring stands at about 10% with majority of those scores being field goals. Teams that execute at least one explosive play on a particular drive score about 50% of the time with the majority of the scores being touchdowns. 2 explosive plays translates to a scoring probability of about 75% with the majority of scores being touchdowns.

Brian Billick considers the explosive play ratio (for/against) to be more important than even the turnover ratio.

What does all this mean? It means that an NFL offense had better have the means to gain explosive plays consistently or they will have difficulty scoring consistently. What type of plays give you the best chance of executing an explosive play? Intermediate and deep passes do. Of course, those passes require QBs to hold the ball longer risking drive killing sacks.

I see BB as a clear believer in the explosive play theory as a determinant of victory. The Pats use a lot of deep and intermediate pass plays looking for explosive plays. Yet even though the Pats make frequent use of pass plays which require Brady to hold the ball past the point where sacks occur most frequently, he is still number two on the chart presented here, behind Brees who makes much more use of the quick game than Brady and the Pats do. That tells me exactly what my eyes tell me on Sundays. The Pats are a solid pass pro team and Brady is one of the best QBs in the pocket in the game today, maybe the best ever. The Pats are very effective in the construction of their drop back/play action pass game and very efficient in it's execution which is why they are the number one offense in the NFL. Most of this is because of Tom Brady and his abilities.

To look at it from another perspective. Look no further than the NY Jets. Mark Sanchez gets sacked at greater rate than Brady while their time average is identical. This tells me that the Jets need to find another way to generate explosive plays than through the deep and intermediate passing game. This limits the much maligned Brian Scottenhiemer's options considerably. The Jets have to stay away from those longer developing plays because they do not execute them efficiently. I have not see much of them this year so correct me if I'm wrong but from what I have seen, the Jets have focused on the quick game and the play-action pass (with more protection) to generate explosive plays. The quick passes of choice are Slants to the wide receivers and under routes that give them the opportunity for yards after the catch. If the Jets do not break those for 16 yards they most often end up punting because it is very difficult to move the ball down the field 4 yards at a time in the NFL. All it takes is one negative play and you're turning the ball over.

These numbers could be explored a bunch of ways looking at different teams and their passing games and the game planning decisions coordinators are making. Interesting stuff.
 
MaineMan said:
It seems a bit confusing to me, too.

The second chart, the year-by-year, seems to show the time (in seconds) after the snap that a sack occurred, (median and average). What I get from that is, for example:

In 2010, Eli was only sacked on 2.88% of his drop backs. However, when he WAS sacked, it happened fast - 2.6 seconds on average (tied w/ Palmer for lowest on the 2010 list). To me, this would indicate pass-blocking breakdowns that didn't occur very often.

In contrast, Cassel was sacked at about twice Eli's rate, but the sacks occurred nearly a full second later, on average. To me, this would indicate the QB holding onto the ball too long.

Another contrast might be Brady vs. Alex Smith in 2009. Brady's sacks occurred, on average, 3.1 seconds after the snap while Smith's sacks occurred nearly a half second quicker. And Smith's sack rate was a bit more than double Brady's. That would lead me to conclude that the Pats OL was giving Brady quite a bit more time to throw (though he didn't use the time all that often, perhaps).

Does that reading make sense to anyone else? Or am I way off base?
Click to expand...

It makes sense at first glance but an exploration of the types of pass plays these teams emphasized would shed more light. I see the Pats more than any other team. I know that, most often, when Brady gets sacked it's on longer developing pass plays. I can't be sure, but I suspect that Smith was holding the ball when facing pressure from the blitz and getting himself sacked when he had trouble getting the ball out in time against blitz coverages like man and fire zone. He's not as good against the Blitz as Brady and takes more sacks against it which occur quicker than the sacks Brady takes.
 
AllWorldTE said:
It makes sense at first glance but an exploration of the types of pass plays these teams emphasized would shed more light. I see the Pats more than any other team. I know that, most often, when Brady gets sacked it's on longer developing pass plays. I can't be sure, but I suspect that Smith was holding the ball when facing pressure from the blitz and getting himself sacked when he had trouble getting the ball out in time against blitz coverages like man and fire zone. He's not as good against the Blitz as Brady and takes more sacks against it which occur quicker than the sacks Brady takes.
Click to expand...

So, aside from possible (contributing) protection breakdowns, the numbers suggest that Brady gets the ball out quick when he needs to (and, thereby, avoids the quick sacks), but can take his time when he has it (though sometimes nothing is there nevertheless)?

But, I also take your point. I considered comparing Brady and Rodgers, but quickly realized that it would be impossible to factor out Rodgers' moblity/running vs. Brady's, er, immobility.
 
AllWorldTE said:
The numbers show that, on average, QB's who get the ball out under in 2.5 seconds do not get sacked. QBs must have an internal clock based on play type (protection) to avoid getting sacked. The ball should be out in less than 1.5 seconds in the quick game, the intermediate game from 1.8 to 3.0 and the deep game between 2.2 and 3.4. Obviously teams that make heavy use of the 5 and 7 step game better have a line that can protect the passer and a QB who understands the pocket and how to use it.

