It's wrong because the data you're using is incomplete. As such, we're not going to take YOUR word for it. Whoever you are.
The Miami Dolphins' Problems with Sacks: Is the Culprit Ryan Tannehill?
- Thread starter Shouright
- Start date
It's wrong because the data you're using is incomplete. As such, we're not going to take YOUR word for it. Whoever you are.
Apparently not yet!
---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------
Not a problem. Like I said, it's my opinion only. I don't expect anybody to consider me some kind of authority on anything. :)
Apparently not yet!
---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------
Not a problem. Like I said, it's my opinion only. I don't expect anybody to consider me some kind of authority on anything. :)
Then please, for the love of God, stop using the flawed data to imply that your conclusions are fact-based rather than opinion-based.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Tannehill is blameless in this sacks department. However, suggesting that the Dolphins would have allowed far fewer sacks with any other QB is simply asinine.
Then remove the restriction of 75% and recalculate. Your numbers are now not only incomplete with respect to the type of data they capture, they are incomplete, for these stats and therefore inaccurate. I can't believe how much time has been wasted on bunk.
I suggest you re-read the original post and look for where the word "opinion" is written. :up:
Done. I had to use a word search to find the word "opinion" wedged in there, under the chart. And your "opinion" was based on which statistics were relevant to the conversation.
Basically, you hand-picked the criteria upon which the entire conversation would be based. That is a fundamentally flawed way to try to present a statistically-based debate.
I'm just asking you to stop pretending your opinion is based upon anything but skewed statistics, inaccurate data, and a preconception against Ryan Tannehill.
If you don't like the guy, just come out and say it. You're ALLOWED to. It just bugs some of us that you're knowingly presenting a flawed case, and pretending there's no bias behind it.
Nothing IMO to suggest different conclusions from those in the OP, from what I can see:
Pressure % Sack % To Throw To Attempt To Sack To Scramble
Peyton Manning 18.4 11.1 2.35 2.33 3.42
Philip Rivers 27.7 15.4 2.45 2.35 3.8 6.2
Cam Newton 39 23.2 2.97 2.68 4.64 5.37
Matt Ryan 41.7 9.5 2.54 2.49 3.67 3.7
Robert Griffin III 34.5 12.5 2.83 2.62 4.34 5.05
Chad Henne 36.5 14.8 2.52 2.41 3.91 4.7
Ben Roethlisberger 37.6 22.5 2.66 2.47 4.24 4.77
Tony Romo 29.8 20 2.68 2.56 4.12 4.53
Aaron Rodgers 29 23.3 2.58 2.38 3.71 5.28
Drew Brees 29.6 18.4 2.73 2.62 3.75 4.58
Matthew Stafford 27.4 13 2.3 2.21 3.53 4.98
Matt Schaub 42.2 14.3 2.74 2.68 3.61 4.4
Andrew Luck 41 14.6 2.88 2.6 4.16 4.82
Jay Cutler 39 9.8 2.73 2.6 3.64 4.57
Terrelle Pryor 44.6 24.4 3.36 2.94 4.59 5.25
E.J. Manuel 38.3 17.9 2.89 2.57 4.36 5.28
Ryan Tannehill 33.8 33.8 2.48 2.28 3.6 4.3
Carson Palmer 41.9 16.5 2.52 2.41 3.6 5.4
Andy Dalton 26.1 22.2 2.53 2.31 4.03 4.83
Brandon Weeden 43.4 23.7 3.07 2.86 4.29 5.35
Eli Manning 41.1 15.7 2.79 2.7 3.81 4.1
Tom Brady 32.3 19.3 2.55 2.45 3.72 4.63
Russell Wilson 46.6 18.2 3.21 2.82 4.05 5.12
Joe Flacco 39.7 18.6 2.76 2.62 4.18 5.17
Geno Smith 41.5 22.6 3.17 2.85 4.55 5.52
Alex D. Smith 34.7 16.7 2.97 2.63 3.85 5.06
Sam Bradford 37.1 14 2.71 2.63 3.33 4.45
Colin Kaepernick 37.2 15.5 3.14 2.78 4.37 5.21
Michael Vick 45.6 16.4 3.4 3.06 4.58 5.32
MEAN 36.46 17.86 2.78 2.58 3.98 4.93
SD 6.70 5.22 0.29 0.21 0.38 0.51
TANNEHILL Z-SCORE 0.40 -3.06 1.02 1.46 1.00 1.23
CORR PRESURE % 0.06 0.70 0.73 0.45 -0.02
COR SACK % 0.06 0.18 0.04 0.33 0.18
Well I'm happy to read whatever it is you'd like to present that you believe is less flawed. Where is it? :unsure:
So you're reading my mind now? Is that it?
I didn't start a thread stating "Ryan Tannehill is not at all to blame for any of this year's sacks", now did I? I don't have to prove a different theory just to disprove yours.
No, but your negative posting history on the topic of Tannehill is certainly more than coincidental. After a certain point, a collection of circumstances becomes evidence.
If you have an opinion about the data collected or the opinions based on it, that's fine.
Plenty of people have served very long and arduous prison terms for circumstantial evidence that led to an incorrect verdict. :)
Do you think Ryan Tannehill is a good quarterback?
I think he's playing about average overall right now, which, if sustained for the rest of the season, will be a smashing success for him in his second year as a starter, given his lack of experience. :up:
EvilDylan
☠️ Banned ☠️
Once again I'll ask, did Tannehill take an inordinate amount of sacks last year behind a decent OL and his senior year in college?
What are the variables in those two years, New team, New offensive line. Tannehill, however, is relatively the same. If he hasn't taken bad sacks those two years then I'd say it's unreasonable to assume that he's going to suddenly start taking bad sacks this year.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
What are the variables in those two years, New team, New offensive line. Tannehill, however, is relatively the same. If he hasn't taken bad sacks those two years then I'd say it's unreasonable to assume that he's going to suddenly start taking bad sacks this year.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
Update on this from the Buffalo game here, from PFF:
Tannehill was pressured on a greater percentage of his dropbacks in the Buffalo game than he had been previously on the season.
He was sacked on a fewer percentage of his pressured dropbacks than he had been previously on the season.
However, he was sacked twice in the Buffalo game before 2.5 seconds after the snap, which were his first two sacks of the year of that sort. All of his previous 24 sacks had come after the 2.5 second mark.
Tannehill was pressured on a greater percentage of his dropbacks in the Buffalo game than he had been previously on the season.
He was sacked on a fewer percentage of his pressured dropbacks than he had been previously on the season.
However, he was sacked twice in the Buffalo game before 2.5 seconds after the snap, which were his first two sacks of the year of that sort. All of his previous 24 sacks had come after the 2.5 second mark.