You’re obviously not getting my point. I am not saying pressures are meaningless. I am not saying golden sucks. Literally all I am saying is that from what golden would have had playing besides watt - who undeniably draws extra attention - he will undoubtedly have less without him. That’s it. That’s all I said. I don’t think that’s radical. I don’t even think anyone can really argue with that statement. I don’t know why people want to fight about it.
My point is that you can't have a sack without it counting as a pressure. So, any sack production is included in the pressure rate. Also my point, Golden has been amongst the best in the NFL over the previous two seasons in his pressure rates (which again includes sacks) without Watt or Chandler Jones so the absence shouldn't impact him too much.
So, 74 pressures (Hurries+knock-downs+sacks) over a two year span outvalues 30 sacks over that same period because of the higher volume. Golden's 74 pressures includes his 14.5 sacks.
I don't know if I am explaining my point well or not. This is a little different way I will try. Sacks are like turnovers in that they are an outcome that generally regresses to the mean. Because of this, the more pressures you have, the more opportunities you have to improve your probability in resulting in the sack outcome. So yes, a sack is the most desirable outcome of any pressure, but that outcome is non-predictable. Kinda like in baseball where a "hard hit ball" does not always result in a home run, but the more "hard hit balls" you have, the more likely you are to hit home runs.
