Tweet
There was an interesting article on ESPN the other day where one of the stats guys went through and timed how long Rodgers held onto the ball on every sack this year.
1 in 4 sounds about right to me. This line makes me sick. I watch other games and see the OL create a nice pocket. Then I watch the Packers and see the tackles getting bull-rushed into Rodgers almost every play.
How should we judge this data? It's important to note that every team has different standards for a quarterback's release, and often they depend on the type of dropback and route tree associated with the play call. Regardless, in West Coast offenses such as Green Bay's, the rule of thumb generally is four seconds. Put it this way: There are few plays designed for a quarterback to hold it longer, and given the state of the Packers' offensive line, I think you can safely assume none of them have been called.
Gargiulo's chart has some big numbers on it, including 8.0 seconds last week against Tampa Bay and 6.5 seconds two weeks ago against Minnesota. But overall, Rodgers was sacked prior to the four-second mark on 28 of the 37 occasions.
Even if you adjust for subjective timing and the intent of each particular play call, I think this study gives us an important baseline: It's roughly 3-1. We can fairly blame Rodgers for one of every four sacks he's taken.
You might consider that a higher number than it should be, but I look at it differently. To me, it means the focus on Rodgers' role in the sacks shouldn't overshadow the bigger picture: Responsibility for the majority lies elsewhere.
Gargiulo's chart has some big numbers on it, including 8.0 seconds last week against Tampa Bay and 6.5 seconds two weeks ago against Minnesota. But overall, Rodgers was sacked prior to the four-second mark on 28 of the 37 occasions.
Even if you adjust for subjective timing and the intent of each particular play call, I think this study gives us an important baseline: It's roughly 3-1. We can fairly blame Rodgers for one of every four sacks he's taken.
You might consider that a higher number than it should be, but I look at it differently. To me, it means the focus on Rodgers' role in the sacks shouldn't overshadow the bigger picture: Responsibility for the majority lies elsewhere.
Comment