Pass Rush Through 3 Games ...2000-2009

[JEEPercreepermd]

Ok I'm gonna break down the sack totals for each of the first 3 regular season games since 2000, pay attention kids.

Year Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 Total
2000 1 4 1 6
2001 1 2 5 8
2002 2 1 3 6
2003 2 3 1 6
2004 2 4 4 10
2005 0 1 5 6
2006 3 6 7 16
2007 1 4 1 6
2008 2 4 3 9
VS...

2009 3 2 2 7

I did the math that's 73 sacks total through the first 3 games from 2000-2008 that means the average is 8.1111111111 sacks per season through 3 weeks. That being said, the 16 in 2006 probably pushed that average up quite a bit because we had less than 7 sacks 5 seasons and more than 7 sacks 4 seasons so right now we are about as close to the average as you can get.

[Gtown Purple]

I think the sack totals are ok but I see the qb getting pressured alot without getting sacked. I'd like to see the qb go down a few more times.

[JEEPercreepermd]

[quote name='Gtown Purple' date='28 September 2009 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1254165878' post='243687']
I think the sack totals are ok but I see the qb getting pressured alot without getting sacked. I'd like to see the qb go down a few more times.
[/quote]
Good things happen even when the quarterback gets pressured, I'd take an interception over a sack any day, we already have a bunch of turnovers as a direct result of pressure on the quarterback. The main arguement has been that we AREN'T getting any pressure when actually we are getting plenty and the sack totals show it.

[flynismo]

[quote name='Gtown Purple' date='28 September 2009 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1254165878' post='243687']
I think the sack totals are ok but I see the qb getting pressured alot without getting sacked. I'd like to see the qb go down a few more times.
[/quote]

Well then, you've not only verfified Jeeper's argument, you've made it stronger.

You're saying, we still get the normal amount of sacks, but now we're also seeing a lot of blitzes which do not result in sacks.

In other words, we're getting MORE pressure than ever.

Now, hopefully people can quit ****ing.

[JEEPercreepermd]

[quote name='flynismo' date='28 September 2009 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1254167484' post='243714']
Well then, you've not only verfified Jeeper's argument, you've made it stronger.

You're saying, we still get the normal amount of sacks, but now we're also seeing a lot of blitzes which do not result in sacks.

In other words, we're getting MORE pressure than ever.

Now, hopefully people can quit ****ing.
[/quote]
Thank you

[Reddawn36]

[quote name='flynismo' date='28 September 2009 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1254167484' post='243714']
Well then, you've not only verfified Jeeper's argument, you've made it stronger.

You're saying, we still get the normal amount of sacks, but now we're also seeing a lot of blitzes which do not result in sacks.

In other words, we're getting MORE pressure than ever.

Now, hopefully people can quit ****ing.
[/quote]

people will continue to be pessimistic.... just a fact of life... and recorded human behavior...

[lowrider]

[quote name='JEEPercreepermd' date='28 September 2009 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1254165530' post='243682']
Ok I'm gonna break down the sack totals for each of the first 3 regular season games since 2000, pay attention kids.

Year Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 Total
2000 1 4 1 6
2001 1 2 5 8
2002 2 1 3 6
2003 2 3 1 6
2004 2 4 4 10
2005 0 1 5 6
2006 3 6 7 16
2007 1 4 1 6
2008 2 4 3 9
VS...

2009 3 2 2 7

I did the math that's 73 sacks total through the first 3 games from 2000-2008 that means the average is 8.1111111111 sacks per season through 3 weeks. That being said, the 16 in 2006 probably pushed that average up quite a bit because we had less than 7 sacks 5 seasons and more than 7 sacks 4 seasons so right now we are about as close to the average as you can get.
[/quote]
Didn't know that. Cool stats.

[CorvusCorax]

I think some people are just used to the defense moving around a lot.

[flynismo]

[quote name='Reddawn36' date='28 September 2009 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1254169857' post='243751']
people will continue to be pessimistic.... just a fact of life... and recorded human behavior...
[/quote]

I understand that....I'm hard on our guys at times too. But it's also natural to grow tired of reading hundreds of posts about your beloved team that are all baseless and unfair accusations.

