The Great Cowboy Sack Myth

[DandyDon1722]

The Cowboys have 12 sacks this year, yet I can't help thinking what a skewed statistic that is.

I think we are are fairly decent at blitz packages and stunts and we do get our fair share of sacks...but it is misleading.

Washington and Philly both succeeded in applying pressure to Tony, yet sacking him a lot was not the end result, but fast reads, dump offs and turnovers were.

We have a lot of sacks but DO NOT get consistent pressure. We have zero interceptions and rank with the Rams, Bengals, KC and Raiders in turnover ratio (currently -4...the Titans are a + 12).

I think I'm talking myself into the belief we are gimmicky good but not talent great. Am I wrong?

 

[ajk23az]

I think most of our sacks are coverage sacks.

 

[Doomsday]

Both drives in the 2nd quarter where we got to Campbell they punted. The next 4 drives they went to quicker drops, we had zero sacks and they scored all four times. Smart teams realize we are playing soft and are getting in 3rd and short vs us which allows them to stay in the short drops and make plays against us to keep the chains moving. We need more pressure from the middle of the defense to help collapse the pocket.

 

[AdamJT13]

The Cowboys have 12 sacks this year, yet I can't help thinking what a skewed statistic that is.

I think we are are fairly decent at blitz packages and stunts and we do get our fair share of sacks...but it is misleading.

Washington and Philly both succeeded in applying pressure to Tony, yet sacking him a lot was not the end result, but fast reads, dump offs and turnovers were.

We have a lot of sacks but DO NOT get consistent pressure. We have zero interceptions and rank with the Rams, Bengals, KC and Raiders in turnover ratio (currently -4...the Titans are a + 12).

I think I'm talking myself into the belief we are gimmicky good but not talent great. Am I wrong?

There's nothing misleading about our sacks and pressures. We are sacking and pressuring the quarterback very well compared to most teams (which is why we rank near the top in sacks).

And if you actually think Washington and Philadelphia got more pressure on Romo than we got on their quarterbacks, something is wrong with your perception.

 

[Eskimo]

The problem isn't the lack of pressure but the lack of coverage. Even under duress, most NFL QBs will hit a guy open by 5-10 yards. Our current scheme would probably work against HS option QBs, though.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I think most of our sacks are coverage sacks.

What coverage?

 

[DandyDon1722]

Adam, my perception is they didn't get more pressure but more effective pressure. There's a difference. A consistent push up the middle in the long run is going to be better than blitzes from corners even if it doesn't result in a sack.

 

[ajk23az]

What coverage?

The times we do have coverage, we get sacks. I see it once or twice a game.

 

[AdamJT13]

Adam, my perception is they didn't get more pressure but more effective pressure. There's a difference. A consistent push up the middle in the long run is going to be better than blitzes from corners even if it doesn't result in a sack.

When did Washington or Philadelphia ever get a consistent push up the middle?

And do you know who was leading our team in quarterback pressures going into the Commanders game? It wasn't DeMarcus Ware, it was Jay Ratliff -- a nose tackle. Tank Johnson, the other nose tackle, was third on the team in quarterback pressures. Zach Thomas, an inside linebacker, was tied for fourth.

We get plenty of pressure on the quarterback -- from the middle and the edge. And we get plenty of sacks. But as Eskimo said, our soft zones make it easy for opposing quarterbacks to hit a hot receiver or throw a dumpoff underneath the coverage.

 

[Doomsday]

We get plenty of pressure on the quarterback -- from the middle and the edge. And we get plenty of sacks. But as Eskimo said, our soft zones make it easy for opposing quarterbacks to hit a hot receiver or throw a dumpoff underneath the coverage.

That is it in a nutshell, teams are constantly in 3rd and short vs us because of the soft coverages. Giving up 4.1 ypc on the season isnt helping much either.

 

[AKATheRake]

I think most of our sacks are coverage sacks.

Definitely not coverage sacks. We'd have more sacks and INT's if we challenged Wr's before the ball got there and jumped some routes more often. In regards to having 12 sack in 4 games that sounds about right to our usual pace. That's 3 a game 3 x 16 = 48. We were in that vacinity last year. We don't create turnover's unless they are fumbles because we don't attack the ball in the air. Our secondary plays soft vanilla, reactive coverage while our front 7 forces QB's to get rid of the ball before they want to. The secondary has dynamic players but the scheme does not compliment what our front 7 accomplishes. We do a very god job of pressuring the QB. It's not a hoax and it is consistant as long as Wade/Stewart can predict right whether it's a run or pass coming at them once in a while.

 

[MONT17]

Stats r 4 fantasy football!

 

[Clove]

I'm sorry Adam, I just don't see the consistant pressure.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

I'm sorry Adam, I just don't see the consistant pressure.

believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

all those sacks and not ints.....how does that combination occur?

 

[khiladi]

If you also notice, most of the QBs are simply avoiding sacks by stepping up in the middle. Our DEs are being blown out the water...

Plus, if we were really getting effective pressure, we would be forcing turnovers and not giving up long, time-consuming drives.

 

[Eskimo]

If you also notice, most of the QBs are simply avoiding sacks by stepping up in the middle. Our DEs are being blown out the water...

Plus, if we were really getting effective pressure, we would be forcing turnovers and not giving up long, time-consuming drives.

The issue is coverage due to scheme, not lack of pressure.

 

[ddh33]

I think the idea of sacks are annoying people because the Cowboys have whiffed on several great opportunities...

I tend to think the problem is with the soft coverage on the outside.