Sack Stat

[So Be]

As we all know, the Dolphins gave up 58 sacks, which was horrible. The average was 37 in the NFL last year. Obviously, we gave up 21 more than the average.

We passed 684 times, more than most, and with 5 guys on the OL that would mean that there were 3,410 chances to give up a sack. Add in 175 chances in pass protect for our TE's and we have a total of 3,585 individual player pass blocks, and 21 sacks over the average.

So, we need to correct .6% of our pass protect to be average.

Doesn't seem like much at all when you look at it.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

As we all know, the Dolphins gave up 58 sacks, which was horrible. The average was 37 in the NFL last year. Obviously, we gave up 21 more than the average.

We passed 684 times, more than most, and with 5 guys on the OL that would mean that there were 3,410 chances to give up a sack. Add in 175 chances in pass protect for our TE's and we have a total of 3,585 individual player pass blocks, and 21 sacks over the average.

So, we need to correct .6% of our pass protect to be average.

Doesn't seem like much at all when you look at it.

Who's happy with average? Not me.

There's A LOT of work to be done on our offensive line beyond some silly .6% pass protection statistical measure. Our offensive trench was bridge for opposing defenses. First off, we need to knock back our number of pass attempts.

*Your positive approach is refreshing though.

 

[So Be]

Who's happy with average? Not me.

There's A LOT of work to be done on our offensive line beyond some silly .6% pass protection statistical measure. Our offensive trench was bridge for opposing defenses. First off, we need to knock back our number of pass attempts.

*Your positive approach is refreshing though.

Point being that many go on the sacks to rate an OL's pass blocking, and it is only a very small portion of what they do or, do not do.

 

[miamiron]

As we all know, the Dolphins gave up 58 sacks, which was horrible. The average was 37 in the NFL last year. Obviously, we gave up 21 more than the average.

We passed 684 times, more than most, and with 5 guys on the OL that would mean that there were 3,410 chances to give up a sack. Add in 175 chances in pass protect for our TE's and we have a total of 3,585 individual player pass blocks, and 21 sacks over the average.

So, we need to correct .6% of our pass protect to be average.

Doesn't seem like much at all when you look at it.

Tell Tannehill it doesn't seem like much

 

[Shouright]

The Dolphins were sacked on 8.9% of their pass dropbacks in 2013, which was 1.37 standard deviations above the league average, and in the 94th percentile in the league.

To have been in the average range (less than a standard deviation above the league average), they would've had to have been sacked on 8.31% of their pass dropbacks, which, given their number of pass dropbacks in 2013, would've equaled 54 sacks on the season, instead of the 58 they actually had.

In other words, given their number of pass dropbacks, they were but a mere four sacks above the average range in the league, or one sack every four games.

 

[So Be]

Tell Tannehill it doesn't seem like much

NOT saying it does not matter, just that we're looking at a play or 2 per game of 40 or so by one player, and that is not a whole lot to have to correct. Many don't understand that the sacks do not make the OL and that there are many more plays.

 

[So Be]

The Dolphins were sacked on 8.9% of their pass dropbacks in 2013, which was 1.37 standard deviations above the league average, and in the 94th percentile in the league.

To have been in the average range (less than a standard deviation above the league average), they would've had to have been sacked on 8.31% of their pass dropbacks, which, given their number of pass dropbacks in 2013, would've equaled 54 sacks on the season, instead of the 58 they actually had.

In other words, given their number of pass dropbacks, they were but a mere four sacks above the average range in the league, or one sack every four games.

Much better, and agreed.

 

[Shouright]

Much better, and agreed.

Of course that won't jibe with the prevailing view of the offensive line as having singlehandedly prevented Ryan Tannehill from playing in a way consistent with how everyone wants him to play.

Even if all of the sacks were (mistakenly, in my opinion) attributed to the blocking, the team can't be a sack every four games from the average range in the league and have a view that Ryan Tannehill was only "sacks" away from playing adequately make any sense.

 

[SCLSU Mud Dogs]

Of course that won't jibe with the prevailing view of the offensive line as having singlehandedly prevented Ryan Tannehill from playing in a way consistent with how everyone wants him to play.

Even if all of the sacks were (mistakenly, in my opinion) attributed to the blocking, the team can't be a sack every four games from the average range in the league and have a view that Ryan Tannehill was only "sacks" away from playing adequately make any sense.

Can you really look at our offensive line and be happy with how they performed? And it's a yes or no answer, don't try to stat your way out of this one.

 

[Shouright]

Can you really look at our offensive line and be happy with how they performed? And it's a yes or no answer, don't try to stat your way out of this one.

I'd like the offensive line to play better because I'd like every facet of the team to play above average or better, but I think the offensive line and Ryan Tannehill's performance were unrelated.

 

[dlockz]

New dolphin record for sacks given up, yea they are pretty damn bad. Changing out tackles seems to have that kind of affect. Martin and McKinnie at their best are not as good as a declining Long.

 

[So Be]

Of course that won't jibe with the prevailing view of the offensive line as having singlehandedly prevented Ryan Tannehill from playing in a way consistent with how everyone wants him to play.

Even if all of the sacks were (mistakenly, in my opinion) attributed to the blocking, the team can't be a sack every four games from the average range in the league and have a view that Ryan Tannehill was only "sacks" away from playing adequately make any sense.

The sack breakdown is

OL- 41 Clabo- 11, McKennie- 7, Martin- 7, Cog- 6, Jerry- 5, Pouncey- 2, Garner- 2, and Brenner- 1.

RB- 5 DT-3, and Miller- 2.

TE- 2 on Sims.

Team- 7 These were on blitzes where there was no one to block defenders and no individual responsibility.

QB- 3 RT is given 3 sacks for holding the ball too long. PFF uses 4 seconds before giving the sack to the QB. I think that's too much time in today's NFL but, they do the same to all other QB's.

I would put more than 3 on Tannehill but, will defer to others on how many more as I don't remember what I had during the season.

IMO the OL gave up too much overall pressure on RT, and it most definitely did affect his game but, it was not just the sacks which were a combined team effort.

 

[So Be]

New dolphin record for sacks given up, yea they are pretty damn bad. Changing out tackles seems to have that kind of affect. Martin and McKinnie at their best are not as good as a declining Long.

Agreed. However, there were many factors involved- not having a TE who could help the OT's in blocking, not identifying the blitz to give up 7 team sack, RB pass protect, holding the ball too long, etc. It was not all on the OL.

 

[Shouright]

The sack breakdown is

OL- 41 Clabo- 11, McKennie- 7, Martin- 7, Cog- 6, Jerry- 5, Pouncey- 2, Garner- 2, and Brenner- 1.

RB- 5 DT-3, and Miller- 2.

TE- 2 on Sims.

Team- 7 These were on blitzes where there was no one to block defenders and no individual responsibility.

QB- 3 RT is given 3 sacks for holding the ball too long. PFF uses 4 seconds before giving the sack to the QB. I think that's too much time in today's NFL but, they do the same to all other QB's.

I would put more than 3 on Tannehill but, will defer to others on how many more as I don't remember what I had during the season.

IMO the OL gave up too much overall pressure on RT, and it most definitely did affect his game but, it was not just the sacks which were a combined team effort.

Regardless of to whom the sacks are attributed (by us or by some other source), the fact still remains that there is no objective, statistical relationship between sacks and Ryan Tannehill's performance (as measured by the most important variables) in 2013. It's an irrelevant source of concern in terms of Tannehill's performance.

 

[So Be]

Regardless of to whom the sacks are attributed (by us or by some other source), the fact still remains that there is no objective, statistical relationship between sacks and Ryan Tannehill's performance (as measured by the most important variables) in 2013. It's an irrelevant source of concern in terms of Tannehill's performance.

No objective stats but, common sense (a human element) dictates that a QB is more effective without pressure than he is with it. JMO