Sacks vs. Tackles for loss

[JBS]

4th.

4th, taking out every team's best game.

Good work...

Feel like we had a lot of D tds and st tds too though

 

[percyhoward]

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

No more than those of the average team. Dallas scored 74 points (league average was 73.2) on drives that began on the opponent's side of the field. The Chiefs led the NFL in this category with 132 points on drives that started in opponent's territory. The Cowboys' 74 points ranked only 14th. So Dallas' high ranking in scoring had nothing to do with defense or special teams setting up the offense with good field position.

In fact, the farther away the drive started, the higher Dallas ranked in points scored. On drives that began in their own territory, the Cowboys scored 325 points. That ranked 6th.

And on drives that began inside the offense's own 35-yard line, Dallas scored 288 points. That was 2nd only to the Broncos.

We were 25th in third down conversion... Great? No offense that's even close to great is 25th in 3rd down conversions.. We weren't very good at running the ball for much of the year either.

Linehan's hire would have been a tough sell if the Cowboys and Lions had traded 3rd-down performances. If we had ranked in the top 10 (Linehan's Lions ranked 6th) in this category, the offense would have scored even more points, no question. Fortunately, however, that didn't keep us from being a top 5 offense, because you can convert on any down -- not just 3rd. Here's how we ranked in conversion percentage on the various downs:

1st down: 26.6% (2nd)
2nd down: 37.1% (2nd)
3rd down: 35.6% (25th)

And as you may imagine, there were many more 1st and 2nd down plays combined than there were 3rd down plays.

3rd down plays: 180
other plays: 771

That's how the offense was able to be so successful despite a horrible conversion rate on 3rd down -- only 18.8% of the offense's plays were on that down. 81.2% were on some other down. And Dallas was among the league's best offenses on those other downs. In fact, 2nd only to the Broncos again.

You're right that we were inconsistent in the running game though.

 

[JBS]

No more than those of the average team. Dallas scored 74 points (league average was 73.2) on drives that began on the opponent's side of the field. The Chiefs led the NFL in this category with 132 points on drives that started in opponent's territory. The Cowboys' 74 points ranked only 14th. So Dallas' high ranking in scoring had nothing to do with defense or special teams setting up the offense with good field position.

In fact, the farther away the drive started, the higher Dallas ranked in points scored. On drives that began in their own territory, the Cowboys scored 325 points. That ranked 6th.

And on drives that began inside the offense's own 35-yard line, Dallas scored 288 points. That was 2nd only to the Broncos.


Linehan's hire would have been a tough sell if the Cowboys and Lions had traded 3rd-down performances. If we had ranked in the top 10 (Linehan's Lions ranked 6th) in this category, the offense would have scored even more points, no question. Fortunately, however, that didn't keep us from being a top 5 offense, because you can convert on any down -- not just 3rd. Here's how we ranked in conversion percentage on the various downs:

1st down: 26.6% (2nd)
2nd down: 37.1% (2nd)
3rd down: 35.6% (25th)

And as you may imagine, there were many more 1st and 2nd down plays combined than there were 3rd down plays.

3rd down plays: 180
other plays: 771

That's how the offense was able to be so successful despite a horrible conversion rate on 3rd down -- only 18.8% of the offense's plays were on that down. 81.2% were on some other down. And Dallas was among the league's best offenses on those other downs. In fact, 2nd only to the Broncos again.

You're right that we were inconsistent in the running game though.

Impressive work... That's good stuff

 

[percyhoward]

Feel like we had a lot of D tds and st tds too though

We did, as a team. We had 6 non-rushing or non-passing TD, which ranked 4th. But that doesn't affect the offense's scoring numbers.

 

[Nation]

Consistent pressure is the key. Consistent pressure disrupts the QBs mindset. And when you can disrupt that, look out! Charles Haley was the king of consistent pressure, although he didn't rack up the sacks. He was always in their face, around the QB and it made them very uncomfortable contributing to a lot of mistakes. Ware was not known for tons of pressure, but would put up the sack numbers. He did have plenty of games where he was in and around the QB all day, but not on a consistent game-by-game basis like Haley was.

