Is Having (or Taking) More Time to Throw the Ball Overrated?

[Archaeopteryx]

This morning when I read the first post and took a cursory glance at the chart my first thought was, "maybe the reason better QBs have lower times is because they are better at reading defenses and making pre-snap reads", but then I saw Chad Henne's name close to Peyton's and knew I was way off track.

 

[Mudder1310]

The reason qb rates are lower for longer time is because the passing game is typically predicated on timing assuming for the pass rush. If you're taking longer the play is either long patterns or a broken play, both of which are not as predictable or consistent as timed routes. Watch the best passing teams like NO. Passes are out on time for the play. Bree's isn't running around or waiting for wr to open up.

 

[Shouright]

The reason qb rates are lower for longer time is because the passing game is typically predicated on timing assuming for the pass rush. If you're taking longer the play is either long patterns or a broken play, both of which are not as predictable or consistent as timed routes. Watch the best passing teams like NO. Passes are out on time for the play. Bree's isn't running around or waiting for wr to open up.

And I think that's entirely possible. :up:

Now, let's say it's the reason, even just for the sake of argument. What sense should we make of the fact that Ryan Tannehill is pressured no more often than the average QB, has no less time to throw the ball than the average QB, is sacked no more quickly than the average QB, and has only two of his 26 sacks beyond the 2.5 second mark?

When we can say that even one's time to throw is perhaps overrated, it gets more and more difficult to say that Ryan Tannehill is somehow a victim of his surroundings with regard to the sacks he's taken this year.

 

[Shouright]

To support the premise of this thread, I think we should include the clip where Sterling Sharpe points out a couple plays in which Ryan Tannehill should've had the ball out to an open receiver in 2.5 seconds or less, but instead took a sack, since, given our vantage point different from Sharpe's, I suspect lots of folks here probably thought he needed "more time" on those particular plays:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/0ap2000000269528/Playbook-Dolphins-vs-Patriots

 

[dlockz]

The real answer is yes having more time is better for the qb. Its all about how plays are designed but any offensive line should be striving to protect the qb for no less than 4 seconds. Its not better to have a guy hanging on your arm as your passin the ball. It all depends on the play. If its a quick short pass it matter less but no matter having a lineman on your qb in two seconds is not a recipe for success.

 

[Shouright]

The real answer is yes having more time is better for the qb. Its all about how plays are designed but any offensive line should be striving to protect the qb for no less than 4 seconds. Its not better to have a guy hanging on your arm as your passin the ball. It all depends on the play. If its a quick short pass it matter less but no matter having a lineman on your qb in two seconds is not a recipe for success.

Then why, when QBs have and take more of that kind of time, do they perform more poorly?

 

[dlockz]

Then why, when QBs have and take more of that kind of time, do they perform more poorly?

You have to look at each play individually , what was the play designed to do. Many times when a play takes a certain amount of time its because the receivers are not open or where they are supposed to be.
You cannot judge every play by the statistic you are trying to create. Please ask any offensive line coach at any level if its better to protect your qb longer and they will have a resounding yes.

 

[Shouright]

You have to look at each play individually , what was the play designed to do. Many times when a play takes a certain amount of time its because the receivers are not open or where they are supposed to be.You cannot judge every play by the statistic you are trying to create. Please ask any offensive line coach at any level if its better to protect your qb longer and they will have a resounding yes.

And that's what we stumbled upon right out of the gate here, that it's better to have an open primary target than to have "time." Hence the point that "time" is overrated. A corollary to the thread could be that having an open primary target is underrated.

I think almost everyone who posted in this thread missed that nuance. Saying something is overrated isn't the same thing as saying it's bad. Something "overrated" can still be good, but perhaps not as good as people tend to think.

 

[MD]

You're wasting your time D. When you deal with someone who is very good at drawing conclusions with statistical data but not so good at using their eyes to see the big picture, your argument is pointless.

 

[dlockz]

And that's what we stumbled upon right out of the gate here, that it's better to have an open primary target than to have "time." Hence the point that "time" is overrated. A corollary to the thread could be that having an open primary target is underrated.

I think almost everyone who posted in this thread missed that nuance. Saying something is overrated isn't the same thing as saying it's bad. Something "overrated" can still be good, but perhaps not as good as people tend to think.

Time is not overrated. It all depends on the play. Having a dlinemen in your face in two seconds is definately not complimentry to any play. You cannot just take all plays together and evaluate how much time you used because it depends on the play. A quick slant of course takes less time than a post pattern.

 

[Shouright]

And that's what we stumbled upon right out of the gate here, that it's better to have an open primary target than to have "time." Hence the point that "time" is overrated. A corollary to the thread could be that having an open primary target is underrated.

I think almost everyone who posted in this thread missed that nuance. Saying something is overrated isn't the same thing as saying it's bad. Something "overrated" can still be good, but perhaps not as good as people tend to think.

You're wasting your time D. When you deal with someone who is very good at drawing conclusions with statistical data but not so good at using their eyes to see the big picture, your argument is pointless.

Good timing.

 

[Shouright]

Time is not overrated. It all depends on the play. Having a dlinemen in your face in two seconds is definately not complimentry to any play. You cannot just take all plays together and evaluate how much time you used because it depends on the play. A quick slant of course takes less time than a post pattern.

Like I said earlier in the thread, given a minimum, necessary amount of time QBs require to function at all, having an open primary target is underrated, while having more time is overrated. Nobody is saying that having no time is a good thing.

Again, pick up on the nuance here. There has to be a reason QBs perform better in under 2.6 seconds than when they have and take more time to throw.

 

[MD]

Good timing.

Didn't miss anything. You rely solely on numbers in a circumstance that dictates looking at the big picture which you fail to do. Typical response when you have no answer.

 

[Shouright]

Didn't miss anything. You rely solely on numbers in a circumstance that dictates looking at the big picture which you fail to do. Typical response when you have no answer.

I'm totally stuck, stumped, and clueless, locked in my myopic vacuum. You got me dead to rights. :)

 

[dlockz]

Like I said earlier in the thread, given a minimum, necessary amount of time QBs require to function at all, having an open primary target is underrated, while having more time is overrated. Nobody is saying that having no time is a good thing.

Again, pick up on the nuance here. There has to be a reason QBs perform better in under 2.6 seconds than when they have and take more time to throw.

2.6 seconds is not optimal pass protection please seriously consult any oline coach at any level.
Yu cant compare quick slants and passes to other passes. Short passing game is always more effective in completions thats an obvious.