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

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Gravity didn't blame him for 58 sacks. He assigned responsibility for the difference in expected sacks vs. the end result based on the statistics.

That is like determining the current (or yesterday's) weather using weather models. Sure you can try but why the hell would you? It's idiotic in the extreme. If you want to know if it is raining, stick your head out the window. It's worse than that, he argues that it is not raining while standing outside getting wet.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Gravity didn't blame him for 58 sacks. He assigned responsibility for the difference in expected sacks vs. the end result based on the statistics. The discussion revolves around his pocket presence would I personally think needs a lot of work.

The stats he used make no sense. What does quickness of release have to do with plays where he doesn't release the ball? What does release timing have to do with pocket presence? What does percentage of drop backs that were pressured but not sacked have to do with the fault on the sacks? He presents these numbers with the assumption that they mean something but provides no justification for the connection. It's like a study that correlates shoe size with reading level in children. You "could" come to the conclusion that foot size is related to reading ability or you could account for age differences in the children instead.

 

[marinotoclayton]

His analysis is off base. He doesn't talk about why run game is non existant. Where is the equations for how many times running backs got stuffed behind the LOS. I am willing to bet that that number is bad also. And it is Tannenhill's fault too. Anybody can clearly see with the exception of OP and a few others . That line is terrible.

 

[Shouright]

If someone brings up an argument that seems beyond reasonable fairness....they can expect the kind of response he got here.

No one is arguing Ryan Tannehill is a finished product or that his pocket awareness is where it needs to be.

But is it fair to level all the blame on him for the 58 sacks? Was he sacked anywhere near that number in 2012 when he had a more complete line?

Is it fair to level all the blame on him with the drama and loss of 3 starters from 2012? I don't think so.

If anything, the degradation of the line in 2013 as well as the overall pass protect hindered the progression of Ryan Tannehill and we should be talking about what kind of numbers Tannehill might have posted with a better line. But no, it always has to be negative doesn't it? We need to constantly beat down out team. I for one get tired of it.

Please show me a post of mine in which this was done, and I'd be happy to edit it and make the correction.

---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------

His analysis is off base. He doesn't talk about why run game is non existant. Where is the equations for how many times running backs got stuffed behind the LOS. I am willing to bet that that number is bad also. And it is Tannenhill's fault too. Anybody can clearly see with the exception of OP and a few others . That line is terrible.

Why don't you provide that? Am I the only one here who takes the initiative to conduct an objective analysis to explore a subjective perception? Go ahead and do that and enlighten us. If your perception is that my approach is imbalanced, well then go ahead and do the corresponding work and provide the balance you believe is necessary. That isn't on me -- it's on you.

 

[marinotoclayton]

[/COLOR]Why don't you provide that? Am I the only one here who takes the initiative to conduct an objective analysis to explore a subjective perception? Go ahead and do that and enlighten us. If your perception is that my approach is imbalanced, well then go ahead and do the corresponding work and provide the balance you believe is necessary. That isn't on me -- it's on you.[/QUOTE]

I don't need to do any analysis for sonething I already have seen and know. Just like the majority here . Take off the blinders and you will see too. O Line has been a problem. And got worse since we let Long walk. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Why cant the team run the ball effectively? Why is the Qb getting sacked an outrageous number of times in last 2 yrs. Its because the line is bad. Tannenhill did fairly well considering he had a line that couldn't block effectively.

Take off the blinders bro.

 

[jim1]

[/COLOR]Why don't you provide that? Am I the only one here who takes the initiative to conduct an objective analysis to explore a subjective perception? Go ahead and do that and enlighten us. If your perception is that my approach is imbalanced, well then go ahead and do the corresponding work and provide the balance you believe is necessary. That isn't on me -- it's on you.

I don't need to do any analysis for sonething I already have seen and know. Just like the majority here . Take off the blinders and you will see too. O Line has been a problem. And got worse since we let Long walk. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Why cant the team run the ball effectively? Why is the Qb getting sacked an outrageous number of times in last 2 yrs. Its because the line is bad. Tannenhill did fairly well considering he had a line that couldn't block effectively.

