Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

I prefer to focus less on numbers because you can make them say anything you want to. Once a player reaches a certain threshold numbers-wise, then it's what are the things that distinguish that player from others or makes them unique or special?

Rare is the player who transcends his team, but Kevin Greene did. Over and over again.

How many times have we seen the "great" player who signs a big contract with a new team then is either never heard from again or is nowhere near the same player? Happens all the time. Coaches and organizations win games, most players are interchangeable parts whose stats are products of the environment they play in.

There are exceptions, of course. Reggie White being one example.

And Kevin Greene is another. The guy went from team to team and simply dominated as a pass rusher. Hall of Fame worthy in my book.

Reaser wrote:Sacks. It wasn't in direct response to you. I meant in general I'd like to see an argument for Greene without using sacks.

Greene had an immediate positive impact everywhere he went. He played at a high level regardless of supporting cast. I think if a player is consistently getting double-digit sacks for a number of years, he must be getting pressure on the QB with regularity. I don't think you can conclude that Greene is just getting lucky 10 times a year for 10 years. I also don't know why Greene is the poster-child for "sacks is overrated"...if you want to see an argument for Greene without using sacks, then what about Derrick Thomas? Chris Doleman? Charles Haley? Richard Dent? Fred Dean?

Reaser wrote:All that's in general. For Greene, I didn't find him to be particular good against the run, or is pass coverage for that matter.

Is this based on anything specific? And if you are going to keep Greene out of the HOF for his pass coverage, then we should probably keep Earl Campbell out of the HOF for his pass receiving and Paul Krause for his run support. How was Lawrence Taylor in pass coverage?

Bryan wrote:I also don't know why Greene is the poster-child for "sacks is overrated"...if you want to see an argument for Greene without using sacks, then what about Derrick Thomas? Chris Doleman? Charles Haley? Richard Dent? Fred Dean?

Is this based on anything specific? And if you are going to keep Greene out of the HOF for his pass coverage, then we should probably keep Earl Campbell out of the HOF for his pass receiving and Paul Krause for his run support.

Greene isn't the poster-child and I'm not sure where I said that? At least I tried to say - and believe I did - that my argument was "in general", that sacks are overrated (or at least overvalued) and I believe I did a fairly good job of explaining my position - with adding that I understand other people think sacks are important. Any player who's argument for is solely "had x amount of sacks" just isn't enough or all that meaningful to me, because sacks aren't that meaningful in football, in winning football, or in my opinion. That is why I was interested in seeing an argument for Greene that didn't include, "he had 160 sacks."

Greene is no Lawrence Taylor (or Derrick Thomas) ...

Earl Campbell: Running the ball and the level that Campbell did it at is infinitely more important than sacks.
Paul Krause: Turnovers (i.e. interceptions) are infinitely more important in football than sacks.

Maybe you played in a bunch of games where sacks were the reason for which team won or lost? I don't know, I know I never played in a game where who had the most sacks determined anything. Maybe you played for better coaches? None I played for put an emphasis on sacks. Maybe you've listened to other college coaches or have read quotes from different NFL coaches? Definitely a possibility, but the NFL coaches I've listened to or seen quoted usually say pretty close to what I've said throughout this thread, and the college coaches I went to play for definitely didn't have sacks as the #1 goal for anything. Either way, everyone has different experiences in football, and consumes football differently, so I always allow for the possibility that people have been taught different or in studying have found different. If that explains your stance, then that's fine with me. Won't change my mind about the "sack" as a statistic and it's meaning though, since I've had the same position for literally over half my life - to date.

At the risk of not looking it up to confirm, I believe the 2012 Ravens had a negative sack differential. For another example to show the 'importance' of the sack statistic.

Reaser wrote:That is why I was interested in seeing an argument for Greene that didn't include, "he had 160 sacks."

That would be a pretty dumb "pro-Greene" argument if you omitted Greene having 160 sacks...it would be like someone arguing Nolan Ryan's HOF candidacy and leaving out the whole strikeout thing (a strikeout is just like any other out, right?).

Reaser wrote:Greene is no Lawrence Taylor (or Derrick Thomas) ...

Earl Campbell: Running the ball and the level that Campbell did it at is infinitely more important than sacks.
Paul Krause: Turnovers (i.e. interceptions) are infinitely more important in football than sacks.

I was talking about your complaint that Greene wasn't good in pass coverage...I don't know what sacks have to do with it.

Reaser wrote:Maybe you played in a bunch of games where sacks were the reason for which team won or lost? I don't know, I know I never played in a game where who had the most sacks determined anything. Maybe you played for better coaches? None I played for put an emphasis on sacks. Maybe you've listened to other college coaches or have read quotes from different NFL coaches? Definitely a possibility, but the NFL coaches I've listened to or seen quoted usually say pretty close to what I've said throughout this thread, and the college coaches I went to play for definitely didn't have sacks as the #1 goal for anything. Either way, everyone has different experiences in football, and consumes football differently, so I always allow for the possibility that people have been taught different or in studying have found different. If that explains your stance, then that's fine with me. Won't change my mind about the "sack" as a statistic and it's meaning though, since I've had the same position for literally over half my life - to date.

