Bruce's Super Bowl Sack Stats

[Turf]

Can anyone provide how many sacks Bruce recorded in 4 Super Bowls?

[The_Philster]

1 sack for a safety in Super Bowl XXV
1 sack in Super Bowl XXVII

[Turf]

Thanks Philster. Does anyone consider this good? Granted he didn't have much of a complement on the other side most of the time, with a small DT as well in a 3-4.

[Bruce is Loose]

That would probably be average for him... figure a sack every other game is on pace to have 8 sacks in a year. Granted that is slightly less than Bruce averages but in a Superbowl you are playing the best team so you are not expected to do well.

[BillsFanInMass]

Back in those days bruce saw double teams almost every snap and thats a stat that nobody counts just having him there frees up other players. So 8 sacks is a lot when you have to beat 2 guys to get them. People need to quit degrading the best DE ever too play the game.

[imbondz]

Originally posted by BillsFanInMass
Back in those days bruce saw double teams almost every snap and thats a stat that nobody counts just having him there frees up other players. So 8 sacks is a lot when you have to beat 2 guys to get them. People need to quit degrading the best DE ever too play the game. .

Amen.

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

If you really want a telling tale go back and look at all of Bruce's sacks and figure out how many of them were actually against the top tier left tackles or during critical points in the game. Now if you can find that you will be in for one hell of a suprise.

[BillsNYC]

Originally posted by TheGhostofJimKelly
If you really want a telling tale go back and look at all of Bruce's sacks and figure out how many of them were actually against the top tier left tackles or during critical points in the game. Now if you can find that you will be in for one hell of a suprise.

i'm too lazy...please tell....:baghead:

[The Spaz]

Yeah you know all LT's are Pro Bowlers. What a joke. Bruce will be the all time sack leader this year and noone will be able to take that away from him! Go Bills!

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

I didn't say all LTs are pro-bowlers nor am I against Bruce Smith, try reading the post before you reply.

[The Spaz]

I did. What is supposed to mean then? Go Bills!

[SoCalBillsFan]

spaz, just asking, but is the "go bills!" after ever post really necessery?

:D

[Captain gameboy]

Pretty hard to get sacks when the game plan of the first Super Bowl (XXV) was run-run-run, and we were getting our butts kicked pretty bad by sencond half of the other ones that we weren't seeing a lot of sack friendly situations.

[WG]

Originally posted by BillsFanInMass
Back in those days bruce saw double teams almost every snap and thats a stat that nobody counts just having him there frees up other players. So 8 sacks is a lot when you have to beat 2 guys to get them. People need to quit degrading the best DE ever too play the game.

Right!

And others need to quit talking about Bruce as if he's still anything better than average.

He's finished as a playmaker and marquee player. He may play for another team as a starter even, but given his propensity and proven history of making waves, it would be foolish for us to even consider him at DE for this season!

Besides, I would argue that White was better if you want to go by sacks alone. They were two totally different types of DEs. White was a power guy who had speed too although not as much as Bruce nearly. Bruce was an LT type of pass rusher where he used his speed off the corner to make huge plays but who didn't have the size/strength combo to beat out the better tackles w/ regularity on that merit alone if at all.

Smith hasn't achieved anywhere near Reggie's sack total heading into his 4th season more now. So to say he is the best is arguable. I'd definitely say he was the best "speed DE" to ever play the game, but I'd take White in two seconds over Smith for the most part. Of course certain defenses such as ours might be better suited to Bruce's style/abilities more. Past abilities that is.

[WG]

Also, how about TFL and other stats for the playoffs and SBs?

Funny, we berate Smith for not putting up in the big games while by QB standards Bledsoe has done far, far less other than "intangible" leadership crap!

At least Bruce didn't get beat and make stupid decisions time after time after time.

Funny how that works!

[Earthquake Enyart]

I thought Leon Seals got the sack for a safety in Super Bowl 25.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Originally posted by TheGhostofJimKelly
If you really want a telling tale go back and look at all of Bruce's sacks and figure out how many of them were actually against the top tier left tackles or during critical points in the game. Now if you can find that you will be in for one hell of a suprise.

