Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Both are important but I'll take sacks over pressures. I know they can lead to an INT but that doesn't happen often. Usually just an incomplete pass. Sometimes pressures result in big broken plays when the DBs lose contact. Sacks can set the offense back 5 or 10 yards . It's like a holding penalty.
Sacks are subjective….some guy can get a sack based on coverage not his ability to win a rush.
I'll ALWAYS take consistent pressure vs sacks. If someone is stuff all game but manages to beat his guy once for a sack…is that more important than a guy who brings consistent pressure.
end of the day consistent pressure brings on sacks and or incompletions/TOs
Yep, there is a reason observers now track pressure rates as closely as they do - they reveal consistency by the player.
Sacks are like the home run threat that only hits home runs when the bases are empty versus the guy who consistently hits a two-run single with men in scoring position. (sorry to go baseball - World Series time 
)
Consistent pressure is great, so are sacks, many point to which is better, and we all know the Belichick quote on pressures. For a player view, check out why Cam Heyward (3 time all pro) says sacks are better. They aren't mutually exclusive though, most players who get 10+ sacks a year are usually getting consistent pressure. There's a reason why the goal is to bring the QB down.
Thing is, a sack ends the play, whereas pressures don't always end plays. We lost the AZ game after our D applied heavy pressure to Murray on 4th down, and he still found Harrison to seal the game. If Bosa sacks Murray there, it's a turnover on downs.
Also, I'm not knocking Bosa, I love the guy, one of my favorite players, just giving my 2 Cents