Ware was 20th amongst 4-3 Ends in Total Pressures in the injury year 2013, 3rd for 3-4 OLBs in 2012, 2nd in 2011, 2nd in 2010, 1st in 2009, 2nd in 2008, and 1st in 2007. The myth of DeMarcus ware being a guy that just piles up sacks in the first 3 quarters of the game has been proven to be wrong time and time again. The reason Dallas didn't bring pressure like it did in the 90s is not a difference between Ware and Haley. It is a difference between what Ware's been surrounded with and Jeffcoat, Tolbert, Jimmie Jones, Leon Lett, and Chad Hennings in an era where the pass rush has become more and more important.

 

[burmafrd]

The last two years Ware has not had a sack that means anything. He was always a step late to the sack.

wow. just wow. I guess a guy on one leg and with only one arm must be superman, right?

 

[jrumann59]

wow. just wow. I guess a guy on one leg and with only one arm must be superman, right?

Then I guess we should not have asked for him to take a pay cut. He has not been dynamic in a long time. The last time he had sack that affected the outcome of a game that I can remember is NO game 4 years back.

 

[KJJ]

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.

DE's are defined by their sack totals especially in this pass happy era where QB's routinely put up over 4000 yards. A players sack total wasn't even kept track of until 1982. The evolvement of the passing game over the years and the many rule changes that have opened up the passing game has made pressuring the QB more critical. Nothing points to pressure on the QB more than sacks. It's all about getting to the QB in todays game and sacks define pass rushers. They're put in position to rush the passer and their effectiveness as a pass rusher is ultimately judged by their sack totals.

When looking at the stat sheet the first thing everyone looks at with D linemen especially DE's is their sack totals. Pressures can change a game by leading to an int or an incomplete pass in a big 3rd down situation, A tackle for a loss can back a team up putting them in a long down situation or knocking them out of FG range but nothing fires up a defense or a crowed more than a sack. Nothing gets into the head of a QB more than planting them on the ground.

 

[jday]

DE's are defined by their sack totals especially in this pass happy era where QB's routinely put up over 4000 yards. A players sack total wasn't even kept track of until 1982. The evolvement of the passing game over the years and the many rule changes that have opened up the passing game has made pressuring the QB more critical. Nothing points to pressure on the QB more than sacks. It's all about getting to the QB in todays game and sacks define pass rushers. They're put in position to rush the passer and their effectiveness as a pass rusher is ultimately judged by their sack totals.

When looking at the stat sheet the first thing everyone looks at with D linemen especially DE's is their sack totals. Pressures can change a game by leading to an int or an incomplete pass in a big 3rd down situation, A tackle for a loss can back a team up putting them in a long down situation or knocking them out of FG range but nothing fires up a defense or a crowed more than a sack. Nothing gets into the head of a QB more than planting them on the ground.

I get it. I realize the importance of sacks. That is an impact that is hard to miss. But a sack, by definition is a TFL and for me what truly defines an effective DL, is not just there ability to get to the QB, but there ability to penetrate and get to the ball carrier, whomever that might be. Granted it is a pass happy era, but the game is evolving, especially with teams using the Pistol, were getting to the QB is only a small piece of the puzzle. Playing assignment sound football is far more important, playing against teams who have several threats coming out the backfield, than sacks alone.

 

[burmafrd]

Then I guess we should not have asked for him to take a pay cut. He has not been dynamic in a long time. The last time he had sack that affected the outcome of a game that I can remember is NO game 4 years back.

Not surprising coming from you. You seem to not watch many boys games the last few years

 

[jrumann59]

Not surprising coming from you. You seem to not watch many boys games the last few years

Yeah because all those games where he was just a step late or being stonewalled by guys he should have owned showed how dynamic he was. Remind me a gain how many sacks did he get against "lesser" talent than him in the last 4 years. One game stands out the revolving door the eagles marched out there against him 4 years ago and he pretty much was stonewalled. I loved ware but his skills declined fast.

