PFF: Tannehill's Sacks vs. Dolphins' Blocking Sacks | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

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

These stats show that Shouright does post positive Tannehill stats if that's what he finds. It also proves that many here love to hate no matter what he posts. Pretty silly actually.
 
flynryan15 said:
So replace 55% of the positions on offense with better players and we get better :ponder:
Click to expand...

Trying real hard not to turn this into another Ireland bashing thread but... yep, our OL is ****ing terrible. That's all.
 
shouright said:
Pro Football Focus keeps a stat called "pass blocking efficiency," which it says "measures pressure allowed on a per-snap basis, with weighting toward sacks allowed."

Now I don't know what that means, but I decided to take a look at the proportion of the Dolphins' sacks PFF attributed to blocking, versus the proportion attributed to Ryan Tannehill.

The Dolphins have had 58 sacks on the season. PFF attributes 41 of those to the Dolphins' blocking, and (apparently) the remaining 17 to Tannehill.

The table below shows each NFL team's number of pass plays, its total number of sacks, the percentage of its pass plays in which a sack occurred, its sacks attributed by PFF to the team's blocking, the percentage of its pass plays in which it had sacks attributed to blocking, its sacks attributed by PFF to the team's QB, and the percentage of its pass plays in which the team had sacks attributed to the QB:

TEAM
PASS PLAYS
TOTAL SACKS
TOT SACK %
BL SACKS
BL SACK %
QB SACKS
QB SACK %
NYG
580
39
6.72
32
5.52
7
1.21
ATL
612
34
5.56
26
4.25
8
1.31
ARZ
570
40
7.02
32
5.61
8
1.40
IND
614
31
5.05
22
3.58
9
1.47
CHI
606
29
4.79
12
1.98
17
2.81
HST
648
41
6.33
17
2.62
24
3.70
CLV
706
46
6.52
25
3.54
21
2.97
BLT
632
46
7.28
21
3.32
25
3.96
NE
646
39
6.04
33
5.11
6
0.93
JAX
605
47
7.77
28
4.63
19
3.14
MIA
626
58
9.27
41
6.55
17
2.72
TEN
587
36
6.13
22
3.75
14
2.39
PIT
607
42
6.92
31
5.11
11
1.81
SD
552
27
4.89
17
3.08
10
1.81
TB
531
45
8.47
22
4.14
23
4.33
PHI
553
41
7.41
23
4.16
18
3.25
KC
601
38
6.32
25
4.16
13
2.16
NO
666
36
5.41
23
3.45
13
1.95
WAS
639
40
6.26
17
2.66
23
3.60
OAK
553
42
7.59
18
3.25
24
4.34
MIN
589
41
6.96
20
3.40
21
3.57
NYJ
529
47
8.88
23
4.35
24
4.54
DAL
583
35
6.00
20
3.43
15
2.57
SL
524
34
6.49
20
3.82
14
2.67
CAR
520
42
8.08
21
4.04
21
4.04
DET
632
18
2.85
9
1.42
9
1.42
SEA
487
40
8.21
25
5.13
15
3.08
BUF
572
44
7.69
12
2.10
32
5.59
GB
606
42
6.93
28
4.62
14
2.31
DEN
652
17
2.61
12
1.84
5
0.77
CIN
605
29
4.79
20
3.31
9
1.49
SF
438
34
7.76
19
4.34
15
3.42
AVERAGE
589.72
38.13
6.53
22.38
3.82
15.75
2.71
STANDARD DEV
55.20
8.26
1.53
6.87
1.16
6.69
1.20
DOLPHINS Z
0.66
2.40
1.79
2.71
2.35
0.19
0.00
DOLPHINS PERCENTILE
74.5
99.2
96.30
99.7
99.10
57.5
50.00

So we can see here that the Dolphins are well above the league norm in total sacks, well above the league norm in its percentage of pass plays in which a sack occurred, well above the league norm in sacks attributed to blocking, and well above the league norm in the percentage of pass plays in which they had sacks attributed to blocking, but not significantly different from the league norm in either the number of sacks attributed to the QB, nor the percentage of pass plays in which they had sacks attributed to the QB.

This lends support to people's perceptions that the offensive line has been far more at fault than Ryan Tannehill for the Dolphins' inordinate number of sacks this year.
Click to expand...

I like seeing the math. I don't put the sacks on the QB. Buffalo made that perfectly clear for anyone who could not see it before.
 
Someone should fly those sack totals over the stadium on Sunday...
 
dobrasz54 said:
Come on. This stats actually help. It shows mathematically that we are not all THAT bad offensive line wise. Yeah we can't understand it but, math.
Click to expand...

What? We have 41 sacks attributed to the oline. There is only 4 other teams that have broken 30. Most are around 20. Our offensive line is turrible Kenny, just turrible.
 
EvilDylan said:
Line coach needs to be gone.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Bryant McKinnie was not playing well in Baltimore. The Ravens made a desperation trade midseason for Eugene Monroe, who has been much better than McKinnie. McKinnie has a bad knee and is 34 years old.

