What do we have in Jordan Love?

[sharpe1027]

Dumb stat. Compare pressures/hurries and ints. If a QB is clean the whole game of course they’re gonna win. That is very rare.

There's no such thing as a dumb stat. There are dumb uses of a stat. If you're implying someone's interpreting it as black and white sacks vs interceptions, that's not very smart. It's a straw man argument, however, since that's not what anyone said. Nobody claimed a sack is as bad as a pick, so everyone calm down and pretend you have some respect for others intelligence and not act like everyone else is a moron.

What's not debatable is that sacks and interceptions are both bad. It's pretty universally accepted that picks are worse on a one for one comparison. The real question, in my mind, is where is the sweet spot between taking more sacks to reduce interceptions. I think we can all agree that it is theoretically possible to be so risk averse that you take a ton of sacks and the offense stalls out. I'm not claiming Rodger's crossed that line, but to focus solely on picks is not seeing the whole picture. There's always tradeoffs.

[Upnorth]

An interesting stat:
Team records when finishing a game with 0 sacks:
2019: 49-16 (0.754)

Team records when finishing a game with 0 INTs:
2019: 153-90-1 (0.629)

An ol giving up 0 sacks shows dominance. A qb throwing 0 interceptions happens relatively regularly.
I have seen a number of 0 int games for both teams but can't remember a 0 sacks game for both teams.

A 0 int game does def help winning though

[sharpe1027]

An ol giving up 0 sacks shows dominance. A qb throwing 0 interceptions happens relatively regularly.
I have seen a number of 0 int games for both teams but can't remember a 0 sacks game for both teams.

A 0 int game does def help winning though

Right. Sacks happen more frequently, so it's a bigger outlier to have zero sacks. That suggests that there's more room for teams to improve by limiting sacks than by limiting picks. The reason being they're already doing a good job of limiting picks on average.

[texaspackerbacker]

Does the QB rating thing include sacks? Just asking - I think no, but I'm not sure. Number of sacks says a helluva lot more about the O Line than the QB. The ratio of TDs to picks would seem to best reflect QB quality.

[run pMc]

Does the QB rating thing include sacks? Just asking - I think no, but I'm not sure. Number of sacks says a helluva lot more about the O Line than the QB. The ratio of TDs to picks would seem to best reflect QB quality.

The rating where 158.3 is the max does not.
Passer rating is based on four metrics: completion percentage, yards per passing attempt, touchdown percentage, and interception percentage. It was designed in the 70's, and thus some claim it's outdated or doesn't account for modern passing offenses.
Those offenses, the way defense is officiated, and the way QBs are coached have caused interceptions to plummet. 6 teams had < 10 interceptions last year, and the rate has fallen from 3.3% in 2000 to 3.0 in 2010 to 2.2% last year.
Sacks have gone down a little since 2000, not much since 2010. Teams still scheme pressure. That the number of passes has increased over time indicates sack rate is a little lower.

Turning the ball over is still a good way to lose a game, your QB getting pummeled and consistently having to face 3rd and 16 doesn't help either. I think comparing them is apples to oranges, but I'd rather my QB throw the ball away or take a sack then throw a pick.

(I realize the data sets I picked are small, I expect someone could pull all this and do an extensive dive if PFF or FO hasn't already:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2000/#all_passing

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2010/#all_passing

https://www.pro-football-reference.c...0/#all_passing)

[RashanGary]

A 1 yard loss by the QB on a pass play goes down as a sack. An interception is change of possession. It's stupid to claim a sack is as bad as a pick. I can't explain that stat except to say it defies logic - just scrambling by anti-homers trying to throw shit on Rodgers.

Drives with a sack almost always end in a change of possession.

[Zool]

You are such a homer lol. Love, with Mahomes or Rodgers potential. LOL wtf, the kid was a mid-tier QB prospect in a shitty QB draft and you're comparing him to two of the most talented QBs of all time. That's a bit much. Every dark skinned kid that can throw a football a quarter mile doesn't need to be compared to Mahomes. Remember, this dude sucked ass in college and couldn't even make his shitty juco teammates better or dominate a shitty league. It's not like he was in a crap program playing in the SEC. He was at a crap program playing against fellow crap programs.

