| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BlaqOptic
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 30456
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:53 pm Post subject: J.J. Watt loses Sack Lead... |
 |
|
|
http://www.houstontexans.com/news/article-2/JJ-Watt-loses-a-sack-no-longer-leads-league/f6eebc27-d961-4978-9daf-f1473fbe4efd
Not really big news but this does kind of [inappropriate/removed] me off that the ESB went back an entire 4 weeks to make this designation... I've seen several plays in which I felt Polamalu should have been credited a Sack instead of a TFL but because the QB was out of the pocket he got the TFL... He'll never reach the 20/20 club as a result. Sometimes I wonder about those guys at the ESB... Seriously, the Dolphins have designed runs for Tannehill? Me no think so.
_________________
| JerseysFinest27 wrote: | | Yes, Victor Cruz is a bigger asset to a QB than Antonio Brown is. Id be hard-pressed to find many people that would take the latter. |
| JerseysFinest27 wrote: | | 10. Antonio Brown |
Cruz wasnt even an HM |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BLick12
Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25022
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:00 pm Post subject: Re: J.J. Watt loses Sack Lead... |
|
|
|
| BlaqOptic wrote: | http://www.houstontexans.com/news/article-2/JJ-Watt-loses-a-sack-no-longer-leads-league/f6eebc27-d961-4978-9daf-f1473fbe4efd
Not really big news but this does kind of [inappropriate/removed] me off that the ESB went back an entire 4 weeks to make this designation... I've seen several plays in which I felt Polamalu should have been credited a Sack instead of a TFL but because the QB was out of the pocket he got the TFL... He'll never reach the 20/20 club as a result. Sometimes I wonder about those guys at the ESB... Seriously, the Dolphins have designed runs for Tannehill? Me no think so. |
Well if you watch the video, it was clearly a designed handoff to the RB but Tannehil got stepped on. Doesn't really bother me, the fact he gets credited for a sack in the first place is kind of a joke but it does seem silly to go back like this and change the stats. But hey, if they do it consistently then good for them.
_________________
| johndeere1707 wrote: |
Another Ginger QB in the AFC North.
Looking forward to the "No Soul Bowl" twice a year
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vikingsrule
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 46066
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Jared Allen should have broke the sack record last year too.
Aaron Rodgers fumbled the ball on a designed pass, he rolled out to the left while reading the coverage and fumbled. he picked it up and Allen jumped on top of Rodgers, and he was the only defender in the area. Instead of giving Allen the sack, it was designated a "team" sack. What kind of crap is that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheKillerNacho
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 9068
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I agree, its silly.
Personally I think anytime a QB is tackled in the pocket behind the LOS it should be a sack, period.
_________________
With much cheese,
Nacho Simulation Football League |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RainbowCarebear
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 33825
Location: "Are you hungry, child?" Yes, she thought, but not for food.
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheKillerNacho wrote: | I agree, its silly.
Personally I think anytime a QB is tackled in the pocket behind the LOS it should be a sack, period. |
Agreed.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SwiftTexan
Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Posts: 3069
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| RainbowCarebear wrote: | | TheKillerNacho wrote: | I agree, its silly.
Personally I think anytime a QB is tackled in the pocket behind the LOS it should be a sack, period. |
Agreed. |
I think anytime a QB is tackled behind the Los it should be a sack provided there are receivers Downfield and lineman blocking (not downfield) - what are the actual rules to determine the difference? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SWATcha
Joined: 10 Sep 2008
Posts: 1740
Location: Sacto, CA.
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SwiftTexan wrote: | | RainbowCarebear wrote: | | TheKillerNacho wrote: | I agree, its silly.
Personally I think anytime a QB is tackled in the pocket behind the LOS it should be a sack, period. |
Agreed. |
I think anytime a QB is tackled behind the Los it should be a sack provided there are receivers Downfield and lineman blocking (not downfield) - what are the actual rules to determine the difference? |
Agreed. I think if the QB is behind the LoS, whether he's in the pocket or not, it should be a sack.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NateDawg
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 14781
Location: Hilliard
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
It was an obvious running play, I'm surprised that it was credited as a sack to begin with. When a quarterback goes to hand the ball off out of the I-formation and trips on a lineman's feet, and the defensive end two-hand touches you on the ground, that's not a sack.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
amazingandre
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 13921
Location: Elkhorn, WI
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| NateDawg wrote: | | It was an obvious running play, I'm surprised that it was credited as a sack to begin with. When a quarterback goes to hand the ball off out of the I-formation and trips on a lineman's feet, and the defensive end two-hand touches you on the ground, that's not a sack. |
so you know for 100% fact it was not a PA pass? Doubt it.....