Take off the blinders bro.[/QUOTE]

A stat is a limited interpretation of what happened on a given play, offering the result of the play but woefully limited in showing how the play unfolded and specifically why either good things or bad things happened on the play, nothing more. Stats are simply a catalog of end results- a useful but seriously limited tool. The OP will argue that your eyes will deceive you, but in reality stats can be far more misleading when used improperly, as the OP has shown time and again. To argue that visual evidence, ie actually studying what happened, is flawed and relatively useless, is in fact a flawed and relatively useless argument. Bias is effectively eliminated anyway when the observer has no stake in the game, ie the analysis provided in this thread of the sacks from the Ravens game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

[Shouright]

I don't need to do any analysis for sonething I already have seen and know. Just like the majority here . Take off the blinders and you will see too. O Line has been a problem. And got worse since we let Long walk. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Why cant the team run the ball effectively? Why is the Qb getting sacked an outrageous number of times in last 2 yrs. Its because the line is bad. Tannenhill did fairly well considering he had a line that couldn't block effectively.

Take off the blinders bro.

Well if you're comfortable attaching that degree of certainty to your subjective perceptions, I wouldn't bother hypothesizing about how objective analyses are off-base, as you did above. Just relax in the comfort of knowing you're right, no matter what. :)

 

[Shouright]

A stat is a limited interpretation of what happened on a given play, offering the result of the play but woefully limited in showing how the play unfolded and specifically why either good things or bad things happened on the play, nothing more. Stats are simply a catalog of end results- a useful but seriously limited tool.

The above (bolded) is a great point, and why we sure shouldn't automatically believe that the statistic "58 sacks" means the offensive line was bad. Like the post above says, that statistic (58 sacks) is simply "a catalog of end results, a useful but seriously limited tool." The statistic "58 sacks" could mean a vast array of things, including but not limited to, and not necessarily, the inadequacy of an offensive line. The statistic in itself doesn't provide its meaning.

Bias is effectively eliminated anyway when the observer has no stake in the game, ie the analysis provided in this thread of the sacks from the Ravens game.

I'm assuming this was meant:

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

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

A stat is a limited interpretation of what happened on a given play, offering the result of the play but woefully limited in showing how the play unfolded and specifically why either good things or bad things happened on the play, nothing more. Stats are simply a catalog of end results- a useful by seriously limited tool. The OP will argue that your eyes will deceive you, but in reality stats can be far more misleading when used improperly, as the OP has shown time and again. To argue that visual evidence, ie actually studying what happened, is flawed and relatively useless, is in fact a flawed and relatively useless argument. Bias is effectively eliminated anyway when the observer has no stake in the game, ie the analysis provided in this thread of the sacks from the Ravens game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

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 is he so dense on this topic. These are not my evaluations.

This whole thread is a comedy of errors by the OP. He again shows a poor understanding of stats and an even worse understanding of football. How else do you explain this being baffling to him:

Well then how would you explain the fact that there were eighteen starting QBs in the league in 2013 whose average times to be sacked exceeded 4 seconds, and yet all of them were sacked less often than Ryan Tannehill?

It only fails to make sense in a world where all other possible factors during a football play except the QB's actions are constant across all teams and all plays. In other words, it doesn't make sense in Gravity's fantasy world. In his world, it is puzzling that two identically performing OLs against identically performing DLs, with identically performing receivers and defenders, and identical offensive and defensive schemes could lead to fewer sacks when the QB takes longer to throw the ball.

In his fantasy world, all other factors except QB play are sufficiently consistent between the Dolphins and other teams to be disregarded in the analysis. Therefore, all problems can be attributed to Tannehill. When something doesn't fit that world view he is baffled. That is the same fundamental mistake he makes in every one of his hair brained arguments.

 

[BlueFin]

Gravity didn't blame him for 58 sacks. He assigned responsibility for the difference in expected sacks vs. the end result based on the statistics. The discussion revolves around his pocket presence would I personally think needs a lot of work.

