PDA

View Full Version : 0 Sacks



flippy
12-01-2009, 01:33 PM
Anyone else notice there were 0 sacks given up by the Steelers versus the Ravens?

Given Ben's 4 concussions, is it time for him to start avoiding sacks too?

I know there's a fine line between Ben holding the ball long enough to make a play and holding it so long that he gets hit. But maybe the line should be moved in the more conservative direction.

If Ben starts avoiding sacks, would that change the defensive approach against the Steelers? Would teams pressure/blitz him less if they knew there wasn't an opportunity for the sack/big negative play?

What about the play calling? Maybe Arians should be just as conservative with Ben in the game to help him out like he did Dixon.

Maybe we can put some conservative games on tape to set teams up in the playoffs. We ride Mendy/Parker/Moore into the playoffs and then open it up more down the road once we establish the running game.

NW Steeler
12-01-2009, 01:40 PM
I don't think that you can change the way Ben plays. Ben is always going to hold onto the ball, always looking for the big play. I would like to see him sometimes just take what the defense was giving him, maybe he will "mature" in that way. His career will definitely be cut short at the rate he is going now. I love how tough he is. I love the way he plays in the clutch. But I'd also like to see him play for 10 more years.

Oviedo
12-01-2009, 01:45 PM
Anyone else notice there were 0 sacks given up by the Steelers versus the Ravens?

Given Ben's 4 concussions, is it time for him to start avoiding sacks too?

I know there's a fine line between Ben holding the ball long enough to make a play and holding it so long that he gets hit. But maybe the line should be moved in the more conservative direction.

If Ben starts avoiding sacks, would that change the defensive approach against the Steelers? Would teams pressure/blitz him less if they knew there wasn't an opportunity for the sack/big negative play?

What about the play calling? Maybe Arians should be just as conservative with Ben in the game to help him out like he did Dixon.

Maybe we can put some conservative games on tape to set teams up in the playoffs. We ride Mendy/Parker/Moore into the playoffs and then open it up more down the road once we establish the running game.

Do you realize how many other posters you have upset who routinely want to bash Colbert for not being able to draft OLmen? You have probably ruined several of their days by pointing out that the OL is not as bad as they have made a message board career posting about and how much smarter they would be than Colbert. You are just a fun sucker :wink:

SteelAbility
12-01-2009, 02:18 PM
I noticed that too. Looks like there is much merit to the "Ben holds the ball too long" claim. :wink:

phillyesq
12-01-2009, 02:22 PM
To play Devil's advocate, the offensive line (and perhaps a back as well) took a decent amount of holding penalties to protect Dixon.

steelsnis
12-01-2009, 04:31 PM
They also ran the ball about 38 times versus 25 or so passes. Hard to get sacked when you're handing off.

Hopefully they'll keep some of this in the mix when Ben is back. Let's get it close to a 50/50 split and I guarantee we'll start to blow some teams out.

flippy
12-01-2009, 04:36 PM
Here's another thought I've always had but never expressed...

Does the OLine having to block for 6+ seconds wear them down and make them lest effective?

ie. If Ben just got rid of the ball and didn't take sacks, would these guys stay fresher to run block? And would our running game improve?

Taking it a step further, does Ben force the whole offense to work harder and thus makes them less effective from wearing out? Linemen and Backs must block longer. WRs must continue their routes longer. Etc.

I do think the impact on the lineman could be similar to a defensive player getting worn out from blitzing on every play.

ikestops85
12-01-2009, 05:29 PM
Here's another thought I've always had but never expressed...

Does the OLine having to block for 6+ seconds wear them down and make them lest effective?

ie. If Ben just got rid of the ball and didn't take sacks, would these guys stay fresher to run block? And would our running game improve?

Taking it a step further, does Ben force the whole offense to work harder and thus makes them less effective from wearing out? Linemen and Backs must block longer. WRs must continue their routes longer. Etc.

I do think the impact on the lineman could be similar to a defensive player getting worn out from blitzing on every play.

That's a good point Flippy. It probably does take a toll on the blockers but I think if you are making plays then the adrenaline keeps you fresher. That's why the hurry up looks so effective.

SidSmythe
12-01-2009, 05:31 PM
I noticed this too!!

Did you notice we didn't go NO BACKS at all???? Many times we had max protection or at least a back in to block.

Plus a lot of those plays were designed for Dixon to get rid of the ball ... for such a great scrambler, they kept him in the pocket b/c they couldn't risk him getting hurt.

SteelAbility
12-01-2009, 05:37 PM
Here's another thought I've always had but never expressed...

Does the OLine having to block for 6+ seconds wear them down and make them lest effective?

ie. If Ben just got rid of the ball and didn't take sacks, would these guys stay fresher to run block? And would our running game improve?

Taking it a step further, does Ben force the whole offense to work harder and thus makes them less effective from wearing out? Linemen and Backs must block longer. WRs must continue their routes longer. Etc.

I do think the impact on the lineman could be similar to a defensive player getting worn out from blitzing on every play.

