2011 Pressure Plays, Defense

I'd actually rather see the table that doesn't include sacks and grounding data--that gives us a better idea of how pressure affects each team's secondary.

Also, it would be fun to each QB's DVOA with and without pressure (Kolb is my guess for biggest discrepancy).

Also, it would be interesting to see these numbers per # of rushers. We all know that, all other things being equal, pressure is good. But is pressure bringing five (or more) rushers more effective than no pressure rushing three?

And while I'm at it, why don't you bring me some lunch, too :)

I'll take "Reasons Why the Colts Fired Bill Polian" for $500 Alex.

Firstly, I love what FO has done because if there were one stat i wish to god the nfl actually charted, it would be pressure. TO me, pressure is a better stat than ints, sacks, or whatever as most of us have to take raw sack numbers and pretend like they are indicators of commensurate pressure.

One issue or question i have is, is pressure talied the same way by the charters? by that i mean, consider two scenarios. Example A: the qb hikes the ball under center but the de end immediately beats the lt and rushes at the qb before he hits his back drop, forcing him to scramble and throw it away.

Example B: Same scenario but the o line holds up fine, the qb scans the field finds no one, about 2.5-3s later the line finally gets there and then the qb scrambles and throws it away.

Does the defense get credited with a pressure in both cases?

The table looks odd to me, none of the top ten teams in percentage of pressure are ranked in the top half of DVOA with pressure. Seems strange.

Actually, Dallas at no. 10 are 14th in the DVOA with pressure ranking but the Jets at 11 are 31st so I still claim weirdness, or at least the lack of an intuitive correlation.

Maybe I'm perceiving this wrong, but it seems from this chart, to have a great defense, get pressure on the QB as much as possible. I mean, the worst D while pressuring the QB (ATL) would be the 2nd or 3rd best D EVER in the DVOA era.

Me thinks that Bill Polian was on to something by keeping Freeney and Mathis as his DE's, and 1991 PHI's & 1991 NO's defenses rank as all time greats (in the DVOA era) because of killer pass rushes (White & Jerome Brown? for PHI, and OLB's Jackson & Swilling for NO).

Unorganized thoughts:

1. This is further evidence that the sack is the most over-emphasized stat in football. Yes, a sack is a very significant negative play, but it is relatively rare. Hurries are also highly significant (although not as much as a sack), but largely ignored in the popular discussion.

2. The data are derived independent of scheme. It would be easy to look at this and say "obviously, we should blitz more often". But game planning is an exercise in trade-offs. More pass rushers means fewer pass defenders; that successful pass-rushing defenses outperform does not suggest that sacrificing pass-defending is "worth it". The data does not measure the trade-off. It only suggests that those teams good at pass-rushing (however achieved) tend to outperform.

3. OK, a scramble is the same as a pressure. But what is a charter to do when Tim Tebow begins scrambling with nary a defender within a body's length because, that is what Tim does? Codification is a good and necessary endeavor, and it will always be unable to capture the broadest range of human expression.

Finally, good analysis FO. This is the sort of data worth looking at, and I thank you for bringing it out.

I think this list is yet another screaming indicator for the value of good coverage. The table seems to say fairly definitively that pressure affects pass production(intuitively correct), but its not a panacea. In essence, good pass defense seems to be derived from good coverage which both affects how good your team does against no pressure and with pressure, while the reverse is less so true(at least from the table).

I wonder how much the whole, "rush the qb and good things happen" mantra is lazy analysis vs incomplete footage of the back 7. I imagine now that we have all 22 access, this might eventually change as we can finally be able to tell exactly how the back 7 are playing certain receivers and route combinations, even able to tell what schematic disguises and different coverage wrinkles were being utilized instead of all that being swept under the rug.

The next big project to come of this imo will be which positional groupings most effect pass defense and against which types of passing offenses. We all know linebackers, safeties and corners are all part of coverage but great passing defenses don't necessarily need good players at every level, maybe just 2 out of the 3 units. In time we'll know if it is indeed better to have good corners vs safeties vs linebackers; i hope anyway.

Thanks for the analysis.
I would like to see a breakdown of the
sacks and pressures by down. Third down, the sacks are far more critical
than a first down pressure or sack and the team goes on
to make a first down. Also by quarter.
A sack in the 1st quarter can be overcome, some teams start slower
than others and the first few games of a season are usually
not quite a real spectrum of what goes on throughout the season.
Last year with all the turmoil and shortened training for rookies
also skews the stats a bit.

After correlating the teams with the best 2011 pass defense DVOA (BAL,NYJ,PIT,DET,JAC,SF) to their corresponding entries in this chart, I've come to the conclusion that the key to fielding a top passing defense in the NFL is being able to minimize the impact of pass plays when your defense is either slow to generate or unable to generate pressure on the QB.

- Two of the top six teams in pressure % generated finished #23 (OAK) and #31 (TB) in passing defense DVOA. The Rams, another one of those six, finished #14. Each of these three teams did extremely poorly when their defense did not pressure the QB (#20, #27 and #30). So despite generating a high rate of pressure, these teams' secondaries completely folded when the defense did not generate pressure.

- The top six teams in passing defense DVOA in 2011 (BAL, NYJ, PIT, DET, JAC, SF) have the following rankings in the "DVOA without pressure" section of the above chart: #2, #1, #6, #4, #7, #10. Their overall pressure % generated frequency ranking varies a bit more, however: #2, #11, #9, #14, #24, #3.

So it appears that while generating a high rate of pressure is important - and most of the top passing defenses do so - being able to maintain defensive composure when pressure is *not* generated is even more important.

"Those kinds of numbers make it almost masochistic to think about how spectacularly awful Minnesota's 32nd-ranked pass defense would have been if not for Allen narrowly missing out on Michael Strahan's NFL sack record."

Alternately, imagine how many sacks Allen may have gotten if QBs under pressure didn't have such a porous opposing secondary to bail them out. Poor Allen.

Giants are interesting. 3rd in the league in sacks, but 25th in pressure. #2 ranked pass defense with pressure.

Shows they did not get pressure often, but when they did it almost always resulted in a sack.

When I first saw Al Davis' name, my first thought was: Seems like everyone's been missing RJ lately, not just me.

When I first saw you saying it wasn't to lure him into commenting I thought: Liar.

Then you admitted it. Great article.

Fire Jeff Ireland.

So I muff a few punts, and you still can't say it:

NEW YORK GIANTS, SUPERBOWL CHAMPIONS

Stats show both the 49ers and the Pats are clearly better, so can't we just be happy with that?

Without rigorous analysis - it's my suspicion that the difference in "Pressure" DVOA is just noise. What is really the difference between a -70% and -110%?

Pressure rate seems more critical is more critical (and as others have pointed out - non pressure DVOA), although you would want to see year-to-year correlations.

Another thing to look at... how does pressure DVOA change with down/distance. If my defense forces a lot of 3rd-longs (easier to get pressure) does that mean they will have a lower pressure DVOA? Because, essentialy, the degree of difficulty for the offense is harder?