Just for the record, hope I didn't come off too uppity in the post above. Hard to express what you mean over the internet sometimes, because your words don't always match the tone, and I don't like sugarcoating things, causes too much confusion.

[RavensClaw52]

As my old coach used to tell us. "Sacking the QB is for your stats, going after the ball is for your team".

[Reddawn36]

[quote name='flynismo' date='28 September 2009 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1254171311' post='243783']
I understand that....I'm hard on our guys at times too. But it's also natural to grow tired of reading hundreds of posts about your beloved team that are all baseless and unfair accusations.

Just for the record, hope I didn't come off too uppity in the post above. Hard to express what you mean over the internet sometimes, because your words don't always match the tone, and I don't like sugarcoating things, causes too much confusion.
[/quote]
believe me I understand what your saying ("we need a WR" threads ring a bell?)

[quote name='RavensClaw52' date='28 September 2009 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1254171472' post='243788']
As my old coach used to tell us. "Sacking the QB is for your stats, going after the ball is for your team".
[/quote]
smart man

[FlaccoFlicker]

[quote name='RavensClaw52' date='28 September 2009 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1254171472' post='243788']
As my old coach used to tell us. "Sacking the QB is for your stats, going after the ball is for your team".
[/quote]
My old coach used to say "If your lips touch the water bottler,I'll cut your nuts off". he was a mean man!

[JoeFlax]

[quote name='flynismo' date='28 September 2009 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1254167484' post='243714']
Well then, you've not only verfified Jeeper's argument, you've made it stronger.

You're saying, we still get the normal amount of sacks, but now we're also seeing a lot of blitzes which do not result in sacks.

In other words, we're getting MORE pressure than ever.

Now, hopefully people can quit ****ing.
[/quote]
agreed and agreed

I made a thread about how sacks aren't everything back a week or two ago. QBs aren't getting sacked because they throw the ball away before our D gets to him usually

[flynismo]

[quote name='Reddawn36' date='28 September 2009 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1254172161' post='243813']
believe me I understand what your saying ("we need a WR" threads ring a bell?)
[/quote]

Oh wow, am I glad those threads are over. Thank god for Kelley Washington!
(well at least until he has a bad game, then the threads start all over again)

[FlaccoFlicker]

[quote name='flynismo' date='28 September 2009 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1254172517' post='243825']
Oh wow, am I glad those threads are over. Thank god for Kelley Washington!
(well at least until he has a bad game, then the threads start all over again)
[/quote]
or when Joe has a bad game and the Troy threads start....no one is allowed to have a bad day.or u will be benched
(actually i used to use this in my old baseball games for playstation)

[hammer]

Sorry dude, but your data on sacks does not even begin to tell the story of the Ravens inadequate pass rush in 2009. Because the Ravens have to commit to, not just one extra blitzer - this year they have to commit to an "all-out jailbreak" to get pressure. This fact is seen in the number of big plays the defense has allowed this year. This is directly atributed to the "all out blitz," and that is attributed to a weak pass rush by the front four (or even five). The stat you REALLY need would be something called "cost per sack" - meaning, how many big plays have been conceded relative to number of sacks. In past years, the ravens got those sacks without the big plays because they could get pressure with four or five max rushing the passer and a clever scheme. This year, they have to send seven or eight. This leaves the secondary with a ton of real estate to cover and it is problematic. Actually, this trend of poor pressure began last year, but Rex devised this heavy overload scheme to one side of the line to get pressure. He could do this and still commit five or six guys to pass rush. Mattison obviously is not quite as bright as Rex yet.

