Three Mississippi: How Long Can NFL QBs Hang On To The Ball?
Three seconds.
That's about the median sack time in the NFL last year, according to research by JJ Cooper of FanHouse, who broke down all the sacks in the NFL by time, and conveniently split them by sacks that happened within three seconds of the snap ('fast sacks'), and by sacks that happened three seconds or more after the snap ('slow sacks').
While a lot of factors play into how sacks happen, and time is only one of them, the three second mark is an interesting one to look at because you could make an argument that a sack time under three seconds falls more on the protection, while a sack time over three seconds falls more on the QB for not getting rid of the ball on time.
The usual suspects populate the list of QBs who hold onto the ball too long: Joe Flacco (25 slow sacks), Ben Roethlisberger (20), Jay Cutler (19) and Michael Vick (19). The Cowboys had three QBs starting games last season, so comparing individual QBs doesn't make all that much sense from a Cowboys perspective, so we'll look at team values after the break.
According to JJ Cooper's research, Tony Romo had three slow sacks and four fast ones, Jon Kitna had five slow sacks and 15 fast sacks and Stephen McGee added two slow sacks. In total the Cowboys allowed 21 fast sacks and eight slow sacks.
The eight slow sacks with a long sack time rank the Cowboys a joint eighth in the league. We know that Romo and McGee are pretty good scramblers, and while Kitna is not the most nimble QB in the league, he did escape a couple of tight situations with his feet. So fairly mobile QBs are a part of why that number is so low, the other part is that especially with Kitna under center, the Cowboys passing game was designed to get the ball out very quickly, in large part because of the leaky pass protection. Of note, both Manning brothers had only one slow sack each. That is quite remarkable.
The 21 fast sacks rank the Cowboys a middling 15th in the league. While it's never good to give up this many fast sacks, other teams have given up considerably more and still had success: The Packers had 26 fast sacks and had some success last year, as did the Bears with 35 and the Eagles and Saints with 22 fast sacks each. However, none of these teams had a gameplan specifically designed to counter the fast sack with a short, quick passing game.
When your offensive game plan is set up in such way that you'll give up a few fast sacks, you'll accept that as part of your risk/reward assessment.
When your offensive game plan is designed to specifically avoid fast sacks, in the Cowboys' case with a short, quick passing game, and you still give up those fast sacks, then you have a pass protection issue.
Cowboys fans can take a little comfort in that fact that it could still have been a lot worse. The Panthers gave up 43 fast sacks, the Cardinals 37. Having a quarterback who relies on his legs to get him out of trouble may be a good thing at times, but it comes with the price tag of a higher rate of slow sacks. The Eagles (26), Steelers (26), Ravens (25) and Bears (21) lead the league in slow sacks allowed.
In the end, the numbers paint a clear picture. The Cowboys QBs didn't hang on to the ball too long - but got sacked anyway.
76 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is what I want to know
How many of those sacks (fast and slow) came from our right side where Colombo and Davis line up??
Official sacks allowed by Cowboys linemen
Marc Colombo: 9.5
Doug Free: 5
Leonard Davis: 2.5
Andre Gurode: 1.5
Phil Costa: 1.5
Kyle Kosier: 1
21
by One.Cool.Customer on Feb 24, 2011 10:04 AM CST up reply actions
Ouch
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
No need to shout about it
I’m pretty sure that everyone in the entire world knows this already. Even Jerry Jones. Colombo is finished, and there will be a new RT next year through the draft or FA.
by greatwhitenorth on Feb 24, 2011 11:16 AM CST up reply actions
No worries
I get the frustration. And if Colombo is still starting next year in Sept, I’ll join you in screaming bloody murder!
by greatwhitenorth on Feb 24, 2011 4:16 PM CST up reply actions
I didn't see Gronk on this list...
He had one very very Expensive Sack to his Credit…that category would probably called Excruciating…nice work!!
by thejanusman on Feb 24, 2011 11:32 AM CST up reply actions
strangely enough, there is no data on FBs, RBs and TEs as pass blockers in the official NFL stats as reported by Stats, Inc.
But Romo got that pass away before he was hit, so technically that would only count as a QB hit against Gronk.
by One.Cool.Customer on Feb 24, 2011 11:44 AM CST up reply actions
True...Romo had the pass off before being hit...