I don't see any Rodgers in him. Rodgers doesn't throw interceptions. Love is known for locking until his receivers and throwing into traffic.

The nfl.com comparison is Blake Bortles. I don't see that one either personally. Bortles is thicky thick. Physically I can see where people make the Mahomes comparison but I would say that's where it ends. That is a wildly unfair comparison.

He’s a very mobile QB with a strong arm. Can “make all the throws”. That’s the comp. no one is saying he’s going to be them, just the physical measurable are there.

[texaspackerbacker]

Drives with a sack almost always end in a change of possession.

Are you sure about that? I tend to doubt it. Since they keep stats on just about everything, maybe somebody can find out one way or the other. I'd estimate 32.6%.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Are you sure about that? I tend to doubt it. Since they keep stats on just about everything, maybe somebody can find out one way or the other. I'd estimate 32.6%.

53.4

Stats from 2017-2019

[Upnorth]

Does the QB rating thing include sacks? Just asking - I think no, but I'm not sure. Number of sacks says a helluva lot more about the O Line than the QB. The ratio of TDs to picks would seem to best reflect QB quality.

I think it depends when the sack happens. Any sack before 2.3 seconds should be on the oline unless it is stupid play design. Nanything over 2.7 should be more on the qb. You can't expect the oline to engage and hold blocks forever and win. Plus each extended block drains them more and more. It's one of the reasons quick trigger qb and offense tend towards higher efficiency. Less energy expended = more for next time, so easier to succeed

It's the difference between feeling tired and exhausted after a game.

[Upnorth]

53.4

Stats from 2017-2019

I'm suprised it is that high. But it makes sense. 1 less down to make up a little more yards.

[RashanGary]

53.4

Stats from 2017-2019

I looked for it. Thanks. Penalties are similar.

It just shows that interceptions and fumbles aren’t the only negative things that affect drives. You can’t look at touchdown/interception ratio without considering sacks too. Three sacks might be as bad as 1 interception.

We already know that no sack games lead to wins more than no interception games so it’s a factor in outcomes.

[RashanGary]

No sack games often mean you have the lead I would suspect. A lot of must pass situations lead to sacks.

No sack games probably means you have a run game keeping pass rushers honest

No sack games often come against lesser quality opponents

No sack games usually have good OL and good QBs

No sack games are rare

There are a lot of reasons no sack games correlate to wins more than no interception games. Regardless of all the possible reasons, sacks are still drive stalling plays that often end in punts or field goals. When looking at a QB, low sacks AND low interceptions both count for something. There’s a such thing as a good sack or a good risk that leads to a pick.

I don’t think Rodgers TD/INT ratio makes him the goat. It’s part of the conversation but his sacks do bring him down a notch too. He’s always held the ball. It’s a part of his legacy .

[bobblehead]

I think it depends when the sack happens. Any sack before 2.3 seconds should be on the oline unless it is stupid play design. Nanything over 2.7 should be more on the qb. You can't expect the oline to engage and hold blocks forever and win. Plus each extended block drains them more and more. It's one of the reasons quick trigger qb and offense tend towards higher efficiency. Less energy expended = more for next time, so easier to succeed

It's the difference between feeling tired and exhausted after a game.

There are other reasons as well, and as I have posted over 100x, run blocking saps the defense, pass blocking saps the offense (Lines, not other positions.)

[bobblehead]

I looked for it. Thanks. Penalties are similar.

It just shows that interceptions and fumbles aren’t the only negative things that affect drives. You can’t look at touchdown/interception ratio without considering sacks too. Three sacks might be as bad as 1 interception.

We already know that no sack games lead to wins more than no interception games so it’s a factor in outcomes.

All these factor into why MLF/McDaniels have a superior offense to fat mike/current Tomlin. More running and quick hits, less time for penalties/sacks/interceptions. Coaching matters...a lot. I am in a dynasty league and landing spot is everything. Lets look at QB class last year. Other than lawrence/Burrow last years class was superior. But landing spot. Lance and Wilson are in great offenses in this draft. I don't believe either of them has the overall resume as fields, but he landed in Chicago, where QBs go to die.