_________________
 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JaguarCrazy2832
Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 80349
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheKillerNacho wrote: | I agree, its silly.
Personally I think anytime a QB is tackled in the pocket behind the LOS it should be a sack, period. |
Agreed, kind of thought it was the rule anyways 
_________________
| Victor Cruz Pun wrote: | | BornToFly wrote: | | Yes, I went to high school with Tony Romo |
Did he do good on the homework and quizzes but choke on the tests? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jacobys Homey
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 8336
Location: BU
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Doesn't really bother me at all.
_________________
Did you feel the mountains tremble?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ukdolfan
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 8974
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: J.J. Watt loses Sack Lead... |
|
|
|
| BLick12 wrote: | | BlaqOptic wrote: | http://www.houstontexans.com/news/article-2/JJ-Watt-loses-a-sack-no-longer-leads-league/f6eebc27-d961-4978-9daf-f1473fbe4efd
Not really big news but this does kind of [inappropriate/removed] me off that the ESB went back an entire 4 weeks to make this designation... I've seen several plays in which I felt Polamalu should have been credited a Sack instead of a TFL but because the QB was out of the pocket he got the TFL... He'll never reach the 20/20 club as a result. Sometimes I wonder about those guys at the ESB... Seriously, the Dolphins have designed runs for Tannehill? Me no think so. |
Well if you watch the video, it was clearly a designed handoff to the RB but Tannehil got stepped on. Doesn't really bother me, the fact he gets credited for a sack in the first place is kind of a joke but it does seem silly to go back like this and change the stats. But hey, if they do it consistently then good for them. |
That's what I see as the important point, unfortunately it seems that everything is done at the whims of the person responsible.
_________________
^ Jamison on the sig. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheVillain112
Joined: 19 Feb 2010
Posts: 15517
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| amazingandre wrote: | | NateDawg wrote: | | It was an obvious running play, I'm surprised that it was credited as a sack to begin with. When a quarterback goes to hand the ball off out of the I-formation and trips on a lineman's feet, and the defensive end two-hand touches you on the ground, that's not a sack. |
so you know for 100% fact it was not a PA pass? Doubt it..... |
Look at the linemen and the receivers. Pretty sure receivers can't block downfield on a PA. The one receiver runs about 4 yards and then starts engaging his man in a block...
_________________
| chris00cm wrote: | | Lavelle Hawkins figures he's already cut, so YOLO. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NateDawg
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 14781
Location: Hilliard
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| amazingandre wrote: | | NateDawg wrote: | | It was an obvious running play, I'm surprised that it was credited as a sack to begin with. When a quarterback goes to hand the ball off out of the I-formation and trips on a lineman's feet, and the defensive end two-hand touches you on the ground, that's not a sack. |
so you know for 100% fact it was not a PA pass? Doubt it..... |
Watch the play for yourself: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000079268/article/jj-watt-loses-nfls-sack-lead-on-statistical-correction
Both receivers and all of the linemen were blocking on the play. Hartline and Bess really don't even look like they are running routes, and they started blocking without even looking back and realizing that their quarterback was on the ground.
Besides, it doesn't matter what I think, because I don't make the stats. If the statkeepers judge that the play is a designed running play, it's not a sack. Likewise, if a quarterback runs a quarterback sweep and gets tackled behind the line of scrimmage, that's not a sack. The stat-trackers are the ones who judge if a play is a designed run or pass. Here, they thought it was a designed run, to it's not a sack. It's really pretty simple.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cp0k2
Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 3777
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| amazingandre wrote: | | NateDawg wrote: | | It was an obvious running play, I'm surprised that it was credited as a sack to begin with. When a quarterback goes to hand the ball off out of the I-formation and trips on a lineman's feet, and the defensive end two-hand touches you on the ground, that's not a sack. |
so you know for 100% fact it was not a PA pass? Doubt it..... |
Well if you watch the video of the play, it looks like it's supposed to be a hand off all the way since the WRs are blocking and not running routes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
