Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features


» 2018 Free Agency Cost-Benefit Analysis

Is Kirk Cousins the best free-agent quarterback in recent memory? Should Trumaine Johnson or Malcolm Butler have gotten the larger contract? And what makes a free-agent contract good or bad, anyway?

12 Aug 2014

2013 Pressure Plays: Defense

by Scott Kacsmar

Yesterday we looked at how quarterbacks handled pressure in 2013. Now we turn our attention towards how defenses fared in creating that precious pressure. There were record-setting offensive numbers, but defenses did have the highest league-wide pressure rate (24.7 percent) in the last four years. While most pressure does not result in a sack, the league's sack rate was 6.7 percent (actually 6.66 for those with an interest in the occult). That's the highest since 2005.

Sacks are always glorified, but it's great to have the other pressure stats for a fuller view of a pass-rush's effectiveness. Robert Mathis (19.5) and Robert Quinn (19.0) had the most sacks in 2013, but Quinn was second in the league with 36 quarterback knockdowns (sacks plus hits). Mathis had 22 and J.J. Watt led everyone with 47. Quinn (43.0) also finished ahead of Mathis (33.3) in quarterback hurries. In the future, when someone's voting for an All-Pro team, an All-Decade Team or the Hall of Fame, hopefully this data carries more weight than the old way of just looking at sack totals. Maybe a high-motor guy like Kevin Greene would already be in the Hall of Fame if we had charting for his career that showed he had a ton of hurries, which can still be very effective at disrupting an offense.

Individual stats like hurries and knockdowns (plus much more) are included in the Football Outsiders Almanac 2014, available here. We are now focusing on defenses at a team level with this next table, which only includes regular-season plays. These are all pressure plays (sacks, hurries and forced scrambles), so aborted snaps and coverage scrambles/sacks are not included. As with DVOA, the one in-play penalty we include is Defensive Pass Interference. Recall a negative DVOA means above-average efficiency. Defenses are sorted by descending pressure rate. Rankings in DVOA with and without pressure are both done from best (No. 1) to worst (No. 32). The "Difference" section ranks defenses by descending pressure drop. The higher the ranking, the more that defense relied on pressure for success.

