Yakuza Rich: Wade's One of the Best in the Sacks Game

[Chocolate Lab]

I think what I was most impressed with was that we increased our sacks and interceptions while at the same time decreasing our big plays given up. I really thought we would sacrifice some long TDs in order to get more QB pressure, but that wasn't the case.

 

[gollum]

Great post.

Improvements to the defensive unit and being in the second year of the scheme should combine to enable Dallas to achieve the same kind of jump in sacks in year two as Wade's San Diego defense achieved.

YEAR……………..TEAM………..POSITION……….SACKS
1986……………….PHI…………….DC……………….53
1987……………….PHI…………….DC……………….47
1988……………….PHI…………….DC……………….42
1989……………….DEN…………...DC……………….46
1990……………….DEN…………...DC……………….33
1991……………….DEN…………...DC……………….52
1992……………….DEN…………...DC……………….49
1993……………….DEN…………...HC……………….46
1994……………….DEN…………...HC……………….23
1995……………….BUF…………....DC………………49
1996……………….BUF…………....DC………………48
1997……………….BUF…………....DC………………46
1998……………….BUF…………....HC………………43
1999……………….BUF…………....HC………………37
2000……………….BUF……………..HC………….….42
2002……………….ATL…………..…DC………………47
2003……………….ATL…………..…DC………………37
2004……………….SD……………...DC………………29
2005……………….SD……………...DC………………47
2006……………….SD……………...DC………………61
2007……………….DAL…………….HC……………….46


Not trying to rain on your parade, but did you look at the rest of the chart? SD was the only teams he was with as either HC or DC where the sack total jumped the 2nd year. Every other time, it dropped:
PHI 53 to 47
DEN 46 to 33
BUF 49 to 48
ATL 47 to 37

Even when he was the HC, it dropped the second year:
DEN 46 to 23
BUF 3 to 37

 

[percyhoward]

Not trying to rain on your parade, but did you look at the rest of the chart? SD was the only teams he was with as either HC or DC where the sack total jumped the 2nd year.

There might not be much significance in that fact, since sacks have been going down league-wide year to year, and since the decrease wasn't that much in some cases, and since the sack numbers increased half of the time in the third year when there was one.

 

[percyhoward]

5 Sacks................0.551
11 Sacks / Att..........0.449

Great example of how effect bypasses cause near the top of that list (see rush yards per attempt ranking vs. number of rushes per game). Generally speaking, teams get more sacks when they're winning big and the opponent is forced to pass.

 

[Romo2Dez4six]

wade does have a special scheme and i think we have the people to fill that scheme so we will see if they can excel

 

[theogt]

Great example of how effect bypasses cause near the top of that list (see rush yards per attempt ranking vs. number of rushes per game). Generally speaking, teams get more sacks when they're winning big and the opponent is forced to pass.

The difference between the two coefficients is negligible. So, it's an example, but not really a great example.

 

[percyhoward]

The difference between the two coefficients is negligible.

Which of the two stats is a better measure of a pass rush though?

 

[theogt]

Which of the two stats is a better measure of a pass rush though?

Sacks per attempt.

 

[percyhoward]

Sacks per attempt.

Yes, and despite having a lower correlation to winning.

 

[gollum]

Yes, and despite having a lower correlation to winning.

More efficient pass rush, but not necessarily a better pass rush...these don't count QB pressures.

 

[percyhoward]

More efficient pass rush, but not necessarily a better pass rush...these don't count QB pressures.

I was talking about total sacks vs. sacks/attempt only, and how that "correlation with winning percentage" list can be misleading. If you look at that list, you could conclude that it's more important to run the ball often than to run well.

But yeah, it'd be great (good?) to see a stat that includes pressures, and intentional grounding or holding calls on pass plays, and even distinguish which INT's were forced by pressure vs. which ones were unforced QB errors or just great plays by the intercepting player.

 

[theogt]

Yes, and despite having a lower correlation to winning.

I wouldn't say "despite." It's almost better to say BECAUSE it has a lower correlation with winning it's a better measure of sack ability, since the total sacks stat takes into account extraneous factors that make it a better correlation with winning % but a less effective measure of sack ability.

 

[theogt]

I was talking about total sacks vs. sacks/attempt only, and how that "correlation with winning percentage" list can be misleading. If you look at that list, you could conclude that it's more important to run the ball often than to run well.

But yeah, it'd be great (good?) to see a stat that includes pressures, and intentional grounding or holding calls on pass plays, and even distinguish which INT's were forced by pressure vs. which ones were unforced QB errors or just great plays by the intercepting player.

Sorry, I didn't include the sign in front of the coefficient. And these are defensive stats. The total rushing attempts stat essentially means, the more total runs a defense faces, the lower the winning %, which is pretty obvious.

The stats do tend to prove that running the ball well (or defending against the run well) are not important to winning a game. Again, they're correlation coefficients, not causation.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I'd take some playoff wins myself--- even one.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I'd take some playoff wins myself--- even one.

If we win just one playoff game, there still won't be much satisifaction in Cowboy nation.

 

[percyhoward]

The stats do tend to prove that running the ball well (or defending against the run well) are not important to winning a game.

How well you run is more important than how often your coach calls run plays.

Running often has a much higher correlation with winning than running well.

Semantics aside, they're both true, and (as you probably know) they're not contradictory.

 

[theogt]

How well you run is more important than how often your coach calls run plays.

Running often has a much higher correlation with winning than running well.

Semantics aside, they're both true, and (as you probably know) they're not contradictory.

What do you mean by important? The only thing that is "important" in my mind about running the ball is how many opportunities you have to run the ball. If you have more opportunities to run the ball, it's because you're winning.

Whether you run 4.1 YPC or 4.8 YPC is almost completely irrelevant in terms of winning a game.

 

[percyhoward]

What do you mean by important?

I'm trying to keep semantics out of it, because I don't think we disagree.

What's the better measure of a rushing game--yards per attempt or yards per game?

 

[bsheeern]

Here are correlation coefficients of defensive stats to winning percentage based on 2006 stats:


Win %................1.000
Rush Att.............0.649
QB Rating............0.570
Total Scoring........0.570
Sacks................0.551
Pass Yds / Att.......0.506
Score / Play.........0.503
INTs.................0.489
Total Takeaways......0.484
Pass FDs / Att.......0.463
Sacks / Att..........0.449
Total Plays..........0.447
INTs / Pass Att......0.404
Pass TDs.............0.399
Comp %...............0.386
Total Yds............0.371
Pass Att.............0.314
Rush FDs.............0.300
Rush Yds.............0.282
Rush TDs.............0.267
Fumbles / Play.......0.234
Yds / Play...........0.195
Pass Def.............0.185
Fumbles..............0.177
Pass FDs.............0.143
Pass Yds.............0.141
Pass Def / Att.......0.076
Rush FDs / Att.......0.052
Pass Comp............0.037
Rush Yds / Att.......0.035

Are there any stats that show sacks per pass attemps average? For example team A passed the ball 45 times last game and Team B had 4 sacks. Then the next game Team C passed the ball only 32 times and team B had another 4 sacks. Better average per pass attemps.
Or am i looking at that somewhere here on this chart and i'm just not smart enough to see it.
Thanks!

 

[gollum]

Are there any stats that show sacks per pass attemps average? For example team A passed the ball 45 times last game and Team B had 4 sacks. Then the next game Team C passed the ball only 32 times and team B had another 4 sacks. Better average per pass attemps.
Or am i looking at that somewhere here on this chart and i'm just not smart enough to see it.
Thanks!

11th line down? Sacks / Attempt