Well, the D has the same problem too. Generally, it takes more effort to play D than to play O. However, DL-men tend to be lighter than OL-men, so perhaps you have a point. But another offsetting factor is the fact that on pass plays the DL has to cover more ground than the OL, so there is plus/minus going on. Now it's a question of how in-shape you OL is compared to their DL.

feltdizz
12-01-2009, 08:31 PM
My favorite play was the quick checkdown to Mendenhall that got 20 yards.. Mend can get 20 yards easily if Ben would check down to him early.. not after he looks deep 3 more times and then takes a hit while throwing a pass behind mend for a 3 yard pickup.

I love Ben because he is a winner but the efficiency is killing our team, splitting the locker room and shortening his career. We may have lost a season because of his concussion and missed game.

Our OL isn't as bad as Ben makes them look half the time. I wish BA would call all our games like like the last one... heavy dose of runs and minimize the pass opportunities.. when you give Ben less pass opportunities he tends to value them more.

One other thing.. Dixon has a nice gun.. he needs more reps but the bomb to Wallace was nice.. he put it where only Wallace could get it or it would be incomplete.. with Ben that pass is under thrown... throw it BEFORE he gets open and let him run under it.

bostonsteeler
12-02-2009, 12:09 AM
One other thing.. Dixon has a nice gun.. he needs more reps but the bomb to Wallace was nice.. he put it where only Wallace could get it or it would be incomplete.. with Ben that pass is under thrown... throw it BEFORE he gets open and let him run under it.


Dix underthrew Wallace in preseason. Following the game he commented that he had to throw sooner to get to Wallace, not harder.

He seems to have learned that lesson. The kid is good and may even have a lesson or two for Ben on how to throw long.

JTP53609
12-02-2009, 09:21 AM
yea i noticed the 0 sacks, but that was because we had quick reads on the dixon passes, and we ran the ball more too...dixon did not hold on to the ball though in the situations where he had nothing, he played fine, but if ben had the same plays called as dixon did, than i think ben would have been sacked 0 times too, well maybe 1 but still

steelblood
12-02-2009, 12:42 PM
yea i noticed the 0 sacks, but that was because we had quick reads on the dixon passes, and we ran the ball more too...dixon did not hold on to the ball though in the situations where he had nothing, he played fine, but if ben had the same plays called as dixon did, than i think ben would have been sacked 0 times too, well maybe 1 but still

I disagree. Ben would have taken 2-3 sacks and made 2-3 more great plays.

RuthlessBurgher
12-02-2009, 12:47 PM
yea i noticed the 0 sacks, but that was because we had quick reads on the dixon passes, and we ran the ball more too...dixon did not hold on to the ball though in the situations where he had nothing, he played fine, but if ben had the same plays called as dixon did, than i think ben would have been sacked 0 times too, well maybe 1 but still

I disagree. Ben would have taken 2-3 sacks and made 2-3 more great plays.

Has a game ever passed in which Ben didn't take at least 2-3 sacks and made 2-3 more great plays?

proudpittsburgher
12-02-2009, 12:51 PM
The playcalling was extreemly limited, and we ran a hell of a lot more than we passed. And even on half of those passes, they were play action. I get what you are getting at, but it is a bit of a small sample here to use it against Ben.

JTP53609
12-02-2009, 01:35 PM
The playcalling was extreemly limited, and we ran a hell of a lot more than we passed. And even on half of those passes, they were play action. I get what you are getting at, but it is a bit of a small sample here to use it against Ben.


:Agree, if dixon threw 35-40 times like Ben does than he would of been sacked a few times too, he had very few chances to get sacked because of the quick reads they called...that being said, i was still very impressed that he did not get sacked against that raven defense..

RuthlessBurgher
12-02-2009, 02:16 PM
The playcalling was extreemly limited, and we ran a hell of a lot more than we passed. And even on half of those passes, they were play action. I get what you are getting at, but it is a bit of a small sample here to use it against Ben.


:Agree, if dixon threw 35-40 times like Ben does than he would of been sacked a few times too, he had very few chances to get sacked because of the quick reads they called...that being said, i was still very impressed that he did not get sacked against that raven defense..

The Ravens' 21 sacks this season put them in a 4-way tie for 22nd in the league. Plus Terrell Suggs didn't play.

JTP53609
12-02-2009, 02:23 PM
The playcalling was extreemly limited, and we ran a hell of a lot more than we passed. And even on half of those passes, they were play action. I get what you are getting at, but it is a bit of a small sample here to use it against Ben.


:Agree, if dixon threw 35-40 times like Ben does than he would of been sacked a few times too, he had very few chances to get sacked because of the quick reads they called...that being said, i was still very impressed that he did not get sacked against that raven defense..

The Ravens' 21 sacks this season put them in a 4-way tie for 22nd in the league. Plus Terrell Suggs didn't play.


well it is true that the raven defense is far from what it used to be, but they still do put pressure on the qb, i was expecting a few sacks even though i knew we would have some easy quick passes coming from dixon...but he proved me wrong, but like i said, i dont think it is fair to compare his no sacks to bens how ever many sacks he takes, totally different play calling between the two...