Some Wale/JT Stats from the Last 2 Years...

[Disnardo]

Since we will probably loose one of them in FA.

We all know they were the best sack tandem in the NFL this past year, but due to the well known fact that Wale wants big $$$ to sign and we know that even if we tender him for 1 year, we will loose him the next one. Well 2 the stats....

Combined sacks (03-02) = 56 (Wale/24.5, and JT/31.5)...

In the 19 games won (03-02) = 40.5 sks (Wale/19, and JT/21.5)...
That equals to 72% of the total sacks...

In the 13 game loss (03-02) = 15.5 sks (Wale/5.5, and JT/10)...
That equals to 27% of the total sacks...

Anyone starting to see a picture:confused:

Now these other stats:

When the team has been ahead = 30.5 sks (Wale/16, and JT/14.5)...
That equals to 54% of the total sacks...

When the team has been behind = 12.5 sks (Wale/3, and JT/9.5)...
That equals to 22% of the total sacks...

Does the picture get any clearer:confused:

IMHO, these stats show that sacks and maybe even QB pressures are lacking from this team's losses...

Both of these great players, have failed to produce substantive amount when this team has been behind (in scoring).

I know that our defense has won games for us many times, but I wanted to see these 2 guys' production in our losses.

JT has played better than Wale in the losses and that is understandable...

Opinions please...

 

[PhinPhreak]

What you do have to consder when comparing sacks in games while the team is leading opposed to being behind is the fact that when the team is leading more then likely the other team is passing more, when the team is behind more then likely the other team is running more, so less chances for sacks.

I am not saying this is the only reason for the stats but it does put a little bit of an angle on it.

 

[fellows]

I think the only reason why wally had a better season then JT is cuz JT has been getting doubled team and there has been like 3 plays were JT was .5 of a second away from a sack i think JT had a decent season and is still better then Wally. Wally has been playing 1v1 coverage and JT has been playing against a double team.

 

[juniorseau55]

This is one of those statistics that the media loves to point out. One of the senseless ones that is. Although you have some valid points, they are contributing as much as they can, they for no apparent reason play linebacker, cornerback or safety. Defensive struggles for lack of pressure can't be blamed into them when our defensive line has been busting their *** in the last couple of years without the help of any strategic blitzing packages.

 

[Disgustipate]

I think part of our problem is our poor pass rush from the DT position. Neither Bowens nor Chester are really any good at it. Quarterbacks can step up in the pocket too often.

 

[Samphin]

I think I could have told you those stats without ever looking up numbers. Generally, a team stats look worse in a loss, hence the reason they lost. A lo of it can be attributed to what PhinPhreak pointed out. When a team is winning, they run the ball, thus, the amount of opportunities to get a sack is less. Alos, you stated that you would like to see them produce more in losses. All of us would, if they did, they might not be losses.

What I mean is that usually our defense helps us win games. When they don't do a lot, it usually means we lost. These stats don't strike me as anything out of the oridinary.

 

[Disnardo]

Originally posted by PhinPhreak
What you do have to consder when comparing sacks in games while the team is leading opposed to being behind is the fact that when the team is leading more then likely the other team is passing more, when the team is behind more then likely the other team is running more, so less chances for sacks.

I am not saying this is the only reason for the stats but it does put a little bit of an angle on it.

Thats a good point, so I checked it out...

In our 13 losses, our opponents had a total of:
428 pass attempts, and 371 rushing attempts...
An avg of 33 pass att, and 29 rush att...

In our 19 wins, our opponents had a total of:
640 pass atempts, and 400 rushing attempts...
An avg of 34 pass att, and 21 rush att...

Not a big difference in the passing attempts, that would show a reduction in sacks for the games lost...