One sack per game?

[Patler]

It's still not effective goal setting as defined by dozens of experts on the topic. It might be realistic -- and at this point, a miracle -- to have a goal for one sack a game but come on. Do they honor the lineman who gives up the first one with all-you-can-eat pizza at Cici's since he helped them attain their goal? Really...

Aim for the stars, land on the moon. There's a clear division of employee / entrepreneur mentality here...

If a Department Head had come into my office with pie-in-the sky, unrealistic and unattainable goals for his/her department, I might have fired him/her. I certainly would have put him/her on my "watch list".

[pbmax]

Aim for the stars, land on the moon. There's a clear division of employee / entrepreneur mentality here...

Looks to me more like big versus small enterprise. In a small enough unit, an employee or subordinate would have a personal relationship with the person setting the goal and would be more likely to understand why someone would insist on perfection, when the desired result is maximum effort. The superior would also have a direct and probably daily interaction with those involved on the "team", to allow for evaluation beyond perfection or failure.

That would not work in a larger organization that truly operates on its reported numbers.

I have worked for both and prefer the smaller org in many ways, but not when they pull a number out of their posterior.

[mission]

It's still not effective goal setting as defined by dozens of experts on the topic. It might be realistic -- and at this point, a miracle -- to have a goal for one sack a game but come on. Do they honor the lineman who gives up the first one with all-you-can-eat pizza at Cici's since he helped them attain their goal? Really...

Aim for the stars, land on the moon. There's a clear division of employee / entrepreneur mentality here...

If a Department Head had come into my office with pie-in-the sky, unrealistic and unattainable goals for his/her department, I might have fired him/her. I certainly would have put him/her on my "watch list".

It's pie-in-the-sky because we've given up 10 sacks after the first two games.

This is my whole point about mentality. Teams have given up 16 or less sacks in a season before ... at what point does 16 turn into 32? It's just one more sack per game. What about 48? It's just another sack per game ... it's just one single blown assignment by one single man. That's very realistic, right?

At what point do you stop expecting perfection? This is not corporate where budgets are severely limited and retaining/developing talent becomes a balancing act. If you could pay a $60,000 position $100k then you would have an employee that you could expect more out of ... and if recruited properly, would be someone more capable of meeting your loftier-than-normal expectations. This is the NFL where players are paid millions and, technically, should only error when they're physically beaten by a better player. Giving up a sack because you were assignment unsure or your fundamentals were poor is never a valid excuse. As fans, certain things are excusable but as a coach, striving to be the best in the world requires standards that many people have just never experienced.

[cheesner]

I see the points on both sides.

Zero sacks is unrealistic as an average.

Putting a number on it, even a low number, is too dry and somehow creates an implication that a single sack is okay--when it is clearly a FAILURE to protect the QB!

I think if I were helping an offensive line set goals I might look at the season as a whole. As a group the offensive line could strive to accumulate a record-high number of games in which the QB was not sacked at all.

I sincerely hope they are not planning to beat the number "6" in their next game.

I think it goes beyond that.

If a team has no defensive penalties, I think that is an indicator of a bad thing that they are not very aggressive.

If a team has no sacks, that could mean they aren't being aggressive enough. The QB has to take some measure of risk or you are being to cautious by throwing too quickly all the time, keeping in too many blockers, or not passing much. Any one of these and you develop a predictable offense that will be less successful. If you open up the game on the other hand, expose yourself to a potential sack, then your offense has an opportunity to become more dynamic.

Personally, I don't think the goal should be for no sacks, but a more effective offense. There has to be some gauge, I understand, for offensive lineman to judge themsevles with, so it doesn't bother me that they set a goal like 1 sack per game. But I actually think that no sacks is an indicator of a bad thing.

[Fritz]

Re: One sack per game?

From here:

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090921/PKR01/90921185/1058&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL

“We have 10 (sacks) at this point, and our goal is to have one sack per game,” offensive coordinator Joe Philbin said. “In ’07, we had 19, so 16 is a realistic goal, but we’ve got an awful lot of work to do.

I don't care what the numbers say, but anyone who's ever set a goal should know way better.

He absolutely should have said:

“our goal is to have ZERO sacks per game,”

Maybe the coach verbally slipped up in front of the media, but if he truly used this as an example of goal setting for the team - I am officially concerned.

.

Why does he go back two seasons ago? Why wouldn't he want to improve from 2008, or is that season not referenced anymore?

2008? They didn't play that year, I don't think.

[Scott Campbell]

It's still not effective goal setting as defined by dozens of experts on the topic. It might be realistic -- and at this point, a miracle -- to have a goal for one sack a game but come on. Do they honor the lineman who gives up the first one with all-you-can-eat pizza at Cici's since he helped them attain their goal? Really...

Aim for the stars, land on the moon. There's a clear division of employee / entrepreneur mentality here...

If a Department Head had come into my office with pie-in-the sky, unrealistic and unattainable goals for his/her department, I might have fired him/her. I certainly would have put him/her on my "watch list".

Would you hire Harlan?