These numbers and something many NFL (probably all) coaches believe in called Explosive Play Theory accounts for many of the decisions we see from NFL Offensive coordinators.

An "Explosive Play" in the NFL is any pass play that gains at least 16 yards or run play that gains 12 yards. Plays that reach these marks are considered to raise the chance of scoring on any particular drive. In fact the difference between scoring or not is pretty significant.

The average drive in the NFL is between 6 & 7 plays long. If there are no "explosive plays" on that drive, the chance of scoring stands at about 10% with majority of those scores being field goals. Teams that execute at least one explosive play on a particular drive score about 50% of the time with the majority of the scores being touchdowns. 2 explosive plays translates to a scoring probability of about 75% with the majority of scores being touchdowns.

Brian Billick considers the explosive play ratio (for/against) to be more important than even the turnover ratio.

What does all this mean? It means that an NFL offense had better have the means to gain explosive plays consistently or they will have difficulty scoring consistently. What type of plays give you the best chance of executing an explosive play? Intermediate and deep passes do. Of course, those passes require QBs to hold the ball longer risking drive killing sacks.

I see BB as a clear believer in the explosive play theory as a determinant of victory. The Pats use a lot of deep and intermediate pass plays looking for explosive plays. Yet even though the Pats make frequent use of pass plays which require Brady to hold the ball past the point where sacks occur most frequently, he is still number two on the chart presented here, behind Brees who makes much more use of the quick game than Brady and the Pats do. That tells me exactly what my eyes tell me on Sundays. The Pats are a solid pass pro team and Brady is one of the best QBs in the pocket in the game today, maybe the best ever. The Pats are very effective in the construction of their drop back/play action pass game and very efficient in it's execution which is why they are the number one offense in the NFL. Most of this is because of Tom Brady and his abilities.

To look at it from another perspective. Look no further than the NY Jets. Mark Sanchez gets sacked at greater rate than Brady while their time average is identical. This tells me that the Jets need to find another way to generate explosive plays than through the deep and intermediate passing game. This limits the much maligned Brian Scottenhiemer's options considerably. The Jets have to stay away from those longer developing plays because they do not execute them efficiently. I have not see much of them this year so correct me if I'm wrong but from what I have seen, the Jets have focused on the quick game and the play-action pass (with more protection) to generate explosive plays. The quick passes of choice are Slants to the wide receivers and under routes that give them the opportunity for yards after the catch. If the Jets do not break those for 16 yards they most often end up punting because it is very difficult to move the ball down the field 4 yards at a time in the NFL. All it takes is one negative play and you're turning the ball over.

These numbers could be explored a bunch of ways looking at different teams and their passing games and the game planning decisions coordinators are making. Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...

Might it be said that the flipside of this is the "Bend-Don't-Break" defensive idea... to limit the opponent's explosive plays and, thus, hypothetically limit their scoring potential to mostly FGs?
 
MaineMan said:
So, aside from possible (contributing) protection breakdowns, the numbers suggest that Brady gets the ball out quick when he needs to (and, thereby, avoids the quick sacks), but can take his time when he has it (though sometimes nothing is there nevertheless)?
Click to expand...

Against the blitz yes. Brady (and his best receivers) are masters at defeating the blitz. He recognizes it, and puts the ball where it is supposed to be to hurt it where Smith has a lot of issues with hot reads and sight adjustments. I read somewhere that Harbough simplified SF's blitz reads this year which has led to improvement for Smith.

Brady is deadly against the blitz and decisive in the quick game so you rarely see him get caught holding the ball too long in those situations. He doesn't necessarily take more time when he gets it, he takes the time (or manufactures it) the type of play call requires and stays on schedule with the protection.
 
MaineMan said:
Might it be said that the flipside of this is the "Bend-Don't-Break" defensive idea... to limit the opponent's explosive plays and, thus, hypothetically limit their scoring potential to mostly FGs?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I think that's a big part of BB's philosophy. An offense that generates explosive plays (by definition) coupled with a defense that limits them means a lot of wins. I don't believe he's getting what he wants right now )too many big plays obviously) but that is the idea. Keep the runs and pass completions manageable forcing teams to work the ball down the field methodically and wait for the offense to make a mistake.
 
AllWorldTE said:
Absolutely. I think that's a big part of BB's philosophy. An offense that generates explosive plays (by definition) coupled with a defense that limits them means a lot of wins. I don't believe he's getting what he wants right now )too many big plays obviously) but that is the idea. Keep the runs and pass completions manageable forcing teams to work the ball down the field methodically and wait for the offense to make a mistake.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. I guess I've always figured that a 14-play drive (at 4-5 yds/play) gives the offense twice as many opportunities to screw up as a 7-play drive (8-10 yds/play).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top