I can see why its difficult to account for RB/FB/TEs in the Sacks stats…but who gets credited for these sacks though?…i mean if a TE was blocking on the right side of the line and let’s his guy get the sack..is it credited to the RT? that would be a bummer
by thejanusman on Feb 24, 2011 11:50 AM CST up reply actions
for some sacks, like coverage sacks or the occasional CB sack, it’s not easy to assign specific blame. That’s why the sack total for the linemen only adds up to 21 sacks out of 31 total sacks allowed in 2010.
by One.Cool.Customer on Feb 24, 2011 12:08 PM CST up reply actions
Maybe not a fair comparison...
Columbo obviously is the weak link but Free may have more trouble once teams have seen him and have time to make adjustments. I think OLine needs better coaching and a faster guard to replace Columbo. You can’t really look at Davis and Kosier and say that was good or bad – lets face it to get a sack it’s a lot easier to blow past a guard than a tackle, you can’t triple-team an OLB like you can a nose tackle.
As far as the Bears and Cutler,
Early on in the season, they did not adjust to get the ball out quick, but they did later in the year, or if it was a deep play, they rolled him out.
The bears Oline was very bad
He who laughs last, thinks slowest
Well.....my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle
The smoking gun!
This is the biggest factor to consider when claiming PFF grades Dallas O-Line as a bit above average but not looking at the entire picture.
When your offensive game plan is designed to specifically avoid fast sacks, in the Cowboys’ case with a short, quick passing game, and you still give up those fast sacks, then you have a pass protection issue.
Our O-Line is in serious need of an upgrade if we expect to get the most out of our offense without having to gameplan around our weak O-Line.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
by Kegbearer on Feb 24, 2011 10:12 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
That's the nail in the coffin of this O-line
All season long it seemed like we never saw passes more than 10 yards down-field and still we were giving up tremendous pressure and sacks.
When you gameplan to avoid sacks and they still come fast and furious – you need to rebuild your O-line.
The Ohio State Buckeyes are your Sugar Bowl champions... and for the 7th year in a row Michigan still sucks.
by Blue Eyed Devil on Feb 24, 2011 11:27 AM CST up reply actions
word
Our O-Line is in serious need of an upgrade if we expect to get the most out of our offense without having to gameplan around our weak O-Line.
The big thing that article fails to mention
Is that Ben sat out the first 4 weeks of the year. Those 20 “slow sacks” came in just 12 games, whereas Flacco’s came in a full 16. In 12 games, Ben was averaging about 1.67 “slow sacks” and Flacco was averaging 1.56 “slow sacks” per game.
This is very interesting stuff though, thanks for sharing.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
Same thing applies to Vick
who effectively only played in 11 games.
by One.Cool.Customer on Feb 24, 2011 10:37 AM CST up reply actions
Good point
I love your posts by the way, I wish there was a “follow” feature for SBN like Twitter
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 10:39 AM CST up reply actions
another reason Reothlisberger is so overrated
He holds onto the ball way too long…he’s lucky he’s so big and tough to bring down because if had normal size his slow sack total would easily lead the league each year.
In Romo we Trust
it's hardly luck
Being big and tough is the primary reason that he does hold on to the ball longer than most QBs. It’s part of the game plan, a gamble that usually pays off for the guy. You can’t call him overrated and lucky just because he takes advantage of a physical attribute that works in his favor.
Lucky and overrated is more like Michael Vick, whose interception and QB ratings highly benefited from defenses failing to capitalize on most of his bad decisions in the first half of the season—I don’t have the stats, but KC Joyner said that after 8 games, Vick’s “bad decision rating” indicated that he should have been intercepted about 8 more times. If those 8 picks had been made, nobody is talking about Vick as a Pro Bowler, much less his rebirth as a passing QB…
by greatwhitenorth on Feb 24, 2011 11:24 AM CST up reply actions
He is overrated because he receives too much credit for Steelers past success
It’s great defense that wins for Pittburgh, not Roethlisberger holding on to the ball too long.
In Romo we Trust
How many SBs and AFCCGs did we win between Bradshaw and Ben?
And we had PLENTY of good defenses in that time.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 12:43 PM CST up reply actions
not that good
Your defense the past 5 years has been almost as good as your steel cutain defenses of the 70s. Dick LeBeau is a freaking genius.
In Romo we Trust
Not t hat good?
