Sacks- The Most Damaging Offensive Stat?

I have examined the relationships between dozens of offensive stats and how many points an offense scores. It is surprising how little of a relationship some statistics have with how much a team scores (e.g. rushing yards per carry). Other stats, however, are shockingly relevant to how many points a team scores.

Of all of the statistics I have looked at, nothing is linked more closely with how many points a team scores than the stat of how often its quarterback gets sacked. Now, it shouldn't be surprising that sacks are detrimental to an offense's performance. What is eye-opening is just how damaging they are. In 2006, 11 teams allowed fewer than 30 sacks. Ten of these teams made the playoffs, with the exception of Tennessee. Of the 12 teams that allowed more than 40 sacks, only one, Seattle, made the playoffs, and that was with a 9-7 record. Last year, only one of the 10 teams who allowed 40 or more sacks made the playoffs.

It's clear, then, that teams whose quarterbacks hit the turf a lot simply don't win. In fact, New England's worst offensive performance last year was in their Super Bowl loss, when Tom Brady was sent down five times. But in order to make this stat meaningful, we need to dig deeper: Why do some quarterbacks get sacked more than others? The question is not as straightforward as you might believe. Many people rush to the conclusion that the offensive line stinks. That is certainly one explanation, but it is not the only one. First of all, some teams play in divisions with better defensive lines. Of course, the quarterbacks sometimes can influence how many times they get sacked. Quarterbacks better at moving in the pocket or releasing the ball more quickly can save themselves a trip to the turf. It is probably no coincidence that Brian Griese, while making more attempts than teammate Rex Grossman, suffered only two-thirds as many sacks as Grossman in 2007. Also, receiver matchups and game plans can come into play. A quarterback with no open receivers or viable options is more vulnerable to getting sacked.

So, what are some of the best ways for teams to avoid racking up sacks? I think I'll save that for another post. One thought that keeps coming up, though, is that conventional thinkers may be right about something, after all. Line play is absolutely essential to winning. Expanding on that, in some of my next posts, I'll reveal why I really do believe that an offensive guard or center is more important than a star running back.