Sports Forensics

Original educational analysis

Ravens–Bills: why sacks change the passing-efficiency comparison

By Sports Forensics editorial analysis

Published November 01, 2026, 10:12 AM PST · Statistics checked November 01, 2026, 09:39 AM PST

A completed pass and a sack appear in different places in a football box score. That separation can make an offense look more efficient if the comparison stops at passing yards per attempt. Before Baltimore visits Buffalo on November 1, the teams’ completed regular-season games offer a useful example of what changes when sacks enter the calculation.

Reconstructing the passing totals

Baltimore’s seven completed games, September 13 through October 25, produced 1,694 gross passing yards on 202 attempts: 8.39 yards per attempt. The Ravens also lost 121 yards on 18 sacks. Subtracting those losses leaves 1,573 net passing yards; adding sacks to the denominator gives 220 pass plays. The resulting rate is 1,573/220, or 7.15 net yards per pass play.

Buffalo’s six completed games, September 13 through October 18, produced 1,504 gross passing yards on 171 attempts, or 8.80 per attempt. Its 12 sacks cost 71 yards. That leaves 1,433 net yards over 183 pass plays: 7.83 per play. Buffalo’s advantage in this historical comparison grows from 0.41 yards per attempt before sacks to 0.68 net yards per pass play after them.

Those are pooled season calculations, not averages of rounded weekly rates. Each game’s gross passing yardage was checked against the individual passing lines, and gross yards minus sack losses reconciled to the team’s net passing total. Rushing yards plus net passing yards also reconciled to total offense in all 13 boxes.

The sack costs twice in the calculation

A sack lowers the numerator through lost yardage and adds a play without a pass attempt to the denominator. Counting only one of those changes would misstate the rate. Baltimore was sacked on 18 of 220 pass plays, or 8.2%; Buffalo on 12 of 183, or 6.6%. The two offenses therefore did not experience the same sack frequency or the same total yardage loss.

For today’s matchup, the useful observation is whether an offense can preserve its completed-pass gains across all these pass plays. One long completion can improve yards per attempt while several sacks make the overall passing sequence less productive. Net yardage keeps those outcomes in the same accounting frame.

This definition includes attempts and sacks, but excludes quarterback scrambles recorded as rushing plays. It is not a count of every called passing play. It also applies no separate penalty for interceptions and does not adjust for down, distance, opponent, score or field position. Sack outcomes alone cannot assign responsibility between blocking, quarterback decisions and coverage. These are historical team figures, not live statistics or a claim about who will start at quarterback today.

Statistical score projection

Buffalo 28, Baltimore 26. The pregame scoring baseline uses completed-game points, separately from the passing calculation. Baltimore scored 169 and allowed 167 across seven games; Buffalo scored 197 and allowed 171 across six. Averaging Baltimore’s 169/7 scoring rate with Buffalo’s 171/6 allowed gives 26.32. Averaging Buffalo’s 197/6 scoring rate with Baltimore’s 167/7 allowed gives 28.35. Rounding to whole points produces 28–26.

The sample is the completed 2026 regular season through October 31 and excludes today’s game. These point totals include all scoring phases. This simple arithmetic has no validated accuracy rate and does not adjust for availability, weather, venue, rest, opponent strength or scoring distribution. It is a statistical illustration, not a most likely exact-score estimate. The pregame projection will remain frozen after publication.

Sources

Analysis archive · Request free sports texts