Another Take on the Offensive Line, Ryan Tannehill, and Sacks in 2013
- Thread starter Shouright
- Start date
wonderl33t
Club Member
The only reason I read these threads nowadays is so I can be there when the mods finally drop the hammer. These threads would serve a purpose if Shou was willing to discuss the stats he posts, but he's not... you only get personal attacks like "You fail to understand" or "You suffer from confirmation bias" with 0 reasoning offered.
If you ("wonderl33t" that is) have any questions about the original post I'd be happy to answer them. :)
Once again a thread with tons of views and lots of posts, with the only attack of the actual evidence consisting of the above, which was responded to by my including the referenced data in the original model (with the additional work done by me, mind you, out of respect for the poster and the data he alluded to).
Someone please do me a favor and PM me if and when a post is made similar to the one above, and I'll be happy to respond thoughtfully and respectfully. Until then, I'll consider the matter closed, and won't plan to return to the thread. :)
walt
Active Roster
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,045
- Reaction score
- 8
Didn't I see the OP on The Big Bang Theory??
OK, let's stipulate that Ryan is indeed holding the ball too long. What's the solution? I think the solution is for the coaching staff to teach him not to hold the ball so long. Is someone advocating that we start Matt Moore instead?
OK, let's stipulate that Ryan is indeed holding the ball too long. What's the solution? I think the solution is for the coaching staff to teach him not to hold the ball so long. Is someone advocating that we start Matt Moore instead?
In other words... la, la, la, la, la, la, la, I'm not listening to anyone.......
Time to release the ball and percentage of pressured drop backs have little to do with sack rate whether there is an coincidental correlation or not. They have nothing to do with who was responsible for the sacks. Nothing.
There has been numerous posts in this thread giving real information about sacks and their cause. You ignore all of it because it doesn't fit your preconceived agenda. You are a joke.
wonderl33t
Club Member
I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said and dodged, deflected and distracted.
---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 AM ----------
Well, here's another criticism of your thread- you focus on, as relevant factors, a combination of the time that it takes a QB to get pressured and the QBs release time. No where do you account for an obvious criteria- a QBs ability to evade the pass rush, which if done successfully will buy time and remove the "QB pressured" tag from protecting OLs on any given play, thus skewing your data. So basically, if you're looking for an answer as to your thesis as to why RT is such an outlier as top # of times sacked, look no further:
1. The OL blew chunks
2. Tannehill does not have particularly good pocket presence or ability to avoid a pass rush, especially when he's forced to stay in the pocket
3. The idiot Mike Sherman forced Tannehill to stay in the pocket despite heavy pressure to a porous OL, negating his inherent athleticism, escapability and 4.65 speed.
And guess what? You missed all of this, because it's not buried in some obscure stats. If you would have WATCHED the games and had a clue as to what you were watching, and if you knew from the news that Tannehill was forced to stay in the pocket by Sherman, then maybe you would have seen where your statistical analysis went wrong.
In other words, as usual, you're barking up the wrong tree, connecting dots that shouldn't be connected, and arriving at erroneous conclusions. I've viewed a lot of your threads here and on thephins, most notably the ones that you started around the time that you were banned for, basically, being an annoying little s***. Would you like to guess the correlation that I noticed? You never proved a damn thing. What you do, however, is come up with dumb statements like WRs are interchangeable and of little inherent value- bad enough, but then I saw on this site you saying that QBs are far overrated as per TDs- which leaves as a causative factor randomness. Sorry Shouright/Gravity, but your work is crap. It's interesting, in small doses, but your desire to string out your debates, rehash your debates and repackage your debates, on top of being annoying, is what got you banned from thephins in the first place. You made a pariah out of yourself over there, I don't ever remember a more disliked poster, ever, and you seemed to enjoy it. We'll see if history repeats itself over here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Because of all of these nonsensical arguments by Gravity, I have read dozens of articles discussing sacks. Nobody uses QBs release time as a factor. Why? Because it is not relevant.
Remember when he found the loophole effectively enabling him to restrict posting in his threads to those naive enough to treat his antics seriously? For grins, do you have any links back to the final episode over there? :up: Clearly, when it comes to vacuum-visioned OCD Raymond had nothing on him.
Not off hand. There was some weird rehashing of thread topics, repackaging the ideas in thinly veiled new threads, after iirc old threads were locked because they just became too annoying. Also, other posters' threads were turned into hijack targets, taken off on rather obvious tangents to get back to his ocd points and agenda. Weird stuff, but even worse it was annoying stuff. I've never in my life seen a poster take such apparent glee in annoying other posters. It was bizarre.
This all makes sense.
If you have avg seconds per sack,
If you have total pass plays,
then you have the # of times the QB should be sacked vs actually sacked based on seconds for each pass play before ball is thrown.
If actually is higher then should be, well...
one: you have a problem lol, and
two: what is it?
Normally you couldn't really say right? you'd have to look at each sack and find the reason on it. But when you insert a number like 4 seconds, where if sack time is over that its QBfault, if under its linefault, you can find cause without looking at each play, and just have a general problem to blame. interesting, but still it's just finding a general problem right? Each play has different causes, different people or combinations of people to blame right? and that information will never take into account scheme right? It's an interesting topic but just doesn't really give anything substantial or singular to blame REALLY. It sort of does but it's misleading imo.
If you have avg seconds per sack,
If you have total pass plays,
then you have the # of times the QB should be sacked vs actually sacked based on seconds for each pass play before ball is thrown.
If actually is higher then should be, well...
one: you have a problem lol, and
two: what is it?
Normally you couldn't really say right? you'd have to look at each sack and find the reason on it. But when you insert a number like 4 seconds, where if sack time is over that its QBfault, if under its linefault, you can find cause without looking at each play, and just have a general problem to blame. interesting, but still it's just finding a general problem right? Each play has different causes, different people or combinations of people to blame right? and that information will never take into account scheme right? It's an interesting topic but just doesn't really give anything substantial or singular to blame REALLY. It sort of does but it's misleading imo.
The OP's stats are shady, and I simply do not believe many of them are accurate.
enigmatics
Go get me a juice box!
What a fantastic post. Glad you felt the need to bump this thread just to start the trash talking once more. Very noble and productive of you.