Miami traded for Bryant McKinnie midseason to replace Jon Martin. He was inserted into the lineup immediately. Despite the fact that he didn't know the line calls for a few weeks, the number of sacks the team was allowing dropped dramatically. In fact, it dropped from about 4.4 per game to about 2.5 per game since that happened.

Honest question for you:

Do you believe the problem is the coaching, or is the problem the talent? I believe that coaching certainly matters in the run game, but do you really think the awful pass protection is because of Jim Turner?

I think it's clearly a personnel issue. We know the line has issues, but on top of that, Daniel Thomas and Lamar Miller are both awful pass blockers and the sack blame distribution bears that out.
 
shouright said:
Pro Football Focus keeps a stat called "pass blocking efficiency," which it says "measures pressure allowed on a per-snap basis, with weighting toward sacks allowed."

Now I don't know what that means, but I decided to take a look at the proportion of the Dolphins' sacks PFF attributed to blocking, versus the proportion attributed to Ryan Tannehill.

The Dolphins have had 58 sacks on the season. PFF attributes 41 of those to the Dolphins' blocking, and (apparently) the remaining 17 to Tannehill.

I am curious about two items:

1) How many of these sacks are attributable to our RB's unable to block at all...----> This is definitely an Ireland mistake. Someone should have analyzed that neither of these two RB's can block.

2) Did the number of sacks increase or decrease after the exit of Richie and Martin? I get the sense that it got lower with the new group of O-line; with the exception of the last game.
Click to expand...
 
shouright, I mostly find you to be an intelligent poster, but I was posting in week 5 or 6 that "about 1 sack a game can be attributed to Tannehill holding the ball too long" which, surprise surprise, is actually right on his average for the season - according to your statistics, of course.

To me it is a little weird that you need 15 weeks of stats to see something that even the average fan can see with their eyes by mid season.
 
Before the last game it was 4.4 sacks per game with Martin at left tackle and 2.5 sacks per game with McKinnie at left tackle.
 
J. David Wannyheimer said:
Bryant McKinnie was not playing well in Baltimore. The Ravens made a desperation trade midseason for Eugene Monroe, who has been much better than McKinnie. McKinnie has a bad knee and is 34 years old.

Miami traded for Bryant McKinnie midseason to replace Jon Martin. He was inserted into the lineup immediately. Despite the fact that he didn't know the line calls for a few weeks, the number of sacks the team was allowing dropped dramatically. In fact, it dropped from about 4.4 per game to about 2.5 per game since that happened.

Honest question for you:

Do you believe the problem is the coaching, or is the problem the talent? I believe that coaching certainly matters in the run game, but do you really think the awful pass protection is because of Jim Turner?

I think it's clearly a personnel issue. We know the line has issues, but on top of that, Daniel Thomas and Lamar Miller are both awful pass blockers and the sack blame distribution bears that out.
Click to expand...

They're completely intertwined. Good coaching makes talent look better. And good talent makes coaching look better. And beyond that, talent that's matched stylistically with other talent looks better than the sum of their talent.

I think there's reason to believe we're deficient in all of these areas on the offensive line (at wide receiver, too, but that's another discussion). Mediocre talent, coached by middling coaches and mismatched with the guys next to them. All you have to do is look at a picture of Sam Brenner standing next to Bryant McKinnie to know you'll never be able to devise a blocking scheme that maximizes what both of them have to offer. It would be like trying to juggle cotton candy and bowling balls.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Atila said:
that quote in your^ signature is shocking
Click to expand...

At the time it was a common sentiment, unfortunately. I just picked a juicy example. A week ago plenty of people would have swung around to agreeing with it again. That should be shocking. Sadly it isn't.
 
The aspect that jumped out to me was the athletic quarterbacks are responsible for a higher percentage than typical of sacks attributed to the quarterback, while the classic pocket types have very low number of sacks attributed to them. In that regard I don't see how this is good news for Tannehill, if we consider him a pocket type. Virtually all the classic drop back peers are below 2% including young players like Luck and Dalton. Only Flacco among the pocket types had a lousy number at nearly 4%. The elite guys like Brady and Peyton are below 1%.

With poor numbers for all the athletic guys like Newton, Kaepernick, Wilson and Griffin, plus the Buffalo quarterbacks, I would be interested to sit in the office when this type of stat is evaluated. Seems likely that it is skewed against that type of quarterback, even if unintentionally. For example, if an athletic guy makes a quick decision to bolt the pocket and is sacked, they tend to blame him, while with a classic quarterback who hangs in there and doesn't move the sack is credited to the offensive line.
 
mega-fin-love said:
These stats show that Shouright does post positive Tannehill stats if that's what he finds. It also proves that many here love to hate no matter what he posts. Pretty silly actually.
Click to expand...

No it shows that he acts like a pompous jackass in his threads when people disagree with him, and when it turns out that those people that disagreed with him are right; they're going to get their shots in, and I don't blame them at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom