PDA

View Full Version : Where Have All the Sacks Gone?


CloakNNNdagger
12-21-2011, 08:40 PM
Three in the last three games. Before that, we averaged ~3 sacks per game.

dalemurphy
12-21-2011, 08:51 PM
Three in the last three games. Before that, we averaged ~3 sacks per game.

We aren't playing with the lead, IMO.

ObsiWan
12-21-2011, 09:03 PM
Well, in two of the last three games, Cincy and ATL, we played teams that don't really give up many sacks. Cincy's only given up 22 (rated #3) and ATL only 26 (#8, which is tied with us by the way).

Against Carolina, we just came out flatter the plains of Kansas.

I fear the injuries are starting to catch up with us. Not just the guys that are gone, but the ones still there who are playing at 85-90%.

And then our stud draftees, Watt & Reed, may be starting to hit that infamous "rookie wall" since they aren't used to playing 14 games/season. They are a big part of our pass rush formula.

That's my theory...
:thinking:

EDIT:
It may not get any better since Tenn is ranked #2, having only given up 20 sacks so far this year and Indy is ranked at 12, having only given up 29 sacks.

Top Ten O-lines + Gimpy/Tired D-line guys + playing in close games (or from behind) = few sacks

Playoffs
12-21-2011, 09:16 PM
They're in Mario's pec.

Brisco_County
12-21-2011, 09:22 PM
Cincy had a good O-line, but you'll notice their production was shut down after halftime adjustments. Atlanta had a QB that was getting rid of the ball like Aaron Rodgers, but his timing sufferred for it. Carolina had an elusive QB, and I also noticed Brooks Reed was getting triple teamed on some plays. That could indicate that teams have been studying enough film to predict where pressure is coming from. I think Wade's presence was sorely missed that game as well.

Titans Sux 72
12-21-2011, 09:35 PM
We aren't playing with the lead, IMO.

Exactly. Texans were up early on teams and opponents were in pass mode trying to play catch up.

wolf123
12-21-2011, 09:36 PM
hmmmm.... I guess we do miss mario:gamer:

htowntexans1985
12-21-2011, 10:28 PM
The white sacks or the brown sacks?:nolisten:

ObsiWan
12-21-2011, 11:00 PM
We aren't playing with the lead, IMO.

Exactly. Texans were up early on teams and opponents were in pass mode trying to play catch up.

Sorry but that doesn't explain the Falcons game. We were up over them 10-zip or 10-3 until they tied it up in the late, late 3rd qtr. Yet we never sacked Ryan.

We were never up over the Steelers more than 10 pts either; it was a 10-7 (or 10-10) game for most of the second half. A ten pt deficit isn't enough to make you pass-happy unless it's really late in the game. Yet we sacked Big Ben five times.

I still say the guys are nicked up and the youngsters are getting gassed. That makes them half a click slower.

As evidence, I go back to the Atlanta game. While we didn't sack Ryan, we registered 11 QB hits. We're still getting there but half a click too late for the sack.

thunderkyss
12-21-2011, 11:09 PM
I still say the guys are nicked up and the youngsters are getting gassed. That makes them half a click slower.


Our rotation sucks right now, with Brahman coming in to relieve Brooks & Barwin instead of Reed coming in to spell Mario & Connor, OLmen are able to weather the storm a little & stay fresher.

ThaShark316
12-21-2011, 11:15 PM
Was about to come in and mention what Obsi basically said (not the nicked up part).

Hell, in the JAX game, we never led by more than 10. 10 points down in the 3rd will NEVER be a "time to throw it to get back in it" margin unless you can't run. MJD for damn sure didn't suck in that game. The Bengals and Falcons are good at pass pro. Plus, Ryan doesn't like to take sacks. He'll get rid of the pill quick to avoid one.

Texans got 1 sack on Matt Hasselbeck vs. TEN. 1. Not buying the "playing with a lead thing".

Nitrofish
12-22-2011, 05:10 AM
We were never up over the Steelers more than 10 pts either; it was a 10-7 (or 10-10) game for most of the second half. A ten pt deficit isn't enough to make you pass-happy unless it's really late in the game. Yet we sacked Big Ben five times.


True but the Steelers O Line at the time was really banged up so not sure you can count this one. To be honest it is probably a combination of all of these theories, leaning more towards better pass protecting offensive lines or QB's who get rid of it instead of take the sack.

Don't forget the pressure alone is good enough to disrupt the play and cause timing issues, so even though the sacks have slowed, the D is still effective when pressure is sufficient.

thunderkyss
12-22-2011, 08:51 AM
True but the Steelers O Line at the time was really banged up so not sure you can count this one.

I think it's the same point. Different level of competition.

To be honest it is probably a combination of all of these theories, leaning more towards better pass protecting offensive lines or QB's who get rid of it instead of take the sack.

level of competition.

Don't forget the pressure alone is good enough to disrupt the play and cause timing issues, so even though the sacks have slowed, the D is still effective when pressure is sufficient.

True. But usually, more sacks = more pressures, hurries, hits, & throw aways.

Rep for your sig.

http://i41.tinypic.com/wmbf3m.jpg

Nitrofish
12-22-2011, 09:41 AM
usually, more sacks = more pressures, hurries, hits, & throw aways.

Rep for your sig.



Agreed the more sacks the better, just pointing out just because they do not get the sack every time does not mean the pressure is not effective.

Thanks for the compliment and the rep! The sig is not too big is it? I am now noticing how much smaller everyone else's sig's are.

TimeKiller
12-22-2011, 09:42 AM
I'll go with playing from behind. With the lead, late in games you can pretty much count on at least 5 and probably more on a blitz every down.

Side note, I was at the Atl game and I gotta tell you....that saying about "there's holding on every down" really, really applies to that game. Their OL, for some reason, was latching onto our blitzers and not once did they get penalized for it. Hard to get to a QB with a 300 pound man dragging you down, I don't care how strong you are.

TejasTom
12-22-2011, 09:51 AM
I'll go with playing from behind. With the lead, late in games you can pretty much count on at least 5 and probably more on a blitz every down.

Side note, I was at the Atl game and I gotta tell you....that saying about "there's holding on every down" really, really applies to that game. Their OL, for some reason, was latching onto our blitzers and not once did they get penalized for it. Hard to get to a QB with a 300 pound man dragging you down, I don't care how strong you are.

It was one of the worse officiated NFL games I have seen this year.

Ktexan68
12-22-2011, 10:36 AM
I'm not so worried about the number of sacks but generally we do seem to be getting less pressure overall on the qb. Not good. :thinking:

Texanator
12-22-2011, 11:40 AM
If the refs threw 1/2 the holding flags they should it might be different. Either way, our D is still a top ranked D and of that I will never complain!

thunderkyss
12-22-2011, 12:45 PM
I am now noticing how much smaller everyone else's are.

***Not Cool***

ObsiWan
12-22-2011, 01:18 PM
***Not Cool***

:spit:

fiasco west
12-22-2011, 08:14 PM
They're in Mario's pec.

When we did have Mario I think the pressure we got was pretty much constant. I think he does have a bigger impact than people realize. Also some of our sacks have just been pure effort from Barwin and have been coverage sacks.

thunderkyss
12-22-2011, 08:27 PM
When we did have Mario I think the pressure we got was pretty much constant. I think he does have a bigger impact than people realize. Also some of our sacks have just been pure effort from Barwin and have been coverage sacks.

I love Mario & I'd much rather him on our team than not.

But a good pass rushing rotation is what we lost most when Mario went down. Tim Bulman as well, to some extent.