The 2009 Cowboys O-Line: Inside The Pass Protection Game (Part II)
Tony Romo needs time to get through his reads, Miles Austin and Jason Witten need time to get down the field and get open, and the running backs need holes to charge through. Without an efficient offensive line, it becomes very difficult to move the football, and even the best offensive players can struggle to produce without effective pass protection or holes to run through.
The offensive line is key to moving the ball, yet evaluating the performance of an offensive line in pass protection is not an easy undertaking, simply because success is mostly only measured by what didn't happen: the quarterback was not sacked.
Traditionally, the O-Line's pass protection performance is measured by number of sacks given up. The Cowboys allowed 34 last season and ranked a joint 14th in the NFL. Today we look at how Footballoutsiders.com (FO) evaluate the O-Line performance and look the effect that blitzes have had on the sack rate last season.
Football Outsiders Sack Rank:
FO have some of the most advanced football metrics publicly available. Perhaps their O-Line rankings can shed a little more light on how well the Cowboys O-Line performed. FO have developed their own metric to evaluate an O-Line:
Adjusted Sack Rate (ASR)/Sack Rate: Sack Rate represents sacks divided by pass plays, which include passes, sacks, and aborted snaps. It is a better measure of pass blocking than total sacks because it takes into account how often an offense passes the ball. Adjusted Sack Rate adds adjustments for opponent quality, as well as down and distance (sacks are more common on third down, especially third-and-long)
What this means is that the Sack Rank percentage will give us the adjusted percentage of how often a sack occurs. To better understand this, let's look at the two New York teams: The Giants gave up 32 sacks, the Jets only 30. Sound pretty much the same, right? Well, consider that the Giants had 574 drop backs (pass attempts + sacks) and got sacked on 5.6% of those dropbacks, while the Jets had 423 drop backs and got sacked on 7.1% of those dropbacks.
These numbers make a pretty compelling case that while the absolute number of sacks given up slightly favors the Jets, there is little doubt that the Giants O-Line performed much better. The number of drop backs is just one factor to consider as you look at sacks, but you can easily see that number of sacks by itself is not a truly meaningful measure.
Using the FO Sack Rank, this is how the Cowboys offensive line performed in 2009:
| Year | Rank | Sacks | Adj. Sack Rate | NFL Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 16 | 34 | 6.2% | 6.4% |
Ok, so the Cowboys O-line ranks 16th according to FO. That's not too far off the 14th rank in terms of absolute sacks allowed. But as we saw in the first post in this pass protection series, adding the context of 'sacks by direction' already added a level of detail to these absolute numbers that helped form a much clearer picture of the performance of the Cowboys' O-Line in pass protection. Now let's look at blitzes.
Blitzes and pass protection
We had some great discussion in the comments section of the first pass protection post about the effect of blitzing on the amount of sacks given up, so I'll use quotes by BTB members to lead into the analysis of blitzes and pass protection.
"We faced a lot of heavy blitzing teams. We all know Philly is one of the most blitz happy teams in the league and we see them twice (sometimes 3 times) a year. Riding a 3-game win streak, Denver was completely unafraid to send the house against Romo in Week 4. Even more so, Green Bay came at us with all the firepower they had in their arsenal and came away with 5 sacks. That Packers game was just insane, it seemed like they used every blitz in the playbook." (Blue Eyed Devil)
For each QB in the league, ESPN splits the pass attempts by defensive formation. Tony Romo's stat splits show that he was blitzed on 213 of 550 pass attempts. A little reverse engineering of the QB data for each team allows us to look at how many blitzes each team faced in passing situations, and how that compares to the Cowboys.
The 213 blitzes were the second most in the league after the Giants, who were blitzed on 219 pass attempts. In relation to dropbacks (pass attempts + sacks) the Cowboys were blitzed (blitz pass attempts + blitz sacks) on 40% of all pass plays, the third highest rate in the league, after the Browns and the Giants.
Ok, so opposing defensive coordinators were all students at the Sir-Blitz-A-Lot Football Academy. Surely there are strategies to counter being blitzed at such a high rate?
"There are only 2 ways to get teams to stop blitzing, one is to pick them up with regularity and the other is to burn them when they do. Since the line will not really change this year we will have to work on the burning part." (I'm a Cowboy)
"The delayed blitz pick ups have three responsibilities: the line needs to adjust for them first, by not accidentally doubling one guy while another loops past. The RB has second responsibility and can’t commit to soon to a help block and not be in position for the delayed rush. And the QB has third. My non-scientific view after watching games over and over is that Romo does OK eluding one delayed blitzer, but teams get to him when they can get two and three players free". (dunkman)
Well, something seems to have gone wrong. 23 of the 34 sacks allowed by the Cowboys were given up when the defense was blitzing. Only three teams gave up more sacks when blitzed: the Seahawks (28), Steelers (27) and Rams (25).
What makes these numbers all the more worrying is that at the opposite end of the spectrum, the Colts and Patriots gave up only three sacks when blitzed, so it's pretty clear that the Cowboys were susceptible to being sacked on blitzes.
On the other hand, the Cowboys gave up only 11 sacks in non-blitzing situations, fourth best in the league behind the Saints (9), Titans (9) and Colts (10). The Cowboys O-line did a pretty good job in pass protection when faced with five or six rushers: they won more of their blocks than most other teams - or at least didn't get beat easily.
But the Cowboys struggled mightily when blitzed:
"The receivers often didn’t break off their routes on CB/safety blitzes. I remember watching Tony speak in a very stern manner to Roy on more than one occassion after a sack." Blue Eyed Devil
"The way you beat an all-out blitz is by hitting the open receiver quickly. Too often last year, routes took too long to develop and/or receivers didn’t get open quickly enough. This was especially true in the latter part of the season when Defenses figured out they didn’t have to respect Roy Williams at all – and could concentrate on covering Miles and Witten". (JimmyJohnson)
For the Cowboys, the issue with blitzing pass rushers was more than just the inability of receivers to get open.
The delayed blitz was something like the Achilles heel of the offense last season. A defender would simply delay the blitz for a moment until all of the Cowboys were engaged in a block, and then shoot the gaps with relative impunity. Romo hardly stood a chance.
Identifying the correct blocks. Generally, the rules of the blitz suggest that at the line of scrimmage, the QB calls out who needs to be blocked and sets the protection against what he sees. The QB also has to account for the outside blitzer, and get rid of the ball fast enough to avoid the sack. I have no statistical evidence for this but some of the issues must stem from not identifying and then blocking the blitzing defender successfully.
Blocking the right guy. Bringing more rushers than blockers always means the linemen, RBs, TEs and whoever else is left in to block need to identify the right guy to block. As a rule, you block from the inside out. Where that didn't happen, bad things followed.
In all situations, Romo has to get the ball out, and quickly. But if nobody is open, Romo's uncanny elusiveness notwithstanding, at the end of the day it may be better to take the sack than to give up a fumble or an interception.
In fact, an argument can be made that the overall number of sacks is slightly inflated by Tony Romo making just that choice. BTB member ImpactNate argued the point convincingly in a fanpost last year (Way To Take That Sack, Tony Romo):
Romo did the smart thing last night...he took the sack, protected the ball, minimized the damage and came back for another play or series.
O-Line: Te absolvo
In part one of this series, we saw that the Cowboys allowed a disproportionate amount of 'long sacks'. Today we saw that the 'Boys were particularly susceptible to sacks on blitzes. In both cases, the sacks incurred are more indicative of a team-wide issue than of a specific O-line issue, and the 34 sack tally is an inaccurate reflection of how the O-line performed in 2009. In the next and final installment of this series, we'll look at individual players.
The good, the bad and the ugly: Sacks by defensive formation, 2009 (click column header to sort)
| Team | Total | Blitz | Non-Blitz | Blitz in % of dropbacks | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT | Sacks | Sk% | ATT | Sacks | Sk% | ATT | Sacks | Sk% | ||
| CLE | 443 | 30 | 6.3 | 191 | 17 | 8.2 | 252 | 13 | 4.9 | 44.0 |
| NYG | 542 | 32 | 5.6 | 219 | 15 | 6.4 | 323 | 17 | 5.0 | 40.8 |
| DAL | 550 | 34 | 5.8 | 213 | 23 | 9.7 | 337 | 11 | 3.2 | 40.4 |
| TB | 524 | 33 | 5.9 | 209 | 13 | 5.9 | 315 | 20 | 6.0 | 39.9 |
| OAK | 485 | 49 | 9.2 | 190 | 17 | 8.2 | 295 | 32 | 9.8 | 38.8 |
| NYJ | 393 | 30 | 7.1 | 148 | 15 | 9.2 | 245 | 15 | 5.8 | 38.5 |
| JAC | 519 | 44 | 7.8 | 198 | 19 | 8.8 | 321 | 25 | 7.2 | 38.5 |
| SF | 528 | 40 | 7.0 | 200 | 18 | 8.3 | 328 | 22 | 6.3 | 38.4 |
| PIT | 536 | 50 | 8.5 | 187 | 27 | 12.6 | 349 | 23 | 6.2 | 36.5 |
| KC | 536 | 45 | 7.7 | 187 | 22 | 10.5 | 349 | 23 | 6.2 | 36.0 |
| CHI | 563 | 35 | 5.9 | 196 | 16 | 7.5 | 367 | 19 | 4.9 | 35.5 |
| DET | 585 | 43 | 6.8 | 202 | 20 | 9.0 | 383 | 23 | 5.7 | 35.4 |
| STL | 543 | 44 | 7.5 | 182 | 25 | 12.1 | 361 | 19 | 5.0 | 35.3 |
| ATL | 570 | 27 | 4.5 | 198 | 9 | 4.3 | 372 | 18 | 4.6 | 34.7 |
| SD | 519 | 26 | 4.8 | 176 | 11 | 5.9 | 343 | 15 | 4.2 | 34.3 |
| WAS | 533 | 46 | 7.9 | 182 | 16 | 8.1 | 351 | 30 | 7.9 | 34.2 |
| CAR | 465 | 33 | 6.6 | 159 | 11 | 6.5 | 306 | 22 | 6.7 | 34.1 |
| TEN | 476 | 15 | 3.1 | 160 | 6 | 3.6 | 316 | 9 | 2.8 | 33.8 |
| SEA | 609 | 41 | 6.3 | 192 | 28 | 12.7 | 417 | 13 | 3.0 | 33.8 |
| BAL | 510 | 36 | 6.6 | 166 | 17 | 9.3 | 344 | 19 | 5.2 | 33.5 |
| DEN | 558 | 34 | 5.7 | 182 | 15 | 7.6 | 376 | 19 | 4.8 | 33.3 |
| BUF | 441 | 46 | 9.4 | 143 | 16 | 10.1 | 298 | 30 | 9.1 | 32.6 |
| GB | 553 | 51 | 8.4 | 176 | 19 | 9.7 | 377 | 32 | 7.8 | 32.3 |
| NE | 592 | 18 | 3.0 | 190 | 3 | 1.6 | 402 | 15 | 3.6 | 31.6 |
| CIN | 477 | 29 | 5.7 | 145 | 14 | 8.8 | 332 | 15 | 4.3 | 31.4 |
| MIA | 545 | 34 | 5.9 | 165 | 13 | 7.3 | 380 | 21 | 5.2 | 30.7 |
| MIN | 553 | 34 | 5.8 | 168 | 12 | 6.7 | 385 | 22 | 5.4 | 30.7 |
| HOU | 593 | 25 | 4.0 | 176 | 9 | 4.9 | 417 | 16 | 3.7 | 29.9 |
| PHI | 553 | 38 | 6.4 | 150 | 20 | 11.8 | 403 | 18 | 4.3 | 28.8 |
| ARI | 594 | 26 | 4.2 | 168 | 9 | 5.1 | 426 | 17 | 3.8 | 28.5 |
| NO | 544 | 20 | 3.5 | 128 | 11 | 7.9 | 416 | 9 | 2.1 | 24.6 |
| IND | 601 | 13 | 2.1 | 133 | 3 | 2.2 | 468 | 10 | 2.1 | 22.1 |
| NFL Avg | 532 | 34.4 | 6.1 | 177 | 15.3 | 7.9 | 355 | 19.1 | 5.4 | 34.0 |
160 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
whose fault is that, not handling the blitzes?
