Not really a fan of grading sacks differently. Same outcome no matter if it looks pretty or not. It's a loss of down and yardage.
PFF used to do something similar for their PRP (Pass Rushing Productivity), but was overall was worse than this. They would consider a "QB Hurry" to be the equivalent of 1/2 sack, which is of course is ludicrous.
A "QB Hurry" has no defined outcome, and if you go back to the Anthony Spencer days there's 1 play that is a perfect example of how flawed this system was. It was a game against Arizona that went to overtime and Spencer flushes the QB from the pocket. QB dumps it off to LaRod Stephens-Howling who then takes the small dump pass about 50 yards to the endzone and ends the game.
Spencer gets 1/2 sack worth of PRP on that play, but the outcome of the play was probably infinitely worse than if he had not rushed at all and been assigned to cover the flat. Now, I would have no problem with a hurry that resulted in a throw away counting for something, but to just blanketly have hurries equal 1/2 sack when they can go for TDs is completely asinine.
Outcomes are all people should measure. An ugly sack should be the same as a pretty one. If you want to add some points for forced fumbles (even if it's only recovered ones) I have no problem with that.
Every new stat site is on the hunt for some magic algorithm to more "accurately" rank productivity. Nobody is chipping points away from QBs or WRs when there's busted coverage. Nobody is giving more leniency to kickers who's misses are coming in horrible weather conditions.
I don't see why pass rushing is the one area where people are so focused on nitpicking or introducing additional measures to try and separate one player from another. Let the numbers speak for themselves. If you want to get into sack rate as a percentage of attempts, fine. If you want to include some credit for forcing a throwaway, I'm okay with that. But trying to delineate between what is a good sack and what is an average sack just seems pointless.
)