Defense Plays Pct Pressure Rk with Pass Pressure without Pass Pressure Difference
SEA 613 34.4% 1 2.4 -91.8% 8 6.7 1.5% 2 -4.3 -93.3% 24
HOU 547 28.0% 2 3.7 -55.3% 28 7.7 48.0% 28 -4.1 -103.3% 20
CAR 655 27.8% 3 1.5 -100.3% 1 7.1 18.5% 6 -5.6 -118.8% 10
IND 619 27.6% 4 3.8 -61.6% 25 7.6 31.1% 13 -3.8 -92.7% 25
ARI 699 27.6% 5 2.6 -92.9% 7 6.9 21.4% 8 -4.4 -114.3% 12
BUF 639 27.2% 6 2.6 -78.4% 15 6.6 -0.3% 1 -4.0 -78.1% 32
NO 581 26.7% 7 2.5 -95.5% 4 6.9 23.3% 9 -4.4 -118.9% 9
TB 616 26.6% 8 3.3 -79.2% 14 8.1 34.7% 17 -4.8 -114.0% 13
WAS 572 26.4% 9 2.9 -65.6% 24 8.5 38.0% 20 -5.6 -103.5% 19
KC 679 25.9% 10 3.0 -72.3% 18 7.5 17.2% 5 -4.5 -89.5% 26
DEN 696 25.9% 11 2.7 -71.7% 20 7.7 41.0% 22 -5.0 -112.7% 16
STL 604 25.8% 12 2.4 -95.0% 5 8.3 39.5% 21 -5.8 -134.5% 2
SF 648 25.6% 13 1.9 -98.3% 2 7.2 31.1% 12 -5.3 -129.3% 4
MIA 651 24.9% 14 2.8 -97.5% 3 7.3 32.6% 14 -4.6 -130.1% 3
BAL 616 24.8% 15 2.7 -75.1% 17 7.5 18.6% 7 -4.8 -93.7% 23
OAK 616 24.7% 16 4.0 -61.3% 26 8.0 51.5% 31 -4.0 -112.8% 15
Defense Plays Pct Pressure Rk with Pass Pressure without Pass Pressure Difference
MIN 715 24.6% 17 3.9 -37.5% 32 7.9 43.8% 24 -4.0 -81.3% 30
DET 634 24.4% 18 3.8 -68.6% 22 7.6 36.0% 19 -3.8 -104.6% 18
TEN 610 24.4% 19 3.9 -50.7% 30 7.4 28.5% 11 -3.6 -79.2% 31
CLE 677 23.9% 20 2.3 -66.9% 23 6.9 41.8% 23 -4.6 -108.7% 17
PHI 751 23.8% 21 2.7 -72.3% 19 7.9 45.6% 27 -5.2 -117.8% 11
NE 663 23.2% 22 2.5 -83.8% 11 7.4 35.9% 18 -5.0 -119.7% 8
NYG 665 22.7% 23 3.0 -69.8% 21 6.7 15.7% 4 -3.7 -85.5% 27
JAC 622 22.7% 24 2.4 -77.4% 16 8.3 48.5% 30 -5.9 -125.9% 6
PIT 631 22.3% 25 2.2 -80.3% 12 7.1 33.0% 15 -4.8 -113.3% 14
SD 615 22.0% 26 3.5 -39.2% 31 8.3 44.5% 25 -4.8 -83.7% 28
DAL 684 21.8% 27 4.0 -54.8% 29 8.0 45.4% 26 -4.0 -100.2% 21
CIN 681 21.6% 28 1.3 -90.0% 9 6.5 7.0% 3 -5.1 -97.0% 22
ATL 582 21.5% 29 2.2 -93.3% 6 8.7 58.2% 32 -6.5 -151.5% 1
CHI 561 21.4% 30 4.0 -56.3% 27 7.8 25.3% 10 -3.7 -81.7% 29
GB 607 21.3% 31 2.2 -79.9% 13 8.2 48.2% 29 -6.0 -128.1% 5
NYJ 651 20.6% 32 2.4 -86.7% 10 7.6 33.5% 16 -5.2 -120.1% 7
NFL 637.5 24.7% -- 2.8 -75.2% -- 7.6 32.6% -- -4.7 -107.9% --

The drop in DVOA when quarterbacks were pressured (-107.9%) was nearly identical to 2010 (-108.2%) and 2011 (-110.9%), leaving 2012 (-119.6%) as the year with the most effective pressure (also the lowest rate at 20.2 percent).

Buffalo was the only defense to have a negative DVOA (-0.3%) without pressure, which makes some sense given then-defensive coordinator Mike Pettine is a Rex Ryan disciple. In 2012 the Bills had the seventh-worst DVOA (45.6%) without pressure, so that was a huge improvement. The Bills had the smallest pressure drop, but how can they sustain this success with Pettine in Cleveland, Jairus Byrd in New Orleans and Kiko Alonso on injured reserve? Kyle Williams and Jerry Hughes had double-digit sack seasons, but never had more than 5.5 sacks in any previous season. Not a ton of optimism here for a great 2014 defense when so much of the foundation has shifted.

Atlanta was the opposite of Buffalo: worst DVOA without pressure and the largest pressure drop. Making matters worse is the fact the Falcons had the fourth-worst pressure rate in 2013. This defense needed to get to the quarterback to have any success. Without pressure, the Falcons allowed a league-worst 8.7 yards per play. Some questioned letting John Abraham go to Arizona, where he did quite well at 35. Osi Umenyiora was not nearly as effective replacing Abraham, and the defense was struck hard by linebacker injuries.

