MarloStanfield
Rookie
Taking sacks could be a good thing. Eli Manning pointed that out as one of the reasons for a lot of his int's.
Revenge is a Dish Best Served GOLD: The Official 2012 SF 49ers Season Thread
- Thread starter LastEmperor2k2
- Start date
Taking sacks could be a good thing. Eli Manning pointed that out as one of the reasons for a lot of his int's.
Being smart enough to know when there is nothing else there when you're in the pocket, sometimes you're better off losing 1 yard then trying to be a hero.
Smith was sacked 4 times on Sunday, none of them had any huge effect on the gameplan or really hurt our chances of winning
Taking a sack is never a good thing. Ever. It may minimize the "damage" but it's never a good thing. To call it strategic is silly.
feelosofer
#ninergang
I see what you're saying but there are times, when taking the sack is preferable to chucking an interception or trying to throw it away that could risk a grounding penalty. I think Alex has gotten better at picking the lesser of evils based on the situation. Michael Vick would be better served if he did that more often. Alex minimizes this damage by rarely straying too far out of the pocket or going more than 2 or 3 yards back and if he gets hit he instinctively protects the ball first and foremost. It not something that shows on a stat sheet but it's something that we get out of an experienced QB as opposed.
Anyway, I expect the Jets to play us tough, but I think we have the better running game and better special teams and that will get us through. I don't expect heavy blitzing, I'd rather have us take our DBs, and try to take, either Santonio Holmes or Stephen Hill out the game. I do expect this to be a nail biter, though.
Bruh, to call it a strategy is ridiculous. Yes, the sack minimizes the damage, but so does a completed pass. Alex contributes to a good amount of those sacks IMO by his complete lack of pocket presence.
Anyways, minimizing damage can not be called a strategy. A sack is harmful no matter how you look at it.
feelosofer
#ninergang
Sacks are an unavoidable part of the game, it's going to happen but every pass you throw is not going to go to the intended target, dude completed 20/26 passes, that's about a 75% completion rating so to say he lacks pocket presence is untrue. Further more he broke the record for not chucking an INT in 200 pass attempts. Maybe in the past he had no presence but he def does now.
Sacks are just as unavoidable as int's. I don't get why one is better than the other. They're both negatives, one is more costly than the other.
He does not have good pocket presence. Completion percentage is not an accurate measure of pocket presence either.
He has gotten better, but he has a ways to go. Not slagging on him, but he's not perfect that's an area he needs to improve on.
Just don't tell me that taking a sack is strategic.
yseJ
Empire strikes back
ideally throwing the ball away >>> sack >>>>>>>> forcing it into double+ coverage >>>>>>> chucking the ball away in hopes someone catches it
now I say ideally because only qbs with quick release (ie rodgers) can throw the ball at the last second. alex's problem is that once nothing is open, he usually doesnt try to extend the play much (and when he does, it usually results in a positive play). he either tucks the ball in and runs or he gives up a sack by holding the ball too long.
most of the time he throws the ball away tho.
it's hardly 'strategic' but more of a 'right decision' to take a sack on 3rd and long up by 8 points instead of trying to make something happen when it isn't there, I think that was the initial point
now I say ideally because only qbs with quick release (ie rodgers) can throw the ball at the last second. alex's problem is that once nothing is open, he usually doesnt try to extend the play much (and when he does, it usually results in a positive play). he either tucks the ball in and runs or he gives up a sack by holding the ball too long.
most of the time he throws the ball away tho.
it's hardly 'strategic' but more of a 'right decision' to take a sack on 3rd and long up by 8 points instead of trying to make something happen when it isn't there, I think that was the initial point
yseJ
Empire strikes back
didn't you answer your own question there tho ?
in words of harbaugh, we want a possession to end in one of three outcomes: punt, field goal or a touchdown.
a sack still usually entails keeping the possession to do one of those three things, an int by default does not.
I know, but dude was saying a sack was unavoidable, but an INT wasn't. I even said one is more costly than the other....but a sack is just as avoidable/unavoidable as an INT.
I will never accept that taking a sack is a strategy. Harbs won't even say that. It's better than a TO but it is also bad. Negative yardage is never good. Ever. I can't accept a sack as being strategic.
If the play isn't there and you can't throw the ball away then sit on it. Yes, I agree...but to say it's a strategy is laughable. That's all I was saying.
feelosofer
#ninergang
I won't say it's strategy per se, but what Alex was taught by Harbaugh and Roman. Like it was said previously, there are certain times where a sack is preferable to an INT. Especially last year when we were winning most our games by single digits and we were playing not to lose (albeit properly, not the Singletary method), true negative yardage sucks and it's never ideal but gift wrapping a possession to an offense like Green Bay, would bite us in the ass. I also think the strength of our Special Teams allows us to do this with minimal risk as well. I do expect a few more risks to be taken as the year progresses, it will be necessary, as I think teams will gameplan better for us this year. I also think the return of LaMichael James and Brandon Jacobs will allow us to get more tricky with the short to medium game. I'm excited to see what will be drawn up vs the Lions.
So, it's either sack or int? No option for throwing the ball away?
I'm not even talking about risk taking. All I am saying is taking a sack is not a strategy. That's it...has nothing to do with Alex, Harbs, Green Bay, etc.
Of course if your only option is to have a seat or throw a pick, you'll take the sack, but to say you strategize to put yourself in the position to where you take the sack is ridiculous.
It's weird how the only option is to take a sack. Throw the ball away. Sacks, just like INTs are costly no matter how you spin it. That's all I'm saying.
As far as risk taking. That simply isn't in Alex's DNA...and I don't think that's what Harbs wants anyways.
I'm not even talking about risk taking. All I am saying is taking a sack is not a strategy. That's it...has nothing to do with Alex, Harbs, Green Bay, etc.
Of course if your only option is to have a seat or throw a pick, you'll take the sack, but to say you strategize to put yourself in the position to where you take the sack is ridiculous.
It's weird how the only option is to take a sack. Throw the ball away. Sacks, just like INTs are costly no matter how you spin it. That's all I'm saying.
As far as risk taking. That simply isn't in Alex's DNA...and I don't think that's what Harbs wants anyways.
Ronnie Lott
#49erGang
What's better, taking a 3 yd sack for a loss on 1st down
Of
Gettin rid of the ball under sack pressure with an illadvised pass into double covergae into an interception?
2 can play at this game.
What's better. Preparing to take a sack and possibly fumbling the ball and have that fumble returned for a TD or throwing the ball out of bounds and going back to the huddle for 2nd down?
Why is throwing the ball out of bounds not even an option?
Who is even advocating throwing into double coverage?
Ronnie Lott
#49erGang
A qb can't always just throw the ball away. U can't just throw the ball out of bounds when no reciever is in the vicinity. That will be a flag. Also when a pass rusher is up on a qb hella fast , sometimes its better to just protect the ball and take the sack. How many times have u seen an defensive end or blitzing db swipe at the ball when the qb is in the pocket ,forcing a fumble? U gotta know as a qb when u have to just take a sack. thats qb 101 bruh