From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
So the fast QBs have a higher propensity of getting sacked more.
Interesting.
Oh this has been true for decades. Like a Randall Cunningham, Michael Vick long time.
Mobile QBs evade players better, but they also *believe in themselves* to be able to evade pressure more. So they take more sacks trying to escape. Its the downside of the big scramble plays.
That's why back when I was trying to remake the QB rating because that's the sort of thing I did in the 2000s I counted rush yards and sack yardage lost as part of the equation. Each time the QB has the ball, it's an opportunity to pass it, run it, or be sacked. Yards per attempt, thus, should include the plays in which they choose not to pass. A QB scramble or sack is a missed opportunity to pass the ball.
So the fast QBs have a higher propensity of getting sacked more.
Interesting.
Oh this has been true for decades. Like a Randall Cunningham, Michael Vick long time.
Mobile QBs evade players better, but they also *believe in themselves* to be able to evade pressure more. So they take more sacks trying to escape. Its the downside of the big scramble plays.
That's why back when I was trying to remake the QB rating because that's the sort of thing I did in the 2000s I counted rush yards and sack yardage lost as part of the equation. Each time the QB has the ball, it's an opportunity to pass it, run it, or be sacked. Yards per attempt, thus, should include the plays in which they choose not to pass. A QB scramble or sack is a missed opportunity to pass the ball.
The trick is somehow adjusting for an Aaron Rodgers sack versus a Royce Newman sack. Sacks are not created equally and thus need to be subjectively reviewed to determine blame. I don’t think you ever end up with any kind of decent metric once you introduce subjectivity.
Sacks are not created equally and thus need to be subjectively reviewed to determine blame.
Its so hard for some of the sacks.
EX: The OG is doing a fine job handling his guy when AR breaks the pocket and runs past the OG. Defender sees AR and sacks him
OG didn't do anything wrong and since he is facing the other way, he doesn't see what's happening. In that scenario, you can assign it to AR - but you also have to ask why Rodgers had to flee the pocket. If it was because another OL lost their match-up then maybe that sack should be assigned to that player instead. But maybe that player was actually covering for another OL and shouldn't get the blame
In the end, its really really hard to isolate one player from the mix and assign blame when we don't know the play call, the line call or the expectations from the coaches. And its all happening in the blink of an eye
So the fast QBs have a higher propensity of getting sacked more.
Interesting.
Oh this has been true for decades. Like a Randall Cunningham, Michael Vick long time.
Mobile QBs evade players better, but they also *believe in themselves* to be able to evade pressure more. So they take more sacks trying to escape. Its the downside of the big scramble plays.
That's why back when I was trying to remake the QB rating because that's the sort of thing I did in the 2000s I counted rush yards and sack yardage lost as part of the equation. Each time the QB has the ball, it's an opportunity to pass it, run it, or be sacked. Yards per attempt, thus, should include the plays in which they choose not to pass. A QB scramble or sack is a missed opportunity to pass the ball.
Bobby Douglas might disagree, to ol Bobby, Passing was a missed opportunity to run the ball that guy should have never left college, thing is though he was so obvious, and everyone new he'd run, yet he gained almost a 1000 yrds one season, my opinion has always been QB's throw the ball and RB run the ball and neither should try to do the others job very often
The trick is somehow adjusting for an Aaron Rodgers sack versus a Royce Newman sack. Sacks are not created equally and thus need to be subjectively reviewed to determine blame. I don’t think you ever end up with any kind of decent metric once you introduce subjectivity.
I mean I guess?
But generally speaking sack rate varies more by QB than by team and line. Look what happens when QBs change teams, for instance. Obviously, sack rates also vary within a career, but for instance Drew Brees and Tom Brady avoid sacks--even quick sacks--regardless of who their line is and throughout their career. It's a skill, a mentality, a practice, a philosophy.
Occasionally you get a sack where it's just a 1-second blown assignment. But most of the time, even quick pressure can turn into a successful dump off if you commit yourself to not taking sacks. It takes extreme knowledge of the game, pocket presence, and savvy (which is why I would never count on young QBs to overcome bad OLines), but a veteran QB should be avoiding costly sacks 99% of the time. Rodgers probably only does it 75% of the time--mostly because he's been so good at extending the play and making defenses pay that he has decided that is worth it for his own personal cost benefit analysis.