The strength of the 2013 Carolina Panthers was their front seven. They covered up a so-so secondary and had the league's best DVOA with pressure, but you may be surprised to see they still finished sixth without pressure. The only teams to rank in the top 10 in DVOA with and without pressure were Carolina, New Orleans, Arizona, Seattle and Cincinnati.

The NFC defense to best fit the mold of "secondary is toast without pressure" was St. Louis: fifth with pressure and 21st without for the second-biggest pressure drop in the league. Of course the Rams added to the front seven with Aaron Donald in the first round, but the young secondary should be a little better this season under Gregg Williams. Good riddance to Cortland Finnegan with his 34 percent Adjusted Success Rate.

Cincinnati has done well under defensive coordinator Mike Zimmer the past few years without a heavy reliance on pressure. Zimmer will have his work cut out for him in Minnesota after the Vikings ranked last with pressure and 24th without. The oddest set of rankings may belong to Tennessee: 30th with pressure, but 11th without. Jason McCourty is a solid cornerback, but Alterraun Verner shined with a breakout year. He left for Tampa Bay and the Titans are now using Ray Horton's scheme, which has produced fairly equal rankings in the last three years with Arizona (2011-12) and Cleveland (2013).

In fact, the only teams to have the same rankings with and without pressure were Cleveland (23rd) and Houston (28th). We can expect big changes there with new head coaches and top-tier prospects. Pettine will have a cornerback duo of Joe Haden and Justin Gilbert to go along with a developing pass-rusher like Barkevious Mingo. The Texans, of course, added Jadeveon Clowney with the top pick, creating a potentially nightmarish duo with J.J. Watt.

We questioned how consistent pressure can be for offense, so how well does it correlate on defense when that side of the ball is notorious for more variation from season to season? We ran the same four year-to-year correlation tests on 2010-13, but this time it was for 32 teams instead of 27 qualified quarterbacks.

Stat Offense Correlation Defense Correlation
Pressure rate 0.44 0.05
DVOA with pressure 0.18 0.11
DVOA without pressure 0.58 0.23
Pressure drop 0.02 0.14

Quarterbacks have a decent amount of control in their pressure rate, but we were surprised at just how low the correlation is (0.05) for defensive pressure rate. A scheme change from a blitz-happy system to better coverage can certainly have an impact, but that's still amazingly low. Every defense that ranked in the top 10 in pressure rate in 2012 ranked 11th or lower in 2013. In previous years, the top 10 retained two (2012) and five teams (2011).

The DVOA success with pressure is close on both sides of the ball, which bodes well for my theory of pressure leading to a chaotic game with random results. Take pressure away and defensive performance is higher correlated, but a whole unit still can't match the consistency of one quarterback throwing from a clean pocket.

Maybe the oddest result is that pressure drop had a small, but still much higher correlation (0.14) for defense than it did for the quarterbacks. It's probably a good time to again note that our sample size is four seasons, and that's not quite adequate enough to draw sweeping conclusions from just yet. I took a random split of the pressure drop data and got a correlation of 0.24 for one group and 0.03 for the other. It's going to take some time before we're able to reach more confident conclusions, but that's interesting if a defense performs more consistently than offense relative to pressure. You would think the performance of 11 players (plus key substitutes such as a nickel cornerback or pass-rush specialist) would create more noise than one quarterback who knows the play design, but then again, it's not just the quarterback on offense. It's his receivers and line that also impact the DVOA numbers.

We finished our quarterback study with the Super Bowl teams, and we'll do the same here because it was such an interesting pressure matchup on paper. The only two teams the 2013 Broncos never beat were Indianapolis and Seattle. Both ranked in the top four in pressure rate. The Colts put Peyton Manning under duress on 17 dropbacks, his highest total in four years. Edge pressure defined that success with Robert Mathis forcing a safety on a strip-sack and Manning was hit as he threw on a fourth-quarter interception. That same exact "hit in motion" pick thwarted a Denver rally in a loss to San Diego, and of course the Seahawks hit the "Rout" button in Super Bowl XLVIII with a pick-six after Cliff Avril hit Manning. While left tackle Ryan Clady was certainly missed, these problems for Denver were from the right side. I'm not sure who popularized the left tackle as the only "franchise" position on the line, but right tackles are important too.

Pressure defined the season of Super Bowl champion Seattle. We know the offense had the highest pressure rate allowed in four years, but the vaunted defense also had the highest pressure rate (34.2 percent) since 2010. Cue the chicken-or-the-egg argument about their coverage and their pass rush. For what it's worth, the 2012 Seahawks ranked second in DVOA without pressure (7.7%). They can cover, but last year they brought the heat better than anyone and did so with a below-average amount of blitzing. Now everyone will want to steal that "blueprint," but it's hard to copy without the same talent on the field.

It's also apparently really difficult to keep getting pressure each season, so enjoy it while it lasts. Carpe diem, boys.

Posted by: Scott Kacsmar on 12 Aug 2014

36 comments, Last at 14 Aug 2014, 3:37pm by nat


by theslothook :: Tue, 08/12/2014 - 5:22pm

i dont think its chicken or egg. Previous high pressure teams like 2011 vikes or 2012 eagles had tons of pressure and horrific secondaries. Its why I hate the Earl Thomas narrative. The seahawks have great coverage, but they had a damn good d line too

by Perfundle :: Tue, 08/12/2014 - 5:53pm

I'm not sure what chicken-or-egg means in this context (I guess which one is helped more by the other, which is difficult to quantify), but in its original form, i.e. which came first, then that's a no-brainer when it comes to Seattle.

by Scott Kacsmar :: Tue, 08/12/2014 - 6:20pm

Chicken-or-the-egg: do they get a lot of pressure because of how good the coverage is, or is the coverage helped out by the QB being pressured over a third of the time?

And I know, they help each other. I also know if you time those two huge interceptions in the Super Bowl, Manning was not late with the ball at all. Could Seattle have done that well against Denver with its 2012 defense? I don't think so.

by theslothook :: Tue, 08/12/2014 - 6:32pm

Some time ago, I was playing around with pff pressure data - as a kind of proxy for judging pass pro..only to find pressure rate basically mimic'd the sack rate. Namely, qbs had a huge influence on pressure rates.

That means, if you were a team in the nfc west, you likely had a easier time recording pressures given the qbs in that division. I'm assuming dvoa is accounting for that in these pressure numbers, thus - we can assume Seattle was a great pass rushing.

As for the chicken egg, obviously, both are affecting each other, but I happen to take a more extreme view and say that pass rush ability is mostly independent of pass coverage. I say that because I have looked at who has been leading the league in pass rush and many times they've been teams with weak secondaries. On the other hand, I do believe pass rush helps out coverage beyond the hurries - by affecting playcalling.

by Perfundle :: Tue, 08/12/2014 - 10:53pm

There one aspect of PFF's data that I don't get. Karl Cuba was asking about how long pressure gets to each QB in the QB Pressure article, and PFF happens to have that in the link below. But... why is the "Time To Pressure" column still there in the "vs. No Pressure" split?


As for your second point, your evidence suggests that pass rush isn't hurt by weak secondaries, but doesn't disprove that it can be helped by strong ones. There is also the issue that there are many teams you can point to as having strong pass rushes, but there aren't that many great secondaries out there, largely due to the decline in safety play, so the number of cases to examine is rather small.

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 1:02am

TO the first, I controlled for that. Pff had a pressure per type of dropback stat, basically adjusted for how far the dropback was. Even then, the pressure rate was a function of qb play(tho less pronounced).

To your second - yes i suppose its true, but I doubt it. That implies the relationship behaves one way in one extreme and the opposite in the other. I find that farfetched.

by Perfundle :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 12:59pm

My point about PFF was that if they still have a time to pressure value when there should be no pressure, it raises a massive red flag to its veracity in other splits.

