In 1986, the Philadelphia Eagles set one of those records that may never be broken. They allowed 106 sacks of their QB. The 1997 Arizona Cardinals are in a distant second place having allowed 78 sacks (4.8 sacks allowed per game). Despite their reputation for torturing David Carr, the Houston Texans cap out at number 3 on the list, having allowed 76 sacks in 2002.
In order to allow 106 sacks in a 16 game season, you have to allow 6.6 sacks per game. There are no teams currently on that pace, but a few are trying. Here are the current league leaders at getting their QBs crunched:
They might not be on pace for a record, but Oakland and Miami are on pace to beat out the Arizona Cardinals for 2nd place all time.
Oh yeah, and Aaron Brooks is now out. How long do you think Daunte Culpepper will last behind the porous Miami O-line?
In Miami, we call them the D-phins...no OL.
*** Updated 07 Nov 06 ***
1. Oakland - 44 (5.5 sacks per game)
2. Cleveland - 29 (3.6 sacks per game)
3.(tie) Miami - 26
3.(tie) Pittsburgh - 26
3.(tie) Detroit - 26
3.(tie) Buffalo - 26
7. Arizona - 25
As of week 9, Oakland continues to attempt to move up in the all-time-sacks-allowed standings. After allowing 6 sacks against Seattle, they stand at 41 sacks in 8 games. They are still on track to take over 2nd place all time.
Daunte Culpepper lasted 4 games. Joey Harrington has started the last 4 games for the Dolphins. Was Culpepper rushed in his return to football? Possibly. His lack of mobility was part of Miami's poor start. Miami has only allowed 5 sacks in the past 4 games, in part due to a change of philosophy since Harrington took the reins: shorter drops and quicker throws.
Any one else notice that the 7 teams that have allowed the most sacks all have losing records? Buffalo has the best record of the 7 at 3-5.
Comments (1)
Interesting point, but Oakl... (Below threshold)1. Posted by JTStally | September 29, 2006 3:03 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Interesting point, but Oakland had a bye in week 3, therefore they're averaging 7.5 sacks per game.
1. Posted by JTStally | September 29, 2006 3:03 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 29, 2006 15:03