We definitely can talk about what he "might've" posted with a higher quality of O-line. It's a legitimate discussion, one which is far more anecdotal than anything. I know I want to see what he looks like with it. I remember Grav did try to extrapolate what he might look like using statistics when he did have a clean pocket.

While there aren't people claiming Tanny is a finished product, there certainly are a suspect amount of people who feel as if he could do no wrong. We've been down this road a million times with our QB's here. It seems like since Tanny was drafted higher than any of them he's sudden above reproach in that regard.

Personally, I'm a show me guy. Don't sit there and feed me the words "potential" and "ability". His body of work is inconsistent, as is that of the team.

Are you suggesting he didn't improve from 2012 to 2013? Despite a degraded O-line?

His numbers were definitely better, which Gravity denies.

It was only third full year starting as a QB...do you expect a finished product that quickly?

Despite his 6 years at the position, I would like to see how Luck would have faired behind this horrid line? Or Peyton Manning?

No one is saying the kid is elite yet...but let's be fair about the argument.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

One more bit of evidence in support of Tannehill. Most people realize that the longer a sack takes, the more likely that the QB is at fault. This article from Football Outsiders looked at that:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-pressure/2013/under-pressure-sack-breakdowns

But there are some things we do know: The longer it takes for a sack to occur, the less the offensive line and pass protection can be blamed. For a 2.5-second sack, it’s most likely that someone blew their block. For a 3.5-second sack, it’s fair to say that the offensive line did their job and the quarterback, the play call, or the receivers are to blame.

Again, while it requires some inferences, the timing of sacks tells a lot. For the purposes of Under Pressure, short sacks are any sack that took less than 2.6 seconds. A normal or medium sack is one that takes between 2.6 and 3.1 seconds, and a long sack takes 3.2 seconds or longer.
It’s not perfect, but the division between short sacks (34.6 percent of all sacks), medium sacks (32.3 percent) and long sacks (33.2 percent) are close enough to view them as three equal parts.

Dolphins quarterback Ryan Tannehill has been sacked 17 times (53.1 percent) on short sacks, 12 times (37.5 percent) on medium sacks and three times (9.4 percent) on long sacks. It’s a pretty clear sign that the Dolphins sack problems (and they are significant problems) are the line’s fault, and not the fault of wide receivers failing to get open or a quarterback who holds the ball too long.

Looking at the QBs with 20 or more sacks, there is an interesting breakdown:

QB Short Sacks PCT Normal Sacks PCT Long Sacks PCT
17-R.Tannehill 17 53.10% 12 37.50% 3 9.40% 32
7-G.Smith 5 17.90% 8 28.60% 15 53.60% 28
3-R.Wilson 8 29.60% 9 33.30% 10 37.00% 27
7-B.Roethlisberger 8 30.80% 9 34.60% 9 34.60% 26
11-A.Smith 9 37.50% 8 33.30% 7 29.20% 24
12-T.Brady 14 60.90% 4 17.40% 5 21.70% 23
3-C.Palmer 13 56.50% 5 21.70% 5 21.70% 23
2-T.Pryor 3 13.60% 6 27.30% 13 59.10% 22
1-C.Newton 6 28.60% 5 23.80% 10 47.60% 21
3-B.Weeden 5 23.80% 6 28.60% 10 47.60% 21
5-J.Flacco 7 35.00% 7 35.00% 6 30.00% 20

The young QBs (except Tannehill), G. Smith, Wilson, Pryor, Weeden, Newton all have more long sacks (likely their fault) than short sacks. The veteran QBs, Brady, Palmer have more short sacks. Roethlisberger, A, Smith, and Flacco are evenly distributed. Tannehill takes very, very few long sacks. In fact, despite being sacked most overall (by far), he has the fewest number of long sacks. When compared to QBs with similar amounts of experience, the difference is striking.