Didn't you just argue that the relationship between the pass rush and the secondary behaves one way in one extreme and the opposite in the other? I don't see how it's any less different. And the reasoning behind it seems logical enough. Great pass rushes can apply pressure much quicker than great secondaries will allow receivers who are the QB's first or second read to get open. Because of that, the opposing QB will be pressured by a great pass rush regardless of the secondary behind them, and the secondary might also play up close to prevent the short passes that would be the QB's first instinct. But a great secondary will force the QB to hold the ball for an extra second, and that clearly benefits the pass rush.

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 4:30pm

Just to clarify : Yes, I do believe pass rush is (mostly) independent of strength of secondary. It's just my belief though. Like you said, there needs to be a further segregation of how we define pressure and it will likely need to be a function of time and length of drop. Pff does that, but it doesn't do opponent adjustments - which for this stat is particularly important.

by MarkV :: Tue, 08/12/2014 - 5:55pm

RE Seahawks one thing you didn't mention is that the gap between their pressure frequency and #2 was the same as the difference between #2 and #30 greenbay.

I would be very interested to see not just how rankings compare year to year but also difference. How much better than (or compared to) all of the teams in the dataset (limited though it is) was seattle. Because a gap that big screams regression to the mean

by Perfundle :: Tue, 08/12/2014 - 6:14pm

I couldn't find the 2010 one, but here are the articles for the 2011 and 2012 seasons:


Seattle was far and away the best at generating pressure relative to the league by standard deviation at 3.43 SDs, although Houston edges them out by simple difference. And like you predicted, Houston had a drastic drop the following year, although they recovered excellently last year (which was pretty much the only good thing their defense achieved).

by Scott Kacsmar :: Tue, 08/12/2014 - 6:23pm

We only have 3 defenses over 30% in pressure rate.

1. 2013 Seahawks - 34.4%
2. 2011 Texans - 33.2%
3. 2010 Texans - 30.3%

Houston's pretty fascinating since that 2010 defense sucked overall. They added Wade (DC) and Watt (and Joseph, among others) in 2011.

by Jimmy Oz :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 12:54am

Last year Seattle's average opposition QB was ranked 26.6 for pressure on 26.7% of plays. Next year they rank 19.25 for 24.4%.

The best QB faced at avoiding pressure last year (apart from Cassell in relief) was Brees at 15, & next year Seattle's got Peyton (1), Alex Smith (6), Rivers (9), Rodgers (10), & Romo (11) ahead of that.

I don't have the time nor inclination the check the average for all defences for the past few years to work out whether Seattle faced QB's with an unusual delectation for pressure last year, but the change in QB pressure avoidance certainly looks like it might cause the 'regression to the mean' phenomenon to occur.

by The Ancient Mariner :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 9:02am

Yeah, it does look like a defense's pressure rate has as much to do with the QBs they face as with anything they're doing.

by tuluse :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 1:38pm

It's almost like there's two teams on the field.

by nat :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 3:45pm

Sure. Unlike DVOA, pressure rate isn't adjusted for the opponents faced. This is true for both defenses and offenses.

What's really interesting is that defensive pressure rate seems pretty well correlated with DVOA without pressure, which is all about being good in coverage, even though these two things involve different players.

That's not too surprising. QBs cope with potential pressure in part by quickly locating and hitting open receivers. Against strong secondaries, or with weak receiving corps, that's much harder to do.

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 4:31pm

Did they say somewhere that pressure rate isn't opponent adjusted?

