That is also a stat, and it's a direct result of the ones I've posted in this thread.Here's a stat for ya. Tannehill in December: 3-0!!!
Yet his number of sacks today wasn't significantly different from the number per game he had when everyone here was up in arms about the blocking.Funny how good he looks with decent blocking. I don't hear anyone worrying about pocket presences.
That is also a stat, and it's a direct result of the ones I've posted in this thread.
The problem is. that Tom Brady no longer has the velocity on the ball, and he's getting old, and the younger players are dictating his ability to hit the wide open receiver.
Was it though?That is also a stat, and it's a direct result of the ones I've posted in this thread.
---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------
Yet his number of sacks today wasn't significantly different from the number per game he had when everyone here was up in arms about the blocking.
Yes.Was it though?
...as I've been stating all along.Onto your second point, quality of blocking doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sacks.
Was it though?
Onto your second point, quality of blocking doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sacks.
Yes.
...as I've been stating all along.
Sure. Back when the forum was up in arms about the pass blocking of the offensive line, as opposed to currently, when the consensus sentiment regarding the pass blocking appears far more positive, Ryan Tannehill was being sacked no significantly more times per game than he was today."Yet his number of sacks today wasn't significantly different from the number per game he had when everyone here was up in arms about the blocking."
Can you expound on this?
What?? man am I just reading posts more today or is there just plenty of WTF are you talking about posts today?
![]()