How can you say that? Have you ever sat down and done this comparison?? What are your qualifications of top tier left tackles?? What do you consider critical points in games???

I doubt I would be in for any surprise at all!

[justasportsfan]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
?

Funny, we berate Smith for not putting up in the big games while by QB standards Bledsoe has done far, far less other than "intangible" leadership crap!



You just couldn't defend Bruce without throwing in a " Drew Sucks" , could ya? :D

[THATHURMANATOR]

Originally posted by Earthquake Enyart
I thought Leon Seals got the sack for a safety in Super Bowl 25.

No it was bruce for sure.

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

Originally posted by THATHURMANATOR


How can you say that? Have you ever sat down and done this comparison?? What are your qualifications of top tier left tackles?? What do you consider critical points in games???

I doubt I would be in for any surprise at all!


Someone did a spot about Bruce a few years ago. I want to say it was Anthony Munoz. He showed a breakdown of all of Bruce's sacks and who they were against and at what points in the games (late in the fourth quarter). I was suprised. I am not saying I don't love Bruce but it was kind of interesting to see the breakdown of his sacks.

Bruce did more than just make sacks. He caused teams to double and even triple team him. Don't get me wrong, I didn't post it to put Bruce down. I just posted it in response to the original post. :moon:

[THATHURMANATOR]

Got ya Ghost. I really don't buy into it but I see what you are saying. So munoz broke down all 160 or so sack Bruce had at that time?

[The Spaz]

That must have been one long show!:) Go Bills!

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

It was back when Reggie White broke the record so it wasn't that many. He broke it down like:

50 sacks with 5 minutes or less remaining
40 sacks with the Bills up by more than 20 points
30 sacks against rookies or 1st year players
etc, etc.

I will look into it and see if I can find something on it.

[The Spaz]

I bet Munoz was just ticked becasue Bruce beat him all the time I know pewrsonaly watching film that he at least beat him 3 times in one game. Go Bills!

[THATHURMANATOR]

Originally posted by TheGhostofJimKelly


50 sacks with 5 minutes or less remaining


Wouldn't those be in critical points of a game for the most part?

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

Not when you are ahead by 17 points

[BillC]

Originally posted by TheGhostofJimKelly
It was back when Reggie White broke the record so it wasn't that many. He broke it down like:

50 sacks with 5 minutes or less remaining
40 sacks with the Bills up by more than 20 points
30 sacks against rookies or 1st year players
etc, etc.

I will look into it and see if I can find something on it.


It's one of those Wys Guy stat breakdowns. If you are going to pull obscure references, compare Bruce Smith's numbers to other DE's like White, Gastineau, Klecko, Dent, McMichaels, and so on.

The stat against rooks/first year players. I mean come on....the average player's career in the NFL is something like 4.5 seasons. Statistically, 1 of every 4 players you line up against falls into that category. You can bend the numbers all you want.

Bruce Smith was arguably one of the most important players on the dynasty. When he was hurt/suspended the Bills were not nearly the threat. Even when Kelly / Thomas were out, the Bills for the most part did not miss a beat.

His impact was immense.

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

You know this is getting really boring. You guys aren't wrong to think Bruce is great and you are getting off the post idea. You obviously can't look at this with an open mind. I was replying to the post about Bruce's Super Bowl sacks and how bad his sack stats were in the SBs. My post was referring to a show on one of the pregame shows that showed a stat about Smith's sacks. I thought it was suprising and if you seen it you would be too. It is just because you seen it on a message board and not on television that you won't put any thought into it. The show referenced his sacks and that is all. They never showed the presence that Bruce had on the field. The post was about his actual sack and my response is about his actual sacks.

[WG]

You may be right Ghost. Who knows. I'll take a peek myself. But no one can deny that Bruce is arguably one of the best 2 DEs to ever have played the game. IMO Reggie White, who's style was totally different, is the only one who can challenge Bruce on that.

If Bruce were 32 I'd say consider grabbing him back here although if that were the case he'd command likely $5M or so which we wouldn't spend.