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 4:31pm

Did they say somewhere that pressure rate isn't opponent adjusted?

by Scott Kacsmar :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 4:59pm

Pressure rate is not opponent adjusted.

by Perfundle :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 4:38pm

There might have been a slight correlation this year, but not for the two years before that. In any case, you can find reasons to explain either a direct correlation or an inverse correlation. Higher pressure rates might be associated with better defensive DVOA without pressure because offenses adjust to the pressure by keeping more blockers in. This decreases the chance of pressure, but it also decreases the receiving corps' chances to getting open since they've been reduced in number. On the other hand, higher pressure rates might be associated with better defensive DVOA without pressure (as in Philadelphia in 2012, when they had the second-best pressure rate but the worst defensive DVOA without pressure) because bad defenses might decide to blitz a lot and bring their secondary up to prevent the checkdowns, but that opens up the field for deep passes if the pressure doesn't get home.

by nat :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 5:21pm

The correlation in question was -0.44 in this year. That's not slight. It's larger than most correlations we deal with in the messy world of football stats.

The previous two years have smaller correlations (-0.19 and -0.11) - but still large enough to indicate there is something going on that needs an explanation. Thanks for locating those articles.

I agree we could make up stories to explain any possible result. It just looks like the result we need to explain is that having good pass coverage in failed pressure being linked to getting frequent pressure. Not absolutely required. But linked.

Counterexamples, such as the Eagles of 2012 or the Texans of this year, are interesting. But for the correlations to be as they are, such teams must be the exception more than the rule. Sure, they can generate a lot of pressure by going blitz-crazy. But it sure looks like good coverage is the more certain route.

by Scott Kacsmar :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 5:50pm

Over the last four years it's only -0.09. Correlation between pressure rate and DVOA with pressure is 0.20.

by nat :: Thu, 08/14/2014 - 9:13am

Really? That's surprising, seeing the correlations for the last three years.

Just what were the correlations between pressure percent and DVOA with and without without pressure four years ago?

by Scott Kacsmar :: Thu, 08/14/2014 - 2:41pm

Pressure rate vs. DVOA with pressure - 0.18
Pressure rate vs. DVOA without pressure - 0.13

by nat :: Thu, 08/14/2014 - 10:14am

I don't have the numbers for 2010. But for 2011-2013, the correlations are 0.21 between Pressure Rate and DVOA with pressure, and -0.16 between Pressure Rate and DVOA without pressure. That's on 96 data points, so it's not a huge sample, but enough to make you think.

It seems that teams that are good at finishing off plays when they generate pressure are good at generating pressure in the first place. It also seems, although to a lesser extent, that teams that are good at coverage - even when pressure doesn't happen - are good at generating pressure.

I do wonder what data you are using prior to 2011. From the 2011 article:
In previous years, we made a weird error: When we talked about how teams did with pass pressure, we only looked at hurries, not scrambles. That's kind of silly, isn't it? So this year, we made sure that we marked every play as either "pressure" or "no pressure."

Are you mixing data from two kinds of studies here? That might explain a very different correlation in 2010.

by Scott Kacsmar :: Thu, 08/14/2014 - 2:47pm

I could only find game charting for the 2010 playoffs, but I'm sure it was done the same way for the regular season. Scrambles have a pressure listed, so it's four years of the same kind of data.

by nat :: Thu, 08/14/2014 - 3:37pm

Thanks for checking.

by Perfundle :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 4:57pm

Seattle is too far ahead of the pack for them to drop that much because the opponent adjustments, and in any case Arizona, San Francisco, St. Louis and Carolina all faced QBs who were more prone to being pressured than Seattle. And if you adjust for the defenses those QBs faced, Seattle drops to ninth, behind Jacksonville, Tennessee, Atlanta and New Orleans. Each of those eight teams played a combination of Seattle, Houston and Tampa Bay at least three times, and those were by far the three most-pressured offenses.

