Defensive Notes
Earlier in the week I ran a table showing team rankings in sacks over the last five years. A reader asked about the relationship between sacks and points allowed. At the time I guessed that there wouldn't be much of a direct correlation.
For the most part, that appears to be the case. Six of the top-10 teams in terms of fewest points allowed, including the league-best Jets, ranked 16th or worse in sacks; essentially, the bottom half of the league. Six of the top 10 in sacks ranked outside the top 12 in terms of points allowed.
One thing that can be said is that the league's worst defenses are pretty awful in both categories. The bottom 6 teams in terms of sacks all managed to also rank 24th or worse in terms of points allowed. Not surprisingly, if you get absolutely no pressure on the quarterback, you're probably going to get lit up.
The numbers, showing teams ordered by sacks, with the other columns reflecting points allowed in 2009 and their ranking in that category, are presented below. Dallas, San Francisco, and Minnesota are the three teams that ranked in the top 10 in both categories.
2009, Sacks versus points allowed
Sk Pts Rk (Pts)
48 312 10 Minnesota
47 324 13 Pittsburgh
44 390 25 Miami
44 337 19 Philadelphia
44 281 4 San Francisco
43 322 12 Arizona
42 250 2 Dallas
40 375 21 Cleveland
40 336 18 Washington
39 324 13 Denver
37 297 7 Green Bay
37 379 23 Oakland
35 375 21 Chicago
35 341 20 New Orleans
35 320 11 San Diego
34 291 6 Cincinnati
34 307 8 Indianapolis
32 261 3 Baltimore
32 326 16 Buffalo
32 427 30 NY Giants
32 233 1 NY Jets
32 402 28 Tennessee
31 308 9 Carolina
31 285 5 New England
30 333 17 Houston
28 325 15 Atlanta
28 390 25 Seattle
28 400 27 Tampa Bay
26 494 32 Detroit
25 436 31 St. Louis
22 424 29 Kansas City
14 380 24 Jacksonville
--Andy Richardson
- Comments [1]
Readers' Comments
Add a Comment
Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.
To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.

Posted by DAVID DIGREGORIO | Mar. 16 at 11:40 PM
Thanks.