Sacks vs. Tackles for loss

[jday]

Am I alone in not being overly concerned with how many sacks Dl players have had in the past? Granted, it can be a huge swing in the game, but it happens so rarely for most, I'm not sure why Dl's are typically defined only by how many sacks they get. Please don't misunderstand, I like seeing sacks just like the next guy, but for me what truly determines a Defense Lineman effectiveness as a player are tackles for loss/minimal gain, in general, and of course keeping consistent pressure on the QB. Getting inside the QB's head and never letting him be comfortable in the pocket combined with shutting down the running game are the true critical attributes of any defense, regardless of scheme you employ. If you can do those two things as a unit consistently, your team will have success; especially with an offense like the Cowboys that seems poised for greatness this year.

 

[JBS]

What about our offense tells you it will be great? We werent anything close to great last year..We might better, sure.. I dont see great

Not to take away from your original post. I agree w your opinion on the importance of generating consistent pressure

 

[Nova]

Sack totals don’t exactly encompass just how disruptive a pass rusher is—just a luke warm indicator, although a lot of us get really wrapped up in them.

But for a DL, pass rush is probably more important than tackles for loss. A lot of tackles for losses will be done by linebackers shooting gaps. DL players often should be more concerned with gap integrity, especially on the ends—don’t want your DE running himself out of the play.

Then you also have to consider this is a passing league now. Obviously you want your guy to be good all around, but I’d say collapsing the pocket, disrupting the QB, and rubbing his face in the dirt is a little more productive for the defense.

 

[jday]

What about our offense tells you it will be great? We werent anything close to great last year..We might better, sure.. I dont see great

Not to take away from your original post. I agree w your opinion on the importance of generating consistent pressure

I could be wrong, but I'm really excited about the potential of this offense. To be sure, there are a lot of "if's" and "?," but I honestly feel the addition of Zach Martin is going to go long way to improving every aspect of the offensive game: more room for run's between the Tackles and more time in the pocket for Romo. Transversely, I do not have high expectations for this defense at all. I do not believe we have a true #1 corner, our SS have a lot to prove, and the Dl consist of guys who either didn't play in 2013 as a result of injury or didn't play well enough to inspire confidence, the lone exception being Selvie, to say nothing of my complete lack of faith in their rookie choices...well, actually I just did say something, but moving on.

 

[jday]

Sack totals don’t exactly encompass just how disruptive a pass rusher is—just a luke warm indicator, although a lot of us get really wrapped up in them.

But for a DL, pass rush is probably more important than tackles for loss. A lot of tackles for losses will be done by linebackers shooting gaps. DL players often should be more concerned with gap integrity, especially on the ends—don’t want your DE running himself out of the play.

Then you also have to consider this is a passing league now. Obviously you want your guy to be good all around, but I’d say collapsing the pocket, disrupting the QB, and rubbing his face in the dirt is a little more productive for the defense.

When I say tackles for loss, I actually feel that sacks are included. Also, I included tackles for minimal gain with my overall assessment of Dl's. Finally, I think you may be confusing the 3-4 and the 4-3. In the 4-3, the defensive lineman's job, as a general rule is to get penetration and disrupt plays in the backfield, the lone exception typically being the 1-tech DT, whose job is to not allow the C and LG to push him back and give the QB space to step up in the pocket. In the 3-4, Dl primary job is to be blocker eaters while the Lb's actually make the plays. Don't get me wrong, dependent on the play, Dl will typically be assigned gaps, however, they won't be sitting on those gaps, they will be attempting to shoot through them to get to the ball carrier, whoever that may be.

 

[xwalker]

Am I alone in not being overly concerned with how many sacks Dl players have had in the past? Granted, it can be a huge swing in the game, but it happens so rarely for most, I'm not sure why Dl's are typically defined only by how many sacks they get. Please don't misunderstand, I like seeing sacks just like the next guy, but for me what truly determines a Defense Lineman effectiveness as a player are tackles for loss/minimal gain, in general, and of course keeping consistent pressure on the QB. Getting inside the QB's head and never letting him be comfortable in the pocket combined with shutting down the running game are the true critical attributes of any defense, regardless of scheme you employ. If you can do those two things as a unit consistently, your team will have success; especially with an offense like the Cowboys that seems poised for greatness this year.

This is different than your question, but...

In terms of the running game, would you prefer a defense that had a high percentage of tackles for loss, but their overall rushing average against is 4 yards/carry or would you prefer a defense that rarely has tackles for loss, but their rushing average against is 3 yards/carry?

 

[Future]

This is different than your question, but...

In terms of the running game, would you prefer a defense that had a high percentage of tackles for loss, but their overall rushing average against is 4 yards/carry or would you prefer a defense that rarely has tackles for loss, but their rushing average against is 3 yards/carry?

That's basically like asking do you prefer Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith lol

I'd take the latter, just for the record.

 

[jday]

quote]

This is different than your question, but...

In terms of the running game, would you prefer a defense that had a high percentage of tackles for loss, but their overall rushing average against is 4 yards/carry or would you prefer a defense that rarely has tackles for loss, but their rushing average against is 3 yards/carry?

Trick question? Obviously, on paper, I'd rather the latter. Having said that, there are so many variables in the game of football to be considered. Some tackles for loss mean more than others. On the other hand, just because a team average's only 3 yards per carry, doesn't mean they are not having an easy time passing the ball. So my honest answer to that question would depend on me actually watching the game(s) in question.

 

[DFWJC]

What about our offense tells you it will be great? We werent anything close to great last year..We might better, sure.. I dont see great

Not to take away from your original post. I agree w your opinion on the importance of generating consistent pressure

Barring major injuries, I'm very optimistic about the offense this year. Hard to say what great will means though. Top 5? Top 10?