But the fact of the matter is that his better days are over. Here are the QBs that Bruce sacked last season:

McNair (1): Tennessee's O sucked last year.
Hasslebeck (2): Not exactly Mr. Fleet-of-foot, also on only a so-so offense
Chad Hutchinson (3): 'nuff said.
Collins (1):
Carr (2): Oh boy! They had absolutely no OL. He should have had 3 or 4 sacks if had anything left in the tank.

5 of those 9 sacks were against the last two ranked Os in the league (Dallas and Houston). 7 of 9 were against the 16th, 31st, and 32nd ranked Os in the league.

Meanwhile, QBs that he didn't even get close to were:

McNabb
Plummer
Garcia
Brooks
Favre
Manning
Brunnell
and Warner

So we're no longer talking any sort of premier DE here!! He's clearly lost a step if the only sacks he can amass are against the league's worst offensive teams, with the youngest, worst, and most inexperienced QBs, and on teams w/ the worst OLs!

That's pretty much the sum total of Bruce's season last year. We've had enough of lighting it up against teams like Minnesota, Detroit, Chicago, Houston, and Cincy. We need some talent here in Buffalo that will put up v. the best teams which are headed for the playoffs. That's been my knock about Drew. He sucks against teams .500 or better. We need to quit stocking players who only show up for games against scrub teams.

Bruce should be allowed to come back to Buffalo for a half-time ceremony to put his name on the Wall, but not allowed to retire as a Bill. No more fuss should be made about it and TD isn't stupid enough to pay a guy like that any more then vet min, and IMO he's not stupid enough to even consider bringing Bruce back at all. And Bruce wouldn't play for vet min, especially not in Buffalo. If he were to end up in Buffalo, that would only mean that no other teams would have been interested anyway.

So let's end this silly debate. Bruce was great and no one care argue that. Did he put up the biggest numbers in the SBs? Probably not. But how many of our players did? We got schooled in two of them and played only one decent half in a third, and underachieved as a team in the first one. I blame Levy for that more than the players.

But coming back to Bruce, today Bruce is finished!!! He's done. And one of these days, likely this season, he's all of a sudden gonna drop off the map and play like crap. He's listed at 6'4" and 265. At that size for a DE, you absolutely have to have some speed to perform at an average level and that has clearly left Bruce. He's not gonna outmuscle anyone at 265, if he even is that. Anyone who watched him last year realizes that he could have had and would have had another ten sacks if his speed hadn't gone away. I saw it myself. I watched him come around on what I've seen him do a hundred times before but he just couldn't close it b/c he had lost a step. He'll lose another step this season and that'll be it for him. He won't be playing in '04 due to lack of interest on the parts of teams although some desparate team may take him for vet min. We're not desparate however. Nor is his coming back worth any of the risks mentioned above or the risk of his copping a tude.

So to Bruce, good luck!!! You've been great here in Buffalo. Overall you've been one of the most dominating defensive players ever! We loved you while you were here and respect your accomplishments. But as with every player, age catches up to you and time passes. I'll be screaming my brains out when they put you up on "the Wall." And that you'll have to be content with.

[Earthquake Enyart]

Why is it a surprise that Bruce got more sacks against crappy players?

Why is it a surprise that he got sacks against slow QB's?

Why is it a surprise that he got fewer sacks in the playoffs?

This is all common sense if you ask me. :eek:

[WG]

Well taken.

I'm sure many defensive players rack up sacks against poor QBs.

As to the playoffs, better players show up in the playoffs, that's why those teams win PO games and the SB. Didn't Dallas have like 7 sacks against us in one SB?? What about that?

As to Bruce, sure, you get some sacks against crappy QBs. But if that's all you can do such as the case w/ him, then surely it makes an argument that those sacks were overrated.

I can apply that line of reasoning to Kelsay. I know I'm in the vast minority, but from what I've read, Kelsay has had trouble in college against the better, not even top, just the better OTs. The word was that he gets beat by them and but good.

So why was he a top second round pick then? If he had trouble v. those types of players in college, then why are we expecting that all of a sudden at the pro level where he'll face them week in and week out, that he'll all-of-a-sudden outperform them??

