So the key would be mostly having a killer offensive line. Plus a QB who was squirrelly enough to avoid the sack.
So the key would be mostly having a killer offensive line. Plus a QB who was squirrelly enough to avoid the sack.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Hard to say just from the base statistics. Fewer sack is sometimes the result of other things like a good running game or how the offense is setup and run.Originally Posted by Fritz
I just thought of something: the offensive line coach should make any offensive lineman who gives up a sack in a game wear . . .
wait for it . . .
a sackcloth the next week at practice.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Sacks happen more often at the end of the game when you’re losing and have to pass too. So if you have a zero sack game, you’re likely to have been ahead.
Zero sack games are less common. You probably have a superior OL/QB/Running game if you give up zero sacks.
I’m not surprised zero sack games lead to more wins than zero interception games.
Formerly known as JustinHarrell.
Can't you say the same thing for interceptions?
I'd heard somewhere that a sack is roughly the equivalent of one-third of an INT, which seemed kind of a funny way to put it. The idea being that most drives that have a sack or an offensive penalty end without points. Personally, I think an INT can be pretty devastating, but a 40 yard heave that gets picked off is basically a punt and is less hurtful than a corner who picks off a late throw to the flat and houses it.Among other reasons, this is why TD/INT ratio is becoming a near useless statistic. The worst plays for an offense are no longer interceptions, because they are so rare. The worst plays now are sacks, which happy more than three times as often, and are about 35-40% as harmful as a given interception.
Avoiding interceptions and being turnover-adverse is important, but not at the expense of avoiding throws to certain parts of the field, or just taking what a defense is giving you. I noticed Rodgers started to really have an issue with that late in teh M3 years, and it's continued with MLF. He's proud (and protective) of his legacy as having the best TD-to-Int ratio, etc. I liked knowing that Rodgers wouldn't throw a pick, and it was always a shock when he did. Seeing open receivers on a TV broadcast be ignored is pretty annoying though. There's room for a middle ground there...it's not either/or. They can avoid turnovers AND use the MOF.
As for sacks, most football analysts and insiders believe it's largely a QB stat now, i.e., most sacks are the QBs fault. i'm not sure I'd go that far, but it's probably 2/3 their fault. Point is, the QB has the ball, they should have an internal clock telling them to either throw it on time or away.
Speaking of which, remember when (early in his career) the crowd used to cheer Brett Favre for throwing the ball away instead of trying to laser it into a non-existent window? I always thought that was funny.
I'm not surprised zero sack games lead to wins either, they are more rare, and likely indicate you have an offense that is stopping the other team's pass rush cold. If your QB has time and a clean jersey, he's going to have a good day. More rare also could mean more fluky, statistically speaking.
Plenty of QBs have thrown a pick and won the game.
Perhaps a better indicator would be turnover margin. Not to be Captain Obvious, but I'd expect the team that turns the ball over less (or not at all) in a game is more likely to win a pretty significant amount of the time.
Winning turnover margin by one means you win 66% of the time. It goes up even higher if you win by more than one.
That being said, correlation is not always the same as causation. It's likely that the turnover rate is higher when teams are trailing late in games. That means that losing a game causes some turnovers, which is kinda the opposite of turnovers causing a team to lose.
Punts are turnovers too, they're just voluntary.
There are a lot more games where both teams have 0 picks than where both teams have 0 sacks. This is going to drive the win percentages down for a team with zero picks.
Fire Murphy, Gute, MLF, Barry, Senavich, etc!
https://www.footballperspective.com/...ed/#more-23508
Despite throwing a high number of picks, Luck has consistently won games, and erased double digit deficits in many of those victories. While interceptions are damaging to his overall stats (both traditional and advanced), his risk/reward balance is probably closer to optimal than any other quarterback in the league, especially considering his relatively weak supporting cast. In contrast, take a closer look at Aaron Rodgers. Despite owning the lowest interception rate in NFL history, he has a middling record in close games, and a downright terrible record when coming from behind. Why? He’s not taking the risks necessary to optimize his chances of winning. Even when trailing, which calls for a more aggressive strategy, Rodgers will usually take a sack rather than force a throw downfield. Avoiding interceptions keeps his stats looking pretty, but he has almost certainly left several wins on the table in the process
And another big "ouch" to Tex, who has maintained that Rodgers's lack of interceptions is THE most important stat a QB can have. The reasoning here makes sense, to me at least.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
A BULLSHIT article by know-nothing media shithead if there ever was one - perfect for the haters, though.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
It is quite interesting. I wonder if the same data holds up for players that aren't Andy Luck. He's got luck in the last name for crying out loud!
Any comments on the data analysis to backup your personal opinion? If not, you're just another shithead media puke pretending your opinion is fact.
I would also like to know what Tex's supportive points and overall argument are.
Please be specific.
I can only imagine that at this moment Tex is scouring a thesaurus, looking for new words to say things like "shithead" and "dumbass" so he can respond to us.
What are we all doing? Let's get back to Love's fundamentals. I heard he's working out with Aaron Jones and Christian Watson and Romeo Doubs. "Hey, guys, how was my eye roll after that last crappy route you ran?"
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Maybe they're working on their hand signals.
While working out with your WRs in the off-season is not a guarantee of success, it sure cannot hurt.
If they G'd dam media whore Karen Sharen wouldn't go on his no nothing ass kissing suck buddy on every Tuesday spewing his whining agenda's all this shit might have never happened
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote