[BostonCard]

And 5 games in a row without being sacked!

No one is happier than me that Luck isn't getting his brains bashed in on a weekly basis (will maybe Mrs Luck), but all this talk of going sack-less made me wonder if this is a sign that the offense may not be aggressive enough. I've heard people theorize that a QB who doesn't throw any INTs may also be a QB who's not going for the stretch plays enough and playing it "too safe." It may be a sign that the offensive play calling doesn't have enough risk included to maximize overall output. I imaging sack rate doesn't necessarily correlate to whether the offense has the optimal balance of safe and aggressive play calling, but it got me wondering. Any thoughts?

Of course, I don't think anyone can complain too much about the Colts offensive output the past 5 weeks, but it did get me wondering.

It depends on the game situation.  If your team is in the lead, the last thing you want to do is risk interceptions or sacks just to get the ball down the field.  On the other hand, if you are trailing in the fourth quarter, especially by two scores, risking an interception or a sack in order to get a big gain is worth it.  Fivethirtyeight used to have a section called "gunslinger of the week"; the point was to highlight quarterbacks who take gambles when trailing.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ske...-the-pats/

While an interception always leads to a bad result — a QB would always prefer not to have thrown it — some are much better than others. Here’s a basic rubric by which to evaluate interceptions:

1. Was the situation appropriate for aggressive play?
   
2. Was the ball thrown downfield? Would it have at least yielded a first down if the pass were completed?
   
3. Did the pass have a fighting chance of being completed?
   

It's similar with allowing sacks, but with the caveat that sometimes a sack can happen for reasons other than aggressiveness.

BC

[BostonCard]

And 5 games in a row without being sacked!

No one is happier than me that Luck isn't getting his brains bashed in on a weekly basis (will maybe Mrs Luck), but all this talk of going sack-less made me wonder if this is a sign that the offense may not be aggressive enough. I've heard people theorize that a QB who doesn't throw any INTs may also be a QB who's not going for the stretch plays enough and playing it "too safe." It may be a sign that the offensive play calling doesn't have enough risk included to maximize overall output. I imaging sack rate doesn't necessarily correlate to whether the offense has the optimal balance of safe and aggressive play calling, but it got me wondering. Any thoughts?

Of course, I don't think anyone can complain too much about the Colts offensive output the past 5 weeks, but it did get me wondering.

It depends on the game situation.  If your team is in the lead, the last thing you want to do is risk interceptions or sacks just to get the ball down the field.  On the other hand, if you are trailing in the fourth quarter, especially by two scores, risking an interception or a sack in order to get a big gain is worth it.  Fivethirtyeight used to have a section called "gunslinger of the week"; the point was to highlight quarterbacks who take gambles when trailing.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ske...-the-pats/

While an interception always leads to a bad result — a QB would always prefer not to have thrown it — some are much better than others. Here’s a basic rubric by which to evaluate interceptions:

1. Was the situation appropriate for aggressive play?
   
2. Was the ball thrown downfield? Would it have at least yielded a first down if the pass were completed?
   
3. Did the pass have a fighting chance of being completed?
   

It's similar with allowing sacks, but with the caveat that sometimes a sack can happen for reasons other than aggressiveness.

BC