Here's a dozen potential reasons to be like the offense better:

1. Smith has turned the corner and is heading toward greatness
2. Frederick is not a rookie anymore and should be better
3. Free is Free...so a wash
4. Martin should be an upgrade at RG once he gets acclimated
5. Berny + Leary at LG > just Berny...more depth and endurance
6. so > run game and better pass protection...imo
7. Dez has turned the corner and now can be moved around into multiple postions
8. T Williams is no longer a rookie and should be better
9. I prefer Linehan as OC
10. Romo is Romo...so a wash
11. Escobar will be much better and more utilized...not a rookie and has put on muscle
12. Miles gave us nothing (maybe 300 yards?) so Street will not be worse than that...and could be way better (maybe 6-700 yards)

 

[Nation]

What about our offense tells you it will be great? We werent anything close to great last year..We might better, sure.. I dont see great

Not to take away from your original post. I agree w your opinion on the importance of generating consistent pressure

We were much closer to great than we were to "anything close to great"

 

[xwalker]

quote]



Trick question? Obviously, on paper, I'd rather the latter. Having said that, there are so many variables in the game of football to be considered. Some tackles for loss mean more than others. On the other hand, just because a team average's only 3 yards per carry, doesn't mean they are not having an easy time passing the ball. So my honest answer to that question would depend on me actually watching the game(s) in question.

A Tackle for Loss is similar to a Sack. A Tackle for Loss on 1st or 2nd down puts the defense in a good position on the remaining downs. If a defense allows 3 yards on 1st down, it makes converting on 2nd or 3rd much more likely. A defense that has a tackle for loss on every 3rd 1st down is much more likely to get off the field sooner than a defense that consistently allows 3 yards on 1st down.

 

[JBS]

We were much closer to great than we were to "anything close to great"

We were close to a great offense last year? Hahahaha, go look up what great means.

The Broncos were great

 

[jday]

A Tackle for Loss is similar to a Sack. A Tackle for Loss on 1st or 2nd down puts the defense in a good position on the remaining downs. If a defense allows 3 yards on 1st down, it makes converting on 2nd or 3rd much more likely. A defense that has a tackle for loss on every 3rd 1st down is much more likely to get off the field sooner than a defense that consistently allows 3 yards on 1st down.

On the other hand, if a team is averaging 4 yards per carry, all they have to do is run the ball and they will get a 1st down in 3 downs, diminishing the risk of turnovers, wearing down our defense, controlling the clock and, worst of all, keeping our offense off the field.

 

[guag]

I agree with your assessment that sacks aren't everything for a defensive lineman. For example, I probably feel that Ware had more of an impact in games last year than many other people do. Many people look at his low sack totals and based on that, declare that he had a mediocre season. However, you have to consider the other variables... how many pressures did he generate? How many times was he double teamed (and thus creating opportunities for someone else to make a play)?

 

[burmafrd]

Tackles for loss are as over rated as sack numbers are. Because TFL usually occur because an Offensive Lineman screwed up. Not because your DL was making a great play. sacks by DE's are usually better playes; sacks by DTs are quite often missed blocking assignments.

TFL are much the same.

 

[jday]

I agree with your assessment that sacks aren't everything for a defensive lineman. For example, I probably feel that Ware had more of an impact in games last year than many other people do. Many people look at his low sack totals and based on that, declare that he had a mediocre season. However, you have to consider the other variables... how many pressures did he generate? How many times was he double teamed (and thus creating opportunities for someone else to make a play)?

That's a great point. I'm really surprised that we don't see the "experts" focus on Dl's impact as a whole. The mediots will simply say a player underperformed pointing to their sack count and moving on. Sacks don't come anywhere close to telling the whole story.

 

[Nation]

We were close to a great offense last year? Hahahaha, go look up what great means.

The Broncos were great

The Broncos had the highest scoring offense ever. If that is your bar for great you are going to have a tough time having any team ever be great. They were 5th in points, that's close to great.

 

[xwalker]

On the other hand, if a team is averaging 4 yards per carry, all they have to do is run the ball and they will get a 1st down in 3 downs, diminishing the risk of turnovers, wearing down our defense, controlling the clock and, worst of all, keeping our offense off the field.

If they are averaging 4 yards/carry but there is a high percentage of tackles for loss, that indicates that they are occasionally gashing the defense for 8 to 10 yards.

Example A:
1st down: 10 yard gain
1st down: 10 yard gain
1st down: 4 yard loss
2nd/3rd: Low probability of converting

Example B:
1st down: 3 yard gain
2nd/3rd high probability of converting

1st down: 3 yard gain
2nd/3rd high probability of converting

1st down: 3 yard gain
2nd/3rd high probability of converting

 

[jday]

Tackles for loss are as over rated as sack numbers are. Because TFL usually occur because an Offensive Lineman screwed up. Not because your DL was making a great play. sacks by DE's are usually better playes; sacks by DTs are quite often missed blocking assignments.

TFL are much the same.

I'm not really sure you can overrate TFL's; they have immeasurable value to a defense. The further from a 1st down you push a team the less options they have in their playbook. And, I seriously have to disagree with your assertion that TFL's are a result of an Ol's error. I will need to see some type of proof to buy that statement. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I see Dl outplay Ol far more often then I see Ol missing their assignment all together...especially in professional football.

 

[JBS]

The Broncos had the highest scoring offense ever. If that is your bar for great you are going to have a tough time having any team ever be great. They were 5th in points, that's close to great.

Points a game is important, but it's misleading. How many of those points were set up by defense or sts?

We were 25th in third down conversion... Great? No offense thats even close great is 25th in 3rd down conversions.. we werent very good at running the ball for much of the year either.

Nobody who watched this team week in week out would say we had a borderline great offense. .. No frickin way