What do we have in Jordan Love?

[bobblehead]

I'll also note this. Look at all the great QBs who win Owls. Once they sign a big deal and teams get more passing weapons, they honestly start winning less. Pitt/GB/seattle. All 3 of them are much better when they focus on the run and defense. NE as well, but they never "switched". All 3 of those teams above went pass happy at some point and weren't the same team after. GB switched back last 2 years, Pitt is tryin to this year. I see the correlation over and over. You must run a smart balanced offense to win (and play great D).

[texaspackerbacker]

53.4

Stats from 2017-2019

hahahaha, ok, thanks. 53.4% not 32.6% - compared to 100% for an interception.

[texaspackerbacker]

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.

You're discounting the fact that virtually all of those 2.7 seconds plus cases are the QB being flushed out of the pocket instead of just falling down and taking a sack or throwing it away or putting it up for grabs. There is a third possibility too that probably accounts for as many or more sacks as O Line mess ups or QB bad decisions. That would be the receivers not getting open - coverage sacks from the D's point of view.

At the risk of being called a heretic on this pleasant Sunday morning, I grew up watching the magnificence of Bart Starr, and often wishing we had somebody like Tarkenton at QB. I bet Ol' Fran went over 2.7 a helluva lot of times.

[texaspackerbacker]

The offense of a team is and should be determined mainly by the personnel of the team. If you've got Trent Dilfer at QB and a super D, you play run-first and let your D win it. If you've got Laveon Bell or Ezekial Elliot in their brief prime, you maybe ride them and pass less. Ditto that for Derrick Henry and whoever LaFleur had at QB at Tennessee. But pretty much everybody else, you pass first and pass most, because THAT's what wins games.

[RashanGary]

hahahaha, ok, thanks. 53.4% not 32.6% - compared to 100% for an interception.

Yes tex, interceptions are worse than sacks. But the point we’re making is sacks are bad. Holding the ball is usually bad. Young Rodgers, Watson, Wilson could do it but it still leads to a lot of dead drives due to sacks. So the low interceptions of the ball holding QBs isn’t quite as impressive as it looks at a glance.

[RashanGary]

You're discounting the fact that virtually all of those 2.7 seconds plus cases are the QB being flushed out of the pocket instead of just falling down and taking a sack or throwing it away or putting it up for grabs. There is a third possibility too that probably accounts for as many or more sacks as O Line mess ups or QB bad decisions. That would be the receivers not getting open - coverage sacks from the D's point of view.

At the risk of being called a heretic on this pleasant Sunday morning, I grew up watching the magnificence of Bart Starr, and often wishing we had somebody like Tarkenton at QB. I bet Ol' Fran went over 2.7 a helluva lot of times.

Great QBs know how to put the ball in the right place instead of take a sack. It’s either a catch or an incompletion, not a sack. There are other ways to beat pressure than mobility. Brady, Brees and Manning have proved that 100 times over.

[Upnorth]

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.)

100% agree there are more factors. Just adding to the convo as it relates to sacks not everything else. Heck a good run game reduces sacks in my opinion as it forces the rushers to honor the run.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yes tex, interceptions are worse than sacks. But the point we’re making is sacks are bad. Holding the ball is usually bad. Young Rodgers, Watson, Wilson could do it but it still leads to a lot of dead drives due to sacks. So the low interceptions of the ball holding QBs isn’t quite as impressive as it looks at a glance.

I would argue that holding the ball longer - in Rodgers' case anyway, about 9 times out of 10 results in something a lot more good than bad. I'd also argue that it's not because he just wants to drag out the play, but because the line is doing a shoddy job of stopping the pass rush and/or the receivers aren't getting open.

[texaspackerbacker]

Great QBs know how to put the ball in the right place instead of take a sack. It’s either a catch or an incompletion, not a sack. There are other ways to beat pressure than mobility. Brady, Brees and Manning have proved that 100 times over.

And that's the kind of QB you like? Fine if that's your preference. Myself, I'd much prefer somebody like Rodgers, Tarkenton, maybe Elway, maybe Russell Wilson, Dashaun Watson, Lamar Jackson, Dak Prescott, or Mahomes. Add Favre to the good bunch too - he was a scrambler by necessity most of the time too.

[Joemailman]

I would argue that holding the ball longer - in Rodgers' case anyway, about 9 times out of 10 results in something a lot more good than bad. I'd also argue that it's not because he just wants to drag out the play, but because the line is doing a shoddy job of stopping the pass rush and/or the receivers aren't getting open.

He's holding the ball longer because the offensive line is doing such a bad job pass blocking? Now that's a novel theory.

[texaspackerbacker]

Novel theory? Watch just about every play just about every game. Somebody or several somebodys are in on him almost before he can turn around. 4 choices: throw it away, put if up for grabs, fall down for a sack, or use his mobility to reset or throw on the run for a completion. Obviously, I'll take the last one of those choices.

[sharpe1027]

Novel theory? Watch just about every play just about every game. Somebody or several somebodys are in on him almost before he can turn around. 4 choices: throw it away, put if up for grabs, fall down for a sack, or use his mobility to reset or throw on the run for a completion. Obviously, I'll take the last one of those choices.

What people are talking about are the times he sits in the pocket for longer than normal, not when he's got immediate pressure.

[RashanGary]

What people are talking about are the times he sits in the pocket for longer than normal, not when he's got immediate pressure.

Tex insists that doesn't happen. Sometimes texs way of using his observation instead of group think is a good thing. Other times hes observing things that just aren't happening. The OL being poor all of 12s career just never happened.

[call_me_ishmael]

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.

True. good post.

[Joemailman]

“I keep telling him day by day, ‘You’re getting better,’ outside linebacker Rashan Gary said. “He has a hell of an arm. I’m happy that we drafted him, and every rep that he gets, he’s getting better. He’s showing that whatever the circumstances may be, he will be ready and he’s pushing himself for that. I’m happy for his growth and happy to see him in the right mindset. Jordan Love is an unfinished product, but he’s going to get to where he needs to be.”

Interesting to see Rashan Gary speaking up for Love. I wonder if there could be an interesting dynamic developing. Rodgers is 10-15 years older than most of his teammates. I'm sure they all respect him, but some might have more of a rapport with Love. I wonder if there is a significant portion of the team that won't exactly be heartbroken if Rodgers doesn't return to the Packers.