Distinguishing between whether a sack is on the QB or on the OL for statistical purposes is, for me, as silly as saying completion percentage needs to be adjusted based on the quality of WR you're playing with. Maybe some advanced analytics can parse out drops and whatnot, but you can never fully eliminate players' statistical reliance on their teammates. To me, sacks are and always have been a QB stat. That's also why I don't like playing young QBs before they're ready.
Honestly. I want people to keep their mouth shut regarding MLF.
I love that his historic run is going unnoticed. People tend to get too big for their britches once the adoration starts.
Hard disagree. This locker room is rock solid. They can handle success and MLF especially can.
I mean this team is known for "not showing up" pretty much more than any team I have ever seen of the Packers.
When they want to play, they are the best in the league. When they start believing they are awesome, they have Saints, Chargers, 49ers, Jaguars and Vikings games.
Honestly. I want people to keep their mouth shut regarding MLF.
I love that his historic run is going unnoticed. People tend to get too big for their britches once the adoration starts.
Hard disagree. This locker room is rock solid. They can handle success and MLF especially can.
I mean this team is known for "not showing up" pretty much more than any team I have ever seen of the Packers.
When they want to play, they are the best in the league. When they start believing they are awesome, they have Saints, Chargers, 49ers, Jaguars and Vikings games.
Pick a team. I will find similar losses over the past three seasons for anyone you want to throw out.
Hard disagree. This locker room is rock solid. They can handle success and MLF especially can.
I mean this team is known for "not showing up" pretty much more than any team I have ever seen of the Packers.
When they want to play, they are the best in the league. When they start believing they are awesome, they have Saints, Chargers, 49ers, Jaguars and Vikings games.
Pick a team. I will find similar losses over the past three seasons for anyone you want to throw out.
Except the Bears. They suck!
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
Honestly. I want people to keep their mouth shut regarding MLF.
I love that his historic run is going unnoticed. People tend to get too big for their britches once the adoration starts.
Hard disagree. This locker room is rock solid. They can handle success and MLF especially can.
I mean this team is known for "not showing up" pretty much more than any team I have ever seen of the Packers.
When they want to play, they are the best in the league. When they start believing they are awesome, they have Saints, Chargers, 49ers, Jaguars and Vikings games.
I want the locker room to know they have a top-notch head coach. So when he tells 'em: "do not start slacking, we haven't won the SB yet", they believe him.
I mean this team is known for "not showing up" pretty much more than any team I have ever seen of the Packers.
How is that even possible ?
MLF just delivered the winningest start to any HC career in NFL history...and you're going on about how they don't show up more than any Packers team you've ever seen ? Yikes. You're demonstrably wrong. Not only in your take but for having the temerity to post such silliness after an incredible underdog road victory...where you predicted multiple times the Packers couldn't / wouldn't win.
MLF showed up, the Packers players showed up, Gute's new additions showed up...33 out of 40 times - which is actually and factually the best W/L record of any Packers team you've ever seen
I mean this team is known for "not showing up" pretty much more than any team I have ever seen of the Packers.
How is that even possible ?
MLF just delivered the winningest start to any HC career in NFL history...and you're going on about how they don't show up more than any Packers team you've ever seen ? Yikes. You're demonstrably wrong. Not only in your take but for having the temerity to post such silliness after an incredible underdog road victory...where you predicted multiple times the Packers couldn't / wouldn't win.
MLF showed up, the Packers players showed up, Gute's new additions showed up...33 out of 40 times - which is actually and factually the best W/L record of any Packers team you've ever seen
yeah that's not what I was talking about at all.
And I didn't say couldn't win. I said probably wouldn't win (even though I also said all week this was the most excited I think I have been for a Packer game in a long, long time leading up to the game)
my whole point about not showing up is the Packers under the MLF era loses worse than really any other team I can remember. When they lose, they lose boldly. It's like we either win or lose by more than 27 points. Which is really strange considering the talent this team has.
I mean this team is known for "not showing up" pretty much more than any team I have ever seen of the Packers.
How is that even possible ?
