The 2014 sack project

[Lady Steel]

In Sunday’s paper, as part of our nine-part offseason series, I wrote an analysis of the Steelers offensive line. A small portion of the analysis focused on the pass protection and the 33 sacks the Steelers allowed.

Early in the season, when the Steelers were giving up an average of more than three sacks per game, I wanted to do a thorough analysis of the pass protection, but it was too time consuming. So I put it off until now.

I wanted to do it for several reasons. For one, fans and web sites love to assign blame for sacks, but it’s not always that easy. Sometimes, it’s easy to say the outside linebacker beat the left tackle, but there’s more to the play than that. Did the quarterback scramble because of another breakdown somewhere else? Did the quarterback hold onto the ball too long? Did the linebacker come free because of a stunt?

The purpose of this project was to analyze in great detail what happened on each of the 33 sacks this season and to explain why they happened.

For example, in the comments section of the Sunday story, someone wrote the Steelers allowed 33 sacks because Roethlisberger holds onto the ball too long. That didn’t seem right on its surface, but I had no real proof to debunk his theory.

Until now, that is. I put a stopwatch on every sack, and do you know how many times Roethlisberger was sacked because he hung onto the ball for more than four seconds?
Three times.

In my analysis, I found more than half the sacks came as a result of quick pressure. Roethlisberger was sacked in fewer than three seconds 17 times.

*The Steelers were horrid in pass protection early in the season, allowing 20 of the 33 sacks were allowed in the first seven games. They were much better at the end of the season when they allowed three sacks over the final five games.

*The Steelers gave up sacks on consecutive plays in games on four occasions. It happened twice against Baltimore, once against the Browns and once against the Titans. In the second game against the Ravens the Steelers allowed sacks on three consecutive plays. I’m not sure what that trend means other than teams maybe honed in on tendencies or weaknesses and exploited them before adjustments could be made.

*17 sacks came on one-on-one pass rushes

*6 sacks came via tackle-end stunts

Here are the sacks game by game:


Read more: http://sportsblogs.post-gazette.com/steelers-steelers-blog/2015/01/28/The-2014-sack-project

[Texasteel]

Interesting article. Nice work.

[zulater]

Thanks for the link! :applaudit: Glad to see the notion that Ben holds onto the ball too long exposed for the myth that it is.

[Pappy]

Great research, the Steelers need to hire you.

[Craic]

Thanks for the link! :applaudit: Glad to see the notion that Ben holds onto the ball too long exposed for the myth that it is.

That depends on whether you put "too long" at anything over three seconds, or over four seconds. If it's at 3 seconds, then half the sacks are on him. If it's four, then very few are on him. It makes those slant routes, bubble screens, and other short passes make even more sense in that perspective.

[zulater]

That depends on whether you put "too long" at anything over three seconds, or over four seconds. If it's at 3 seconds, then half the sacks are on him. If it's four, then very few are on him. It makes those slant routes, bubble screens, and other short passes make even more sense in that perspective.

Sometimes there's a fine line, and I get that 4 seconds can be too long in certain situations, on certain plays. But overall all qb's are going to take some unnecessary hits in order to make a play. Well the good ones will anyway. With Ben the trade off is worth the pay off. For every "unnecessary" sack he takes he in turn compensates for by making a play down the field to extend a drive or a score that if he just bailed on the play he wouldn't have made.

If that makes sense the way I wrote it? :lol:

Seriously it pisses me off when someone gets on Ben because he fumbled a ball or took a sack yet they completely overlook how many dead in the water drives cashed in on the scoreboard in a similar situation or worse because he refused to give up on the play.