no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Discussions / Sacks & TFL Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 6 7 8 > >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
canonico
|
posted: 2013-05-05 17:25:31 (ID: 94810) Report Abuse |
|
preachie wrote:
What I found so far, is that a sack does not to be a tackle: A quarterback does not have to be tackled and brought to the ground for the play to be a sack. Once the quarterback is in the "grasp and control" of a defensive player, the referee is to blow his whistle and stop the play. Whoever had the quarterback under his control gets the sack. Read more: Sack Rules of the NFL | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6736379_sack-rules-nfl.html#ixzz2SRJn9UHF So you can get a sack without making a tackle, but when the QB is tackled it would be a sack, a tackle and a tackle for loss. How in the world did you come up with that conclusion after reading that Preachie? I mean all I can come up with after reading that is; In order to count as a Sack the QB doesn't need to be down. That's it! |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-05-05 17:26:38 (ID: 94811) Report Abuse | |
|
canonico wrote:
I'm not trying to give yo more work for the sake of it Pete. Just trying to improve the statistical data of RZA. I understand that, nico. No worries. And I am not here to defend my spare-time, believe me. The thing with such stats is just that I promised to myself very early not to change such things based on other statements than official ruling. It seems it is not that obvious, how it is right. I found around 20 answers on such Q&A pages telling Sacks are Tackles in the NFL. And I found another 2o pages telling the opposite. I know it for sure based on NCAA ruling, since the GFL, where I am doing the official stats for my loved team, is based on NCAA ruling. And until I read anything official about it, I see no real reason to change it, Hopefully you understand my "defensive" position on this matter |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
canonico
|
posted: 2013-05-05 17:32:51 (ID: 94812) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:
canonico wrote:
I'm not trying to give yo more work for the sake of it Pete. Just trying to improve the statistical data of RZA. I understand that, nico. No worries. And I am not here to defend my spare-time, believe me. The thing with such stats is just that I promised to myself very early not to change such things based on other statements than official ruling. It seems it is not that obvious, how it is right. I found around 20 answers on such Q&A pages telling Sacks are Tackles in the NFL. And I found another 2o pages telling the opposite. I know it for sure based on NCAA ruling, since the GFL, where I am doing the official stats for my loved team, is based on NCAA ruling. And until I read anything official about it, I see no real reason to change it, Hopefully you understand my "defensive" position on this matter Now that I can understand. If you made that promise to yourself it's cool. Because there isn't a official rulling on this matter, and thus it will just be as it is in NCAA or in GFL, which don't get me wrong is ok too. Just not as accurate as to what is done currently. But hey, you got my point now. And you as a Stat tracker should follow Fangraphs to improve your reportoire sir...Even get in touch with them, they are preety helpfull and willing to explain the more advanced statistics to others. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
preachie
|
posted: 2013-05-05 17:40:03 (ID: 94814) Report Abuse |
|
canonico wrote:
How in the world did you come up with that conclusion after reading that Preachie? I mean all I can come up with after reading that is Well, don't know, common sense? 
Okay, here's a proof that a sack could also be a tacke (and TFL). Check the Advanced NFL Stats page you linked before. Go to the stats of the Defense Tackles (link here) Search for the player 98-M.Patterson of the Eagles. You can see, he has 1 sack and 1 TFL credited. Now go to the NFL page. I checked all games of the Eagles to see in what game he did that sack. It was in week 12, vs the Panthers. In the Box Score you can see that he has made 1 tackle & 1 sack in the game. Go to the play-by-play page and you find only one play where Patterson made a tackle and that's the sack. I guess that should proof, that a sack is also counted as tackle (if it was a tackle). |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2013-05-05 17:41:22 (ID: 94816) Report Abuse | |
|
regardless the result....nice work, preachie. Respect!
 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Lohengrin
|
posted: 2013-05-05 18:07:29 (ID: 94822) Report Abuse |
|
preachie wrote:
canonico wrote:
How in the world did you come up with that conclusion after reading that Preachie? I mean all I can come up with after reading that is Well, don't know, common sense?