[flynismo]

[quote name='hammer' date='28 September 2009 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1254173005' post='243842']
Sorry dude, but your data on sacks does not even begin to tell the story of the Ravens inadequate pass rush in 2009. Because the Ravens have to commit to, not just one extra blitzer - this year they have to commit to an "all-out jailbreak" to get pressure. This fact is seen in the number of big plays the defense has allowed this year. This is directly atributed to the "all out blitz," and that is attributed to a weak pass rush by the front four (or even five). The stat you REALLY need would be something called "cost per sack" - meaning, how many big plays have been conceded relative to number of sacks. In past years, the ravens got those sacks without the big plays because they could get pressure with four or five max rushing the passer and a clever scheme. This year, they have to send seven or eight. This leaves the secondary with a ton of real estate to cover and it is problematic. Actually, this trend of poor pressure began last year, but Rex devised this heavy overload scheme to one side of the line to get pressure. He could do this and still commit five or six guys to pass rush. Mattison obviously is not quite as bright as Rex yet.
[/quote]


Well, he presented evidence for his claims. Where is yours? I want to see a statistical breakdown of what happens when we blitz six or more to give this any merit whatsoever.

As an aside; Ryan cost us three games in the closing minutes last year. Mattison won the only real nailbiter we had.

[hammer]

Well...the data regarding "big play yardage x cost per sack" probably does not exist in a public form. But I am certain that the pro coaches know these figures, and if they don't - then they need to start looking into it. But this is only a message board to share thoughts and opinions. It's relaxing, thoughtful and fun. I switched to decaf long ago so I could enjoy it. Just joking dude, but I get your point. Enjoy.

[flynismo]

See what I mean about things come off the wrong way to different people? Wasn't being hype or anything at all...just that it's very, very hard to go by what people think they see. The big plays (good or bad) are the ones that stand out the most in our memory. How many of the non-sacks we talked about earlier were a result of bringing in 6+ rushers? But if we get burned a couple times from the heavy blitz (which obviously, is bound to happen), that's what sticks out in our memory the most.....not us bringing the heat only to see the QB throw the ball away.

[hammer]

Ok, I can see that you actually don't see what I am talking about. Let me try this tact. Hopefully, you have noticed that Greg Mattision's most repeated phrase is "we have to get more pressure from the front four." What he is talking about is what I also see with my own eyes. I watch a lot of football and the best teams can always pressure the quarterback with the front four or five guys. The Colts for one, rarely blitz. Freeney and Mathis consistently get to the passer without a blitz package. The Colts linebackers are free to spy for draws and screens or get deep drops for the underneath stuff to wide receivers. They patrol a lot of ground that the corners dont have to worry about. When New England had Seymore, they could bring heat with four guys also. The NY Giants bring pressure with the Jason Tuck and Osymeinira? and Pittsburgh is consistent with five rushing - normally a clever mix of lineman and linebackers, but never to exceed six. The Ravens are not able to do this, probably because Suggs might still be getting in shape and Pryce is getting old. The "Deadskins" to our South have the same problem. Jaret Johnson might just be our most consistent pass rusher right now, but even his shoulder is bad right now.

[JEEPercreepermd]

[quote name='hammer' date='28 September 2009 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1254173005' post='243842']
Sorry dude, but your data on sacks does not even begin to tell the story of the Ravens inadequate pass rush in 2009. Because the Ravens have to commit to, not just one extra blitzer - this year they have to commit to an "all-out jailbreak" to get pressure. This fact is seen in the number of big plays the defense has allowed this year. This is directly atributed to the "all out blitz," and that is attributed to a weak pass rush by the front four (or even five). The stat you REALLY need would be something called "cost per sack" - meaning, how many big plays have been conceded relative to number of sacks. In past years, the ravens got those sacks without the big plays because they could get pressure with four or five max rushing the passer and a clever scheme. This year, they have to send seven or eight. This leaves the secondary with a ton of real estate to cover and it is problematic. Actually, this trend of poor pressure began last year, but Rex devised this heavy overload scheme to one side of the line to get pressure. He could do this and still commit five or six guys to pass rush. Mattison obviously is not quite as bright as Rex yet.
[/quote]
I guess ONE game dooms the entire season? Because that's the only game that I saw big plays in. In week one Kansas City did a good job of getting the ball out and I saw Derrick Anderson running for his life most of the afternoon yesterday. Quinn was throwing quick passes in the beginning of the game. It's called game planning and most NFL teams do it, when you don't have time to get there with only 4 then you send more it's really simple. BTW Rex's trickery worked against average and below average quarterbacks but there seemed to be a theme when he was the DC here: ELITE Quarterbacks like Manning and Brady were never fooled and made us pay year in and year out.

