So did PFF and came to the same conclusion. Yet, clowns want to continue to argue that Tannehill was at fault.
Another Take on the Offensive Line, Ryan Tannehill, and Sacks in 2013
- Thread starter Shouright
- Start date
So did PFF and came to the same conclusion. Yet, clowns want to continue to argue that Tannehill was at fault.
Austin Tatious
Starter
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 8,492
- Reaction score
- 9,639
I haven't read the whole thread. But let's be fair. Even Tannehill's most ardent supporters (and I support him) would agree that Ryan needs to improve significantly in a number of areas, and "pocket presence" may be the most prominent of those areas. It.needs.to.happen.
The video attached by J-Off-her-doll (one of my favorite posters) was interesting but I am not sure it is such a "gotcha." In hindsight it is easy to say that Tannehill should have gotten rid of the ball. When his back foot hit the 35, he could have thrown it. He was looking toward Clay and Sims and could have checked down immediately. But McKinnie 100% did not sustain the block against Chandler Jones. That was not so obvious when Tannehill could have checked down. Then with a tremendous burst, Jones exploded past McKinnie and was on top of Tannehill. Tannehill was looking off the TE's at the top and was looking downfield, so he was working progressions. Who knows what the play call or the situation was at that point. You know, teams call plays early to set up plays later. Tannehill could have taken the easy check down in the vein of a Captin Checkdown himself, Chad Henne. Tannehill was trying to make a play. If you have a qb who loves the checkdown, you will have a loser on your hands. And that is especially true here where there was no running game and a team that couldn't stop the run.
Next year, maybe Lazor will set up a system where Tannehill is told, when your back foot hits the set up position, the ball comes out. In such offenses, statistically, there will be less sacks. From what I know of the Eagles, that's what Foles did. Maybe we will see Tannehill do that. I guess we will find out.
And, I give Tannehill credit for not going into a shell like David Carr did when he got battered. Tannehill stood in there, and was trying to make plays, not just be a loser Captain Checkdown type of QB.
But to shift the blame from the offensive line is absurd. The O-line and blocking schemes *were* abysmal. Blaming Tannehill for not making chicken salad out of chicken ---- protection is not fair to 17. If Kyle Williams is on top of you the second the ball is snapped, that is criminal. The fact that the offensive line was bad is being borne out already in that we already have two new o-line coaches, and you can look for 3-4 new o linemen on the roster next year. Blaming T-hill for that is like blaming a victim. He can be better because some sacks were on him, but it is all in the context of a lousy o line.
Having said all that, Tannehill still needs better awareness in dropping the number of sacks and efficiency of the passing offense. It's not where it needs to be, and even the big Tannehill supporters will stipulate to that. But the Tannehill supporters see that he is a bright, tough kid, who works hard and is not just waiting for an easy checkdown. He is improving as he spiked his TD total from 12 to 24 in one year.
The video attached by J-Off-her-doll (one of my favorite posters) was interesting but I am not sure it is such a "gotcha." In hindsight it is easy to say that Tannehill should have gotten rid of the ball. When his back foot hit the 35, he could have thrown it. He was looking toward Clay and Sims and could have checked down immediately. But McKinnie 100% did not sustain the block against Chandler Jones. That was not so obvious when Tannehill could have checked down. Then with a tremendous burst, Jones exploded past McKinnie and was on top of Tannehill. Tannehill was looking off the TE's at the top and was looking downfield, so he was working progressions. Who knows what the play call or the situation was at that point. You know, teams call plays early to set up plays later. Tannehill could have taken the easy check down in the vein of a Captin Checkdown himself, Chad Henne. Tannehill was trying to make a play. If you have a qb who loves the checkdown, you will have a loser on your hands. And that is especially true here where there was no running game and a team that couldn't stop the run.
Next year, maybe Lazor will set up a system where Tannehill is told, when your back foot hits the set up position, the ball comes out. In such offenses, statistically, there will be less sacks. From what I know of the Eagles, that's what Foles did. Maybe we will see Tannehill do that. I guess we will find out.
And, I give Tannehill credit for not going into a shell like David Carr did when he got battered. Tannehill stood in there, and was trying to make plays, not just be a loser Captain Checkdown type of QB.
But to shift the blame from the offensive line is absurd. The O-line and blocking schemes *were* abysmal. Blaming Tannehill for not making chicken salad out of chicken ---- protection is not fair to 17. If Kyle Williams is on top of you the second the ball is snapped, that is criminal. The fact that the offensive line was bad is being borne out already in that we already have two new o-line coaches, and you can look for 3-4 new o linemen on the roster next year. Blaming T-hill for that is like blaming a victim. He can be better because some sacks were on him, but it is all in the context of a lousy o line.
Having said all that, Tannehill still needs better awareness in dropping the number of sacks and efficiency of the passing offense. It's not where it needs to be, and even the big Tannehill supporters will stipulate to that. But the Tannehill supporters see that he is a bright, tough kid, who works hard and is not just waiting for an easy checkdown. He is improving as he spiked his TD total from 12 to 24 in one year.
If you look at the track record of the original poster here and on thephins, a few things become clear:
1. He enjoys aggravating other posters.
2. He takes an almost perverse pleasure in starting threads that receive a large number of posts, seemingly even greater pleasure when the large number of posts is a result of negative reaction to his OP and subsequent posts. In other words, his original posts are designed to piss off and aggravate other posters.
3. He'll poke at the same points from multiple angles, trying to get his point out like a fart trying to escape a box, looking for cracks in the walls.
