Factoid
I posted the deal on Jay Cutler yesterday, and Brian Grzybowski followed that up by digging up some individual numbers. Most notably, Grzybowski wondered whether Cutler might challenge George Blanda’s record for turnovers in a season.
Below are some team numbers. They show teams that have given up the most sacks and interceptions since the NFL went to the 16-game schedule in 1978.
MOST SACKS IN A SEASON, 1978-2009
Teams allowing at least 64 sacks (4 per game) since the move to the 16-game schedule.
Sacks Year
104 1986 Philadelphia Eagles
78 1997 Arizona Cardinals
76 2002 Houston Texans
72 1987 Philadelphia Eagles
72 2006 Oakland Raiders
69 1985 Atlanta Falcons
69 2000 Carolina Panthers
68 2005 Houston Texans
67 1984 Atlanta Falcons
67 1992 Seattle Seahawks
67 1998 Oakland Raiders
66 1984 New England Patriots
66 1987 New York Jets
66 2001 Atlanta Falcons
66 2001 Detroit Lions
66 2004 Chicago Bears
65 1985 St. Louis Cardinals
65 1992 New England Patriots
65 1994 Houston Oilers
64 1984 Minnesota Vikings
64 1986 Los Angeles Raiders
64 1992 Philadelphia Eagles
64 1997 Philadelphia Eagles
64 1999 Detroit Lions
MOST INTERCEPTIONS IN A SEASON, 1978-2009
Teams throwing at least 25 interceptions since the move to the 16-game schedule.
INT Year
36 1988 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
36 1978 San Francisco 49ers
34 1981 New England Patriots
34 1998 San Diego Chargers
34 1978 Minnesota Vikings
33 1997 New Orleans Saints
33 1986 San Diego Chargers
33 1983 San Diego Chargers
32 1981 Los Angeles Rams
32 1987 Atlanta Falcons
32 2009 Detroit Lions
32 1983 Green Bay Packers
31 1983 New York Giants
31 1986 Houston Oilers
31 1985 Buffalo Bills
31 1978 Oakland Raiders
30 1984 Buffalo Bills
30 1989 Phoenix Cardinals
30 2000 San Diego Chargers
30 1978 Baltimore Colts
30 1999 Arizona Cardinals
30 1980 New York Jets
30 1984 Green Bay Packers
30 1996 Atlanta Falcons
30 1996 New York Jets
30 1999 New Orleans Saints
30 1985 San Diego Chargers
30 1978 Cincinnati Bengals
30 1978 San Diego Chargers
30 2005 Green Bay Packers
29 1991 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
29 1992 Denver Broncos
29 1983 Houston Oilers
29 1985 Minnesota Vikings
29 1980 Green Bay Packers
29 1979 Los Angeles Rams
29 2009 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
29 1981 Minnesota Vikings
29 2000 New York Jets
28 1985 Philadelphia Eagles
28 1984 Los Angeles Raiders
28 1981 Oakland Raiders
28 2007 St. Louis Rams
28 1984 New Orleans Saints
28 1978 New York Jets
28 1983 New York Jets
28 1989 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
28 1983 Buffalo Bills
28 1978 Chicago Bears
28 1983 Cleveland Browns
28 1980 Houston Oilers
28 1988 New England Patriots
28 1998 Indianapolis Colts
27 1979 Detroit Lions
27 1985 Green Bay Packers
27 2002 St. Louis Rams
27 1991 Philadelphia Eagles
27 1979 Cleveland Browns
27 1981 New Orleans Saints
27 1981 Cleveland Browns
27 1978 New York Giants
27 1986 Green Bay Packers
27 1988 Dallas Cowboys
27 2009 Chicago Bears
27 1989 New England Patriots
27 1985 Pittsburgh Steelers
27 1989 Dallas Cowboys
27 1980 New England Patriots
27 1994 New England Patriots
27 1994 Washington Redskins
26 2004 Miami Dolphins
26 1980 San Francisco 49ers
26 1984 Dallas Cowboys
26 1992 Indianapolis Colts
26 1984 Seattle Seahawks
26 1991 Seattle Seahawks
26 1985 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
26 1980 San Diego Chargers
26 1980 Miami Dolphins
26 2001 Cincinnati Bengals
26 1979 Pittsburgh Steelers
26 1987 Detroit Lions
26 1979 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
—Ian Allan
- Comments [9]
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 Moishe Steigmann | Aug. 31 at 03:05 AM
At quick glance -- please correct me if I am wrong -- it looks like none of Martz's teams are on either of these lists. Sorry, Brian.
Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | Aug. 31 at 03:31 AM
I think the 2002 Rams were a Martz team. Surprising that Martz's Lions and Niners aren't there.
Posted by JUSTIN ELEFF | Aug. 31 at 03:32 AM
Moishe: I see the '02 Rams on the bottom list with 27 INTs, but otherwise your point is well-taken. On the other hand, I also see the '09 Bears on the same list, also with 27 INTs - which might be even more important. Does Martz x Cutler = a good thing in terms of avoiding turnovers?
Posted by IAN ALLAN | Aug. 31 at 04:45 AM
Teams don't throw as many interceptions or allow as many sacks as they used to. Note that you just don't see many teams from recent years on these lists. (So maybe I just shouldn't have even posted the deal). But I can assure you that the Bears are the clear frontrunner to lead the league in both sacks and interceptions. I will dig it out later, but I believe that Martz's last five teams (Rams, Lions, Lions, 49ers, 49ers) rank last in sacks, interceptions, fumbles and rushing -- last in all four categories over that five-year period, versus the other 32 teams.
Posted by Brian Grzybowski | Aug. 31 at 05:24 AM
Right, so the original point I was driving at was the statistical hole a QB can be placed in when you add sacks + interceptions + fumbles (you can also consider negative yardage caused by sacks). Most of my leagues deduct one point per sack and 2 points for any kind of turnover. Both of these lists above contain mostly journeyman type QBs, rookies, and Brett Favre's 607 attempt season from 2005. Unlike the Jay Cutler/Mike Martz combo, the vast majority of these QBs would not have been selected in a Fantasy draft. Chuck Long? David Woodley? And the overwhelming majority of the teams on both these lists finished dead last in their divisions. Again, the idea is that when you combine all the negatives you are looking at a player that is doing your fantasy team more harm than good. But you must combine all of them. Peyton Manning's rookie season (1998) is a good example. It is on this list due to his 28 interceptions that season. But Manning was sacked only 22 times and lost 1 fumble. That would equal 80 negative points. Last year, in his 4th season in the league, Jay Cutler threw 26 interceptions, lost 1 fumble (although he put the ball on the ground 9 times) and was sacked 35 times for a negative point total of 89 points (additionally, he lost 204 yards to sacks). If you combine Cutler's propensity for throwing interceptions with Martz's system and a very shaky O-line then it seems to be a recipe for disaster. For whatever reason, when people hear the name Mike Martz they conjure up images of Kurt Warner's 2001 season. But let's keep in mind that Warner is a HOFer and he played on a team with a bunch of future HOFers. Left tackle, the running back, both starting WRs (and Ricky Proehl was pretty good in the slot). And still he had 38 sacks, 22 Ints., 4 fumbs. (-94 ponts. Not including 233 yards lost). Marc Bulger in 2003 (15 games): 37 sacks, 22 and 8 (-89. -288 yards). Jon Kitna 2006: 63/22/9 (-125. -388 yards). J.T. O'Sullivan 2008 (9 games): 32/11/6 (-66. -197 yards). I know everyone thinks that Cutler is Chicago's football savior but the stats don't indicate that. By any measure ment he is closer to being in the Kitna/Bulger group than in the Manning/Warner group. And I know he switched teams last year and that has a lot to do with his regression...but Brett Favre switched teams last year also.
Posted by Todd Weigel | Aug. 31 at 07:56 AM
I didn't follow football in the mid-80's. Do you have any explanation for the 1986 Philadelphia Eagles? That's 33% more sacks than the next team on the list! 6.5 sacks/game, when no one else has allowed more than 5!
Posted by JUSTIN ELEFF | Aug. 31 at 08:18 AM
Todd: That was Randall Cunningham's first season with extensive playing time. Cunningham always took a lot of "sacks" - 72 that year, as many as 60 later on - but he was the signature running QB of the day. When a running back is tackled behind the line of scrimmage, it's just a play for negative yardage. When a QB is - and Cunningham did gain 540 yards on the ground that season - it's a sack. Not the same, in many cases, as when Tom Brady takes one. Or, in the case of that team, when Ron Jaworski did.
Posted by IAN ALLAN | Aug. 31 at 08:56 AM
Clarifying Justin's answer: When any player (quarterback or running back) is tackled behind the line of scrimmage, the game's statistician must decide whether the player intended to run or pass. It's a judgement call. That's why you'll sometimes see adjustments on those stats. A negative run by a running back will be changed to a sack after closer examination, or a designed-type run by a quarterback will be changed from a sack to a negative run. Maybe some of those Cunningham sacks were actually designed (and failed) runs, but he liked to run around back there. Michael Vick is another mobile quarterback who gets sacked a lot.
Posted by JUSTIN ELEFF | Aug. 31 at 02:27 PM
Ian's right; I should have written more about the way Cunningham played. I didn't mean to suggest that EVERY play on which the QB is tackled behind the line is scored as a sack; when it's clear the QB means to run, the scorers usually get it right and count it as a run for negative yardage. But Cunningham was less like the young Mike Vick, who I remember getting nervous and bolting on a lot of plays, and more like Ben Roethlisberger or the young Donovan McNabb. He seemed to believe he could make a play out of any circumstance, so he'd use his speed to keep things alive for what sometimes seemed an impossibly long time. By the time you knew he was running and not just rolling around, he'd have found a lane for 12 yards. But sometimes he just wouldn't give up, and he'd roll into a sack whether he'd made up his mind to run already or not. Notice that he threw for 3,808 yards in '88, and wasn't far off that pace in 12 games in '87. One of my all-time favorites to watch, but I sure wouldn't have wanted to coach him OR coach against him. Just gut-wrenching either way.