QB?, Center? Backs?
I blame the Cowboys receivers
more than anyone. The group struggled to beat man press. Look at the games Dallas’ offense stalled, they played against man press coverage. Why you think Dez was drafted and Roy came in to OTAs in better shape and more focus? If any receiver can show they can beat man press, defenses are going to have to adjust or pick their poison.
by spadesking131313 on May 24, 2010 6:41 PM CDT reply actions
Here's my problem...
The teams that were blitzed the least were teams with prolific passing offenses (Ind, NO, ARI in particular). We also have a prolific passing offense and a top 10 QB. My guess is that teams realized that we weren’t burning teams often enough when they did blitz and it became a blueprint for the opposition.
I would very much like for teams to fear blitzing Romo the way they fear blitzing Manning, Brees, and Warner. I don’t know what has to happen between those three points outlined to make this happen, but it is crucial to our success (also a big reason for a lot of our red zone failures).
I have noticed a new resurgence in Cowboy hating in 2007, which can only mean one thing- We're back.
Receivers need to create separation and make plays.
Miles can’t be the only one doing it.
Agreed and
I think they need to be better prepared with hot routes and dump offs. Last season it appeared that only Crayton and sometimes Witten were safety valves and the backs were seldom used to dump off to.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
You would think, given the division we play in..
We would know how to pick up a blitz by now. Or is it the teams not in our division that killed us last year?
"The greatest test of courage on earth is to bear defeat without losing heart."
The Broncos, Pack and Vikes took the most obvious advantage
but even re-watching the (victorious) playoff game, Romo took a lot of heat and basically managed to limit the damage. If either Manning were Dallas’ QB, the numbers would have been through the roof.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
Seems to me a shift in offensive philosophy is in order.
If we know teams are going to blitz 40% of the time when we drop back, we have to plan on quick slants and dump offs. If they’re not coming and we see that there will be time to throw we should go to our second read, and that would be downfield.
Jimmy Johnson handled this delimma with Troy Aikman who was taking too many sacks by having him use 3 or 5 step drops, and get rid of the damn ball. Once teams realize you’re going to use a quick passing tempo they back off.
Kind of off topic, but WTF? Cleveland? Must have been their complete lack of a running game.
When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my Grandfather -- not screaming like the passengers in his car.
Great write up One.Cool..
I think the OL and the RB’s and sometimes unopen WR’s have a lot to blame but if you look at this objectively it has to also be Tony Romo’s problem. This doesn’t happen to Brett Farve or Tom Brady, Payton Manning. They all have good Oline’s but they know how to read the defense and get the ball to the open WR.
I wonder how much of it is Garrett too?
by torchindefenses on May 24, 2010 9:08 PM CDT reply actions
Actually it does happen to all of those QBs
Your point is still valid – the QB is a key piece in anticiapting and avoiding sacks, but all of those guys have taken sacks. What has characterized their performance in their best years was good offensive line play.
If the line is inconsistent (not bad, just inconsistent), no one else knows where to look for possible problems. So for example, if you know that Davis is the weak link, the RB can keep an eye on that side or the OC can provide help blocking with a FB or TE. But if every player on the line takes turn making mistakes or getting beaten, you almost can’t scheme for it and you dump the entire responsibility on the QB to make chcken salad out of chicken s***. I think this is what you see with Dallas’ line.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
BTB is the best
I think this combo of statistics and insights from the best of the comment threads works really well.
One of the things I have noticed
is how deep into the play clock the Cowboys go. The ball is constantly being snapped with one or 2 seconds left on the play clock. Not only are you asking your team to hold their stance for a longer time (which might lead to more false starts) but this also does not allow your team to adjust for any late defensive alignment shifts as they have to snap the ball to avoid a delay of game penalty
It's my understanding they do this on purpose
They have worked on getting the play called and the huddle broken quickly so that the offense can see the defense longer and make better adjustments. They also snap later to deny the defense a chance to make their own counter-adjustments.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
So we were blitzed 40+% of the time....
Do we have the data to compare to what our opponents’ defenses did over the course of the year? Did they blitz us more than other teams? Or did we just play a number of blitz-happy teams, and our percentage was high as a result?
Other than our intuitive sense that we don’t pick up the blitz well and d-coordinators figured this out, can we definitively state that the defenses blitzed us more than their other opponents? This might yield insight into whether we truly were targets for defenses or just had a bad lineup of blitz-happy teams.
OCC, is it feasible to do this type of analysis?
Yes and no
The ESPN splits are not available as game-by-game breakdowns. Profootballfocus.com does have that data for each game based on their own gametape analysis (see here), but it would require going through 512 of those breakdowns to have an accurate picture of all NFL teams. As the off-season wears on, I might actually do that at some point, unless there’s a volunteer out there who’d do it.
by One.Cool.Customer on May 25, 2010 2:19 AM CDT up reply actions
These sack stats are not useful because we have ROMO!!!
We have the best QB in the league at escaping the rush, and getting away from Blitzers…. So if we had some other guy in there instead of Romo, our OL would be in last place in the league for sacks instead of 14th!
IMO, yes and no.
Romo has been very good evading the rush but I saw a QB last year that was trying to take care of the football and stay in the pocket. He wasn’t the evading QB that we had seen years prior. Yes, he had a few awesome evades, one in particular for a TD but he is trying to stay in control. It showed as his INT percentage was lower in ’09 and he took some sacks. (instead of fumbling the ball away)
I still think the playbook needs to call for more quick slants, curls and more RB screen passes. Defense’s know they can rattle the Cowboys with the blitz. They need to pay.
by torchindefenses on May 24, 2010 9:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Brady
He still beats the Blitz. But is it him or is it Welker.
Both ;o)
Crayton is a good slot WR, not as shifty as Welker. He is very quick and makes a good target for blitzes for sure.
by torchindefenses on May 24, 2010 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions
This might be
Garrett’s biggest problem as an O-Coordinator IMO. His plays take much too long to develop which makes this offense susceptible to the blitz. He doesn’t utilize dump-offs to RBs or even the Fullback nearly as much as he should in these situations. His idea of a quick way to beat the blitz is the Witten curl route.
Garrett did start utilizing the delayed RB screen last year.
In Garrett’s defense he did put some of these plays in last year and had some big plays as a result. He also had some low yardage gains as well. Since they now have it in their arsenal, I suspect that they utilize it more this year. This play is a gamble though, big risk, high reward.
by torchindefenses on May 24, 2010 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Good point
With the RB screens.
My biggest beef, though, is when we go Shotgun empty backfield. It’s a terrible formation to begin with. Then when you throw in an opposing blitz, there is no screen or dump-off option. And since Garrett rarely uses those quick slant routes, Romo becomes vulnerable against that blitz.
It wouldn’t be such a big deal if Garrett didn’t love it so much.
I Agree
The statistics were clear that this team both ran and passed WAY more effectively out of the two tight end sets where Romo was under center. We could do anything from that formation, from a power run to sending out 5 recievers (2 WRs, 2 TEs, and the RB). They just couldn’t match up and the threat of the power run meant that they were terrified to blitz. We averaged over 7 yards a pass attempt and 5 yards a carry. Our best drives that took us the length of the field almost always were out of this set. It was nearly unstoppable.
Then we have our shotgun sets where our only run play is a draw which allows defensive coordinators to fire off all the blitzes they want to besiege Romo. 90% of the time Romo started out in shotgun, he passed the ball. That is way too predictable. Sure, we got some big plays out of it, but the risk is too great and it was too predictable.
Stick to a balanced offense, keep Romo under center, keep the DC guessing.
by Blue Eyed Devil on May 25, 2010 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions
+10000
The biggest problem I have with Garrett is this. He is still living in the 90’s ERA ( Troy’s plays )and believe execution is everything nad blames poor execution. The OC if he had a klnack for adjusting quickly ,he can over come short-term dis-advantages . Refer the Minny play off game. He saw what was happening with O-L , still had no adjustment , Romo was dropping back and getting killed . Ture, Minny could generate pressure with front4 alone , most of the time , but still I haven’t seen him adjusting the play calling in the middle of the half to counter. He does some time half-time adjustments good though.
Most of the problem with blitzes has to be with the receivers.
I find it shocking that with a quarterback with as quick as a release as Romo gets sacked so often. The receivers must not be adjusting, and they may be missing on hot routes in response to the blitzes. Otherwise, they just may be failing to quickly get off the line and into their routes.
By the way, completely off topic, does anyone else sign in using yahoo, and have they been having problems signing in? This is only like the second time I’ve managed to sign in in over a week. Most of the time when I try, I get an error message.
You're probably using internet explorer.
Go to Mozilla.com and download firefox. Problems should be cured immediately. You can still setup Yahoo as your homepage. Alot of people are using Google Chrome now too.
When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my Grandfather -- not screaming like the passengers in his car.
Since I switched
to chrome, my browser cannot recognise new comments in large threads (500+). I don’t know if that problem is exclusive to my computer though.
RW is the opposite of WR. Coincidence? I think not.
by aussie_cowboy on May 25, 2010 8:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Actually 5Blings could have been substituted for any numer of bloggers
5 just comes before the other bloggers on an alphabetized list…
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
Actually
5Blings’ draft recap was exactly the post I was referring to.
