2006 SEC Football: Offensive Sack Rates

We often hear in traditional media outlets about how certain offensive lines are good because they allowed such a few number of sacks, and others are poor because they allowed so many sacks, but in reality that approach is inherently flawed. Since sacks allowed is a cumulative statistic, people tend to just look at the final number and fail to put that number in any real context. What is almost overlooked is the effect the number of passes thrown have on how many sacks an offensive line will allow.

For an absurd example, say one team gives up 10 sacks in 150 passing attempts while another team gives up 20 sacks in 400 passing attempts. An initial analysis would say the former offensive line is much better, but once you consider passing attempts, the latter was a better pass blocking line.

So how did SEC teams stack up in 2006 in terms of offensive sack rates? Here are the numbers broken-down:



Another important factor to consider is not only the number of sacks allowed, by also how many yards were lost on average per sack. So how did SEC teams stack up in 2006 in terms of average yards lost per sack? Here are the numbers broken-down for that:



We see some pretty interesting things when we go beyond surface-deep. Just a few random notes:

• The Alabama line was generally thought of as absolutely terrible in 2006. And, while it wasn't very good, it was probably a bit better than most expected. If you had told an Alabama fan immediately after the season was over that we had the eighth best line in the conference in terms of pass protection, nearly everyone would have probably said they were being very overrated. In reality, that's exactly what they were.

• The real trouble with the Alabama line was the average yards lost per sack, 7.29, which was 11th in the conference. The good news, however, is that number is probably more indicative of the play-calling on Shula's behalf. All year long, I bemoaned about the lack of three and five step drops; almost everything was a seven-stop drops, which made our already relatively poor offensive line have to pass block even longer. As a result of the long drops, when sacks did occur, they were generally for more yardage. More three and five step drops in 2007 will hopefully ameliorate that problem.
  

• Auburn was dead last in the conference in sack rate, and actually by a very wide margin. I believe most of that could be chalked up to Brandon Cox's lack of mobility following ankle injuries early in the season. However, Auburn was second in the conference in average yards lost per sack, and this is largely the result of so many quick and short passes called by the Auburn offense. Without doubt, a large amount of credit must go to the Auburn coaching staff here. Faced with an immobile quarterback, they shifted their offensive gameplans to include more short drops and quicker throws. Good job by Borges and company.
  

• The Arkansas offensive line was generally regarded as a great run blocking line, but a poor pass blocking line. In reality, though, they pass blocked very well in 2006. They had the second lowest sack rate in the conference, and they allowed the second fewest average yards lost per sack. Certainly, a great deal of credit goes to the strong running game, which yielded a lot of playaction passing, but the fact remains that they consistently got the job done, even though they were protecting for a true freshman quarterback almost all season.
  

• Tennessee was simply great up front, leading the conference in offensive sack rate, even though they had to face a non-divisional opponent in LSU that was first in the conference in defensive sack rate, all with a backup quarterback. David Cutcliffe got almost all of the credit for re-invigorating the hapless Erik Ainge, but the offensive line should get a good deal of credit. Teams knew Tennessee was going to throw it a lot (second most pass attempts of any team in the conference), yet they stood up and passed the test anyway.
  

• Georgia, much like Arkansas, did a very good job of protecting a true freshman quarterback. They finished third in offensive sack rate, despite not having the greatest of rushing attacks. Much of the success in pass protection came from the tackles, Daniel Inman and Ken Shackleford, both of which will not return in 2007. Inman was one of the best linemen in the conference, and he started 48 games in his career for Georgia. If the Georgia line falls off in pass protection in 2007, the loss of Inman and Shackleford will be the likely reason why.
  

• LSU presents an interesting case study. They finished fourth in the conference in offensive sack rate, and that may seem a bit low considering JaMarcus Russell was the quarterback. Russell is often considered almost un-sackable, and that was one reason he went so high in the NFL Draft. So you would expect that to be a bit better. However, on the other hand, while they were fourth, they were very close to first overall, so it's probably best if we don't pay much attention to that. Then, beyond that, they were dead last in the conference in average loss per sack allowed. But maybe that makes sense, too. The 2006 LSU offense was based almost solely on a deep passing threat, and all of the deep passes (which require deep drops and long times to develop) should result in some big sacks for losses. Still, though, for LSU, they remain an interesting case study, particularly in 2007. Most of the offensive line returns, but they will be switching from an offense predicated upon the deep pass to an offense that has a much higher emphasis on short, quick throws, and the mobility of the quarterback should go up a bit. LSU probably has the greatest transition to make in terms of differences in what their line must accomplish in 2007.