We didn't have great pressure against aTm and cu but we confused their qb's into holding the ball too long which created sacks.
I don't remember in those games getting to the qb's very quickly.
This is absolutely false
Maybe when we were up 30 and pinning the ears back.
but yes, they were coverage sacks for the most part.
No they weren't. CU's QB was running for his life every time he dropped back, and we dropped Johnson quickly about 6 times. Most of the sacks and pressure was created with 4 down lineman and occasionally a LB. The difference b/w a coverage sack and a "real sack" is impossibly unquantifiable (which is why they aren't kept as separate sacks even in the NFL) but I would say the pressure got there more often than not, in under 4 seconds which is not a coverage sack. Both those QB's are mobile, don't take coverage sacks b/c they know if nobody is open they are supposed to take off. Our excellent containment and what I think is kind of a spy in JoeKass on passing downs did a good job of limiting their runs.
Even the OLine in the OU game did a decent job moving Jones around in the pocket (particularly Calvin that night) when he wasn't throwing quick screens and stop routes. OU seemed to have some strategy taking the hold instaed of allowing a sack (which was called 5-8 times iirc).
The fact of the matter is, you are not going to sack the QB if he is in shotgun throwing quick sideline patterns. Furthermore, the other team won't throw those patterns if we are tackling them at the point of the catch. If we do this well, they will be forced to look down field creating an opportunity for a sack, if not, there's no reason not to throw those balls all day long. Tackling the WR's will be the difference in the passing game initially, then the pressure.