Okay, here's a proof that a sack could also be a tacke (and TFL). Check the Advanced NFL Stats page you linked before. Go to the stats of the Defense Tackles (link here) Search for the player 98-M.Patterson of the Eagles. You can see, he has 1 sack and 1 TFL credited. Now go to the NFL page. I checked all games of the Eagles to see in what game he did that sack. It was in week 12, vs the Panthers. In the Box Score you can see that he has made 1 tackle & 1 sack in the game. Go to the play-by-play page and you find only one play where Patterson made a tackle and that's the sack. I guess that should proof, that a sack is also counted as tackle (if it was a tackle). In that game, there are these stat lines: Times Sacked (Number-Yards) 1 - 12 Tackled for a Loss (Number-Yards) 2- - 6 If a Sack is a TFL, you would expect the number in the Yards tally for TFL to be greater than 6 Last edited on 2013-05-05 18:09:01 by Lohengrin |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
bwadders76
|
posted: 2013-05-05 18:07:44 (ID: 94823) Report Abuse |
|
Instead of bickering have a look here at the official NFL rulebook.
I did a quick search for the word sack and it come up with one instance saying that a sack dance is illegal. What is so wrong with looking at the number of sacks accumulated and also the number of TFLs then deducting one from the other. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
canonico
|
posted: 2013-05-05 18:28:25 (ID: 94825) Report Abuse |
|
preachie wrote:
canonico wrote:
How in the world did you come up with that conclusion after reading that Preachie? I mean all I can come up with after reading that is Well, don't know, common sense? LOLNO! Common sense isn't that at all, what you posted was your own interpertation of the rule, not common sense. I never said anything about any rule.
preachie wrote:Okay, here's a proof that a sack could also be a tacke (and TFL).
Check the Advanced NFL Stats page you linked before. Go to the stats of the Defense Tackles (link here) Search for the player 98-M.Patterson of the Eagles. You can see, he has 1 sack and 1 TFL credited. Now go to the NFL page. I checked all games of the Eagles to see in what game he did that sack. It was in week 12, vs the Panthers. In the Box Score you can see that he has made 1 tackle & 1 sack in the game. Go to the play-by-play page and you find only one play where Patterson made a tackle and that's the sack. I guess that should proof, that a sack is also counted as tackle (if it was a tackle). That's a nice find and nice research on your part. But in that same list I provided you also do see alot of players with Sacks and no TFL, maybe it is so because they got no negative yards on the play? In that game where Mike Patterson gets a Sack on Newton he seems to get credited for a TFL (that was a negative 17 yards). While in the same game Babin was credited with one sack and no TFL (sacked the QB for a zero yards lost). The biggest problem is that Sacks are a official stat, but Tackles are not, so each team places the number as they see fit. Tough to say based on that really. I still think A Sack is a Sack and a TFL is a TFL, they are independent stats IMO. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
preachie
|
posted: 2013-05-05 18:39:12 (ID: 94827) Report Abuse |
|
canonico wrote:
That's a nice find and nice research on your part. But in that same list I provided you also do see alot of players with Sacks and no TFL, maybe it is so because they got no negative yards on the play? That's because you don't have to tackle the QB to get a sack, it's enough to "grasp & control" the QB to get a sack, however a sack *could* happen with a tackle. However, Lohengrin brought up a good point as well, since the lost yards of the sack are not counted in the overall TFL stats. Slowly I think that even the NFL does not know how to handle that in a proper way 
So what would be bad about leaving everything as it is, since I don't see a general benefit at all if this would be changed? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
canonico
|
posted: 2013-05-05 18:54:55 (ID: 94830) Report Abuse |
|
preachie wrote:
So what would be bad about leaving everything as it is, since I don't see a general benefit at all if this would be changed? Not saying it's bad as it is, but in my opinion there exists more evidence that a Sack is not accounted for a TFL. So if you ask for my opinion I think that the way RZA currently tracks it it's incorrect, but there is no official ruling on this, so it's just me using my research and my own common sense this time. Here, just checked to see another player that shows up in Fangraphs with 1 Sack and no TFL listed. Ranked 120 if you guys want to check. Emmanuel Stephens. He recorded his Sack in the 4th quarter of a game against the Bengals. He sacked Dalton for negative 14 yards. And yet was not credited with a TFL, "only" the Sack. (He also caused the fumble but that's beside the point). |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 6 7 8 > >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Sacks & TFL | |
