PDA

View Full Version : Number of Times Sacked and QB Rating



trek_6k
10-13-2009, 12:23 AM
All of the quarterbacks with 100+ quarterback ratings lie at the complete ends of the spectrum when it comes to getting sacked. There are literally no 100+ quarterback ratings that fall in between. Kind of makes you wonder how quarterbacks would perform if given a different offensive line.


1) Aaron Rodgers---------Sacked 20------101.1
6) Ben Roethlisberger-----Sacked 13------102.6
8) Brett Favre------------Sacked 11------104.1
31) Drew Brees-----------Sacked 4-------108.4
36) Peyton Manning------Sacked 2--------114.1
36) Matt Hasselbeck------Sacked 2-------103.1
36) Eli Manning-----------Sacked 2-------111.7
36) Matt Ryan-----------Sacked 2--------102.9

Madanzi
10-13-2009, 12:26 AM
Aaron Rodgers might have a ****ty line but you can't put all the blame on that for how many sacks he has. He is on pace to get sacked like 65 times which is ridiculous and there are teams with worse olines whos qbs haven't taken nearly that many sacks.

justin8684
10-13-2009, 12:27 AM
Aaron Rodgers would have a BEAST rating if he had a line that gave him time to set his feet. He is seriously running around on virtually every pass attempt; not just this year, but a good portion of last year as well.

justin8684
10-13-2009, 12:36 AM
Aaron Rodgers might have a ****ty line but you can't put all the blame on that for how many sacks he has. He is on pace to get sacked like 65 times which is ridiculous and there are teams with worse olines whos qbs haven't taken nearly that many sacks.

Dude, GB's line is garbage. I know it's just a video game but even on Madden, their ratings are absolutely terrible. As a collective unit, I have never seen a group of offensive linemen with such dead feet and slow reaction time off the ball. Some people say he hangs onto the ball too long, but I disagree. On a majority of his sacks, he is getting rushed immediately from various angles before he even has the chance to make any of his three reads. He doesn't force things and turn the ball over, and that keeps us in games.

I don't know how many games last year we were in that every possession mattered, and Aaron had us right in there to win it, only to have our defense pull some ****ery and give up the go-ahead score on the final drive and give our offense either no chance or insufficient time to respond. This year against the Bears, he took good care of the ball in a game where we needed every possession, and we got the W. Same thing the next week against the Bengals, except we ran out of time because our tub of lard head coach likes to waste timeouts in the third quarter. For as much as he's been pressured and harrassed in his first 20 NFL starts, he has just 14 INTs and 3 lost fumbles... that's taking pretty dang good care of the ball for somebody who airs it out that much.

The_Albatross
10-13-2009, 12:45 AM
Aaron Rodgers might have a ****ty line but you can't put all the blame on that for how many sacks he has. He is on pace to get sacked like 65 times which is ridiculous and there are teams with worse olines whos qbs haven't taken nearly that many sacks.

Uh what?

Who else is to blame? Rodgers himself?

justin8684
10-13-2009, 12:48 AM
No, mostly Josh Sitton and Allen Barbre. They are trash, perhaps the worst starting side of an offensive line in the league.

justin8684
10-13-2009, 12:51 AM
Let me also say a big reason for GB's troubles on the line lately are directly related to Ted Thompson. He drafts these linemen in college that are used to playing one position & then we try to convert these scrubs from no-name schools to a different position and side on the line.

trek_6k
10-13-2009, 01:02 AM
Uh what?

Who else is to blame? Rodgers himself?

Ben Roethlisberger gets blamed all the time for his high sack count. Instead of throwing the ball away, he'll try to make a play out of it and hold on to the ball. Here's my take, though. If you've ever watched him play, guys like him MAKE plays even when they've got 2-3 guys hanging off of them. He might take a few extra sacks because of hanging onto the ball, but he also avoids a lot of sacks/penalties/lost yards by trying to make a play.

I've only watched GB a handful of times with Rodgers, but if he's anything like that, I can understand the argument.

sportsfan69
10-13-2009, 01:10 AM
For the most part, these guys chunk it around the field alot. They also try to make plays and that gets them out the position the O-line is expecting them to be so you have to take the good with the bad. The post about Big Ben is right on target. Then you have guys like Tony Homo that can't make a decision, get nervous, run around and either get sacked or throw an int!

SteezeFactory
10-13-2009, 01:20 AM
Ben Roethlisberger gets blamed all the time for his high sack count. Instead of throwing the ball away, he'll try to make a play out of it and hold on to the ball. Here's my take, though. If you've ever watched him play, guys like him MAKE plays even when they've got 2-3 guys hanging off of them. He might take a few extra sacks because of hanging onto the ball, but he also avoids a lot of sacks/penalties/lost yards by trying to make a play.

I've only watched GB a handful of times with Rodgers, but if he's anything like that, I can understand the argument.

I never want to play Big Ben again. Absolutely ridiculous at getting out of sacks, he is a total pain in the ass to take down and I'm sure the Cardinals d-line would agree.

Onita
10-13-2009, 07:22 AM
Aaron Rodgers might have a ****ty line but you can't put all the blame on that for how many sacks he has. He is on pace to get sacked like 65 times which is ridiculous and there are teams with worse olines whos qbs haven't taken nearly that many sacks.

IIRC, the right side of his line has about as much stopping power as a wet paper towel. A few of those sacks may be his fault, but most of them are from the D-line running through untouched and destroying him.

charity4thepoor
10-13-2009, 07:35 AM
all i know is the jags o-line sucks
feels bad man

LikeAMachine
10-13-2009, 07:39 AM
The Browns O-line is getting good. If only we had some weapons.

Madanzi
10-13-2009, 10:26 AM
rodgers has been sacked more times by Jared Allen than the Mannings have been sacked total...combined, this season.

C-Squared
10-13-2009, 10:30 AM
OP, the QB ratings are high BECAUSE of all the sacks. Many QB's who don't take sacks don't because they selflessly dump the ball off to avoid the loss in yardage. A sack has no impact on a QB's rating, so taking a ton doesn't reflect in all... which is why the formula is so majorly flawed.

The reason I can say this with STRONG confidence? Rob Johnson is one of the highest-rated QB's of all time, and also the most sacked.

trek_6k
10-13-2009, 01:49 PM
OP, the QB ratings are high BECAUSE of all the sacks. Many QB's who don't take sacks don't because they selflessly dump the ball off to avoid the loss in yardage. A sack has no impact on a QB's rating, so taking a ton doesn't reflect in all... which is why the formula is so majorly flawed.

The reason I can say this with STRONG confidence? Rob Johnson is one of the highest-rated QB's of all time, and also the most sacked.

Statement 1: "A sack has no impact on a QB's rating."
Statement 2: "The QB ratings high BECAUSE of all the sacks."

...you wanna restate that?

Anyway, I understand that the actual number of sacks don't have a statistical influence on the QB rating (calculated by attempts, completions, yards, touchdowns, and interceptions), but here is what I was getting at with the figures. Intuitively, if you were told that Quarterbacks X, Y, and Z were among the top 8 most sacked QBs in the league, you probably wouldn't consider them to also be ranked among the best (if you take QB rating as an indicator of whom is best). You would expect QBs who were ranked the lowest in sacks in the league to have the highest QB ratings (more time to throw being associated with better decisions, accurate passes, etc.). Yet, it appears both ways. Both quarterbacks who were sacked a lot and a little have similar QB ratings, with NO similar figures between the 8th and 31st position in the league. Unless its a mere coincidence, it appears that something is causing them to align this way.

Again, I understand your argument that being sacked does not have a statistical influence on QB rating. But, the number of times sacked is a pretty good indicator of the number of times being pressured, the number of times being hurried, etc. All of these would lead to lower QB ratings (incompletions, lower yardage, lower touchdowns, more interceptions).

C-Squared
10-13-2009, 01:50 PM
Statement 1: "A sack has no impact on a QB's rating."
Statement 2: "The QB ratings high BECAUSE of all the sacks."

...you wanna restate that?

Anyway, I understand that the actual number of sacks don't have a statistical influence on the QB rating (calculated by attempts, completions, yards, touchdowns, and interceptions), but here is what I was getting at with the figures. Intuitively, if you were told that Quarterbacks X, Y, and Z were among the top 8 most sacked QBs in the league, you probably wouldn't consider them to also be ranked among the best (if you take QB rating as an indicator of whom is best). You would expect QBs who were ranked the lowest in sacks in the league to have the highest QB ratings (more time to throw being associated with better decisions, accurate passes, etc.). Yet, it appears both ways. Both quarterbacks who were sacked a lot and a little have similar QB ratings, with NO similar figures between the 8th and 31st position in the league. Unless its a mere coincidence, it appears that something is causing them to align this way.

Again, I understand your argument that being sacked does not have a statistical influence on QB rating. But, the number of times sacked is a pretty good indicator of the number of times being pressured, the number of times being hurried, etc. All of these would lead to lower QB ratings (incompletions, lower yardage, lower touchdowns, more interceptions).

LMAO, you know what I mean! :D It has no impact in that the equation factors NOTHING in for sacks. There is no punishment for taking a 15 yard loss on a wild dash, but you're hurt more if you make a smart play to dump off the ball. It DOES have an impact in that you can work the system to have a great QB rating without being a great QB. Its a terribly flawed and overhyped way of measuring a QB.

And no, it doesn't lead to a lower rating if the QB always hold on instead of dumping it off, that's my point... if they're taking sacks, its means they're NOT dumping the ball off. I'm the biggest Rob Johnson fan in the world, but he ALWAYS held on instead of getting rid of the ball, and that's why his rating was so high. He was in the top 5 for three straight years in Buffalo, but would anyone have labeled him a top 5 QB?

justin8684
10-13-2009, 01:51 PM
I think I know what he means.

Guys who take sacks don't use bailout dump-off passes to get them out of trouble and they usually don't force throws for the sake of getting the ball away and risking INTs. If they just take the sack, it doesn't factor into their rating whatsoever.