RW is the opposite of WR. Coincidence? I think not.
by aussie_cowboy on May 26, 2010 12:03 AM CDT up reply actions
Internet Explorer?
God, no. I haven’t used it for years. No, I’m using Firefox. But today I logged in without problem, maybe whatever issues I’ve been happening are over.
Bring back that Roman Gabriel to Billy Truax quick hitter. Gabriel took the snap, stood up straight and
drilled Truax who was still low coming off the line. Truax made the catch and stumbled and rumbled for six or seven yards. I’d bet Witten would be good for much more. Of course, Gabriel was taller than most of this linemen. Romo, being several inches shorter than his, would probably hit the back of a helmet. Never mind.
Family, Friends, Cowboys, Beer & BBQ. Life is good!
Thanks OCC!
Wow, I got quoted twice! OCC, you flatter me! It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to see my humble little comments promoted to an article. :-)
I love the articles, especially thought provoking ones about the O-line. Keep it up!
by Blue Eyed Devil on May 25, 2010 6:56 AM CDT reply actions
The QB likely bears most of the responsibility for sacks.
This Pro-Football Reference article needs to be included in all these discussions. PFR looked at QB’s who switched teams and which stats (e.g. completion %, sacks, ints, etc.) stayed constant and which changed. If a stat stayed constant then clearly the stat was under the QB’s control. Sack rate was stable IRRESPECTIVE OF THE TEAM THE QB PLAYED FOR.
It’s pretty clear which performance category is least consistent from year to year and probably belongs to the individual quarterback the least. It’s probably the one the general public uses to judge a quarterback the most—interceptions. You rarely hear after a game about how the receivers caused the interceptions, or the bad luck of it all, or the game context dictated the interceptions.
At the other end of the spectrum, two performance measures stand out at the top—completion percentage and sack rate.
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 25, 2010 7:19 AM CDT reply actions
this doesn't even come close to passing the sniff test.
If anything, it says this line would give up 60 sacks a year IF NOT FOR ROMO.
Original Pet-Cats: Duane Thomas, Roger Staubach, Walt Garrison, Charlie Waters, Bob Lilly
I think the blame falls in a few places
part of it has to fall on Romo and Garrett for not picking up the blitzes. a lot of that comeds from film studya nd in game observations. the QB and the WRs then need to be on the same page and run quicker routes to allow Romo to get rid of the ball. if they are running delayed blitzes and blitzes in general, why run the routes that take longer? that onus lies on Garrett. his play designs have to include long and shorter routes to allow Romo to wait and go long but get rid of the ball quickly if he sees a blitz coming.
the WRs as mentioned in the article have to be on the same page as the QB. RW was guilty of this a few times last year. I think he had bad film study habits and never really learned to be a WR in the league and lived on (believed in) his reputation. he is learning to be a WR almost like a rookie.
I also think part of it is the OL. we are a big OL. we may have the ability to get down field with some of them. do some pulls and traps. but over all this OL is not very agile when it comes to lateral movement and that’s what you need to help pick up a lot of these delayed blitzes. the OL men need to be able to move quickly to cover the gaps where a defensive player is shooting through and we just didn’t do that very well and a lot of that falls on GUrode specially for blitzes up the middle. that’s one of the reasons the team is trying to upgrade the center position. Groude is pretty good in run blocking but his pass protection and mental part of hte game leaves a lot to be desired.
this also highlighted the importance of a RB in picking up blitzers and in pass protection. part of the reason Barber starts ahead of felix (probably). We have read too often that Jones wasn’t very good in pass protection. Barber excels in that area and its a very under-rated portion of a RBs game that goes un-noticed except by coaching staff and QBs
If you believe the blame falls outside the QB.
please explain how a QB’s sack rate stays the same when QB’s switch teams?
Back in the 1985 Bill James Baseball Abstract, James talked about how the old sources never included walk information for hitters, and that a walk was generally thought of as “something that the pitcher did; the batter was just the guy who was standing there when he did it.” I think that walks in baseball are a nice parallel to sacks in football some twenty years later. The common wisdom of sacks is that they are the fault of the offensive line or the accomplishment of the defensive player. The quarterback is “just the guy who was standing there”.
While sacks can be the fault of the offensive line or the accomplishment of the defensive player, the evidence is pretty clear that the quarterback is at least as responsible for his team’s sack rate as other passing performance measures that we readily attribute primarily to the quarterback.
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 25, 2010 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions
I haven't heard your explanation yet either
You’ve basically said someone else thinks this and then said that QBs who change teams have the same sack rate. I bet they have a similar INT rate, too. That’s not enough for a causal relationship. Why is the QB singularly responsible for being sacked? How is that Romo’s sack rate got worse as his QB rating improved between seasons?
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
No, interception rate is not stable.
which suggestes that the QB doesn’t control interceptions nearly as much as the casual fan believes the QB does.
In fact, I believe the interception point so strongly, that I’d gladly put money on Romo’s intercetpions increasing this year.
Any interest in fighting statistics?
Here are Romo’s interception stats.
Mean: 13.75
Standard deviation: 4
Hence, I’m confident that Romo’s going to experience mean reversion this year (i.e. throw more than 9 picks).
Want to gamble?
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 25, 2010 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions
SURE ... I'll take that bet
Original Pet-Cats: Duane Thomas, Roger Staubach, Walt Garrison, Charlie Waters, Bob Lilly
As McEnroe would say - You cannot be serious!
We threw the 3rd lowest INTs in the league (median was 16)…betting Romo will throw more than 9 is like betting Chris Johnson will run for <2,000 yards.
You want the over on CJ too?
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 26, 2010 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think Luke's bet is that bad considering 3 of those 9 came in that horrific game against the Giants
that seemed to be a real turning point for him. If he continues his play from last year into this year I think there is a pretty big chance he doesn’t throw for 9 interceptions. Also, the percentages of a QB throwing less than 9 INTs and a runner having more than 2000 yards are nowhere near as equitable as you seem to believe.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on May 26, 2010 8:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes my analogy wasn't a statistical match...but the point still stands
Unless they’re injured and miss a lot of action, very few QBs (maybe 10-15%) throw less than 10 INTs in a yr. None of them do it consistently that I’ve ever seen (in the modern era).
Could Tony do it, sure, but I’d expect a Vegas bookie to put the line at ~8-10:1 against (unless he misses several games). It’s not about Tony – Brady, Brees, or Manning (either one) – would all have the same long odds to cover that bet,
FTT was stacking the deck with 9 as the bar…and I was surprised Luke bit.
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 26, 2010 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Well I would never say that Tony has a very good shot at going under 10 INTs
but I do think there is certainly a significantly large chance (I would put the likelihood closer to 33%). I would say that since he threw only six in the last 15 games last year. Now of course there could be more bad bounces and things like that, but I certainly think Tony has a better shot than most QBs at going under 10 INTs
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on May 26, 2010 11:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Quick and Dirty Analysis
To help you understand why I am so confident on this one. Looking just at the careers of the top 10 QBs last year by QB rating…here’s how often they threw <10 INTs:
1) Drew Brees – 1 in 8 yrs, only 400 passes that yr.
2) Brett Favre – 1 in 18 yrs, but it was last yr, and threw ~1/2 as many as normal for him…gonna be interesting to see if he "reverts back to the mean" in 2010.
3) Phillip Rivers – 2 in 4 yrs….is he the golden child for protecting the football? Or just lucky enough to hit multiple jackpots in the same carreer?
4) Aaron Rogers – 1 in 2 yrs – Looks great unless you blame him for holding the ball and creating sacks. Give him a few more years to see how both progress.
5) Ben Roethlisberger – O in 6 yrs….only did it when he missed 4 games and only had 268 att’s.
6) Paton Manning – 1 in 12 yrs – but he did have an amazing run of 39 INTs over 4 yrs (3 10s and 1 9)
7) Matt Schaub – 0 in 1 yr. (only 1 yr. w/ more than 11 games)
8) Romo – 1 in 4 yrs
9) Tom Brady – 1 in 8 yrs.
10) Kurt Warner – 0 in 6 yrs. (only 4 in 10 games w/ Giants…but high INTs in 3 other injury plagued years, so you could expect 1 in 10)
Total 8 in 69 – 11.6% among the top 10 rated QBs last yr.
If we had a means to bet, I’d gladly lay 2:1 odds and take the over.
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 27, 2010 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions
See above...
less than 9 picks + no injury…~12-15:1 against
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 26, 2010 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions
I saw that...
and I stand by what I said.
Semper Fi Do or Die
by Jeremiah_24 on May 26, 2010 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Same offer as above
I’d gladly give you 2:1 odds and take the over.
I think there’s actually a British company that facilitates these sorts of wagers…but it’s probably violates some sort of interstate gambling law in the US.
Anyway, as a gambler I like these sorts of bets…as a blogger, this is all purely recreational.
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 27, 2010 12:06 AM CDT up reply actions
sorry ... I've been off "recreating" ...
LCC, your post about the many quality QBs rarely throwing less than 10 ints in a season is a good one. My initial response was to the trend Romo set last year, but you’ve got history on your side.
To make a good “recreational” bloggers bet, I’ll take those 2:1 odds that Tony can repeat. Loser wears some silly (nothing morally offensive) signature created by winner for month of Feb 2011.
Original Pet-Cats: Duane Thomas, Roger Staubach, Walt Garrison, Charlie Waters, Bob Lilly
so you want to tell me
if a team has a top LT vs. a team that has a below average LT, that there is no fault with the tackle allowing some sacks? pressure? yes, the QB has to take on most of the responsibility, but he also needs to be on the same page as the WRs seeing the formations running the routes, etc. that is both of their responsibility. if a center sucks and allows pressure up the middle then that’s not the QBs fault.
you certainly can’t attribute the sacks in the Minny game on Romo? is that what you are insinuating? or don’t you think Columbo and Groude got abused?
plus lets take a look at all those QBs that changed teams. if in general they sucked they are going to another team and they suck again. most teams hang on to their QBs if they are worth it. when they get older, less effective or they suck, they change teams. so that may explain some of the production similarity. I think you have to examine each separately.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions
if a team has a top LT vs. a team that has a below average LT, that there is no fault with the tackle allowing some sacks?
Yep, that’s basically what I’m telling you. Now it’s obviously a question of degree, I’m not taking the position that it’s 100% under the QB’s control. Maybe the QB controls 80% of the variation. But the PFR research suggests that the QB controls sack rate as much as the QB controls completion %.
In fact, the stats that OCC provided back this up. The O-Line was only responsible for 11 of the 34 total sacks. The other 23 were blitzes which is more about the QB reads than O-Line performance.
Going back to your LT point, if we assume that the 11 O-Line sacks were evenly divided among the 5 OL, then each linemen allowed ~2 sacks per season. So what’s the difference in sacks between and elite LT and an average LT? 1 sack per season? 2 sacks per season. What PFR study suggests is that OL differences are minimal relative to what’s controled by the QB (pre-snap reads and quick releases).
Let me ask you a question. Would you ever blame a low completion % on the O-Line?
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 25, 2010 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Unless they are not...
You still haven’t shared the mechanics of what a QB is supposed to do about blitzes. And I see multiple fallacies here.
Of course a QB is supposed to change a play IF… changing the play will be more likely to succeed than fail. But QBs come to the linie with typically two calls (sometimes three), a run and a pass. If the down and distance require a pass play, what does the QB do exactly? Run and bring on the punt? Of course not. So the PFR theory says that QBs don’t read the blitz properly and never get any better at it in their careers (since it remains constant).
Second, blitz pick up is assigned and practiced. If it were all on the QB, or even 80% on the QB, this would be a useless drill. But it’s not, because every offensive player has a responsibility for reacting to a blitz. Lines and RBs are supposed to pick up blitzers. WRs and TEs may either run a hot route or block.
Where do you account for them succeeding or failing to do what they are supposed to do? How about WRs who are supposed to break off their routes, but don’t and the QB has to eat it? How about linemen who choose incorrectly and help block when they should have waited a beat for the delayed blitz?
The problem is again that they are inferring what happens. They don’t know the pass protection calls and they don’t know what the players were coached to do. They simply look at the last node in the chain of events – the QB hitting the turf – and assign the blame statistically. In fact, there are mutliple events before that that allowed the sack. Without looking into each of those events, they are simply reinforcing a bias for their own theory.
I reject the PFR theory because it doesn’t look at all that way on the field, for any team, in any game. Of course the QB is responsible for some, but 80% is silly. They are taking a contrary stance because it it is just that.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
+1
but he has made up his mind. its QBs fault. and all sacks get divided equally among OL man, so a bad OL looks better than he is and a good OL gets a penalty for the rest of the OL.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions
not what i wrote
but he has made up his mind. its QBs fault
I’m not taking the position that it’s 100% under the QB’s control. Maybe the QB controls 80% of the variation.
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 25, 2010 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions
dunkman
i’m not sure I understand your point.
did you read the pro-football reference research because it’s actually very clever.
i don’t think you did because this, for example, is total irrelevant to the research.
The problem is again that they are inferring what happens. They don’t know the pass protection calls and they don’t know what the players were coached to do. They simply look at the last node in the chain of events – the QB hitting the turf – and assign the blame statistically
PFR looked at QB’s that changed teams and then looked at what statistics were stable.
Let’s take a step back. Do you agree that completion % is controlled by the QB?
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 25, 2010 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions
CowboysFanatic had an overlooked point
There could be “selection bias” in the dataset, as elite qbs rarely change teams in their prime. So most of the sample will be average qbs changing teams. So their conclusion could be valid, but it might only apply to average and below average qbs.
Check out my movie - Standards of Ethical Conduct
by cowboysuberfan on May 25, 2010 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Drew Brees , Kurt Warner , Bret Farve
want to stick with that point?
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 25, 2010 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Compare 3 to the total number of qbs who change teams
It would be a tiny percentage.
Check out my movie - Standards of Ethical Conduct
by cowboysuberfan on May 25, 2010 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions
yes
joe montana, tony banks, drew bledsoe, mark brunell, Jason Campbell (TBD), Matt Cassell, Kerry Collins, Daunte Culpepper, Jake Delhomme (TBD), Rich Gannon, Jeff Garcia, Jeff George.
you listed the 3 most famous ones. the list of average QB changing teams is much much much longer. it just dilutes the results from warner, brees, favre and the outliers that they are.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Tony Banks?
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/
yeah
didn’t he go from the rams to the ravens. he sucked both places
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions
ok here is some stats for these three
Warner:
went from Giants to Cardinals (2004, 2005)
completion % changed from 62.8 to 64.5
sacks went from 39 to 23.
Favre
From GB to Jets (2007, 2008)
completion % went from 66.5% to 66.7%
sacks went from 15 to 30
from Jets to Minny (2008, 2009)
completion % went from 66.7% to 68.4%
sacks went from 30 to 34
Drew Brees
went from SD to NO (2005, 2006)
completion % went from 64.6% to 64.3%
sacks went from 27 to 18
the three you chose show absoultey no correlation between completion%, sacks and QBs changing teams. which tells me that the completion% is mostly controlled by the QB, where sacks can be attributed to many factors including OL play, scheme, etc.
you are comparing apples and oranges in your argument..
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions
thank you for demonstrating your analytical approach
you took 3 examples (which were provided not to demonstrate that sack rate was stable, but rather that elite QBs do change teams), and you conclude that random sample of 3 is proof that sack rate has a correlation of zero.
I think I understand why we’re not seeing eye to eye.
I don’t really care if you believe it or not. You want to believe there’s no correlation based on a sample of 3 when the research on all QBs who changed teams shows a correlation, be my guest.
Personally I find Pro Football Reference’s reseach to be more credible than your analysis.
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 25, 2010 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions
wait a minute here
initial argument was that average QBs tend to change teams more often, since teams tend to hold on to franchise type QBs. you brought up those three names and kept hammering the point regarding completion % and sacks.
I took your sample. not mine. yours mind you and showed you that they probably are anomolies and outliers. case and point proven in EVERY sample.
there is no correlation between completion % and sack rates based on your argument that a QB has equally big hand in each.
its clearly proven that completion percentage is highly dependent on the QB, which is the obvious. sack rate has many other factors involved, a lower percentage of which has to do with the QB. I am not sure why you can’t see that. its clear as day/night, black/white, sweet/sour…….you get it. ….its that obvious
but you are just in love with statistics and you know what they say about statistics
its lies, its damn lies and then there is statistics.
by CowboysFanatic on May 26, 2010 7:58 AM CDT up reply actions
hard to understand your reasoning here.
initial argument was that average QBs tend to change teams more often, since teams tend to hold on to franchise type QBs
Someone was arguing that elite QBs don’t change teams and hence the PFR research was flawed because it would only look at average QBs. I just provided a couple of examples of elite QBs who have changed teams. Truthfully, I don’t know if average QB’s change teams more often than elite QBs. On one hand, teams hold onto elite QB’s. OTOH, elite QB’s have longer careers which affords more opportunities to switch teams (e.g. Farve, Warner, Collins). Feel free to do the actual research and let us know what’s correct.
there is no correlation between completion % and sack rates based on your argument that a QB has equally big hand in each.
I certainly never said there was a correlation between completion % and sack rates. To put it mathmetically, I said a QB’s sack rate in year N+1 would be correlated with his sack rate in year N, which suggests it’s controlled by the QB. This would also be true of completion %.
its clearly proven that completion percentage is highly dependent on the QB
I would agree that’s true. I’ve never seen it clearly proven though.
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 26, 2010 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions
three things
1- no one said that elite QB don’t ever change teams. most often its towards the end of their creers. brees is the only come to mind that changed teams when he was in the prime of his career. but what was said, its mostly average QBs or QBs towards the end of their careers. three examples and I gave about 20 others that were all average QB no matter where they played.
2- pardon my english composition. I meant to say that a QB has more direct impact on completion % than direct impact on sack rate. a QB has less impact on sack rate.
I didn’t mean to insinuate that sack rate is correlated to completion% by any stretch of imagination.
the stats I provided proves that sack rate has many factors one of which is a QB and he may not be the most important or have the highest impact on it. the rate of change from year to year varied from 40% and in warner’s case in one year by over 100%.
again. didn’t say QB doesn’t its just that impact of a QB is much much less on sack rate. I would say LT, OL protection, WR, offensive Scheme, defensive schemes played against, RBs, TEs all factor into it, with OL holding the most impact.
on the other hand the completion percentage for sample QBs year in year out remained the same with variances of 2-8% change year to year. including changing teams, players, schemes, defenses they played, etc. that indicates that the QB has direct impact on completion% and probably has a very high impact.
by CowboysFanatic on May 26, 2010 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Two comments on methodology
1. You want to convert sacks into sack rate (i.e. sacks / attempts) to put it into a more usable format.
2. You want to use all the years, not just the year before and the year after the change, right? You don’t want your analysis to be thrown off by an outlying year? Think about completion %, if a QB is an accurate passer, he’ll have a consistently high completion %, right? You would want to use his career stats rather than the two years before and after a change, right?
Go back and look at those QBs and tell what you find.
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 25, 2010 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions
ok, I bite
but I disagree with your second point. the article and your arguments took into account the two years the QB changed teams. not all the years. it took into account the however many number of QBs who had changed teams nad studied the sack rate and made the conclusion that its mostly on the QB.
here is the three QBs in the same period and sack rate…ready for surprise.
Brees sack/rate cahnged from .054 to 0.32
Warner sack/rate changed from 0.14 to 0.061
Breet changed from 0.028 to 0.057 to 0.064
again no correlation to QB, specially in warner’s case where he did play on a bad giants team with OL needs.
but here is brees over the years just to prove a point
Brees:
year completion% sack rate
2001 55 0.074
2002 60 0.045
2003 57 0.059
2004 65 0.045
2005 64 0.054
2006 64 0.032
2007 67 0.024
2008 65 0.020
2009 70 0.038
we can see specially since 2004 on, that his completion percentage is stayed pretty much the same, but the sack rates vary greatly. completion% is greatly contrlled by a QB with all other things being equal, that is having a good WR corp the QB’s completion percentage remains fairly consistant.
however sack rate varies greatly, mostly dependent on opponents, teams play, changes on the OL, etc. yes a QB has a hand in giving up some sacks, forexample he could force a throw while being hit and thrown an Int (i.e. like romo use to), or hold on to the ball too long like Rodgers admitted to doing last year. but he has less control on it because if he plays behind a bad OL he is going to get the snot beat out of him, he is going to be scrambling for his life most time.
what else?
I wish you would open your eyes and see it. like I said its clear as day/night.
by CowboysFanatic on May 26, 2010 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions
Here you go.
You can look at various QBs in the link. I threw 8 examples in there.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aq_pzudn-VEDdERQOFN2anlKeXNKWktFNGpYc1VlLWc&hl=en=
Farve looks consistent across his career at about 5%.
Warner looks fairly consistent except for his year in NY (and it’s been down the last 3 years).
Brees looks like a consistently low sack rate QB, although he’s been better in NO than SD.
I agree that completion % is more stable but I think you’ll see that there is indeed a correlation with sack rate as well.
extra credit: If you don’t believe that sack rate is controlled by the QB, explain the 2006 season and why Bledsoe was sacked 9.5% of the time (consistent with the rest of his career in Dallas) and Romo was sacked 6.2% of the time (consistent with the rest of his career)?