[hammer]

Nah, one game doesn't doom the whole season. I am just saying that it is extremely difficult to win a super bowl without a strong pass rush of six or less. Not that it can't be done - it is just improbable, with the talent elite quarterbacks have in the league today. Yes, the Mannings, Bradys, Palmers, Rothlesbergers and Farves are on the way. I love the Ravens and I am hoping for the best.

[MagicianCamille]

Pressured throws have the potential to turn into something far more devastating than a sack though - an interception, and you know how much our DBs like to return them.

[JEEPercreepermd]

[quote name='hammer' date='29 September 2009 - 06:15 PM' timestamp='1254262502' post='244468']
Nah, one game doesn't doom the whole season. I am just saying that it is extremely difficult to win a super bowl without a strong pass rush of six or less. Not that it can't be done - it is just improbable, with the talent elite quarterbacks have in the league today. Yes, the Mannings, Bradys, Palmers, Rothlesbergers and Farves are on the way. I love the Ravens and I am hoping for the best.
[/quote]
Against KC, on their only long pass play Croyle had all Ravens all around him when he just chucked it downfield and prayed that his man could go get it. Against SD their longest play, to sproles was out of shotgun and it was a quick pass to the HB, it's not like that play was a bomb downfield Sproles caught a quick pass and there was no one around him so he RAN most of those 80yds for the score. Actually if you watched that SD game, Phillip Rivers got hit almost every time he dropped back. I even remember the TV announcers commenting on it in the 4th quarter. Now what I WILL agree to is that Greg's blitzes are a lot easier for opposing teams to pick up than Rex's complex blitzes, this week will only be his 4th game here let's give him a chance. Nobody was crucifying Cam Cameron last year when our offense wasn't lighting the world on fire the first few weeks.

[hammer]

Now what I WILL agree to is that Greg's blitzes are a lot easier for opposing teams to pick up than Rex's complex blitzes.

On this, I rest my case.

[Marc2k6]

For some reason people are never happy no matter what. The people complaining of a lack of a pass rush should just sit down and watch the games again paying attention to the pass rush. Then maybe they can see it.

[hammer]

Marc, the people watching should watch the pass rush of other good teams and also listen towhat the Ravens coaches are saying about the pass rush. The defensive corrdinator of the Ravens agrees with me about the pass rush. If you can't see the problem, then.....what can I say?

[JEEPercreepermd]

[quote name='hammer' date='30 September 2009 - 10:21 PM' timestamp='1254363703' post='245159']
Marc, the people watching should watch the pass rush of other good teams and also listen towhat the Ravens coaches are saying about the pass rush. The defensive corrdinator of the Ravens agrees with me about the pass rush. If you can't see the problem, then.....what can I say?
[/quote]
Or could it be that a good coach should always want his team to be better. Nobody here is saying that the Ravens pass rush has been the best, but it isn't stagnant like you claim it is, and remember only three games have been played. There is plenty of time to improve EVERYTHING so just wait and see what happens. I'm almost certain that when the dust settles the Ravens defense this year will be every bit as good as they always have been. Seriously though, lighten up a bit it's football season ENJOY IT

[flynismo]

I'm not one to rest on my laurels either, but damn, what more can we possibly want?? We have an elite offense to go with an elite defense. Heck we even have an elite punter!! I'm happy.

[hammer]

Hey look guys. I am just used to seeing Ravens playing smothering defense. Maybe I am spoiled. But I am used to seeing Peter Boulware rushing the passer, Michael McCrary, Rob Burnett, and Adelious Thomas. This weak pass rush is new to me. It started last year when the Ravens did not have a dominant pass rusher and Rex devised some schemes to cover for it. I am just hoping Mattison is as clever as Rex and get's it done. Maybe we can win without it, but I can't just wave my pom poms and pretend like it's there. I love the Ravens too!