MLF just delivered the winningest start to any HC career in NFL history...and you're going on about how they don't show up more than any Packers team you've ever seen ? Yikes. You're demonstrably wrong. Not only in your take but for having the temerity to post such silliness after an incredible underdog road victory...where you predicted multiple times the Packers couldn't / wouldn't win.
MLF showed up, the Packers players showed up, Gute's new additions showed up...33 out of 40 times - which is actually and factually the best W/L record of any Packers team you've ever seen
yeah that's not what I was talking about at all.
And I didn't say couldn't win. I said probably wouldn't win (even though I also said all week this was the most excited I think I have been for a Packer game in a long, long time leading up to the game)
my whole point about not showing up is the Packers under the MLF era loses worse than really any other team I can remember. When they lose, they lose boldly. It's like we either win or lose by more than 27 points. Which is really strange considering the talent this team has.
Cmon man. The Packers "dont show up" about once or twice a year max under Lafleur. Thats completely in the range of other good teams, and far less than most average to bad teams.
Put a statue of MLF in every hallway at Lambeau Field.
I'm wrong in wanting the noise of MLF's greatness to stay quiet.
I just hate it when the national media talks about us. I love the underdog mentality. I had way more fun as a fan in 2009 and 2010 than I did in 2011 once everyone recognized how great the Packers were.
Put a statue of MLF in every hallway at Lambeau Field.
I'm wrong in wanting the noise of MLF's greatness to stay quiet.
I just hate it when the national media talks about us. I love the underdog mentality. I had way more fun as a fan in 2009 and 2010 than I did in 2011 once everyone recognized how great the Packers were.
you have to admit to your skepticism, all week you thought we'd lose this game.
and the games where where blown out, which are very few and in between such as the NO season starter, were/are do to simply not be prepared, and there are a number of reasons for that.
I've said this a lot, a team with a great QB will and often do find ways to win that are not really expected, just look at some of his miracle finishes over the years.
it wasn't over confidence that ended our 2011 run, we where one dimensional on offense and DC's figured out how to defend our explosive passing game.
Put a statue of MLF in every hallway at Lambeau Field.
I'm wrong in wanting the noise of MLF's greatness to stay quiet.
I just hate it when the national media talks about us. I love the underdog mentality. I had way more fun as a fan in 2009 and 2010 than I did in 2011 once everyone recognized how great the Packers were.
you have to admit to your skepticism, all week you thought we'd lose this game.
Yup. I was very skeptical.
Why do you think I am so happy today? Last night is literally once in a decade or so performance.
I am trying to think of the last time we won a road game vs an undefeated or even 1 loss/2 loss team after like week 5.
These things just don't happen.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was the first time we won vs an undefeated team on the road in my life. Also wouldn't be shocked if it was one or only a handful of times we beat a 1 loss team on the road in my life.
Put a statue of MLF in every hallway at Lambeau Field.
I'm wrong in wanting the noise of MLF's greatness to stay quiet.
I just hate it when the national media talks about us. I love the underdog mentality. I had way more fun as a fan in 2009 and 2010 than I did in 2011 once everyone recognized how great the Packers were.
you have to admit to your skepticism, all week you thought we'd lose this game.
Yup. I was very skeptical.
Why do you think I am so happy today? Last night is literally once in a decade or so performance.
I am trying to think of the last time we won a road game vs an undefeated or even 1 loss/2 loss team after like week 5.
These things just don't happen.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was the first time we won vs an undefeated team on the road in my life. Also wouldn't be shocked if it was one or only a handful of times we beat a 1 loss team on the road in my life.
Okay. Actually trying to think of this now.
I know we beat the Jets in 2010 and they were 5-1. We also beat the Texans in 2012 in Houston and they were 5-1. At Kansas City in 2019 Though they had a backup QB.
Also, all of these games had no real seeding impacts as it was vs a non-NFC opponent.
Last edited by go pak go on 29 Oct 2021 15:14, edited 1 time in total.
that guy should have never left college, thing is though he was so obvious, and everyone new he'd run, yet he gained almost a 1000 yrds one season, my opinion has always been QB's throw the ball and RB run the ball and neither should try to do the others job very often 
