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

[Shouright]

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.

50% of the passes thrown in the National Football League are thrown before 2.6 seconds.

 

[MD]

50% of the passes thrown in the National Football League are thrown before 2.6 seconds.

Here we go again in that vicious never ending cycle.

How many of that 50% were designed that way (short timed routes) and how many are designed downfield requiring more time?

 

[Shouright]

Here we go again in that vicious never ending cycle.

How many of that 50% were designed that way (short timed routes) and how many are designed downfield requiring more time?

Regardless, the average offensive line in the NFL is permitting its QB to attain a rating of nearly 94 on passes thrown before 2.6 seconds. The time given or taken to complete plays "designed to go downfield" is overrated, given that those plays result in a QB rating more 10 points lower. This is the entire point.

In other words, giving QBs longer than 2.5 seconds to throw, while not a bad thing in itself, isn't all it's cracked up to be, because QBs are functioning just fine throwing the ball in less time than that.

 

[Mudder1310]

I think another factor to consider is the "clean pocket" variable. Let's say your line ties guys up but get pushed into the pocket. The QB may get more time to throw but there are dudes everywhere, standing around, stepping on his feet, nowhere to move, vision being screened, even if a crossing route is open the QB may not see it.

 

[Shouright]

I think another factor to consider is the "clean pocket" variable. Let's say your line ties guys up but get pushed into the pocket. The QB may get more time to throw but there are dudes everywhere, standing around, stepping on his feet, nowhere to move, vision being screened, even if a crossing route is open the QB may not see it.

Well I don't know if you're talking about Ryan Tannehill, per se, or not, but if what you're saying has been accurately defined as "pressure" by PFF, that isn't happening any greater percentage of the time for Ryan Tannehill on his dropbacks than it is for the average QB in the NFL.

 

[dlockz]

50% of the passes thrown in the National Football League are thrown before 2.6 seconds.

Then why do offensive line coaches train their linemen to at least hold their block for 4 seconds or more in pass protection. Im pretty sure 50 percent of the passes are quick short passes but that has nothing to do with the arguement.
How long u need to protect the qb ha very little to do with average completion time

 

[Vaark]

 

[Shouright]

Then why do offensive line coaches train their linemen to at least hold their block for 4 seconds or more in pass protection. Im pretty sure 50 percent of the passes are quick short passes but that has nothing to do with the arguement.
How long u need to protect the qb ha very little to do with average completion time

It isn't the average completion time. It's the average time taken to throw the ball.

If the average QB attains a 10-point higher rating on passes thrown before 2.6 seconds than on passes thrown after 2.5 seconds, then I don't care how long offensive linemen are trained to hold blocks. That's immaterial. The objective evidence says QBs are doing just fine having just 2.5 seconds to throw, and that the time they're given beyond 2.5 seconds is overrated.

It's a very simple point, but it requires one to think outside the box sufficiently to grasp it. Often times "more is better" is thought to be true, when it really is not.

 

[rent this space]

It's true, when receivers get open you're more likely to complete a pass

 

[Shouright]

Interestingly, at the time this thread was started (October 24th), Ryan Tannehill's QB rating was 6 points worse on throws made after 2.5 seconds after the snap than on throws made at 2.5 seconds after the snap or sooner (85.5 to 79.5).

Since then it appears the forum has reached at least somewhat of a consensus that Tannehill has had more time to throw and/or a better pocket from which to throw, yet his QB rating on throws made after 2.5 seconds after the snap is now sixteen points worse than his QB rating on throws made at 2.5 seconds after the snap or sooner (88.5 to 71.5).

His QB rating when throwing after 2.5 seconds is now 8 points worse than it was in late October.

 

[tazthenomad]

Perhaps a little out of context?

Those are subjective grades, however, not objective data like those above.

What we have above is a fairly dramatic difference in QB rating on the basis of whether QBs take (or are given) a certain amount of time, which one would assume is reliable data as long as the people collecting it are using their stopwatches appropriately. There is no human error possible other than that.

These stats are objective but your interpretation is not. If a quick play is called and the defense allows it - there is a good chance for success. On the other hand if it is 3rd and 10 then you need time to be successful. On aversge plays that develop quickly are sucessful. Unfortunately, if you need to go downfield physics demand more than 2.5 seconds.

 

[Shouright]

These stats are objective but your interpretation is not.

Interpretations of statistics are always subjective. That said, what interpretation do you see me making here?

If a quick play is called and the defense allows it - there is a good chance for success. On the other hand if it is 3rd and 10 then you need time to be successful. On aversge plays that develop quickly are sucessful. Unfortunately, if you need to go downfield physics demand more than 2.5 seconds.

I'd encourage you to take a look at some game tape on YouTube and determine whether that's true.

 

[MD]

Yet his QBR only dipped less than a point for that same period.

 

[slk018]

What's interesting, however, is that throws that occur after a longer period of time after the snap are associated with such a lower QB rating. One would think that a QB, if given time, would have a better QB rating, even if the primary receiver isn't open on the play. However, what seems to be the case is that the extra time to throw creates a much poorer outcome with regard to QB rating than does having an open target earlier in the play.

In other words, one would think time drives the bus on QB rating in this regard (i.e., QBs perform better when they have more time to throw), but what the data suggest on the other hand, IMO, is what you said, that an open target earlier in the play does a hell of a lot more than time for a QB's performance.

That is an interesting finding IMO, and it flies in the face of some of the intuitions I've seen here that sound something like, "I bet Ryan Tannehill's QB rating is a lot better when he has [or takes] more time to throw." In fact Tanenhill's QB rating is six points lower on throws he's made at 2.6 seconds after the snap and beyond, which is no different from what happens across the league, for almost all QBs.

Qb with more time is more likely for a big play, but also a sack I would think. Example, a qb flushed out of pocket scrambles right realistically only has half of the field to work with. On the flip side, Big ben is a good example of this: moving in pocket maybe shedding a tackler and then finding an open wr deep

 

[tazthenomad]

Interpretations of statistics are always subjective. That said, what interpretation do you see me making here?

I'd encourage you to take a look at some game tape on YouTube and determine whether that's true.

I have watched every game and been to one this year. You?

Interesting that your argument to me is your oft-criticized "eyeball test".