If all he does is amass 7 sacks against Cincy, Dallas, Jax, and Houston while doing nothing else in 12 other games, who cares! We can beat those teams w/ our eyes closed and w/ Moulds, Henry, and several defensive injuries. If we couldn't, then we're not that good as a team as everyone thinks.

Better players at least put up at the more difficult moments against tougher competition. Or they make big plays that aren't tallied in some way. But Bruce didn't do that last year. He commanded only nominal respect, which was a tremendousdropoff from the year before. It'll drop off again.

Did he used to be that way? No, absolutely not! But he'll be 40 this season, and while he's a physical marvel IMO, he still can't outlast the effects of time/age. He's well below average against teams that possess any sort of OL. That's the bottom line.

If you want to compare two players, then compare Schobel who had only half a sack less. His sacks were against:

Culpepper (3)
Griese
Gannon
Brady
Pennington
Brees
Favre
and one against Miami ??

Those are much bigger sacks. If Schobel had had 8.5 sacks against Miller, Kitna, Carr, and Harrington, then we could argue that there's no difference.

I'd rather have a DE who got those sacks that Schobel had than the ones that Bruce had in games that we should have been able to win w/ our eyes shut, even though that wasn't the case.

[Jan Reimers]

I think an improved defense and a power running game will make Bledsoe a better QB. As for Bruce, he was basically a one dimensional player, but what a dimension!

[WG]

Yeah, well in his prime, he'd be the one dimension that we needed right now bigtime. LOL

Let's hope Drew gets better. But if you have to hope that a QB heading into his 30s w/ the track record that Drew has improves, then something's wrong.

I'll make it really simple; if he can't play reasonably well, or at least not give away the farm like he did last year, against N.E. (2), the Jets (2), Miami (2), Tennessee (who'll be much better this season, and Philly, then we shouldn't extend his contract beyond the '04 season. In fact, I'll argue for Brown being given a shot.

I realize that Drew had decent stats in one of the Miami games last yeat, but in the others against teams above .500 he was horrible. That'll have to change. It would be a cryin' shame if we made it to the playoffs and then lost b/c of him personally. It would be even cryin'-er, :D, if we lost the SB b/c of him personally.

[Turf]

How old was Plunkett when he started winning Super Bowls.

[WG]

Super Bowl(s)? Did he win more than 1?

So you're saying the reason the Raiders won the SB was b/c of Plunkett???

:rolleyes:

It was a great team effort, but playing QB on the strength of your arm at the age of 34 is a LOT different than playing DE on the merits of speed alone at the age of 40.

[Dozerdog]

Did they win the SB because of Plunkett? The actual game, No.

But they would have never sniffed the Playoffs or the SB without him.

The Raiders got off to an 0-2 start with Dan Pastorini (Bills killed them in week 2). Plunkett came in and was their savior.

[WG]

Right! There was your problem; Pastorini SUCKED!

Plunkett was good, but he had a very Hog-like OL anchored by Shell, Upshaw, and Dalby. He had three pro-bowl offensive players, two in skill positions, Shell the other. He had at least 2 very good TEs, 2 very good WRs, and a great RB combo of King/Van Eeghen.

Not to mention the D allowed only ~ 14 ppg over the last 9.

It was a team effort. Also, wasn't that the year when that bogus fumble allowed them to beat the Chargers in the AFCCG? Not much different that N.E.'s win as a WC that we were all raving over w/ most of you not giving Brady any credit at all in spite of having put up a very good year.

The Raiders would have won that year w/ any decent QB. Pastorini is the modern day equivalent of Rodney Peete. His stats were horrible; career 50.9%, 103 TDs/161 INTs.

Plunkett's numbers on that season were very good but not phenominal. He was barely over 50% passing, had about as many INTs as TDs, and would have been on pace for about 3K yards.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Originally posted by TheGhostofJimKelly
Not when you are ahead by 17 points

So we were ahead by 17 points(or more) in every one of those 50 games?

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[THATHURMANATOR]

Originally posted by TheGhostofJimKelly
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Agreed this thread does kinda want to put me to sleep.

Who started it anyways?