Dunlap to Kramer-Suck it

[Cincyfan78]

50% to 2/3 sounds about right to me. If you think about the potential loss of the ball...a sack can only yield a turnover by way of fumble. A hurry/hit can only yield a turnover by way of INT. Considering that when you sack the QB there is only one person that has a shot at the ball...the sacker. He's got to get that ball out to force the turnover. However, this isn't the case when a hurry or hit is registered. A hurry or hit can force the ball into multiple coverages leading to 3 or 4 guys on the defense having a shot of gaining the INT (also, increasing the chaneg of a positive yardage play as well). So, while the sack is still far superior (I think we all agree on that) the hurry/hit isn't as far behind as some would think. Then, you also have to figure in that most QB's when hurried/hit, their compl % is way below the normal, thus increasing the chance of an INT or incompletion.

I like it better, I think, at 2/3 instead of .75, and just a bit higher than .50...so....yeah.

 

[kramer1]

The definition of a "hurry" is when you force the QB to pass while under the pressure of potentially being sacked. While in theory this is often a good thing because it causes the QB to make a rushed or bad decision; this can also cause the play to be extended and afford the opposing receivers extra time to get open for a potentially back breaking play that normally wouldn't have been available under the pre-snap designed plays and routes.

 

[flamingrey]

Let's break down a hit/hurry's value compared to a sack. A sack is always a zero-to-negative yardage play, and eats up clock time. Not factoring in turnovers, a hurry/hit at best is a no-gain play, and a percentage of those plays will come as positive yard completions; the remainder of those plays would be incompletions that stop the clock. I assume that a hurry/hit diminishes the QB's comp% for those plays, but I'm sure that current stats databases could calculate the precise comp% and YPA for all hurry-hit plays. I would also factor in the fumbles forced on sacks and interceptions thrown on hurry/hit plays. The formula could be derived using all these factors.

I would guestimate that a hurry/hit is more like 1/3 to 1/4 the value of a sack.

(Yeah, I'm a numbers geek)

Couldn't agree more.

Additionally, with a sack, you're putting the offense in 2nd and very long or possibly even 3rd and very long situations amounting to a much more likelihood of getting the opposing offense off the field.

And then I'd also say a redzone sack (or better...within the 10 yard line) should be worth more as well as you've greatly diminished their probability of getting 7 depending on the initial position of the snap.

Further-furthermore, if you start racking up the sacks, it'll force the opposing offense to assign additional blockers making 1) pass plays easier to defend, and 2) delegating an additional player to help in the flats and/or against the run. Whereas just a hurry or hit wouldn't necessarily result in any of the above especially if the offense is still able to move the ball.

 

[kramer1]

I think assigning a .5 value to a hurry is criminal. I agree it should be .25 - .33 at best.

This Sunday's game is going to show just how valuable a hurry is. Against a QB like Big Jen it's often times better to keep him in the pocket....to not "hurry" him. He makes his best plays when he is hurried.

 

[dare2be]

If we stick to the original simplified formula, then based on the arguments laid out I agree that the hurry/hit value should be reduced. But I'm of the mindset that a more complex formula would produce the precise calculations based on the real-world data and outcomes of each play. Then we can go back and get an empirical value for the hurry-hit/sack ratio.

 

[BigBlueNation111]

If we stick to the original simplified formula, then based on the arguments laid out I agree that the hurry/hit value should be reduced. But I'm of the mindset that a more complex formula would produce the precise calculations based on the real-world data and outcomes of each play. Then we can go back and get an empirical value for the hurry-hit/sack ratio.

oh my god...your blowing my mind bud!! lmao...:help:

 

[Cincyfan78]

LOL

 

[BigBlueNation111]

Maybe if i smoke a bowl it'll all make more since to me!! lol..

 

[BigBlueNation111]

If we stick to the original simplified formula, then based on the arguments laid out I agree that the hurry/hit value should be reduced. But I'm of the mindset that a more complex formula would produce the precise calculations based on the real-world data and outcomes of each play. Then we can go back and get an empirical value for the hurry-hit/sack ratio.

This is from "Sling Blade"....dare,your a weird little shit and i don't get ya!!

 

[dare2be]

 

[BigBlueNation111]

Not that you care,but i was just messin with ya!

 

[dare2be]

So was I.

 

[JBUCK66]

dbl teams?............you need more orange in your diet

 

[daytonbenglfan]

Does the hit value count for more if it causes an injury that removes the QB from the game for the duration?

 

[BigBlueNation111]

GO BENGALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!