+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss (/thread-32207.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-13-2022
(05-13-2022, 04:30 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Well I consider a "stuff" being a run stopped right at the line of scrimmage. Different than a Tackle For Loss where you get the RB
tackled in the backfield for a loss. I think you are confusing yourself here Fred and me right along with you lol
Actually I think we agreeing about the differences between a "sack" and a "tackle for loss". I am just pointing out how people use differet terms for the same thing.
For example if "TFL's" were completely different from "Sacks" (which I think they should be) then there should be a term/stat for (TFL + Sacks).
In college they use the term "stuffs" for what we are calling "TFL" then they define "tackles-for-loss" as "sacks plus stuffs".
And as I pointed out earlier, two of the biggest sources of stats (ESPN, ProFootballReference) don't calculate "tackles-for-loss" the same way.
So it is no wonder peolpe are confused.
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - Nate (formerly eliminate08) - 05-13-2022
(05-13-2022, 04:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually I think we agreeing about the differences between a "sack" and a "tackle for loss". I am just pointing out how people use differet terms for the same thing.
For example if "TFL's" were completely different from "Sacks" (which I think they should be) then there should be a term/stat for (TFL + Sacks).
In college they use the term "stuffs" for what we are calling "TFL" then they define "tackles-for-loss" as "sacks plus stuffs".
And as I pointed out earlier, two of the biggest sources of stats (ESPN, ProFootballReference) don't calculate "tackles-for-loss" the same way.
So it is no wonder peolpe are confused.
Nice post. Totally agree with this. Need to create a new term/stat for TFL plus a Sack.
Sacks are also a Tackle like you say. So a Sack should count as a Tackle on the stat sheet.
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - bengalfan74 - 05-13-2022
(05-13-2022, 12:55 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Yes, I would agree. It's hard to objectively define "established as a runner".
Right, what if he tucks the ball to run then pulls up slightly like he's gonna set for a pass and gets clobbered ? Not an exact science.
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - Nickslycat - 05-13-2022
(05-12-2022, 11:23 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You claim a sack does not count as a tackle and try to call me "ignorant"?
What an epic post.
Definitely epic, the village idiot was proven wrong yet again.
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - Truck_1_0_1_ - 05-13-2022
(05-13-2022, 03:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just to be clear,
Are you claiming that an NFL player does not get credit for a tackle on a sack? That it is possible to have a stat line of 1 sack and zero tackles?
100% correct; they have NEVER been counted like that :)
EDIT* although, I think this is one time the VGs have gotten it wrong; I cannot find a statline of 0 tackles, 1 sack and I've gone through Hendrickson, Strahan, Dunlap and Justin Houston and I can't find that statline...
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-13-2022
(05-13-2022, 05:40 PM)Nickslycat Wrote: Definitely epic, the village idiot was proven wrong yet again.
I have not been proven wrong at all.
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - Nickslycat - 05-13-2022
(05-13-2022, 09:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have not been proven wrong at all.
You mocked me for stating a fact, a sack is not considered a tackle on the stat sheet.
Facts matter! You were wrong.
When do I get your sig?
It will be “The Village Idiot”.
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-14-2022
(05-13-2022, 09:36 PM)Nickslycat Wrote: You mocked me for stating a fact, a sack is not considered a tackle on the stat sheet.
Facts matter! You were wrong.
When do I get your sig?
It will be “The Village Idiot”.
Actually, if you research the question you will see universal agreement that a sack is a tackle.
does a sack count as a tackle - Search (bing.com)
american football - Does a sack count as a Tackle For Loss, and/or a Tackle? - Sports Stack Exchange
Do sacks count as tackles? : NFLNoobs (reddit.com)
Does a sack count as a tackle on the stat sheet? - Sports and Racing - NFL Message Board - Page 2 - GameFAQs (gamespot.com)
In fact I can not find a single source that says a sack is NOT a tackle. So please show me the source of your knowledge.
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - KillerGoose - 05-14-2022
(05-13-2022, 09:36 PM)Nickslycat Wrote: You mocked me for stating a fact, a sack is not considered a tackle on the stat sheet.
Facts matter! You were wrong.
When do I get your sig?
It will be “The Village Idiot”.
Sacks do indeed count as tackles. There are no one sack, zero tackle games in the stat sheet. This is universal, whether it is NFL.com, PFR or ESPN. An example of this would be Yannick Ngakoue against the Colts in Week 17. He only has one play show up in the game log - a sack. However, his stat sheet across all sites tallies him with one sack and one solo tackle.
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - grampahol - 05-14-2022
Time for my "not biting for the gibberish of the NFL lingo talk." post..
You do know some of these stats are just made up nonsense to get you guys excited by some magic words....right?
That said, I fall for it too sometimes.. BUT..If "sacks" were such magic there's no way in hell Burrow would have lead us to the superbowl..
That's my theory and I'm stickin to it..
Up next? Eenie meeney chili beanie.. The spirits are about to speak..
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - KillerGoose - 05-14-2022
(05-14-2022, 10:25 AM)grampahol Wrote: Time for my "not biting for the gibberish of the NFL lingo talk." post..
You do know some of these stats are just made up nonsense to get you guys excited by some magic words....right?
That said, I fall for it too sometimes.. BUT..If "sacks" were such magic there's no way in hell Burrow would have lead us to the superbowl..
That's my theory and I'm stickin to it..
Up next? Eenie meeney chili beanie.. The spirits are about to speak..
I disagree that some stats are made up, at least not the ones being mentioned in this thread. Most of them are clearly defined and do matter. There are always exceptions to the rule, but correlations exist. For instance, you can pick a few, random passer ratings from 2021 and I can insert them into a regression equation that will give you a pretty good idea of how many games that QBs team won. Sacks are similar. They have a fairly strong correlation to winning. On average, the more you get sacked, the less games you win. Burrow and the 2021 Bengals were an outlier, not proof that sacks aren't that important.
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - TheLeonardLeap - 05-14-2022
(05-13-2022, 12:54 PM)Dr.Z Wrote: I believe a lot of this is by the discretion of the home statisticians which leads to a natural degree of ambiguity at times, much like how some home teams are much more liberal with handing out solo tackle statistics and some seem adverse to giving out assisted tackles.
That reminds me of the year where Maualuga had 122 tackles with like half of them being assists, and the Bengals team said they had Maualuga at something like 180 tackles according to their counting that year. Presumably because anytime Maualuga was near a guy who got tackled he got assist credit. Lol
It was just such a huge difference that it stuck in my mind.
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - grampahol - 05-15-2022
(05-14-2022, 10:34 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: I disagree that some stats are made up, at least not the ones being mentioned in this thread. Most of them are clearly defined and do matter. There are always exceptions to the rule, but correlations exist. For instance, you can pick a few, random passer ratings from 2021 and I can insert them into a regression equation that will give you a pretty good idea of how many games that QBs team won. Sacks are similar. They have a fairly strong correlation to winning. On average, the more you get sacked, the less games you win. Burrow and the 2021 Bengals were an outlier, not proof that sacks aren't that important.
...and 9 out of 10 dentists surveyed recommend Trident sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.. Figures don't lie, but liars often figure..
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - KillerGoose - 05-15-2022
(05-15-2022, 10:51 AM)grampahol Wrote: ...and 9 out of 10 dentists surveyed recommend Trident sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.. Figures don't lie, but liars often figure..
Lol gramps, c'mon. You're smarter than that. The whole idea of that recommendation is exactly as you put it - if a patient is going to chew gum, the better idea is to chew a sugarless gum. The fifth dentist recommended not chewing gum at all. Interestingly enough, the 9 out of those 10 may be right. Trident contains xylitol, which helps prevent tooth decay. We're getting off topic here, but to act like statistics (the actual mathematical field statistics) isn't real, or whatever you're trying to imply is abhorrently false. You have to understand the data that you're looking at in order to find the answers. They are tools, very strong tools.
The arguments are also sound. My last post essentially says "The more your QB gets sacked, the more games you are likely to lose." Just because Cincinnati weathered the storm, does that disprove the point? It isn't saying you are DEFINITELY going to lose, just that the more you get sacked, the more games you will lose on average.
The 10 worst teams in sack percentage are...
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Baltimore
- Seattle
- New York Jets
- Titans
- Panthers
- Texans
- Washington
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - fredtoast - 05-15-2022
I do have an issue with some of the new stats like "hurries" and "pressures" and the talk about how they measure "separation" for receivers or "catchable" passes from QBs.
But "sacks" are not made up. And even though I don't know the exact co-relation numbers between "sacks" and "winning" I do know that poor pass protection cost us games last year.
RE: Sacks and Tackles-For-Loss - MasonDT70 - 05-15-2022
(05-13-2022, 04:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually I think we agreeing about the differences between a "sack" and a "tackle for loss". I am just pointing out how people use differet terms for the same thing.
For example if "TFL's" were completely different from "Sacks" (which I think they should be) then there should be a term/stat for (TFL + Sacks).
In college they use the term "stuffs" for what we are calling "TFL" then they define "tackles-for-loss" as "sacks plus stuffs".
And as I pointed out earlier, two of the biggest sources of stats (ESPN, ProFootballReference) don't calculate "tackles-for-loss" the same way.
So it is no wonder peolpe are confused.
Although I don't watch baseball, that is one thing I would like all football stat keeping in general to do. Like how baseball has obp, slg, and then combines them to ops. That would be a good way to have stats like that for tfls. Could do like cfb does(i dont watch cfb either so going off of what was posted earlier), stuffs+sacks=tfls. Would make reading and keeping track of them easier.