Under Pressure: Sack Breakdown

[FinfanInBuffalo]

You can't very well say with any certainty that "short sacks" are a valid measure of poor offensive line play when offensive lines that surrender less frequent quarterback pressure give up more frequent short sacks! :)

Short sacks are a valid measure of a player sacking the QB quickly. That is generally an indication of a missed assignment or whiff. In the games that I have seen, the majority of those have happened to the Dolphins when the other team was rushing 4 or fewer. That is not a missed free blitzer or a failure by the QB to change the protection. That puts the blame squarely on the OL for failing to block 4 guys with 5 guys.

The number of pressures on other plays is IRRELEVANT.

Who cares what's going on inside me? Is that really the determining factor with regard to whether the offensive line or Tannehill is more at fault in this issue? If we can prove I have an "agenda," does that somehow mean Tannehill really isn't at fault? :unsure:

It might stop the rash of nonsensical posts on the subject. Most already know that most of the blame goes to the OL and not Tannehill.

If a lineman whiffs on a block and the quarterback is sacked by that defensive player immediately, that sack is the fault of the offensive lineman.

FINALLY! A glimmer of recognition. Just to be sure... it doesn't matter what happens on other plays or on other teams, or league averages, or historical trends, or correlated statistics or anything else, right?

Now, others have already reviewed the sacks and have concluded that the larger issue is the OL and not Tannehill.

However, are you now going to propose that the number of sacks Tannehill has taken over and above the league norm this year have all been such sacks?

He's been sacked 35 times, the league norm is in the teens, and the 20 or so he's taken in excess of the league average have all been of the variety you're talking about? :unsure:

Is this the only way you can try to make a point? Straw man? Is it really necessary?

None of your statistics matter. Watch the tape.

 

[Shouright]

None of your statistics matter. Watch the tape.

I edited the quote of your post to the above because it seems to sum up your viewpoint on this matter overall, and I'll go ahead and speak to that here.

Please, watch the following video segment, and then tell me if you believe your personal viewing of the tape (or anyone else's here, for that matter, including my own) is sufficient to make a determination on this issue:

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

 

[Shouright]

If one team's offensive line blows the protection 17 times and another blows it 5 times, that's what I call "behaving differently". Does it matter whether the QB holds on to the ball too long on other plays? No. That's a different matter entirely. By using the percentages as valid information you are assuming there's a connection between QBs who hold on to the ball too long and breakdowns in OL blocking. There isn't because those two things are as different from each other as punting is from kicking.

A team, for example, with a low number of short, medium and long sacks likely has both a good OL and a QB that is very aware of pressure. The opposite case would point to a team with a bad OL and a bad QB at feeling the pressure. Yet, the percentage of each kind of sack for each of each these teams could very well be the same. That's why said proportion is meaningless.

What the numbers strongly suggest is simply that the OL of the Dolphins has had a lot more breakdowns in pass protection compared to other teams. That is all.

The proportion becomes relevant, however, when you're talking about a number of sacks that have been taken that are above the league norm, rather than simply talking about a number of sacks overall.

Tannehill had taken 32 sacks overall on the year when that article was written, which was nearly 20 above the league norm. If we consider "short sacks" to be a valid measure of poor offensive line play (which again is dubious IMO), then we should be able to show that his percentage of such "short sacks" are likewise well above the league norm.

But that isn't the case. Those sacks on the Dolphins' part represent only three of the 17 sacks in that category.

In other words, when you're distributing blame to either the line or Tannehill (in which case you're using proportions -- to distribute blame), you find that the distribution of "short sacks," in comparison to the league norm of "short sacks," isn't sufficient to justify the number of total sacks that are in excess of the league norm.

For example, did you also notice that the Dolphins are leading the league in "normal sacks" (the middle column in the table)? How should we explain that?

Again, however, the point is moot IMO, because these "short sacks" are strongly and inversely correlated with the rate of QB pressure in the league, which puts its validity as a measure of offensive line play in serious jeopardy.

 

[Avalanche of Wins]

while i do not agree with shouright, at least he contributes to the board in a positive manner. i give him credit for validating (or attempting to validate depending on your perspective) and creating some discussion, i know some people here appear to have grown tired of his so called "agenda" but he doesn't violate the tos and handles most of his rebuttals with respect and further discussion. i feel like some of us could be more patient with him, or perhaps avoid him if need be

 

[Shouright]

while i do not agree with shouright, at least he contributes to the board in a positive manner. i give him credit for validating (or attempting to validate depending on your perspective) and creating some discussion, i know some people here appear to have grown tired of his so called "agenda" but he doesn't violate the tos and handles most of his rebuttals with respect and further discussion. i feel like some of us could be more patient with him, or perhaps avoid him if need be

I am into analyzing data statistically to find out more about my own personal interest in various areas of the team. I know that isn't everyone's cup of tea here by any means, and I'm happy to be on anyone's ignore list for whom my approach or personal emphasis is a burden for any reason. :up:

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

I edited the quote of your post to the above because it seems to sum up your viewpoint on this matter overall, and I'll go ahead and speak to that here.

