Tannehill on a shorter leash for 2014

[rent this space]

so what? if Seattle attempted the same # of passes they were on pace to allow more sacks. Your Ol was certainly not a strength but blaming them for everything is just an excuse especially since thye played well for the most part the second half of the season including against our excellent DL. You lost week 17 and missed the playoffs b/c of the QB not the OL.

So, no O-line has given up more sacks in team history, i.e. historically bad

 

[nyjunc]

So, no O-line has given up more sacks in team history, i.e. historically bad

how many have attempted as many passes?

you would need to amend your statement to saying historically bad for the franchise, just saying historically bad makes it sound like it was one of the worst OLs ever. Miami is a franchise that usually has had good OLs so their worst is probably still better than most.

 

[hoops]

And....

I decided to take the two sources (PFF and Football Outsiders) and see if they are at all consistent with each other. The football outsiders list was not for the complete season and they used different grouping criteria (PFF was blocking or QB, FO was blown block, confusion, or coverage). Clearly the confusion sacks could be on the QB or on the OL. I decided to just sort the FO list by blown blocks and the PFF list by blocking sacks (both highest to lowest) to see how similar the lists were. I split the 32 teams into 3 groups (11 in the top, 10 in the middle, and 11 in the bottom).

For the top 11 list (presumably the worst OLs for pass blocking), 8 out of the 11 were common to both lists. For the bottom 11 list (better OL), 7 out of the 11 were on both lists. Both lists had Miami as the worst and in both cases by a wide margin. For example, on the FO list, Miami's OL was credited with 35 blown blocks with the next four worst at 25, 22, 22, 22. PPF credits Miami's OL with 41 blocking sacks with the next 4 worst at 33, 32, 32, 31.

The two INDEPENDENT lists are very similar to one another and both show that Miami's OL was largely to blame and worse than the rest of the league by a wide margin.

Why are people so dense on this topic. These are not my evaluations.

again lack of football common sense and ignorance about what they are seeing...

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

again lack of football common sense and ignorance about what they are seeing...

or bogus rebuttals....

To rebut analysis of the actual sacks by two independent groups, specifically to assign blame for the sacks an aggregation of the scores of individuals across all plays is trotted out. Apples and oranges. If 4 blockers are perfect on a play and the fifth whiffs completely on a block, leading to a sack of the QB, the blocking is still at fault despite a positive aggregate score for the OL. The simple aggregate scores for blocking makes no sense.

 

[nyjunc]

So, no O-line has given up more sacks in team history, i.e. historically bad

sacks per pass attempt since 2000 for Miami:

2000: 28 in 421 attempts. 15
2001: 27 in 453, 16.8
2002: 25 in 455, 18.2
2003: 31 in 450, 14.5
2004: 52 in 586, 11.3
2005: 26 in 556, 21.4
2006: 41 in 591, 14.4
2007: 42 in 558, 13.3
2008: 26 in 491, 18.9
2009: 34 in 545, 16.0
2010: 38 in 557, 14.7
2011: 52 in 469, 9.0
2012: 37 in 504, 13.6
2013: 58 in 594, 10.2

 

[hoops]

or bogus rebuttals....

To rebut analysis of the actual sacks by two independent groups, specifically to assign blame for the sacks an aggregation of the scores of individuals across all plays is trotted out. Apples and oranges. If 4 blockers are perfect on a play and the fifth whiffs completely on a block, leading to a sack of the QB, the blocking is still at fault despite a positive aggregate score for the OL. The simple aggregate scores for blocking makes no sense.

well of course that too

 

[nyjunc]

or bogus rebuttals....

To rebut analysis of the actual sacks by two independent groups, specifically to assign blame for the sacks an aggregation of the scores of individuals across all plays is trotted out. Apples and oranges. If 4 blockers are perfect on a play and the fifth whiffs completely on a block, leading to a sack of the QB, the blocking is still at fault despite a positive aggregate score for the OL. The simple aggregate scores for blocking makes no sense.

once again from one of those 2 that YOU posted:

Much was made of the sacks taken by Ryan Tannehill; they were somewhat simplistically used as a means to lament the play of the line in pass protection, but it wasn’t anywhere near as bad with the line producing a Pass Blocking Efficiency ranking right around the middle of the pack.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/01/13/2013-offensive-line-rankings/2/

 

[fishfanmiami]

sacks per pass attempt since 2000 for Miami:

2000: 28 in 421 attempts. 15
2001: 27 in 453, 16.8
2002: 25 in 455, 18.2
2003: 31 in 450, 14.5
2004: 52 in 586, 11.3
2005: 26 in 556, 21.4
2006: 41 in 591, 14.4
2007: 42 in 558, 13.3
2008: 26 in 491, 18.9
2009: 34 in 545, 16.0
2010: 38 in 557, 14.7
2011: 52 in 469, 9.0
2012: 37 in 504, 13.6
2013: 58 in 594, 10.2

Wow. My eyes must have deceived me. Just going off that list we must resign all of last years linemen with big raises and not change a thing. I'm surprise Pouncy was the only probowler. Clabo , Jerry , Brenner and McKinney were also deserving that honor according to this.
Turner should have been elevated to OC for this outstanding job.

 

[rent this space]

sacks per pass attempt since 2000 for Miami:

2000: 28 in 421 attempts. 15
2001: 27 in 453, 16.8
2002: 25 in 455, 18.2
2003: 31 in 450, 14.5
2004: 52 in 586, 11.3
2005: 26 in 556, 21.4
2006: 41 in 591, 14.4
2007: 42 in 558, 13.3
2008: 26 in 491, 18.9
2009: 34 in 545, 16.0
2010: 38 in 557, 14.7
2011: 52 in 469, 9.0
2012: 37 in 504, 13.6
2013: 58 in 594, 10.2

so, not only the worst in total number but pretty much the worst per attempt as well...

 

[Atila]

Do you also have an explanation for our lack of running game? You know, like maybe, an ineffective OL?

 

[nyjunc]

so, not only the worst in total number but pretty much the worst per attempt as well...

13.2. is the average, it's not like 10.2 is incredibly worse. It's worse, your OL was not good but it wasn't bad either. They looked much worse b/c of the QB.

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------

Do you also have an explanation for our lack of running game? You know, like maybe, an ineffective OL?

you guys abandoned the run game way too quickly. you could run it. Your main RB averaged 4.0 YPC which is good. You just abandoned the run game way too quickly. If you ran more I think you make the playoffs.

 

[Shouright]

This whole thing is a red herring, really, because not only are sacks uncorrelated with the measures of QB play most strongly correlated with winning, they were also uncorrelated with those measures for Ryan Tannehill, game-to-game, in 2013. When the team was sacked less, Ryan Tannehill didn't play any better.

So focus on sacks if you'd like, but realize that they have nothing to do with Ryan Tannehill's play in the areas that matter in terms of winning, nor was Ryan Tannehill pressured any more than the average QB in 2013.

Those who want to believe that Ryan Tannehill is an offensive line away from playing much better are certainly entitled to believe that, but there is absolutely no objective evidence that can be offered up in support of it.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

well of course that too

or even multiple bogus rebuttals with the same info, bolded and large font for emphasis of the bogusness.......

 

[Shouright]

Do you also have an explanation for our lack of running game? You know, like maybe, an ineffective OL?

The running game was average in the league in terms of yards per carry. In other words, when the running game was used, it performed no worse than average.

Again, however, when the running game played well in 2013 -- whether you measure that by rushes, yards, or yards per carry -- Ryan Tannehill didn't play any better. Again, another red herring.

 

[Atila]

You made a thread about a month ago that, based on your stats, our OL was significantly below average and correlated with our poor performances. Don't ask me to reference the thread cause you make so many, but I just remember everyone sarcastically telling you "wow you finally understand what we've all been saying all season long".