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 25, 2010 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions
I wonder if some of you are making too much of Fan’s original comment. I may be mistaken, but I think that Fan was demonstrating a correlation, and stating that the QB does contribute to whether or not a sack is recorded. If I recall correctly, Fan never said that it was the only factor, only that it was a contributing factor.
Further, I don’t think that anybody here is trying to argue causality.
If we look at the situation as a whole, tere are a number of factors that contribute to sacks:
First and foremost, is going to be the offensive line. A porous offensive line will get good to great QBs in trouble.
Another factor is QB mobility, vision, delivery, and athleticism. Does the QB read pre-snaps defensive schemes well? Can he adjust? Can he move in the pocket? Can he audible to a hot read? Can he get the ball out quickly when necessary? Is he aware of his blind side? These factors will contribute to whether or not a QB takes a sack. Dan Marino wasn’t “athletic” in the sense of Michael Vick, but he moved in the pocket extremely well, knew the reads, and had a quick delivery. Peyton Manning played with a bad offensive line last year, but his football intelligence, shiftyness, and delivery reduced the number of sacks over a QB that was less mobile, more stationary, didn’t know his audibles or hot reads, and had a slow delivery.
The RB/FBs ability to pick up the blitz will contribute.
The WR/TEs ability to break off of jams, run precise routes, read the defense, know the audibles, and get open will also contribute to whether or not a QB takes a sack.
Coaching, schemes, quality of opponent, situation, and any other number of factors contribute. It is overdetermined and incredibly complex. It seems that Fan’s only point was that some responsibility falls on the QB. I think that this is a fair assumption. Your standout QBs may be less affected by this reality. But, I can see how this could appy to some other QBs who, frankly, are just not that good.
actually that's what the fan is trying to say
that the QBs sack rate is directly related to the QB and he is the thus as a result the main contributor to that rate (or stat) and its consistent through out.
one can average over a life time, but one must also look at the variance over time and represent that variance in percent change to get a better understanding.
allow me to explain. a +/- 5% change in variance over a career is acceptable and the average is to be taken as what that QB is.
a 40% change in variance over a career doesn’t conclude anything about that average since the extremes (high/low) are too far apart for one to draw a conclusion.
that’s the whole point. for most QB, completion percentage probably has a 5% change and sack rate woudl vary wildy from 40-50% change.
and I agree a mobile QB probably will have a lower sack rate than a statue like bledsoe. that’s when the OL play and lots of other factors come into play.
make sense?
by CowboysFanatic on May 26, 2010 8:25 AM CDT up reply actions
ok ... this is clearly going to require a fanpost
I think what you’re saying is that a forecast of sack rate woldn’t be statistically significant.
I don’t think that is correct. The PFR research suggests the forecast is statistically significant. I’ll see if I can duplicate the PFR statistics and put up a fanpost though.
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 26, 2010 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Be careful though
This makes me really nervous about the PFR research:
This last summary lists the number of times that each category represented 20% or less of the total change in a quarterback’s performance from the previous year, after a team change.
Sack Percentage: 31 of 48
Completion Percentage: 30 of 48
Touchdown Percentage: 29 of 48
Yards Per Attempt: 28 of 48
Interception Percentage: 22 of 48
With the exception of INTs, the differences between the other stats appear negligible
by One.Cool.Customer on May 26, 2010 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions
eh ... this was hard for me to understand the first time around
Let me see if I can put it in plain english.
Lisk uses an advanced passer rating, but for simplicity lets take a hypothetical QB with our standard passer rating.
QB1 has a QB rating of 100.
QB1 changes teams and then next year has a QB rating of 90, delta of 10.
20% of 10 is 2.
If the change in sack rate changed the QB rating by less than 2, then it would ‘represent 20% or less of the total change’ (i.e. sack rate wasn’t why QB rating changed).
Therefore, that statistic was stable (in Lisk’s logic).
Like I said, this really needs a fanpost to tease out the issues.
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 26, 2010 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions
it could be
but it would have a very large variance. which would make the results swing wildly. a variance of 0.02 (40% )with average sack rate of 0.05, with average pass plays totals of 500 would mean
high # of sacks = 35
average sacks = 25
low sacks = 15
based on last year’s stats that would rank you anywhere from 2nd, 6th or 19th in the league in sacks given up.
by CowboysFanatic on May 26, 2010 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions
here is one point you miss
no one is saying that the QB doesn’t have a hand in it. they do. but they factor into it much much much less as compared to completion%, where they have most of the control.
plus, sacks rate variance of 0.02 is significant. you can just say about 5% and that’s good. you have to find the average, compare high and low and see if a 0.02 is acceptable as being the same.
I say not. why? 0.02 change on a sack rate of 0.05 represents a 40% change. where a 5% increase in completion % for a 65% career passer reprenets a 7% change.
big big big difference.
like I said there is lies, there is damn lies and then there is statistics.
by CowboysFanatic on May 26, 2010 8:20 AM CDT up reply actions
apples and oranges
what’s the percent variance change compared to the averages you shown.
its obvious that bledsoe a less mobile QB woudl get sacked more often than romo whis mobile and can escape and buy time.
the variance is the key here not the average. its like saying that the population in the US has average age of 42, then deciding based on that what’s good for the population. but there are a large group of people who are 100 years old and obviously millions that are infants and toddlers.
pure averages from a statistical analysis are often mis-leading.
by CowboysFanatic on May 26, 2010 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Really surprised at your position FTT
Sack rate, from your own #’s, is a highly volatile stat.
Look at the #‘s again, check both the avg. and standard deviation if you don’t believe me…just remember a deviation of 2.5% on a 5% Avg. means the rate is fluctuating +/- 50%.
I looked over the PFR article, and I think his methodology broke down because he tried to use an algorithm for “advanced passing ranking” to normalize the data. He notes that a 2% change in sack rate is comparable to a 5% change in completion …which makes no sense if you’re comparing the “relative” change, as 2 is ~25-75% of a QB’s sack rate.
A quick way to wrap your head around this is multiply the sack rate times 10 and look at it next to completion %…you’ll see they look nothing alike over time.
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 27, 2010 1:43 AM CDT up reply actions
PFR could be wrong, but I doubt that it is.
I suspect the difference lies in the # of observations that are being used. For completion % an average QB will have ~300 completions a year and ~30 sacks a year. When you calculate completion % using 300 observations the highs and lows average out and produce a lower standard deviation. I bet if you looked at competion % on a game by game basis (where you had only say ~30 completions) the standard deviation would look more like the standard deviation for annual sack rate.
Think about batting average and HR rate in baseball. I suspect that batting average has a lower standard deviation than HR rate. That doesn’t prove that the batter has less control over the HR rate, right?
But like I said this requires some deeper thought.
I think the difference of opinion is pretty small. I think everyone agrees the QB controls sack rate to some degree, it’s a question of how much … 75%, 50%, 25%? And like I said, all you have to do is think back to Bledsoe to remember just how much difference the QB makes. I’d guess that anyone who saw that season would peg it at a min of 50%.
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 27, 2010 6:09 AM CDT up reply actions
no one denies
the QBs style of play makes a difference. Rodgers last year made a mid year adjustment. he was holding on to the ball too long thus taking sacks instead of incompletions. he adjusted and the team fared better.
but like you said its impact is not 75% (using it as an example), its much less compared to completion%.
the OL plays a much bigger role in sacks than a QB does.
also you are now changing the game again. your comment about a game by game comparison is obviously going to create a wild set of stats from game to game, simply because there are too many factors to consider. including opponents schemes, players, how good a team is etc. that would be true for completion% and sack rate (and I bet even then the sack rates STD is much steadier).
but over time, all factors equal out and tend to normalize the outliers and the wild game by game swings, specially over a 16 game span and it shows how good that QB is (or is not).
the completion % year in year out is pretty consistent. but sack rates vary greatly. which just shows that many more things factor into it that we have to consider.
and yes bledsoe gave up more sacks in general because he was less mobile. a QB likehim would have a bigger factor into a sack rate going up than lets say romo who is mobile. like you said, no one is saying they don’t factor in. but they also don’t have a lot of control. Aikman wasn’t exactly mobile (probably bledsoe beat him in the 40). but he had an excellent offensive line that protected him well.
by CowboysFanatic on May 27, 2010 8:05 AM CDT up reply actions
do you understand the batting average / HR rate example?
You’re focused on variance but that doesn’t prove whether the statistic is controlled by the QB or not. For example, consider unforced fumbles by a QB (e.g. where the ball slips out of the QBs hand). Unforced fumbles would have a high variance (because of their rarity) but would be 100% controlled by the QB, right?
btw, how are you defining variance?
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 27, 2010 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
I understand variance.
but the batting average/HR example is not a very good one. although HR rates may vary wildly (lets say by even a week by week comparison), over time based on batters strength and skills it may average out. long ball hitters are going to get their HRs and be around certain batting acerages in specific portions of their careers (since most will decline over time).
variance is the dispersion among a population along some statistical variable. in other words, how much on average does a statistical variable vary over its entire population sample.
in our example we can see the year to year difference in average for sack rate, relative to the average itself. if that number is relatively great to the average (percent wise), then it has a high variance (without actually calculating it you can make a great estimate).
the problem is that overall averages prove nothing. they are just a “number”. meaningless without context.
so for example for the example above on Brees.
His completion % average over the years is 63% with a variance of 23.
his sack rate average is 43.44 (multiplied by 1000 to get whole numbers), with a variance of 298
.
another way is to look at standard deviation (which I think its a better statistical analysis). this shows how disperesed are the data points from the standard norm.
in the brees case, the average is 64 with standard devision of 5, or about 7% of his average.
the standard deviation for sack rate is 0.017 with average of 0.04, for a rate of 40% compared to the average.
it means that the completion% doesn’t swing wildly, yet sack rate does. for example in any year to year it could go from 0.057 to 0.23, compared to completion% going from 69 to 59.
in our case if the sack rate was rather steady and didn’t swing a lot (by 40%) then it would indicate that the QB has greater impact on it.
in your baseball example, the hitting rate and HR rate are probably close for any specific player over a large enough sample, which means the player has a lot of control over it
did I geek you out?
by CowboysFanatic on May 27, 2010 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Alex Rodriguez statistics
No, you didn’t geek me out. I like statistics. I wasn’t sure if you were using the statistical definition of variance.
Anyway, on to the BA / HR rate example for A-Rod.