4. It's no mystery as to why he was banned form thephins- he craves attention, and negative attention is not a problem. He specifically looks for statistics that make little sense but are somewhat difficult to disprove, then challenges other posters to "prove me wrong." A shrink would have a field day with this guy. If there are any shrinks out there, go to thephins and check out some of his previous threads. Same methodology, same results- misuse statistics, aggravate posters who otherwise come here to enjoy themselves, take pleasure in aggravating posters as the number of posts in the thread grows. He was truly proud of himself when one of his threads in the other site caused so much aggravation and response that hit hit 1,000 posts or so. The OP, of course, took great delight in this. And eventually he was banned from the site- gee, I wonder why.
1. He enjoys aggravating other posters.
2. He takes an almost perverse pleasure in starting threads that receive a large number of posts, seemingly even greater pleasure when the large number of posts is a result of negative reaction to his OP and subsequent posts. In other words, his original posts are designed to piss off and aggravate other posters.
3. He'll poke at the same points from multiple angles, trying to get his point out like a fart trying to escape a box, looking for cracks in the walls.
4. It's no mystery as to why he was banned form thephins- he craves attention, and negative attention is not a problem. He specifically looks for statistics that make little sense but are somewhat difficult to disprove, then challenges other posters to "prove me wrong." A shrink would have a field day with this guy. If there are any shrinks out there, go to thephins and check out some of his previous threads. Same methodology, same results- misuse statistics, aggravate posters who otherwise come here to enjoy themselves, take pleasure in aggravating posters as the number of posts in the thread grows. He was truly proud of himself when one of his threads in the other site caused so much aggravation and response that hit hit 1,000 posts or so. The OP, of course, took great delight in this. And eventually he was banned from the site- gee, I wonder why.
Last edited by a moderator:
He also started many, many threads on the subject of sacks, then claimed (in another thread) that sacks are a red herring...... He has issues. He isn't likely to be banned here, but everyone ignoring him would be fun to watch.
I'm here infrequently, I was just a little surprised to see the same exact bs started here as well with no regard to the fact that he was banned from the other site for doing the same thing he's now doing over here- aggravating other posters and taking joy in it.
Mudder1310
Practice Squad
I've put him on ignore and it's interesting how quickly my temper soothed. He hides baloney in statistics, and it's frustrating as hell because when he gets in trouble he piles on more statistics. Soon you're awash in charts, drowning in data, none of which adds up to anything. Dude has a lot of free time.
enigmatics
Go get me a juice box!
It's just easier for people to attack the OP. It's part of their routine now on here. Sets a great standard for the site.
I mean they could choose to simply not participate in his stats thread. You'd think that would be the easiest solution on their parts, but they can't help themselves.
You're missing the bigger picture, most likely because you don't know the context or history of the OPs posts, but I'm done with this. You can figure it out. It's not a question of stats being used, it's stats being misused to promote agendas well beyond their expiration dates and to annoy other posters.
WTH would anyone need to use BS stats to predict the past when you simply have to review the film? Two independent groups (with no vested interest in the results) have done that already. Their results for assigning blame on sacks were remarkable similar and the Dolphins OL was far and away the worst OL for sacks in the league. Those results were corroborated by the actions of the team during the season. Why would anyone dispute those results?
The Tannehaters are just unbelievable. Ignore direct review of the plays and the actions of the team and for what? Why the hell is it so important to assign blame to Tannehill?
enigmatics
Go get me a juice box!
I know the context. I've seen all the stats he's posted because I happen to like when people take the time to data mine. I do it for my own line of work in financial markets.
At least he shows class in being disagreeable and conducts himself civilly. With some of the reactions on here, you'd think there were hundred of surnames with "Tannehill" on this site.
I can practically hear the steam coming out of your ears as you type that. Settle down man.
Why is it important to assign SOME blame to Tannehill? Because he's not guilt-free.. The larger question is why you feel it necessary to continue mocking groups of people on here with your Angry-Deniers and Tannehaters shtick. Completely unnecessary and the least constructive behavior I can think of. It's over the top and the veracity at which you follow/reply to Grav's posts, it's almost like you fear him changing peoples' minds.
That's part of it, but you're missing some of the flavor going on here- for example there was a thread of his at the other site that tried to use stats to prove that WR touchdowns were irrelevant to offensive performance and WRs were interchangable,that the talent level of WRs is irrelevant in the NFL. In other words, it's all about the QB, WRs don't matter. Then he pulls out a couple of half baked stats and says "prove me wrong".
That's an example of the crap he posted, and more importantly how and why he posted it, that got him banned. He just got happier and happier the more that his pissed people off and fanned the flames with questionable stats. At the end of the day, it was his apparent joy and smugness at aggravating posters that did him in. It's the same game being played over here, good luck with it.
That's an example of the crap he posted, and more importantly how and why he posted it, that got him banned. He just got happier and happier the more that his pissed people off and fanned the flames with questionable stats. At the end of the day, it was his apparent joy and smugness at aggravating posters that did him in. It's the same game being played over here, good luck with it.
enigmatics
Go get me a juice box!
You assume all of that. The funny part is even with that assumption you waltz in here spitting hot venom at the guy. Shouldn't you be doing the exact opposite if it were true that that's the response he wants? I mean 'cmon.
BTW, his previous stats-based argument about WR touchdowns has no relevance to this one. They're two different discussions. If you ever make a terrible argument on here, I'll be sure to disregard everything else you ever say, even if it's about an entirely different subject.
You don't know enough to see the common thread, which is aggravating other posters on Dolphins websites, and taking a very particular pleasure in doing so- creating a thesis based upon some questionable and misused statistics and then defying people to disprove the thesis. That's where he gets his jollies. And btw, you and your opinions have already been discarded due to your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject and the crappy judgements that you've shown here, so don't feel bad about disregarding me. I'm rarely here anyway.
cafinfan408
Punching Bag
*Sigh*
"If you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness." :up: