Another Take on the Offensive Line, Ryan Tannehill, and Sacks in 2013

[FinfanInBuffalo]

watch the games!!

There has been two independent sites referenced that have reviewed the sacks and have come to the same conclusion. The team weighed in by making OL changes in mid season. They are likely to weigh in further by making even more changes to the OL this offseason. What is his response? Another quest for more bogus statistics.

 

[Unchained 07]

Well here's but one example of what can be seen when one uses that method:

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

Now, obviously that doesn't mean Ryan Tannehill was at fault for all 58 of the team's sacks in 2013, but it certainly points toward the need for more than just the typical viewing of games on Sundays, by people who likely have a strong need to view Ryan Tannehill as their adequate QB of the future.

OK, that's better than a box score but it still a shallow argument. Tannehill dropped back nearly 600 times in 2013 so you directing me to a clip of Sterling Sharpe criticizing 2 of those hardly points to any trends. I've never argued that the QB is not responsible for some of the sacks, but to assert that the o-line he was playing behind did not play a huge part in the majority of them tells me either you don't actually watch the games or you do and simply have no idea what your looking at. I reccomend a subscription to NFL rewind where you can actually watch the all 22 and gain some perspective. It would certainly add a layer of context to your thought process....at least I would hope so.

 

[Shouright]

OK, that's better than a box score but it still a shallow argument. Tannehill dropped back nearly 600 times in 2013 so you directing me to a clip of Sterling Sharpe criticizing 2 of those hardly points to any trends. I've never argued that the QB is not responsible for some of the sacks, but to assert that the o-line he was playing behind did not play a huge part in the majority of them tells me either you don't actually watch the games or you do and simply have no idea what your looking at. I reccomend a subscription to NFL rewind where you can actually watch the all 22 and gain some perspective. It would certainly add a layer of context to your thought process....at least I would hope so.

Tannehill was sacked 58 times, not nearly 600, and the clip shows two of the 58 sacks, not just two of the nearly 600 dropbacks. That's far less "shallow" a perspective than you're implying by focusing on dropbacks instead of sacks.

The argument from me, supported by the objective data, is not that the offensive line wasn't responsible for a large portion of the sacks, but rather that the portion of the sacks that were extraordinary (i.e., out of the ordinary) it was not.

And if you have access to the all-22 film, perhaps you could do something akin to what Sharpe did and break down for us exactly the percentage of the 58 sacks before which Tannehill had time to throw to an open target and failed to do so.

 

[Unchained 07]

Tannehill was sacked 58 times, not nearly 600, and the clip shows two of the 58 sacks, not just two of the nearly 600 dropbacks. That's far less "shallow" a perspective than you're implying by focusing on dropbacks instead of sacks.

The argument from me, supported by the objective data, is not that the offensive line wasn't responsible for a large portion of the sacks, but rather that the portion of the sacks that were extraordinary (i.e., out of the ordinary) it was not.

And if you have access to the all-22 film, perhaps you could do something akin to what Sharpe did and break down for us exactly the percentage of the 58 sacks before which Tannehill had time to throw to an open target and failed to do so.

It is shallow because it's the only 2 that were presented.

Why would you want me to break it down for you? Do you need Sterling Sharpe to tell you what you saw in those clips? Watch with your eyes and you tell me you don't a QB under an above average amount of duress. Tell me you don't see the pocket being non-existent or breaking down rapidly and extraordinary amount of times. As an added bonus, you'll even see some bad throws and decisions by the QB. Perspective...

 

[Shouright]

It is shallow because it's the only 2 that were presented.

Why would you want me to break it down for you? Do you need Sterling Sharpe to tell you what you saw in those clips? Watch with your eyes and you tell me you don't a QB under an above average amount of duress. Tell me you don't see the pocket being non-existent or breaking down rapidly and extraordinary amount of times. As an added bonus, you'll even see some bad throws and decisions by the QB.

What I see is a QB who could've avoided a sack by throwing to an open target. And when what we're talking about is who is at fault for an extraordinary number of sacks, that becomes exceedingly relevant.

Now, do you profess to know what percentage of the 58 in which that was the case, or should we stop at the relatively "shallow" position that those were the only two, without really knowing any better either way?

 

[jim1]

What I see is a QB who could've avoided a sack by throwing to an open target. And when what we're talking about is who is at fault for an extraordinary number of sacks, that becomes exceedingly relevant.

Now, do you profess to know what percentage of the 58 in which that was the case, or should we stop at the relatively "shallow" position that those were the only two, without really knowing any better either way?

I can't believe I'm reading the same garbage methodology and same the same type of posts as what got you banned from thephins. What do you get out of it? I've only read a few of your posts on this site, but one thing that I recall distinctly from your posts over there was that you took delight in aggravating other posters with your half assed stats and "prove me wrong" stance. That makes you a troll- it seems that many other posters here have come to understand your rodent like qualities. And btw, a study with 2 QB sacks analyzed out of 58 total is very shallow, you should know better. You proved a long time ago at the other site that you know squat about football, but you know enough about stats to misuse them, misrepresent them and piss off a lot of people in doing so. Today is Feb 9 2014- the countdown has begun to watch how long it takes you to get banned here as well.

 

[Unchained 07]

What I see is a QB who could've avoided a sack by throwing to an open target. And when what we're talking about is who is at fault for an extraordinary number of sacks, that becomes exceedingly relevant.

Now, do you profess to know what percentage of the 58 in which that was the case, or should we stop at the relatively "shallow" position that those were the only two, without really knowing any better either way?

I do not know the "percentage." What I know is that I watch every game both on broadcast and and on the all 22 and have come to the definitive conclusion that the overall pass protection for the 2013 Miami Dolphins sucked ass. I also know that there is probably not one single NFL analyst worth his salt, including Shannon Sharpe that would argue otherwise. Sure some of the sacks can be placed on Tannehill but that is true of any QB and unless your magic formulas can directly place another QB behind this o-line in 2013, you can't say definitively whether or not 58 sacks was high or low.

 

[EvilDylan]

Lol throw to the open receiver. Earth shattering stuff there shourigravity.

He got banned from another site and now he's here turning this place into a dumpster. Great.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Shouright]

I do not know the "percentage." What I know is that I watch every game both on broadcast and and on the all 22 and have come to the definitive conclusion that the overall pass protection for the 2013 Miami Dolphins sucked ass. I also know that there is probably not one single NFL analyst worth his salt, including Shannon Sharpe that would argue otherwise. Sure some of the sacks can be placed on Tannehill

How many of the 58 would you guess?

but that is true of any QB and unless your magic formulas can directly place another QB behind this o-line in 2013, you can't say definitively whether or not 58 sacks was high or low.

No, but what we can do is show that Tannehill is way off of a regression line that covers 62% of the variance in sack rate, meaning that other QBs who experienced similar amounts of pressure, or even more pressure for that matter, were sacked far less often.

 

[Unchained 07]

How many of the 58 would you guess?

No, but what we can do is show that Tannehill is way off of a regression line that covers 62% of the variance in sack rate, meaning that other QBs who experienced similar amounts of pressure, or even more pressure for that matter, were sacked far less often.

Oh for ****s sake, it's football not calculus...if it were that black and white why do even need scouts? Just plug data into your computer and voila... elite QBs for everyone.... I give up Shou...

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[cafinfan408]

How many of the 58 would you guess?

No, but what we can do is show that Tannehill is way off of a regression line that covers 62% of the variance in sack rate, meaning that other QBs who experienced similar amounts of pressure, or even more pressure for that matter, were sacked far less often.

Honestly i would guess around 25 would be the number i put on him.. But we all have diff views of whats on him.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Oh for ****s sake, it's football not calculus...if it were that black and white why do even need scouts? Just plug data into your computer and voila... elite QBs for everyone.... I give up Shou...

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

F'n amazing that he wants to use regression analysis to predict the past ......

He's like a meteorologist using statistical models to predict yesterday's weather..... then arguing with you over whether it rained or not.....

Now I know where the name gravity comes from.

Specific Gravity = Relative Density and he is relatively dense.

 

[marinotoclayton]

I think you need to add in all other drop backs to get an accurate read of how long Tannenhill held ball. There is no way its all on Tannenhill. If he held ball too long then how come run game sucks too. You need good blocking for both so your analysis is flawed in its data.
Just my opinion and from looks of it most on here agree line is the problem.

 

[GreenMts]

Now I know where the name gravity comes from.

Specific Gravity = Relative Density and he is relatively dense.

Actually, I was thinking like "gravity" you can't ever get away from it no matter where you travel in the universe.

"Gravity" follows you to every thread, is always on the site, and sucks you in ... like a black hole.

 

[Shouright]

I think you need to add in all other drop backs to get an accurate read of how long Tannenhill held ball. There is no way its all on Tannenhill. If he held ball too long then how come run game sucks too. You need good blocking for both so your analysis is flawed in its data.

All dropbacks are included.

Just my opinion and from looks of it most on here agree line is the problem.

And most here are likely biased in the direction of wanting Tannehill to succeed and be the QB of the future, so that doesn't mean squat.

Most here also thought Chad Henne was a franchise QB in the making, even going into his third year as a starter. The track record of the consensus of the forum with regard to QBs is garbage. Of course that didn't humble anyone, or make them realize their own biases and limitations. They still believe in the reliability of their "eyeball tests" in this area. We can't even reduce them to an "I don't know for sure." Grandiosity runs rampant.