HR Rate Mean: 6.3%
HR Rate St Dev: 2.4%
St Dev / Mean: 38%
Batting Avg: 29.4% (i.e 0.294)
Batting Avg St. Dev: 3.4%
St Dev / Mean: 12%
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aq_pzudn-VEDdGc5S3dxSU5wQ2lpOHdtMk1NMzAwRlE&hl=en
in the brees case, the average is 64 with standard devision of 5, or about 7% of his average.
the standard deviation for sack rate is 0.017 with average of 0.04, for a rate of 40% compared to the average.
it means that the completion% doesn’t swing wildly, yet sack rate does. for example in any year to year it could go from 0.057 to 0.23, compared to completion% going from 69 to 59.
in our case if the sack rate was rather steady and didn’t swing a lot (by 40%) then it would indicate that the QB has greater impact on it
By your logic, this proves A-Rod has more control over his batting average than his HR rate. Obviously, A-Rod has the same control over both.
The high variance of sack rate simply does not prove what you believe it proves.
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 28, 2010 7:02 AM CDT up reply actions
don't mean to be dragging
but yes, if you now want to get into baseball stat comparison. A-rod has more control over his batting average than his home run. you can probably go up to the plate and get a hit. but you can’t predict I am going to hit a home run. so although he has control over both. he has more control over batting average and that makes total sense.
its just that because of laws of probability, over time things sort of even out and you can see a players for example averaging 40 HR over a 5 year span. but you can see a higher standard deviation year to year. compare to batting average.
your assertion is that he has equal control over both. stats (over a very large sample) tell us that he has more control of batting average than his HR rate.
stats don’t lie :0)
by CowboysFanatic on May 28, 2010 8:39 AM CDT up reply actions
A-rod has more control over his batting average than his home run
This is why we’re not going to agree.
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 28, 2010 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions
All I am seeing though is statistics being linked to cause
witout any explanation as to why it would be that way. And my point is that a sack, like most other facets, has so many components to it (meaning both factors and players involved) that they can’t possibly assign it all to one position and apply that to all teams in all situations. If this were actually true, no one would spend any money at all on LTs. They would spend all their money instead on QBs who could “handle a blitz”, whatever that means.
The problem is that they simply state it and try to establish causality without being to really explain the more difficult relationships involved. When you try to explain it in football terms, it doesn’t hold up.
In some cases, the QB is more at fault – Rodgers was clocked and he held the ball longer than the average pass rush took, and was sacked more often as a result. Ruthlessbanger also held the ball too long. But Dan Pastorini and Archie Manning had horrible lines. So did Troy in his final seasons. Check his before and after numbers with Erik Williams and see if that remained constant. I am pretty sure they moved.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
I think this is afair assessment
and you made a good point. if all LTs are pretty much the same then why are they making the most money compared to the rest of the OL and why do they get drafted 4th and 5th in the draft. fact is they are not all created equal and you can’t normalize by dividing equally between all to make a point, because that alone misses the point.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions
And of course completion % is not controlled by the QB alone
Pass protection, WR quality (getting sepearation, catching balls), scheme (shorter passes vs longer passes) and of course the QB’s accuracy all play a role. If Romo only had RW to throw to his percentage would suffer and Witten where his only target, it would skyrocket.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
agreed
but I think a QB has a bigger hand in this than other categories. ROdgers was holding the ball too long as you said and as a result he got sacked a lot more. but his completion percentage probably dropped as a result since he let go of some balls early, but accuracy, trajectory, speed, placement of the ball is controlled by the QB. they have the biggest impact on this area. yes, all the other factors play into it as well but that’s why a peyton manning can make austin collie look really good.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Absolutely
Completion percentage has be more about the QB than any other factor.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
QB + scheme I've always thought
With an inverse relationship between how far the average pass travels and how often it’s complete.
Romo + Garrett have always had among the longest average pass plays in the NFL. I’m not sure how much our receiver YAC is a factor in that, but I think Romo tends to throw longer passes and would have a higher completion % in a dink and dunk west coast scheme.
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 26, 2010 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions
you would be wrong
but I guess you have made up your mind that its all about the QB. and nothing but the QB so help you God. I don’t even know where to begin with this response.
a QB makes pre-snap reads. defenses hide their blitz packages and specially in a 3-4 they can disguise where the pressure is coming from. our OL had problems picking up blitzes and specially delayed blitzes with defensive players looping. Groude was one of the biggest culprit. Romo sees a pre-snap formation, makes the calls and the OL must be ready. our OL had a lot of problems picking up blitzes. that’s a fact. they had lots of problems picking up stunts. that’s a fact. ( see minny game, see GB game).
and you still didn’t answer the question that was the Minn. debacle our OL or Romo? but I guess Columbo has no fault in that game. it was all Romo. groude was totally faultless and it was all Romo. if Romo can’t find a WR in 2 seconds. its Romo’s fault.
yep. that made sense.
and you can’t assume the 11 sacks were divided evently as Adams has been credited (discredited) with 8 of those (per PFF) . you are making way too many general assumptions and ignoring actual facts to support your point.
a good LT doesn’t give up many sacks. an average LT gives up way more. that’s fact. that’s reality. averages are for accountants and statisticians. it may work in baseball. but in football its been proven statistics don’t necessarily apply.
plus if you read my responses I said the blame goes around. OL, QB, WR, RB, Coaches. you have attributed 23 of the sacks to Romo and only 11 to the Oline. of those 8 (per PFF) were attributed to Adams. so 3 for the other 4 OL men. man we must have one great fuccking OL that I wasn’t aware of.
plus what if Romo made a read, saw a blitz coming, knew he would have 3 seconds to throw, looked for the WR to make a cut or run a specific route, the WR ran the wrong route and what’s romo to do? throw an Int? or take a Sack?
some blame does go to romo, again I have said that. but you can’t say 23 is his fault.
now, completion percentage is partly QBs job. if he is GIVEN the TIME to throw (maybe 4-5 seconds), then he should be able to find the WRs. now lets assume instead of Austin, Wiliams, Witten and Dez it woudl be Crayton, Hurd, Phillips and Ogltree. would you assume the QBs completion % goes down because clearly CHPO combination is not as good as AWWD combination. there is an onus that falls on the WR to get open. there is certain degree of responsibility with the WR. how about WR drops? do you attribute that to the WR or its the QB fault?
too many gneralizations on your part trying to focus all the fault with the QB. there is a great responsibility with the QB, but its not 100%.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Let's start here
now, completion percentage is partly QBs job. if he is GIVEN the TIME to throw (maybe 4-5 seconds), then he should be able to find the WRs. now lets assume instead of Austin, Wiliams, Witten and Dez it woudl be Crayton, Hurd, Phillips and Ogltree. would you assume the QBs completion % goes down because clearly CHPO combination is not as good as AWWD combination. there is an onus that falls on the WR to get open. there is certain degree of responsibility with the WR. how about WR drops? do you attribute that to the WR or its the QB fault?
You’re taking the position that completion % is team dependent. That’s not supported by evidence. The completion % for QB’s who change teams is stable.
And that’s just common sense. If Drew Brees switched teams you’d still expect him to be an accurate, high completion % QB right? Kurt Warner?
So would you agree that QB controls most (e.g. 80%) of the variation of completion %?
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 25, 2010 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions
like I said
average QBs changing teams. ends up with average results. its not like that sampling and analysis is an end all to be all. you still avoided answering the question directly and danced around it to prove your point.
will romo have equal cahnce of getting similar completion % with the CHPO combination than the AWWD combination? its really not that complicated.
I agree that most of the controls for completion % falls on the QB. accuracy, correct read, etc.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions
sure, if the WR’s are clearly worse I would expect completion % to decline.
btw, there are a bunch of elite QB who changed teams. Brees, Farve, and Warner off the top of my head. and their completion % remained stable with their various teams.
anyway, if you believe completion % is mostly controlled by the QB, then I would suggest you reconsider who is responsible for sack rate, because it looks just like completion % when QB’s change teams.
Look, I love Romo, I think he’s a great QB. This isn’t a criticism of Romo. I just think for the most part he controls whether he gets sacked. And if he takes a lot of sacks I think that’s poor play on his part. OTOH, I don’t think the QB has as much control over interceptions, so if Romo has more interceptions this year I won’t be worried in the least.
by Fan in Thick and Thin on May 25, 2010 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions
somethign fishy about PFF stats
they credit Adams with 8 sacks. columbo with 4. kosier with 1, davis with 3, groude with 2. that’s total of 18. yet the article credits the OL with 11 sacks of the 34.
totals are just not adding up or is my new math wrong.
plus youa re comparing apples and oranges. completion% and sack rate? its like comparing Ints and Sacks for defensive player and comparing newman and ratlieff trying to figure out which one is better defensive player.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Numbers
Stas, Inc give the players on the O-line 17 sacks for the regular season. Profootballfocus give the same players 16 sacks for the regular season, and 19 sacks for all games last year (you forgot Free with 1 sack). Bob Sturm (link) credits the same O-line players totally or partly with 22 sacks for the regular season. Confused? You should be.
The 11 sacks in the article above are merely sacks in non-blitzing situations. This does not mean that they are credited exclusively to the O-line, nor is the O-line completely free of fault on the other 23 sacks allowed while blitzed.
by One.Cool.Customer on May 25, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions
that clears it up
kind of :).
but it goes to show you that PFF is not God when it comes to stats. FTT is just trying to stick to his point.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions
to be clear
a larger percentage of completion% is controlled by the QB compared to sacks. the QB does have a hand in sack total if for example they hold on to the ball for too long. but if a QBis not accurate or doesn’t have the strong arm, then probably their copletion % is going to be low (quincy carter comes to mind).
now, we know romo is elusive. we know he has a quick release. we know he is pretty accurate, that’s why its very surprising to attribute 24 sacks to romo.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions
I seem to recall a couple corner blitzes
in the Broncos and Packers games that really turned things around for the opposing team. There may have been more as well during the course of the season, but I just happen to remember those two sacks and Romo fumbles, both deep in Cowboys territory.
The Denver one was especially a killer in my mind because if I remember right
I think we were in decent control of that game up to that point.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on May 25, 2010 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Here is one way to look it
Tony took more sacks but he also threw a lot less INT’s. Sometimes its better to take a sack than to throw a risky pass and have a turnover.
exactly
he made a point of that. as Vela mentioned in another article a sack allows you to live for another play. and int. ends any opportunity.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions
I saw the delayed blitz cause havoc in MINN playoff game
PHL was usually pretty effective, but not as much this years sans J Johnson. In real-time individual OL are looking to engage, ours tends to turn to the next in their progression when they don’t see immediate pressure. Presumably, the RB or a TE is supposed to be the 2nd line of protection in that case.
Believe the causes are all of the above, as opposed to any one specific individual or group. In the case of the corner blitzes cited above – that’s just an example of the right call at the right time – something about our play call, protection was perfectly exploitable by that particular defensive call – it happens.
I'm not losing my memory, I'm living in the now
I agree with this
I think you would have to really parse the data, as well as apply some very intense football judgment, to determine where to place blame for each sack. It’s lunacy to insist that Romo is to blame if Davis completely whiffs on a one-on-block. It’s equally ridiculous to blame the line or RB if Romo should have read the blitz and didn’t adjust the call.
Blanket statements like: “It’s usually X or Y for all teams” can’t possibly be true for each snap on a single team, let alone for each team and their individual combination of players and schemes.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
The Reason the Cowboys get Blitzed so Much
There is a reason the Cowboys get blitzed so much, and it isn’t neccessarily to put Romo on his butt.
When your opponent blitzes what’s the easiest way to pick it up? Keep your running back in to block the blitzer.
When your opponent blitzes another guy, what’s the easiet way to pick the next one up? Keep your tight end in to pick up the other guy.
As Cowboys fans, we say, “how can any team deal with all our weapons?” But if two of your best weapons in Jason Witten and Felix Jones have to stay back to block blitzers then that’s two great weapons Romo can’t use.
I think this was the root of our goal-to-go problems this year. Jason Witten was kept in to block way too much because Garret was worried about keeping Romo upright. Jason Witten is the best short-yardage reciever on this team and he was standing next to Flozel or Free instead of going out in pattern.
by Blue Eyed Devil on May 25, 2010 10:10 AM CDT reply actions
But..
You can use your RB or TE to block then get free for a screen pass. I think that there needs to be more plays put in for the blitz this year. I remember in training camp last year the offense working on the blitz pick up. I think this year more plays need to be added just for blitzes. We are the second most blitzed team, something needs to change!!
by torchindefenses on May 25, 2010 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions
It worked sometimes, but not enough
The “Ogletree play” where they passed to Ogletree on a sideline-out smoke route was one play that was devised to beat the blitz and worked out well for us. In the Eagles games at the end of the season we burned them big off of passes to Felix Jones in the flat.
We had a few plays but not enough and not with enough consistaincy.
It’s also worth mentioning that passes to Marion Barber in the flat didn’t scare teams from blitzing at all. Barber would catch the ball and get hit and brought down for no gain or two yards. Felix Jones has the youth and speed to break a tackler and go 20 yards. Notice it was only in the Eagles games at the end of the season when the Cowboys finally gave Felix more touches than Barber that the passes to the RB in the flat worked.
But, back to the main point, if your a defensive coordinator which would you rather have: Jason Witten standing next to Columbo blocking a blitzer or Jason Witten running a route? I think a lot of DCs said “all I have to do is send a linebacker and Jason Garrett will take Witten out of the game for me? That’s a fantastic trade-off!”
by Blue Eyed Devil on May 25, 2010 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions
And the "smoke route" is a simplistic play which won't work for Garrett much longer
Teams will be ready for it this year.
It goes back to the 2 TE idea, which looks good on paper,
vs. a traditional 1 Te and 2 RB formation.
A RB in the backfield has more time and vision to adjust for a blitzer and pick him up-or to run a release route if he’s not needed as a blocker.
A TE on the line has to be pretty quick to pick up a blitzer-or if motioned into the backfield, can still not be as quick as a RB.
I just think this fascination w/two TE’s is a gimmick and is never going to work in real life like it does on paper.
I’d rather have just one TE in, and only as a receiver, on 3rd and long-and make the other DC deal w, say, both Choice and Felix in the backfield.
One could motion wide. Or both could stay in and block. Or one could block and one could release….
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on May 25, 2010 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Well I don't think the Ogletree plays were nearly as simplistic as you seem to think.
It wasn’t Tony just standing up and throwing straight to Ogletree. They were often delayed screens where our tackles and other wide receivers would get out ahead of Ogletree while Tony would throw him the ball once the defense was up the field significantly.
Additionally, the only way to really stop those screen plays is to either play hard man coverage, which would make them much more susceptible to deep balls (especially with Dez and Miles and even Roy being press busters) or to lay off the zone. Either way, I think we would be better off if teams really adjusted to our screens so strongly. As such, I highly doubt teams will just “be ready” for the smoke route and take that away. I am not saying teams will not adjust at all, but there is a reason there are tradeoffs in football (ie. you take away screens, you make it easier to throw deep). I certainly think Garrett can improve, but common football sense says that the screens will still be there if teams continue to blitz us, and the stats say that our 2-TE formations were the most effective for us since they allowed us to run the ball so well (Witten and Bennett are two of the best blocking TEs) and still throw the ball well.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on May 25, 2010 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions
It was just one play
The “Ogletree play” was just one play and it was the only one that worked. You can’t convince a team to stop blitzing you when you only have one play in the playbook that works against the blitz!
The 2TE formations worked wonders against the blitz. Our O-line with a great pulling guard in Kyle Kosier that can get to the edge fast and blow up linebackers. The amazing blocking TEs we have with Witten and Marty-B. You can’t pass blitz against that and just hope it isn’t a run! And if you play heavy against the run the ball gets lobbed up for Miles Austin and it’s a big passing play. No defense in the NFL has enough weapons to stop what the Cowboys could do out of the 2TE formations. They were incredibly effective.
What’s ineffective is going shotgun 3 wide where you pass 90% of the time. If the defense knows you are only going to run 1 out of 10 times from shotgun 3 wides and your ONLY running play is a draw, it’s way too predictable. They can throw every crazy blitz they want at you because you can’t make them pay.
by Blue Eyed Devil on May 25, 2010 7:55 PM CDT up reply actions
You will get no argument from me.
If Bennett can get his game together this year the 2-TE formation will be especially lethal.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on May 25, 2010 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, if you have the stats breaking up the sacks due to blitz pressure by formation
(and I don’t see them above) and can separate out sacks vs. 2TE and sacks vs. 3WR,, as a % rate, you can convince me.
Otherwise, saying the “2TE worked wonders against the blitz” is just your opinion, and goes against this whole post, which is pointing the offense did not “do wonders” aginst the blitz.
As a whole, with plenty of blame to spread, as many are pointing out.
Not that I’m a fan of the empty backfield! I cringe whenever that comes out.
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on May 25, 2010 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Actually, there are some stats on that
sacks by WR formation:
2 WR: 12
3 WR: 14
4+ WR: 4
Sacks by TE formation:
0 TE: 8
1 TE: 15
2 TE: 11
3+ TE: 0
Note that the splits are not mutually exhaustive, i.e. a sack with 2 TE and 2 WR on the field would show up in both breakdowns.
by One.Cool.Customer on May 26, 2010 2:18 AM CDT up reply actions
Would be nice to see sacks as a % of snaps by formation
Which I could probably cobble together myself from a few of your great posts OCC, but if you have that handy it seem more telling than the absolute sack totals.
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 26, 2010 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions
ha ha ha, good point
sacks by WR formation:
2 WR: 8.7% (12/138)
3 WR: 4.5% (14/311)
4+ WR: 5.8% (4/69)
Sacks by TE formation:
0 TE: 7.5% (8/107)
1 TE: 4.5% (15/326)
2 TE: 10.1% (11/109)
3+ TE: 0% (0/8)
by One.Cool.Customer on May 26, 2010 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, this completely defeats Blue-eyes' point
Because the % on 2TE formations is the highest!
I guess it didn’t work wonders.
Thanks Left Coast for saving me time and pointing out the need for % instead of raw numbers.
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on May 26, 2010 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions
hmm...those snap counts seem off
PFF shows us having ~1,100 regular season snaps, whereas yours are a little less than 1/2 that. I’m guessing you mixed the snaps where we were getting blitzed with the total # of sacks.
If I’m right, it looks like we got blitzed a lot more frequently when we had more WRs and fewer TEs…which I’m sure also correlates to 3rd and long situations. Be interesting to see how this looks with all snaps accounted for. Excluding 3rd and long would be another great split, but I can imagine it might take some heavy lifting to get it. Interesting stuff OCC!
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 26, 2010 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Whoops, my mistake...
Forgot how good we are at avoiding sacks when we run the ball : )
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 26, 2010 8:05 PM CDT up reply actions
lol
was just formulating a witty reply to your first point, then I saw this…
by One.Cool.Customer on May 27, 2010 2:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Wow - this seems pretty indicting for Roy and Marty B
Both our 2 tight and 2 wide sets seem to really struggle in pass protection (unless of course it’s all on the QB ;^). That leads me to believe that receivers not getting open was a significant factor.
Also pretty validating for both Witten (duh), but also PC. I assume we ran more 1 TE + 3 wide on 3rd and long, which is normally when the sacks crank up…but the reverse appears true for the Cowboys. We already know we were unusually successful on 3rd and long, but maybe the biggest reason is because Roy and Marty B. were both killing our passing game. Given a better mix of receivers we performed better, even under more challenging circumstances.
All I can say is – go Dez, go Cowboys, and god damnit Jerry if Roy sucks this year get him the hell off the field!
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 26, 2010 8:37 PM CDT up reply actions
This I agree with 100% and complained about all last year:
“What’s ineffective is going shotgun 3 wide where you pass 90% of the time. If the defense knows you are only going to run 1 out of 10 times from shotgun 3 wides and your ONLY running play is a draw, it’s way too predictable. They can throw every crazy blitz they want at you because you can’t make them pay.”
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on May 25, 2010 10:11 PM CDT up reply actions
2 TE's should help against edge blitz's, and hurt vs. interior blitz's (compared to 2 RBs)
Unless the TE flexes off the line and back into a good position to pick up the Safety/ILB blitz’s coming up the middle.
Don’t have stats to support that…but it seems common sense that having blockers only helps if they’re in the right position to make a block.
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 26, 2010 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions
stats above say differently
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on May 26, 2010 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Not sure how you rekon that?
We gave up a much lower % of sacks to edge rushers – DE’s and OLBs – than most teams; and far more to interior blitz/rushers – Safties and ILBs – than most teams.
I’m not saying 2 TE formations give up fewer sacks than 2 back formations…just that they change the blocking strengths/weakness and in-turn the defensive plan of attack.
Optimistic side note – all of this interior pressure might also make Gurode, who’s still a regular pro bowler, look worse in pass protection than he really is.
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 26, 2010 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm looking at this:
Sacks by TE formation:
0 TE: 7.5% (8/107)
1 TE: 4.5% (15/326)
2 TE: 10.1% (11/109)
3+ TE: 0% (0/8)
Seeing how 2TE’s gave up a much higher % of sacks, you can’t really say that formation “worked wonders against the blitz”
which is what I was responding to.
My point was 1 TE is better, and these stats proved me right, as far as they go…..
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on May 27, 2010 12:26 AM CDT up reply actions
By the way, you said
“Both our 2 tight and 2 wide sets seem to really struggle in pass protection "
So you’re agreeing with me!
This is getting to be a long thread-the basic point was someone said 2TE’s is better, I’m not a fan of it. (Blue-Eyed D)
His point was that it does well against the blitz-these stats disprove that.
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on May 27, 2010 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions
see stats below-2TE's did very poorly in terms of giving up sacks
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on May 26, 2010 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions
you can try to make it sound complicated, but it's a basic play
Now, if they come up and play physical to stop it, then yes, the WR can fake and try to run past them.
But that will take time, and may lead to a……..sack!
I mean, it’s an OK play, but the point is, they need more than that to deal with the topic here, blitzes/sacks.
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on May 25, 2010 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't disagree at all.
I would have appreciated more screens and more slants against the Vikings for sure. However, as I was trying to point out, there are tradeoffs in football and it isn’t like the screen is so simple to take away.
If I had a nickel for every Super Bowl the Eagles have won, I would have zero nickels.
by Cowboyfan729 on May 25, 2010 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions
there are ways to combat
teams figured out that we are suspect to the blitz. so they started doing it more as the year went on. some teams (like us) just are blitz happy anyway.
I think the fault lies with multiple people as I mentioned in a response above. if we are getting blitzed to death, then we have to put in plays to counter it. in fact we did it like the bubble screen against Philly and we also did it against NO with shorter pass routes. JG is responsible to see these trends and design plays (call routes) that allows romo to see the blitz and take what the defense gives him in that case (unless its like the Minny game where he has 2-3 seconds).
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions
What if it is working?
Too many of these posts are predicated on the assumption that the Cowboys’ approach to opponents’ blitzes isn’t working. Sure, we want to be even MORE effective at responding to the blitz, but in the end we already have one of the top offenses.
We may just be one of those teams that you simply can’t cover (too many weapons), so all opposing defenses can do is blitz and hope. If so, we’ll keep seeing a high percentage of blitzes and a certain percentage of sacks—and we’ll keep outscoring most of our opponents. If everyone’s blitzing us but we’re winning most of those games, it may mean that the games we lose aren’t because of scheme problems, but simply because that team on that day out-played us.
If that were the case
then Witten wouldn’t be kept in to block near the goal line against Denver when they send an all-out blitz.
We SHOULD be one of those teams you can’t cover because of all those weapons but when you handicap yourself by keeping the best TE in the NFL in to block and never dump the ball in the flat to your runningbacks, we’ve already done half the battle for the defense.
If that were the case
then Witten wouldn’t be kept in to block near the goal line against Denver when they send an all-out blitz.
We SHOULD be one of those teams you can’t cover because of all those weapons but when you handicap yourself by keeping the best TE in the NFL in to block and never dump the ball in the flat to your runningbacks, we’ve already done half the battle for the defense.
And I think this is what Garrett thinks.
He thinks the rewards outweigh the risks.
Especialy once he got Romo trained to take the sack sometimes.
No long drives for Garrett! He’s not an Autobahn OC, he prefers Dragracing.
Quick strike, big plays. And you think Jerry likes that? Oh yes.
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on May 25, 2010 10:13 PM CDT up reply actions
I always hear this stuff
that we should assume that Garrett does what he does because he’s genetically wedded to them. But Raf has pointed out, and I think it’s a valid observation, that maybe instead Garrett is doing what works with the personnel he has. For example, the line is very mistake prone – clearly ranking poorly in sacks allowed and penalties. Those kill long drives. If you don’t go quick strike, you don’t score at all. A quick ticket to coaching a HS team somewhere in Idaho.
Jerry, and Ernie Zampese and all the generations who influenced Garrett, also didn’t mind handing the ball to Emmitt a bazillion times a game. If you watch Dallas in that era, they really didn’t throw it down the field a lot. They ran. A LOT. Jerry likes winning and he likes “star power” that creates interest, sells tickets and markets NFL gear. Whether the jersies are Felix or Dez, I’m pretty sure he’s equally happy.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
Watch the type of players they draft
What style of player does the GM, with input from the HC and OC, want for his offense?
This will tell you what they see as the “personality” of their offense.
The drafting of DBryant, a seeming move to smaller/quicker OLinemen, drafting a Felix Jones and not a big RB, and NOT drafting a bunch of OL early, tell me they see themselves as an offense that will win w/quickness and on the arm of Tony Romo.
I’m not saying that’s bad.
But I disagree w/your point-they have this type of personnel on purpose, to match their philosophy. “They” being JJ and JGarrett. A good organization develops a philosophy then acquires the players to carry it out. Like the 3-4 on D.
They are in deep trouble if they’re collecting players, then saying, “OK, what can these guys do?” That would be Snyder/Redskins territory!
Pessimists say the cup is half-empty, while optimists say it's half-full. Well, isn't it both? Realist Larry, 2009
by Realist Larry on May 26, 2010 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not saying Garrett doesn't have a coaching style
And I don’t think you are wrong that he has preferences within that style. And so of course they draft players who fit that style. To argue otherwise would be silly.
But he didn’t draft any of the starting linemen. And those guys drive the train for having to run draws and misdirections to get rushing yards, and to go for the big strikes instead of the ball control. If he could wave his magic clipboard and fix this line, I’m sure he’d do it in a heartbeat. And if he stays around long enough, you will see smarter, more explosive linemen.
What I generally object to is the assumption that somehow Garrett sees the games, all the practices, all the coaches tape and then decides – against his own self-interest as well as the team’s – to stick to things that don’t work. According to everyone, he’s a smart guy. So I learned years ago that when something doesn’t make sense, it’s probably just not true. He’s not infallible, I’m sure he makes a lot of mistake. I just don’t think running plays out of stubborness is one of them.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
Perspective
I just want to take a moment to point out that this is a great discussion and excellent articles. Understanding those aspects of the offense that are strengths and those aspects that need continued development is the way to get better. However, I do just want to take a moment to get some perspective:
Footballoutsiders.com ranks the Cowboys as the #3 overall offense in the league last year. NE and NO are ranked #1 and #2, respectively.
Again, I want to be very clear that I enjoy the discussion and love to see how the team can improve, but before anybody starts talking about this person or that person being horrible or worthless, or anything at all hyperbolic like that, I do think it’s worth it to remember that this was a very good offense last year. I would like to see more points, translated to greater red zone success and an increased FG percentage, but I also am careful to consider the desire of having one’s cake and eating it to. I mean to say that it’s easy to wish for fewer sacks, but that could mean a rise in INTs. Nothing on the football field occurs in a vacuum.
So yes, decrease sacks, sure, but I would love to see more points. So, perhaps it would be interesting to know more about when our sacks occurred. How did we rank in terms of red zone sacks? What about on potential go-ahead drives? What about early in the season versus late?
Didn't TO have a hyperbolic chamber?
He used it when he couldn’t come up with anything more ridiculous to say than what he’d already stated. So by his 3rd season – he was in it a lot
I'm not losing my memory, I'm living in the now
I am not sure PFF stats are very meaningful at times
first its mostly their view of what they see on tape without really knowing and understanding of the schemes and responsibilities of the players, the OL men, etc. they could very well attribute a sack to the QB, where a lineman was suppose to pick up a blitzer instead he went the otherway doubling somebody else. that’s clearly a missed assignment and bad play by the OL, yet the QB gets the blame. same with WRs not cutting off their routes etc.
i think PFF stats make for good discussion. there are some stats that are pretty good. but when their ratings has fred jackson and justin forsset ahead of peterson, steven jackson and deangelo williams, then one must question the ratings. no coach in their right mind would take Jackson over any of those other players. just saying. take it with a grain of salt.
I would like to see these stats over the course of last year
It seems that we became a lot more effective in countering the blitz as the year wore on. I think this year we could be better, with Felix being in the game more, plus Dez being a tough tackle on quick throws.
Check out my movie - Standards of Ethical Conduct
I saw th3e opposite
teams figured out that we are suspect to blitzes, specially up the middle where Groude’s mental lapses and lack of lateral movement allowed stunts to be effective. Minny game was a microcosm of it all. plus adams was very suspect to speed rushers all year.
like I said, adams was the weak link in passing game. giving up a lot of pressures and sacks.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions
The philly games at the end stand out
Maybe they’re biasing me, but we seemed to scare blitzing teams enough so that they’d back off.
Minnesota seemed more a case of just getting our a** whipped – ie Colombo. Not so much blitzes.
Check out my movie - Standards of Ethical Conduct
by cowboysuberfan on May 25, 2010 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions
I think each game is different
philly;s line and front 7 was just out-physicalled in those games. we just dominated them. partly because we ran the ball so well in those games that it forced them to back off, otherwise it would have been much worse for them.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Redskins
The Eagles games bias people because everything came together and we blew up their blitzes. But that’s one team. Even late in the season you had the Redskins completely shutting down our offense. Remember those Redskins games.
by Blue Eyed Devil on May 25, 2010 3:46 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
It seems like the Redskins games, as well as the games against SD and GB, and most glaringly Minnesota, are the key games to look at to determine what happened with our offense versus their defense.
in those games
our OL was man handled by their DL (being able to pressure the QB with front 4 or 5)and it allowed their LBs to attack the QB or drop in coverage taking passing lanes away by flooding the back field. it made it difficult for WRs to get open and Romo had little time to throw.
when we managed oppositions DL and front 7, we had more success but that’s stating the obvious.
so what’s common between those teams?
I think the minny game the middle of the line dominated our middle, which didn’t allow groude or the guards to help on outside rush. forced TES to stay in to block and allowed them to drop 6 into coverage with 2 and at most 3 WRs running routes. plus short time for romo to throw since they were getting through.
in the Washington game, it seemed to be similar where Haynesworth and his mate controlled the middle forcing our guards to stay inside to help contain the push up the middle, again forcing the tackles to go either one one one or force the TEs to stay back and block. again allowing them to drop a LB or two into coverage or selectively attack.
in GB game it was similar again. they got a push up the middle, forcing our guards to stay in the middle to stop the rush. they dropped LBs into coverage and attacked (blitzed) selectively from the outside. they also had good single coverage which allowed their safties to role and roam or attack.
I think the weak link in pass protection was inside, thus why we have been trying to upgrade the center position for couple of years now. also adams wasn’t his old self and needed a lot of help in pass protection, which kep our TEs from being enroute or keep RBs back to pick up and chip the pass rushers.
by CowboysFanatic on May 25, 2010 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions
I think each game is different
philly;s line and front 7 was just out-physicalled in those games. we just dominated them. partly because we ran the ball so well in those games that it forced them to back off, otherwise it would have been much worse for them.

by 






















