While fiddling around using passing stats from the amount of pass attempts – amount of sacks allowed too come up with an easy, yet non-scientific way to gauge a team’s pass protection proficiency. Sure, It wont give a true indicator or competent gauge of whether a quarterback is holding onto the football to long nor will it tell us if a quarterback has a quick release or other metrics and intangibles’ that are usually involved in protections schemes or just that a quarterback is prone to taking sacks or is a rookie making the first few starts of there respective careers that the naked eye see’s when watch game film. It does however give a starting point to how effective overall a team’s ability is at protecting their quarterback is.
Typically, one looks at a quarterbacks release(time it takes to let the football go), decision making or lack there of, ability of the protection scheme, the performance of the actual blockers in front of them and a quarterbacks ability to elude the rush. To get a true determination of where the blame is to be laid when watching game film as to whose fault it was for giving up sacks.
Since none of us have the time, resources or money needed for such an undertaking figured it would be a little bit easier, but of course more subjective to just use a simple math formula and an excel workbook to give us that starting point.
From 2007 through 2009, the average percentage a quarterback has been sacked in the NFL has been a combined average of 6.7 percent. In 2007 the average was 7%, 2008 it was 6% and through week nine of the 2009 season its right at 7%.
| 2009 | ||||
| RK | TEAM | ATT | SACK | SACK % |
| 1 | Indianapolis | 315 | 7 | 2% |
| 2 | Tennessee | 240 | 7 | 3% |
| 3 | New England | 321 | 10 | 3% |
| 4 | New Orleans | 265 | 12 | 5% |
| 5 | Houston | 326 | 15 | 5% |
| 6 | Arizona | 326 | 15 | 5% |
| 7 | Cincinnati | 260 | 12 | 5% |
| 8 | Atlanta | 257 | 12 | 5% |
| 9 | Denver | 269 | 13 | 5% |
| 10 | NY Giants | 299 | 15 | 5% |
| 11 | Baltimore | 285 | 16 | 6% |
| 12 | Tampa Bay | 268 | 16 | 6% |
| 13 | Seattle | 317 | 19 | 6% |
| 14 | St. Louis | 257 | 16 | 6% |
| 15 | Dallas | 264 | 17 | 6% |
| 16 | San Diego | 274 | 18 | 7% |
| 17 | Chicago | 288 | 19 | 7% |
| 18 | Minnesota | 262 | 18 | 7% |
| 19 | NY Jets | 215 | 15 | 7% |
| 20 | Jacksonville | 269 | 20 | 7% |
| 21 | Carolina | 239 | 18 | 8% |
| 22 | Philadelphia | 266 | 21 | 8% |
| 23 | Cleveland | 233 | 19 | 8% |
| 24 | Pittsburgh | 263 | 23 | 9% |
| 25 | Detroit | 287 | 26 | 9% |
| 26 | Miami | 240 | 23 | 10% |
| 27 | San Francisco | 255 | 26 | 10% |
| 28 | Buffalo | 224 | 23 | 10% |
| 29 | Washington | 248 | 28 | 11% |
| 30 | Kansas City | 251 | 30 | 12% |
| 31 | Oakland | 203 | 25 | 12% |
| 32 | Green Bay | 263 | 37 | 14% |
As stated above , it’s a mere subject for debate as theirs more then just one component when judging how well a team protects it signal callers.