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 5:05pm

How are you adjusting for pressure? And while opponent adjustments likely won't knock Seattle down a lot, opponent adjustments are huge. Pressure rate, like sack rate, is highly affected by qb/ team quality.

by Perfundle :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 5:39pm

Oh, I don't mean I'm adjusting the pressure numbers themselves. I'm just adjusting the pressure "strength of schedule" for its own strength of schedule, i.e. QBs that faced Seattle are going to have slightly higher pressure numbers because they faced Seattle. I'm not doing the recursive schedule adjusting that FO does, but just going by standard deviation, Seattle was 1.81 SDs better at applying pressure than would be expected given the QBs they faced. Carolina drops to 9th, Arizona drops to 17th and San Francisco drops to 25th after the adjustment, while Cleveland climbs to 7th, Baltimore to 6th and Buffalo to 2nd. The full list is below.

1.81 Seattle Seahawks
0.73 Buffalo Bills
0.70 Houston Texans
0.57 Indianapolis Colts
0.55 Washington Redskins
0.51 Baltimore Ravens
0.36 Cleveland Browns
0.33 Kansas City Chiefs
0.25 Carolina Panthers
0.25 Oakland Raiders
0.20 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
0.19 Denver Broncos
0.14 Miami Dolphins
0.10 New Orleans Saints
0.07 Minnesota Vikings
0.04 Detroit Lions
-0.05 Arizona Cardinals
-0.17 Philadelphia Eagles
-0.26 Pittsburgh Steelers
-0.28 New England Patriots
-0.31 St. Louis Rams
-0.41 San Diego Chargers
-0.41 New York Giants
-0.43 Tennessee Titans
-0.50 San Francisco 49ers
-0.52 Cincinnati Bengals
-0.59 Chicago Bears
-0.61 Dallas Cowboys
-0.68 Green Bay Packers
-0.73 New York Jets
-0.80 Jacksonville Jaguars
-1.04 Atlanta Falcons

by Scott Kacsmar :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 5:06pm

I left penalties alone, but for those curious, these are the QBs Seattle pressured the most times in the regular season.

Palmer - 30 (two games)
Kaepernick - 29 (two games)
Clemens - 20 (two games)
Schaub - 19
Ryan - 18
Glennon - 13
Brees - 12

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 5:21pm

I suspect sd.prlly faced the hardest set of opponents

by Perfundle :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 7:25pm

Close. I have them facing the 6th-hardest, behind the Browns, Ravens, Steelers, Jets and Raiders. Cleveland, in particular, had to go up against Brady (4th out of 40), Tannehill (13th), Manuel (8th), Roethlisberger twice (12th), Dalton twice (2nd), Henne (17th), Smith (6th), Rodgers (11th) and Stafford (3rd).

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 5:27pm

I suspect sd.prlly faced the hardest set of opponents

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 7:06pm

I wonder if there's a quick way using FO database to do opponent adjustments including pass plays with holding. I suppose a quick method is to simply take the opponent difference calculated with adjusted sack rate and non adjusted.

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 7:06pm

I wonder if there's a quick way using FO database to do opponent adjustments including pass plays with holding. I suppose a quick method is to simply take the opponent difference calculated with adjusted sack rate and non adjusted.

by theslothook :: Wed, 08/13/2014 - 7:25pm

Here's my quick and crude method of adjusted pressure rate - using the difference between adjusted sack rate and non adjusted sack rate as a proxy.

SEA 31.14%
HOU 27.51%
WAS 26.39%
IND 25.55%
OAK 25.38%
ARI 25.35%
KC 25.24%
MIN 25.21%
BAL 24.98%
DEN 24.57%
TB 24.38%
TEN 24.38%
PHI 24.28%
DET 23.81%
NO 23.76%
STL 23.65%
CAR 23.61%
JAC 23.45%
MIA 23.38%
BUF 23.29%
NYG 23.12%
CLE 22.92%
SD 22.48%
SF 22.46%
DAL 22.39%
PIT 22.11%
CHI 22.05%
GB 21.13%
CIN 21.10%
NE 20.10%
ATL 18.37%
NYJ 17.01%

Seattle still retains the crown, though the gap does shrink some.