Random Buccaneer Stat Du Jour: 95


Large, bold stats.  Big, gaudy numbers.  They're a good thing, right?  2000 yard rushing marks.  1000-yard receiving marks.  Although not as much as baseball, we measure success and failures, to some degree, by the depth of the numbers produced.  Bigger is better, right?

Not necessarily.  Conversely, sometimes the lower the number is better.  78 ruyds allowed/game.  3 sacks allowed.  4 INTs thrown. 

So is 95 a good number?  A bad one?  A high number for a given statistic or a low one?  See if you can take a guess as to what statistic I'm referencing.  Want a hint?  The Bucs finished in a 6th place tie in the NFL last season with this number (still doesn't tell you if it's good or bad).

Find out after the jump......

Without further ado....the Buccaneer offensive line, despite finishing just outside the top-10 in the league in fewest sacks allowed, gave up 95 hits on their quarterback in 2009, good for a tie with the Detroit Lions for 6th-most allowed.  That's quite an interesting stat considering most all of the remainder of the teams in the Buccaneer's dubious "QB hits" company ranked in the top-10 in most QB sacks allowed. 

I think this statistic is a bit of a perfect storm of inexperience, game situation, and scheme.  Much of that statistic can be correlated with the fact that the Buccaneers were consistently behind in games, coupled with the style of Greg Olson's 5-step drop, deep passing attack, which obviously puts the quarterback in position to stay in the pocket a little bit longer and take some shots.  Byron Leftwich took a flat-out beating in the first few games from the Cowboys (in the 2nd half) the Bills, and the Giants. Josh Johnson's maddening indecisiveness subjected him to substantial pressure.  Josh Freeman managed to avoid sacks through his sheer size and suprising elusivity, but the Buccaneers certainly gave his big arm a test and dropped him in the pocket time and again each game. 

All in all, this is a statistic that I think was a bit of a by-product of the aforementioned comedy of errors that, with a more balanced offensive attack, likely will not repeat in 2010.  However, it is certainly one that you do not want to see repeated, as Josh Freeman, while a big and strong guy, certainly is not indestructible. 

What do you all think?

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior users will need to choose a permanent username, along with a new password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

I already have a Vox Media account!

Verify Vox Media account

Please login to your Vox Media account. This account will be linked to your previously existing Eater account.

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Bucs Nation

You must be a member of Bucs Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Bucs Nation. You should read them.

Join Bucs Nation

You must be a member of Bucs Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Bucs Nation. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9341_tracker