NFL
Trending

Dynamic Duo Alert: Commanders Eyeing Ekeler & Robinson in Explosive 2-Back Sets for Upcoming Season

One major critique of quarterback Jayden Daniels before the draft centered on his pressure-to-sack ratio. This metric reflects the percentage of times a pressure results in a sack. In his final season at LSU, Daniels endured a pressure-to-sack ratio of approximately 20%, meaning he was sacked once for every five pressures. This statistic is concerning as it typically carries over to the NFL; quarterbacks with low ratios in college often maintain this trend professionally, while those with higher ratios tend to continue struggling in this area.

The Washington Commanders experienced firsthand the repercussions of such a statistic last year with Sam Howell, who similarly had a high pressure-to-sack ratio in college. This metric often indicates quarterbacks who take too long to read plays in the pocket, resulting in sacks due to prolonged ball possession. This tendency plagued Howell and other quarterbacks with high ratios, such as Justin Fields.

However, it’s essential to analyze each sack individually, as not every one is solely the quarterback’s fault. Each sack requires context to determine whether there’s a concerning trend or if the statistic lacks context. To provide context, I’ve reviewed the sacks Jayden Daniels endured in his final season at LSU. While ESPN credited Daniels with 22 sacks last season, upon review, I’ve accounted for 21 sacks, which I’ll divide into two posts. This first post will examine the initial 11 sacks Daniels encountered, detailing the circumstances and lessons learned from each.

Sack 1:

Situation: Fourth and goal from the one-yard line.

Play analysis: LSU lines up in a stacked two-by-two formation, with two receivers stacked on each side. The defense presents a Cover-0 look, positioning two defenders over each stacked set and the remainder in the box, poised to rush. Although FSU’s defense doesn’t execute a pure Cover-0, with two edge defenders feigning a rush before dropping back to potential throwing lanes, the intention is clear.

LSU runs two high-low concepts to either side of the formation, challenging zone coverages by forcing defenders to choose between sinking deep or defending the short pass. Daniels scans left initially, but neither option is available, prompting a quick shift to the right. However, the receiver running the in-breaking route hasn’t made his cut, leaving Daniels with limited options. As pressure mounts, Daniels attempts to scramble left but is sacked.

What Daniels can learn: In this scenario, Daniels had no viable passing options when pressure arose, absolving him of blame for the sack. However, for future instances, Daniels can enhance his pre-snap recognition to identify defensive schemes like Cover-0 and adjust route combinations accordingly. While he could have taken a risk by throwing the ball anyway on fourth down, the potential interception risk outweighed the reward.

Sack 5:

Situation: First and 10 from the 39-yard line.

Play analysis: LSU attempts to overload the short side of the field with four receivers. Despite several receiving options, Daniels hesitates and attempts to scramble, resulting in a sack.

What Daniels can learn: Despite multiple receiving options available, Daniels fails to make a decisive throw or utilize the checkdown, opting to run himself. He missed opportunities to target the post route or check down to the open running back in the flat.

In summary, while Daniels grappled with a high pressure-to-sack ratio, each sack warrants individual analysis to discern underlying trends and lessons for improvement.

Related Articles

Back to top button