They have been a top 10 defense for nearly every year since 1990 and they have had plenty of talent. The big difference is that now we have a competent QB and we have won 3 AFCCGs and 2 SBs over those 7 seasons.
It seems like you are just fishing for any reason to disqualify Ben.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 1:08 PM CST up reply actions
I agree Ben is competent
but thats about it. Maybe slightly above average. And I think a lot of mediocre qbs in the league today would look really good compared to Mark Malone, Cliff Stoudt, Neil O’Donnell, Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox.
In Romo we Trust
You really are lacking in any kind of stats to back you up on this
12th all time in comp%
8th all time in QB rating
4th all time in Y/A
Those are pretty telling numbers for a QB.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 1:18 PM CST up reply actions
so was his perfromance in SB XLV
and many other games I’ve watched him play. Living in western Pa, I watch Ben miss a lot of wide open receivers all the time.
In Romo we Trust
This is almost funny
Seriously, give any kind of stats that back up your argument. One game doesn’t make a career. Heck, even in XLV he almost brought the Steelers back to win it.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 1:26 PM CST up reply actions
no, that last sentence is whats funny...hilarious actually
I don’t keep track of Ben’s stats, i just watch him miss open receivers with my own eyes.
In Romo we Trust
So, your proof is something only you see and that somehow everyone else that watches him play does not see? That seems credible.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 1:44 PM CST up reply actions
oh no, there are tons of people that see the same thing
you’d be surprised how many Steelers fans I know that think Ben sucks…more than you think.
In Romo we Trust
It’s odd how many of your sources of information are intangible. I have not met many, if any, Steelers fans who think Ben sucks and I am pretty certain I know a lot more of them than you do.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 2:10 PM CST up reply actions
I don't know about that
living in western Pa not too far from Pittbsurgh I know a lot. Of course I think many also dislike him for his propensity to assault women.
In Romo we Trust
I am a Steelers fan and I write for a Steelers blog, I think I know more Steelers fans. Also, what does his off field issues have anything to do with his ability to play football? It sounds like I may have found why you are trying to disqualify Ben with absolutely no substantial proof of anything you say.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 2:22 PM CST up reply actions
I will comment where I please. Thanks for the suggestion though.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 2:27 PM CST up reply actions
here's a stat for you
How many HoF QBs ever were suspended?
How did they do without Ben? 3-1? Yeah he obviously plays a pivotal role whether that team has success.
How many multiple ring QBs aren't in the HoF?
Also, you know the team they lost to in those 4 games they then beat twice when Ben was on the team, right?
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 2:45 PM CST up reply actions
Really?
Career numbers
Win%
JP-.500
BR-.698
Comp%
JP-52.5
BR-63.1
TD-INT Ratio
JP-1:1.21
BR-1.67:1
QB Rating
JP-67.5
BR-92.5
Y/A
JP-7.0
BR-8.0
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 5:43 PM CST up reply actions
If you simply want to judge a qb by stats
I’m all for it since Romo is much better than both of them in that regard.
In Romo we Trust
Their numbers are pretty much identical.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 25, 2011 8:08 AM CST up reply actions
Honestly
Do you ever look at anything or do you just make ignorant comments all the time?
Win%
TR-69.1
BR-69.8
QB Rating
TR-95.5
BR-92.5
TD%
TR-5.7
BR-5.1
Int%
TR-3.0%
BR-3.1
Y/A
TR-8.0
BR-8.0
The big difference is that Ben has carried those numbers over into the playoffs and Romo has not. Also, I’d say it is pretty obvious who has had the better offensive line their entire career.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 25, 2011 9:39 AM CST up reply actions
By an insignificant fraction
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 25, 2011 10:44 AM CST up reply actions
and you're right, Ben has had a much better OL
Ben’s numbers in two out of the three SBs he’s played in has been terrible, so thats not true…about him taking his numbers into the post season
In Romo we Trust
and you’re right, Ben has had a much better OL
You’re kidding, right? Since 2005 the Steelers have been consistently known as one of, if not the worst OL in the league. That’s why in 2008 they were called by everyone “the worst OL to every win the SB.”
Ben’s numbers in two out of the three SBs he’s played in has been terrible
No, they were terrible in 1 SB, XL. And the three previous games leading to that game he was the single reason they got there, posting QB ratings of 148.7, 95.3, and 124.9 respectively. Then he had a bad SB, but everyone likes to forget he did run in a crucial TD that game that doesn’t get counted in QB numbers.