 

[KJJ]

I get it. I realize the importance of sacks. That is an impact that is hard to miss. But a sack, by definition is a TFL and for me what truly defines an effective DL, is not just there ability to get to the QB, but there ability to penetrate and get to the ball carrier, whomever that might be. Granted it is a pass happy era, but the game is evolving, especially with teams using the Pistol, were getting to the QB is only a small piece of the puzzle. Playing assignment sound football is far more important, playing against teams who have several threats coming out the backfield, than sacks alone.

I agree for a DL as a whole their ability to penetrate and disrupt a play is critical to having success but 4-3 DE's and 3-4 OLB's are judged by how many sacks they register. Great DL's usually consist of a big DT who can collapse the pocket and a great pass rusher. DT's typically don't get a lot of sacks because they play at the center of the DL but their job is to create some havoc and stuff the run. OLB's in the 3-4 and 4-3 DE's are put in a position to rush the passer so they're judged on sacks. It was Ware's sack totals dipping from 35 in 2010 and 2011 to 17.5 in 2012 and 2013 that got him released. Ware was being paid to get to the QB and his sacks totals the past 2 seasons didn't warrant his current salary. Had his injuries not limited his sack totals he would still be a Cowboy.

Sack totals are always going to be used to judge the effectiveness of a pass rusher. Once they reach 30 and their sack totals start to dip for a couple of seasons they're considered to be in decline and are sent packing. Once Dwight Freeney's sack totals started to dip in 2011 and 2012 the Colts moved on from him. Jared Allen's sack totals have dipped the past couple of seasons and Minn moved on from him. What you're saying about DL's as a whole is very true but pass rushers have to register sacks. Sacks are the #1 stat that the HOF voters look at when judging pass rushers. Pass rushers are game changers which is why Clowney was the #1 overall pick last month.

 

[jday]

I agree for a DL as a whole their ability to penetrate and disrupt a play is critical to having success but 4-3 DE's and 3-4 OLB's are judged by how many sacks they register. Great DL's usually consist of a big DT who can collapse the pocket and a great pass rusher. DT's typically don't get a lot of sacks because they play at the center of the DL but their job is to create some havoc and stuff the run. OLB's in the 3-4 and 4-3 DE's are put in a position to rush the passer so they're judged on sacks. It was Ware's sack totals dipping from 35 in 2010 and 2011 to 17.5 in 2012 and 2013 that got him released. Ware was being paid to get to the QB and his sacks totals the past 2 seasons didn't warrant his current salary. Had his injuries not limited his sack totals he would still be a Cowboy.

Sack totals are always going to be used to judge the effectiveness of a pass rusher. Once they reach 30 and their sack totals start to dip for a couple of seasons they're considered to be in decline and are sent packing. Once Dwight Freeney's sack totals started to dip in 2011 and 2012 the Colts moved on from him. Jared Allen's sack totals have dipped the past couple of seasons and Minn moved on from him. What you're saying about DL's as a whole is very true but pass rushers have to register sacks. Sacks are the #1 stat that the HOF voters look at when judging pass rushers. Pass rushers are game changers which is why Clowney was the #1 overall pick last month.

How did you intuit that I didn't know any of what you told me from my response? I am aware of the different functions of the different DL in different scheme's. I am also aware of Ware's decline and was onboard with his release. And, once again, I understand a pass rusher's function and the measurement sticks that is used. But as I said before, I don't quite get why sacks are the end-all-be-all of measuring a DL's effectiveness, when maintaining consistent pressure and stopping the run are the most critical elements of a defense. Sack's are great, but they don't tell the whole story and I really honestly think sacks have that much of a significant impact on win's and losses, when you get right down to it. That's my point. Now before you go and give my a 5 year break down of the top teams that produced sacks and where they ended up in the playoffs, I'll point out now these same teams where probably pretty good at the aforementioned pressure and run stopping too; so don't waste your time.

 

[KJJ]

How did you intuit that I didn't know any of what you told me from my response? I am aware of the different functions of the different DL in different scheme's. I am also aware of Ware's decline and was onboard with his release. And, once again, I understand a pass rusher's function and the measurement sticks that is used. But as I said before, I don't quite get why sacks are the end-all-be-all of measuring a DL's effectiveness, when maintaining consistent pressure and stopping the run are the most critical elements of a defense. Sack's are great, but they don't tell the whole story and I really honestly think sacks have that much of a significant impact on win's and losses, when you get right down to it. That's my point. Now before you go and give my a 5 year break down of the top teams that produced sacks and where they ended up in the playoffs, I'll point out now these same teams where probably pretty good at the aforementioned pressure and run stopping too; so don't waste your time.

You started off your original post by saying "Am I alone in not being overly concerned with how many sacks Dl players have had in the past?" You didn't mention DL's as a unit you mentioned "players" as in individuals. There's not that much focus placed on how many sacks DL's have as a unit but there's a lot of focus placed on how many sacks individual defensive players rack up.

Sacks aren't the end-all-be-all of measuring a DL's effectiveness but they are the measuring stick when it comes to pass rushers which is why so much attention is placed on individual sack totals. DL's are measured by what you mentioned but don't confuse the responsibility of a "unit" with the responsibility of a pass rusher whose primary job is to get to the QB.

 

[jday]

You started off your original post by saying "Am I alone in not being overly concerned with how many sacks Dl players have had in the past?" You didn't mention DL's as a unit you mentioned "players" as in individuals. There's not that much focus placed on how many sacks DL's have as a unit but there's a lot of focus placed on how many sacks individual defensive players rack up.

Sacks aren't the end-all-be-all of measuring a DL's effectiveness but they are the measuring stick when it comes to pass rushers which is why so much attention is placed on individual sack totals. DL's are measured by what you mentioned but don't confuse the responsibility of a "unit" with the responsibility of a pass rusher whose primary job is to get to the QB.

I stand by my OP. However, I am not overly concerned with individual or team overall sacks. In the scheme of things, I don't see sacks as being a big difference in wins and losses. TFL's in general, teamed with consistent pressure, however, is. Mind you, I include sacks as TFL's. And when I point to the measuring stick, I'm not actually referring to how coaches evaluate their players, but how the media, in general, does. Any time you read a mediots stance on a particular player, the one and only thing they tend to point to is sacks. Which is why Anthony Spencer's contribution went unnoticed by many and they constanty underrated him for being a 2nd late, when that's what tends to happen when the QB sees you coming, vs Ware who was typically coming from the blindside.

 

[KJJ]

I stand by my OP. However, I am not overly concerned with individual or team overall sacks. In the scheme of things, I don't see sacks as being a big difference in wins and losses. TFL's in general, teamed with consistent pressure, however, is. Mind you, I include sacks as TFL's. And when I point to the measuring stick, I'm not actually referring to how coaches evaluate their players, but how the media, in general, does. Any time you read a mediots stance on a particular player, the one and only thing they tend to point to is sacks. Which is why Anthony Spencer's contribution went unnoticed by many and they constanty underrated him for being a 2nd late, when that's what tends to happen when the QB sees you coming, vs Ware who was typically coming from the blindside.

Seattle only had 10 more sacks than the Cowboys last season and their top sacker only had 8.5 sacks which was 2.5 sacks behind our top sacker Hatcher but the Seahawks as a unit provided steady pressure from several players and played great pass defense. Half the Cowboys sacks last season and most of their pressures came from Ware and Hatcher. The Cowboys defense had to come up with sacks to prevent a play. Even when the DL applied pressure opposing QB's were still able to find open receivers due to poor coverage and busted coverages.

When you have a strong secondary like Seattle that's blessed with two ball hawkers like Sherman and Earl Thomas who combined for 13 int's you don't need a lot of sacks to be successful. The Cowboys defense has been so poor they have to to get the QB on the ground to prevent a play. At times our DL provided some strong pressure only to see the opposing QB toss one up for grabs to a wide open receiver. Unless the Cowboys improve their coverage applying pressure isn't going to prevent plays. Just go back a look at some of the pass plays opposing QB's made against our defense in the face of a pretty good pass rush.