This made me laugh. I guess we should be constructing a new wing in Canton devoted entirely to kickers, because I played in a bunch of games where points were the reason which team won or lost. Yeah, NFL coaches abhor players who routinely sack the opposing QB. Perhaps you are on to something, and we should have D.D. Lewis as a Finalist instead of Kevin Greene. I guess I've been "taught differently" than most people. Good Lord.

Reaser wrote:At the risk of not looking it up to confirm, I believe the 2012 Ravens had a negative sack differential. For another example to show the 'importance' of the sack statistic.

So Kevin Greene's career sack total is inconsequential to his HOF candidacy, and Greene's enshrinement for Canton is dependent on whether or not the 2012 Ravens had a negative sack differential. For Greene's sake, I am crossing my fingers that the 2012 Ravens had a positive sack differential, because that would legitimize Kevin Greene's 15-year NFL career.

Bryan wrote:That would be a pretty dumb "pro-Greene" argument if you omitted Greene having 160 sacks...it would be like someone arguing Nolan Ryan's HOF candidacy and leaving out the whole strikeout thing (a strikeout is just like any other out, right?).

I was talking about your complaint that Greene wasn't good in pass coverage...I don't know what sacks have to do with it.

This made me laugh. I guess we should be constructing a new wing in Canton devoted entirely to kickers, because I played in a bunch of games where points were the reason which team won or lost. Yeah, NFL coaches abhor players who routinely sack the opposing QB. Perhaps you are on to something, and we should have D.D. Lewis as a Finalist instead of Kevin Greene. I guess I've been "taught differently" than most people. Good Lord.

So Kevin Greene's career sack total is inconsequential to his HOF candidacy, and Greene's enshrinement for Canton is dependent on whether or not the 2012 Ravens had a negative sack differential. For Greene's sake, I am crossing my fingers that the 2012 Ravens had a positive sack differential, because that would legitimize Kevin Greene's 15-year NFL career.

Well we've devolved and entered the hostile and nonsensical portion of the thread. That should be enough. John and I had what I think was a respectful discussion which of course even if we don't see it the same I could talk football with him all day. Bob Gill found it interesting. V_ya made a non-numbers argument. Some people got it, that's good enough for me.

Just because: "When Belichick was asked on an NFL survey to name the most overrated statistic, he cited sacks."

Reaser wrote:

Bryan wrote:
Just because: "When Belichick was asked on an NFL survey to name the most overrated statistic, he cited sacks."

Ironic that defensive coach Belichick cites sacks as most overrated, and offensive coach Walsh said a late pass rush was the key to winning in the NFL.

Realizing that pass rush and sacks are not quite the same thing, they are similar enough, making this an interesting paradox.

Veeshik_ya wrote:Ironic that defensive coach Belichick cites sacks as most overrated, and offensive coach Walsh said a late pass rush was the key to winning in the NFL.

Realizing that pass rush and sacks are not quite the same thing, they are similar enough, making this an interesting paradox.

I think they're both saying something similar, actually. Belichick's point (I had known he said it in the past so I just searched for that quote) if I remember correctly, was similar to the one that I've posted a few times in this thread, that sacks aren't the best statistic to identify "pass rush", that hits, hurries, disruptions, etc are more important than "sack" (as a statistic) ... Almost identical to what I've been saying - though I'm certainly not going to put words in Belichick's mouth, but I'm 99.9% sure that's extremely close and accurate to what he said.

While Walsh said that about pass rush (not necessarily sacks. which again, been one of my main points throughout the thread).

The key is like you said, "realizing that pass rush and sacks are not quite the same thing."

Reaser wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:Nick may or may not confirm

Speaking of Nick, I liked the "Defeat Factor" article he had in one of the recent "Coffin Corner" issues. Combining sacks and stuffs for an overall defensive stat. I wonder how and where Greene and Haley rank in that?
.

Greene 60.5 stuffs, 160 sacks = 220.5
Haley 38.5 100.5 sacks = 139

Greene 23 FF, 26 FR, 5 INT, 50 PD, 3 defensive TDs and 3 safeties
Haley 26 FF, 8 FR, 2 INT, 41 PD, 1 defensive TD, 1 safety

JohnTurney wrote:Greene 60.5 stuffs, 160 sacks = 220.5
Haley 38.5 100.5 sacks = 139

Greene 23 FF, 26 FR, 5 INT, 50 PD, 3 defensive TDs and 3 safeties
Haley 26 FF, 8 FR, 2 INT, 41 PD, 1 defensive TD, 1 safety

Thanks, John.

I don't have a problem with either. I think Greene's career was a bit more impressive (160 sacks is 160 sacks and, while maybe not as good all around as someone like Ricky Jackson, he wasn't as one dimensional as someone like Derrick Thomas) but, while his career total (100.5) pales in comparison to Greene's and a number of others, no doubt Haley could get after the QB, too. I understand "he has 5 rings!" being a tiresome argument to some, but the fact is Haley was a key part of those teams and seems to score high in the testimonials category.

I wouldn't be overly surprised if Greene jumped him, but Haley's made the final 10 the last three years. The only one to make the final 10 three straight times and not get in on the fourth try is Andre Reed, who was a 10 to 5 cut four times before getting the necessary votes for induction last year.