Jyeatbvg
10-13-2009, 01:52 PM
I don't watch football that often but the times I've watched Rodgers he takes so damn long to get rid of the ball.

C-Squared
10-13-2009, 01:58 PM
I think I know what he means.

Guys who take sacks don't use bailout dump-off passes to get them out of trouble and they usually don't force throws for the sake of getting the ball away and risking INTs. If they just take the sack, it doesn't factor into their rating whatsoever.

It works the other way too - QB's like Trent Edwards look GREAT in terms of QB rating because they panic and dump the easy pass off to their checkdown option. Completion percentage factors in a lot in the QB rating system, and its just plain glib.

I'd rather take Troy Aikman's typical mid-80's QB rating and tons of wins and rings over a guy who has nothing but an arbitrary number to his credit.

justin8684
10-13-2009, 01:58 PM
I don't watch football that often but the times I've watched Rodgers he takes so damn long to get rid of the ball.

I watch GB every week. The right side of our offensive line SUCKS bad. 90% of the sacks Rodgers takes are unavoidable. It's either take the sack right away or run around for awhile and try to make a play, very rarely is it his fault for hanging onto the ball so long. You would think after a year and 4 games that McCarthy would've smartened up his gameplan a little to have a little safety valve dumpoff for Rodgers to go to when guys blow through the right side that fast.

trek_6k
10-13-2009, 01:59 PM
And no, it doesn't lead to a lower rating if the QB always hold on instead of dumping it off, that's my point... if they're taking sacks, its means they're NOT dumping the ball off. I'm the biggest Rob Johnson fan in the world, but he ALWAYS held on instead of getting rid of the ball, and that's why his rating was so high. He was in the top 5 for three straight years in Buffalo, but would anyone have labeled him a top 5 QB?

Yeah, I know what you meant. It's all good. And you're absolutely right, if they ALWAYS hang onto the ball and don't throw an incomplete pass, interception, whatever, then it wouldn't have any influence. I guess I just have a hard time believing that these QBs (especially being a Steelers fan and knowing Roethlisberger) always hang onto the ball and take sacks.

C-Squared
10-13-2009, 02:02 PM
Yeah, I know what you meant. It's all good. And you're absolutely right, if they ALWAYS hang onto the ball and don't throw an incomplete pass, interception, whatever, then it wouldn't have any influence. I guess I just have a hard time believing that these QBs (especially being a Steelers fan and knowing Roethlisberger) always hang onto the ball and take sacks.

There's always exceptions, like Steve Young, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, etc... a great QB will get a great rating, but it doesn't mean that an average QB can't get a deceptively high rating, or that a great QB can't get a deceptively low rating.

I get why they don't count sacks - its somewhat out of the QB's control, and if they count sacks, where does it end? Do they not count dropped passes against the QB either? Its irrelevant tho, its just not a solid way of judging a QB.

C-Squared
10-13-2009, 02:03 PM
I watch GB every week. The right side of our offensive line SUCKS bad. 90% of the sacks Rodgers takes are unavoidable. It's either take the sack right away or run around for awhile and try to make a play, very rarely is it his fault for hanging onto the ball so long. You would think after a year and 4 games that McCarthy would've smartened up his gameplan a little to have a little safety valve dumpoff for Rodgers to go to when guys blow through the right side that fast.

That game against Green Bay was brutal for Rodgers, and it was magnified on that play where Favre had time to reset at least three times before throwing haha

justin8684
10-13-2009, 03:10 PM
If Rodgers had the pass protection of somebody like Peyton Manning, he would be at around 300 yards a week and would easily have 30 TDs in a season with the weapons he has. It kind of sucks that he doesn't have much time to get the ball out to them.

PatrickBateman1
10-13-2009, 03:28 PM
Pretty interesting stats by the OP.

How much a QB gets sacked is a combination of both the O-line and the QB, but the VAST majority of it falls on the line in most cases. There are a few other variables too, like the defenses a team plays and how many pass plays are called a game.

The O-line's job is pretty self explanatory and the number of sacks they give up is usually (but not always) a decent gauge at how good they do their job.

However, there are exceptions to this. A quarterback has to be able to throw the ball away when necessary and evade pass rushers as well.

Now as I see it, Rodgers has just an awful offensive line and has played some damn good defensive players. He might be able to do a little better getting the ball away, but honestly I don't think you could really put much, if any, blame on him.

Now a guy like Roethlisberger is a bit of a different case. His style of play actually has a lot to do with how much he gets sacked. He's been criticized a lot in his career for holding on to the ball too much or double pumping/faking in the pocket when he needs to get the ball away. The Steelers still may not have the greatest line in the league, but Big Ben does contribute to the sacks. However, the rest of his game is obviously good enough for him to be a quality QB.


If you watch enough of the O-line's and QB's play you can get the hang of who typically contributes to the number of sacks more.

acetylator
10-13-2009, 03:33 PM
Let me also say a big reason for GB's troubles on the line lately are directly related to Ted Thompson. He drafts these linemen in college that are used to playing one position & then we try to convert these scrubs from no-name schools to a different position and side on the line.

I'm from green bay, I and many share these sentiments, this man speaks the truth.