PFF: Tannehill's Sacks vs. Dolphins' Blocking Sacks

[Nawledge]

Well presumably everyone here watches the games, yet there's significant disagreement among us about nearly every issue regarding the team.

How do we know who's right and wrong, and who has common sense and who does not, if in fact that's what determines whether one's perceptions are correct?

are you gonna post common sense statistics now?

 

[Shouright]

are you gonna post common sense statistics now?

Can you answer those questions, or not?

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

This is what I said in a game chat here against Buffalo when he pointed out the blitz around the left edge and then sat there and got eaten up by it. If you're going to point out a blitz, why not make your first order of business running away from it? Doesn't the success of the play depend on that sort of movement by the quarterback first and foremost?

Sure you can make the argument that a blocker should've picked up the blitzer, but that can happen while you're running the opposite direction. Don't make the play depend on it!

And then there's this sort of thing:

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

The quarterback is always responsible for blitzers that are unaccounted for in pass protection.... typically never more than one free blitzer unaccounted for in the blocking scheme to begin with. The quarterback is responsible for this free blitzer.

However, what Sterling Sharpe is pointing out here is an entirely different issue. These sacks were by defenders that were accounted for in the blocking scheme because the quarterback didn't throw the football to the open receiver. The left tackle gets charged with those sacks, which never should've happened if the QB just gets the ball out of his hand. The receivers were open.

 

[Shouright]

The quarterback is always responsible for blitzers that are unaccounted for in pass protection.... typically never more than one free blitzer unaccounted for in the blocking scheme to begin with. The quarterback is responsible for this free blitzer.

However, what Sterling Sharpe is pointing out here is an entirely different issue. These sacks were by defenders that were accounted for in the blocking scheme because the quarterback didn't throw the football to the open receiver. The left tackle gets charged with those sacks, which never should've happened if the QB just gets the ball out of his hand. The receivers were open.

Well then Buffalo's defensive coordinator dialed up a surefire recipe for beating Ryan Tannehill, because that was his nemesis about all day long up there.

 

[hoops]

if tannehills so unprepared against pressure why does he the last 2 years find himself in the upper echelon of blitz pressure qb ratings...at least that's my understanding he does

i saw tannehill pointing out the slot blitzers presnap i know a couple guys blew protections where he expects them to be accounted for but i dont have the game anymore to watch it again...one of those sacks i agree was on the qb though...at least my live initial reaction was as such...

pretty sure lamar miller or daniel thomas got bowled over on another...

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

Well then Buffalo's defensive coordinator dialed up a surefire recipe for beating Ryan Tannehill, because that was his nemesis about all day long up there.

Exactly. It's just low hangin' fruit for any defensive coordinator that's studied Tannehill's flaws. Ryan Tannehill is the most athletic quarterback in the league that doesn't use any of it.

Going back to Sterling Sharpe's point.... if you're going to stare at the open receiver that's your first progression and not throw the ball... at least use your athleticism and get off your landmark. Try to make something happen. Don't just stand there and hold it. The pressure already knows where you are.

There's no point in being on your landmark if the ball isn't going to come out when it's designed... to an open receiver.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

The problem I see with Ryan Tannehill is essentially the same one that he came out of college with, and has yet to remedy. He leads the league in sacks because he still always looks completely unprepared for pressure. You simply can't always be that unprepared for it. It's why he's never prepared to use his athleticism to react.

I don't know what the hell this means. Should he just take the snap and scramble?

 

[hoops]

lateral movements but again most guys dont come out of the womb like andrew luck in that regard...takes time

no doubt some of the sacks are on the qb...probably a quarter of em at least but this team loses and loses in the crunch cause the protection breaks down...been that way all year

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Anyone not putting the bulk of the blame on the OL is just looking for reasons to knock the QB. When the OL doesn't SUCK tell how he handles pressure.

 

[Wallace17Miami]

Well presumably everyone here watches the games, yet there's significant disagreement among us about nearly every issue regarding the team.

How do we know who's right and wrong, and who has common sense and who does not, if in fact that's what determines whether one's perceptions are correct?

This statement is just ramblings of someone losing an arguement. I wouldn't press it any further nawledge.

 

[Nawledge]

This statement is just ramblings of someone losing an arguement. I wouldn't press it any further nawledge.

I wasnt even trying to debate or argue with shouright. I was just stating that when i watch the games its pretty obvious the o-line deserves more of the blame for the sacks. Yea Tanny is at fault for some but i mean Martin was getting pushed back right into Tannehill, Clabo was getting blown past by d-ends, Daniel Thomas or Miller just missing blocks.

Shouright just thinks stats mean everything in life. Ill give an example of stats not meaning ****. Its like interceptions, unless youve seen how the interceptions were accumulated then you dont see the full picture. If a wide receiver lets a ball bounce off his hands or bobbles a pass it counts as an INT to the qb. So say a guy throws 15 picks in a season but 3 of them were receivers fault, one desperation hail mary at the end of a game and one was a tipped pass by a defensive tackle intercepted by a linebacker. So really 10 interceptions were the qbs fault due to bad throws/decisions/miscommunication with wide receiver on the play. Stats dont tell everything all the time.

 

[truedolfan57]

there was absolutely zero talk about Tannehill's pocket awareness last year. If tannehill was getting sacked the most in the league last year, and this year, you might have a good debate going. But right now, the oline is what's sucked. The oline is what's caused the vast majority of the sacks this year. even if you took away all sacks that were caused by tannehill, you'd have over 40 sacks this year. He was sacked 35 times all last season.

 

[Shouright]

Shouright just thinks stats mean everything in life. Ill give an example of stats not meaning ****. Its like interceptions, unless youve seen how the interceptions were accumulated then you dont see the full picture. If a wide receiver lets a ball bounce off his hands or bobbles a pass it counts as an INT to the qb. So say a guy throws 15 picks in a season but 3 of them were receivers fault, one desperation hail mary at the end of a game and one was a tipped pass by a defensive tackle intercepted by a linebacker. So really 10 interceptions were the qbs fault due to bad throws/decisions/miscommunication with wide receiver on the play. Stats dont tell everything all the time.

Actually statistics can tell you precisely that interceptions don't predict their own future occurrence and therefore represent a more random variable in football, which would then help confirm your subjective belief in that regard.

 

[The Goat]

Or perhaps I would've worked to debunk something that was actually later proven to be false, such as the belief that the sun revolved around the earth.

If you forego a skeptical attitude and an objective exploration out of fear you may do what you're talking about, you may miss out on doing what I said.

Your own findings in this thread would seem to prove quite the opposite...that you'd been of the opinion that the Sun evolved around the Earth...until you finally saw the light.

(See what I did there?)

 

[Shouright]

Your own findings in this thread would seem to prove quite the opposite...that you'd been of the opinion that the Sun evolved around the Earth...until you finally saw the light.

(See what I did there?)

Actually I still think the evidence on the issue is quite mixed, and I certainly wouldn't let a consensus of people who desperately want to perceive Ryan Tannehill as successful tell me where "the light" is.