We now have three different looks at the sacks. Two attempt to assign blame by observing the actual plays. One uses the timing of the sack (therefore not subjective). All come to the same conclusion. To top it off, the team confirmed the problem by making OL changes in mid season.

I don't know why anyone needs to look any further for blame.

 

[BlueFin]

One more bit of evidence in support of Tannehill. Most people realize that the longer a sack takes, the more likely that the QB is at fault. This article from Football Outsiders looked at that:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-pressure/2013/under-pressure-sack-breakdowns







Looking at the QBs with 20 or more sacks, there is an interesting breakdown:

QB Short Sacks PCT Normal Sacks PCT Long Sacks PCT
17-R.Tannehill 17 53.10% 12 37.50% 3 9.40% 32
7-G.Smith 5 17.90% 8 28.60% 15 53.60% 28
3-R.Wilson 8 29.60% 9 33.30% 10 37.00% 27
7-B.Roethlisberger 8 30.80% 9 34.60% 9 34.60% 26
11-A.Smith 9 37.50% 8 33.30% 7 29.20% 24
12-T.Brady 14 60.90% 4 17.40% 5 21.70% 23
3-C.Palmer 13 56.50% 5 21.70% 5 21.70% 23
2-T.Pryor 3 13.60% 6 27.30% 13 59.10% 22
1-C.Newton 6 28.60% 5 23.80% 10 47.60% 21
3-B.Weeden 5 23.80% 6 28.60% 10 47.60% 21
5-J.Flacco 7 35.00% 7 35.00% 6 30.00% 20

The young QBs (except Tannehill), G. Smith, Wilson, Pryor, Weeden, Newton all have more long sacks (likely their fault) than short sacks. The veteran QBs, Brady, Palmer have more short sacks. Roethlisberger, A, Smith, and Flacco are evenly distributed. Tannehill takes very, very few long sacks. In fact, despite being sacked most overall (by far), he has the fewest number of long sacks. When compared to QBs with similar amounts of experience, the difference is striking.

We now have three different looks at the sacks. Two attempt to assign blame by observing the actual plays. One uses the timing of the sack (therefore not subjective). All come to the same conclusion. To top it off, the team confirmed the problem by making OL changes in mid season.

I don't know why anyone needs to look any further for blame.

Wow....that is telling! Great Find!

I love this article from SI's "Eight In The Box" written during last season naming the 8 most disapointing lines in the NFL (Guess which line was #1 Most Disapointing?)

Here is the writeup about Miami:

1. Miami Dolphins: Miami has the only line that ranks in the bottom 25 percent of both Football Outsiders’ run-blocking and pass-blocking grades. It’s not too difficult to see why either: Ryan Tannehill has been sacked 37 times, more than any quarterback in the league, and the run game is averaging fewer than 90 yards per outing.
The aforementioned Clabo resurfaced here, only to justify Atlanta’s decision to cut him loose (10 sacks allowed). And the wheels have come off completely in recent weeks with the Jonathan Martin-Richie Incognito story taking two starters off an already-disappointing line. The Dolphins’ decision to trade for Bryant McKinnie — a player who fell so quickly out of favor in Baltimore that the Ravens traded for his replacement — emphasized what a dire situation this has been.

Of course......thsey are wrong as well....Ryan Tannehill has to take the hit for this. It was his second year as an NFL QB and 3rd full year as a QB overall.

He should have the pocket awareness of a much more experienced QB!

 

[FSU Truth]

One more bit of evidence in support of Tannehill. Most people realize that the longer a sack takes, the more likely that the QB is at fault. This article from Football Outsiders looked at that:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-pressure/2013/under-pressure-sack-breakdowns







Looking at the QBs with 20 or more sacks, there is an interesting breakdown:

QB Short Sacks PCT Normal Sacks PCT Long Sacks PCT
17-R.Tannehill 17 53.10% 12 37.50% 3 9.40% 32
7-G.Smith 5 17.90% 8 28.60% 15 53.60% 28
3-R.Wilson 8 29.60% 9 33.30% 10 37.00% 27
7-B.Roethlisberger 8 30.80% 9 34.60% 9 34.60% 26
11-A.Smith 9 37.50% 8 33.30% 7 29.20% 24
12-T.Brady 14 60.90% 4 17.40% 5 21.70% 23
3-C.Palmer 13 56.50% 5 21.70% 5 21.70% 23
2-T.Pryor 3 13.60% 6 27.30% 13 59.10% 22
1-C.Newton 6 28.60% 5 23.80% 10 47.60% 21
3-B.Weeden 5 23.80% 6 28.60% 10 47.60% 21
5-J.Flacco 7 35.00% 7 35.00% 6 30.00% 20

The young QBs (except Tannehill), G. Smith, Wilson, Pryor, Weeden, Newton all have more long sacks (likely their fault) than short sacks. The veteran QBs, Brady, Palmer have more short sacks. Roethlisberger, A, Smith, and Flacco are evenly distributed. Tannehill takes very, very few long sacks. In fact, despite being sacked most overall (by far), he has the fewest number of long sacks. When compared to QBs with similar amounts of experience, the difference is striking.

We now have three different looks at the sacks. Two attempt to assign blame by observing the actual plays. One uses the timing of the sack (therefore not subjective). All come to the same conclusion. To top it off, the team confirmed the problem by making OL changes in mid season.

I don't know why anyone needs to look any further for blame.

Bull, the o-line is fine, every analyst in the country is wrong, anew QB and all will be right with the Phins....

 

[jim1]

The above (bolded) is a great point, and why we sure shouldn't automatically believe that the statistic "58 sacks" means the offensive line was bad. Like the post above says, that statistic (58 sacks) is simply "a catalog of end results, a useful but seriously limited tool." The statistic "58 sacks" could mean a vast array of things, including but not limited to, and not necessarily, the inadequacy of an offensive line. The statistic in itself doesn't provide its meaning.

I'm assuming this was meant:

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

You're stating the obvious as per the dangers of assumption, but I'd challenge you to find, in the history of the NFL, an OL that gave up that many sacks that was actually a good OL. 58 sacks is a pretty solid indication that the OL blows.

Regardless, it still takes a closer LOOK to see what was actually going on. If you've watched football for any length of time then you've almost certainly heard coaches say after a game something like "yeah, but we'll have to break down the film to see what really happened." There are a lot of moving parts on a sack, interception, TD, whatever. What do coaches trust to get to the truth, the heart of the matter on any given play? Their eyes, and the film. I don't know if the general reaction would be laughter or violence if it was suggested to coaches that they stopped watching game film because their subjective eyes can't be trusted, that they should rely on stats alone. Because that idea, quite frankly, is absurd.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Wow....that is telling! Great Find!

Credit GeForce for posting the link to the Football Outsiders look at the sacks. That led to the article I posted.

I love this article from SI's "Eight In The Box" written during last season naming the 8 most disapointing lines in the NFL (Guess which line was #1 Most Disapointing?)

Here is the writeup about Miami:

That about sums it up.

One more comment about Gravity's persistent use of % of pass plays with pressure as an indicator of the OL. That is more bunk and further proof that he doesn't understand football. He always ignores the fact that Tannehill is getting rid of the ball quicker, therefore the pressure on plays without sacks in happening more quickly. I would expect teams to have somewhat similar % of pass plays with pressure but I wouldn't expect that pressure to occur in the same amount of time.

Offenses are trying to achieve a balance between getting rid of the ball too quickly (and limiting their playbook to quick developing plays) and avoiding pressures/sacks. If your QB is rarely pressured and you are running only quick developing plays, I'd expect the team to add in some plays that take longer to develop (double moves, longer routes, etc) to further exploit the defense. If they don't, they aren't being as effective as they could be. When they add in longer developing plays, they are likely to experience a higher % of pressures. Conversely, if a team is running a mix of plays and getting pressure too frequently on longer developing plays, I'd expect them to shift to a mix favoring quick plays to avoid too frequent pressures/sacks.

It is just simple logic and the most basic understanding of football.