He did not play terrible in this SB, as he still posted a QB rating of 77.4 and had the team in a position to win at the end.
Just look at the way Romo’s numbers drop off into the post season:
QB rating: 80.8 (-14.7)
Comp% 59.3 (-3.8)
Y/A 6.2 (-1.8)
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 25, 2011 10:54 AM CST up reply actions
True but...
Romo’s numbers are actually better than Aikman’s in December now… my point is that it matters in January… Romo will be successful in the playoffs, probably not for the Cowboys though. He is too emotional to deal with all the disappointment. I’d like to see Stephen McGee since he’s a lot more patient, he’s shown this in every game he’s played.
As for Ben he’s proven that he makes bad decision’s at times but he makes up for it by leadership and the fact is he does win in the playoffs…
+1
Its not that Ben is incredible, it’s that your QB’s of the 90s were SO bad that even a great defense couldn’t help the team win it all.
"I am a true believer. Anthony Spencer will have 7 or more sacks in 2011 and Stephen Bowen can ball!" - Kegbearer
"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
- Tom Landry
Vick is different no doubt...
He’s not a great QB, but makes up for it with leadership and scrambling.
He's a winner period...
Like Bradshaw was, he throws interceptions, gets sacked makes a lot of errors but it just seems like he can always get that 3rd and long play to keep the drive going. He sucked in the Superbowl too but somehow was in a position to win it with time running out. He will never put up Romo-type numbers but he also has a running game and a consistent defence.
Aaron Rogers, Ben Rothlesberger
they seem to have a strategy that a consistent deep passing attack rewards sufficiently for negative plays it can generate.
by AustonianAggie on Feb 24, 2011 12:13 PM CST reply actions
Difference is that Rodgers
is an extremely accurate passer while Roethlisberger is not.
In Romo we Trust
How is Ben not accurate?
He ranks 12th all time in career completion %. Please get your facts straight.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 12:45 PM CST up reply actions
Apparently you didn't watch the SB
and saw how inaccurate your boy really is missing Holmes wide open several times. Those are the facts
In Romo we Trust
Holmes was probably wide open because he was sitting in the stands. He does not play for the Steelers anymore. Unless you are talking about SB XLIII where Ben completed 70% of his passes…
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 1:11 PM CST up reply actions
ok, I meant Wallace
and 70% is about average for qbs facing the likes of the Arizona Cardinals…yeah thats really a great defense.
In Romo we Trust
Apparently, you didn’t watch the SB. He still completed 62.5% of his passes in this SB, which is very good. Sure he missed a few times, but so do all the greats (see Manning in the last SB).
Actually, no not everyone just throws 70% completion, even on the Cardinals in 2008. They gave up 62.5 completion % that year and they had the two previous teams in the playoffs under 60%, while getting 6 picks in the process.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 1:23 PM CST up reply actions
Apparently I did because I was rooting for the Packers like crazy
Manning doesn’t miss wide open receivers like that and neither does Rodgers or really any really good qb for that matter.
In Romo we Trust
Yes they do, bad throws and off days happen. I have watched 100% of the games Ben plays and he does not miss open WRs on a regular basis, hence why his completion % is in the 99th percentile for QBs to ever play the game.
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 1:48 PM CST up reply actions
Ignorance is bliss
"It’s easy to lie with statistics, but it’s easier to lie without them." -Fred Mosteller
by John Stephens on Feb 24, 2011 2:11 PM CST up reply actions
He's pretty accurate but he gets into trouble...
case in point… the Superbowl. He should have been throwing short on the Collins INT. He didn’t he went deep, and it cost him, but the fact is Rogers would have gone short. Romo throws 70% but doesn’t get the ball in the endzone and throws costly INTs at times.
Rogers also is smart with the ball
He throws it out of bounds or runs with it, doesn’t throw it down the field when no one is open…
Or takes the sack...a lot.
Rabid and luvin' it
by lonewolfz28 on Feb 26, 2011 12:59 AM CST up reply actions
so I guess if you do take a long sack it means you're fairly mobile
only reason you should get a fast sack is bad OL and bad vision of the rush, maybe its just a good blitz package or the D changing the matchups at the last second…

by 