Please, watch the following video segment, and then tell me if you believe your personal viewing of the tape (or anyone else's here, for that matter, including my own) is sufficient to make a determination on this issue:

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

Yes. Watching the plays is sufficient to make a determination of many (most) of the sacks. In addition, it is far more useful than ignoring the tape and relying solely on incomplete information.

While those two sacks may have been avoidable by throwing sooner (not scrambling sooner as you have repeatedly contended), they could also have been avoided with adequate blocking.

 

[Shouright]

Yes. Watching the plays is sufficient to make a determination of many (most) of the sacks. In addition, it is far more useful than ignoring the tape and relying solely on incomplete information.

I think if that video segment isn't enough to tell you that without access to the all-22 film we have no idea which part of the team to blame based on the film we have alone, you and I should probably stop discussing the issue with each other, since your position rests on the film alone, and at no point now or in the future will I agree that our view of the film we have access to is sufficient for that purpose.

While those two sacks may have been avoidable by throwing sooner (not scrambling sooner as you have repeatedly contended), they could also have been avoided with adequate blocking.

They were sacks that could have been (and should have been) avoided by Tannehill. Now, the question is, how many of his 35 sacks on the year were like those? How many are based on insufficient and/or untimely movement on his part? Since we can't know based on the film we have access to, then the film we have access to is useless in adjudicating the issue in my opinion.

Basically the Sterling Sharpe segment takes "the film" as people here have called it and renders it useless in adjudicating the issue.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

I think if that video segment isn't enough to tell you that without access to the all-22 film we have no idea which part of the team to blame based on the film we have alone, you and I should probably stop discussing the issue with each other, since your position rests on the film alone, and at no point now or in the future will I agree that our view of the film we have access to is sufficient for that purpose.

They were sacks that could have been (and should have been) avoided by Tannehill. Now, the question is, how many of his 35 sacks on the year were like those? How many are based on insufficient and/or untimely movement on his part? Since we can't know based on the film we have access to, then the film we have access to is useless in adjudicating the issue in my opinion.

Basically the Sterling Sharpe segment takes "the film" as people here have called it and renders it useless in adjudicating the issue.

And how do the stats alone answer the same question? Exactly how many are Tannehill's fault and how does that number compare to other QBs?

 

[Shouright]

And how do the stats alone answer the same question? Exactly how many are Tannehill's fault and how does that number compare to other QBs?

Well, we know that Tannehill isn't pressured any more than the average QB, but he's sacked when pressured astronomically more. That's a very simple and powerful explanation in itself in my opinion.

Anything we do here is going to be piecemeal. We're not going to hone in on the reality of the issue with laser precision because there is too much distance between what we have access to from our vantage point and what's really going on with the team from the vantage point of the people in the know within the organization, or even from the vantage point of the all-22 film from someone with an expert perspective (Sterling Sharpe in the video segment, for example).

That said, however, I'm ever-aware of the potential for confirmation bias when it comes to things we would all like to see (Ryan Tannehill's success, for example), which is why I'd personally side with the objective data in situations such as those, and why I exhaust every research avenue available and every statistical analysis possible in exploring the issue. :up:

 

[WVDolphan]

As Hoops pointed out, the time has nothing to do with who the sack is on. I get tired of hearing about the time.

You have to take each play on its own, examine it, and you can tell who the sack is on. Unfortunately, while Hoops realizes this, he lacks the ability to recognize that quite a number of sacks the dolphins have surrendered are due to the fact that Ryan Tannehill has no clue how to manipulate the pocket. The issue is he simply lacks the ability to play QB. Thats all.

Having said that, the OL is not good. It hasnt been good all year. The OL is allowing way too much pressure. This team really has no shot on a consistent basis in obvious passing downs. When the Miami Dolphins are placed in obvious passing downs, they have had very little success. What you can expect is more sacks, more fumbles, more interceptions..... turnovers galore. It is all due to a combination of poor pass protection and bad QB play. To pretend its all on one or the other is silly. The OL blows and Ryan Tannehill is simply not a good QB.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Well, we know that Tannehill isn't pressured any more than the average QB, but he's sacked when pressured astronomically more. That's a very simple and powerful explanation in itself in my opinion.

Anything we do here is going to be piecemeal. We're not going to hone in on the reality of the issue with laser precision because there is too much distance between what we have access to from our vantage point and what's really going on with the team from the vantage point of the people in the know within the organization, or even from the vantage point of the all-22 film from someone with an expert perspective (Sterling Sharpe in the video segment, for example).

That said, however, I'm ever-aware of the potential for confirmation bias when it comes to things we would all like to see (Ryan Tannehill's success, for example), which is why I'd personally side with the objective data in situations such as those, and why I exhaust every research avenue available and every statistical analysis possible in exploring the issue. :up:

But his is pressured more quickly.

How about this... couple a bad OL with a young QB and receivers inexperienced in the system in a complicated passing offense with poor or inconsistent support from the running game against defenses that sack the QB a lot (6 of their opponents are in the stop 10) and you get sacks at a high rate.

 

[Shouright]

But his is pressured more quickly.

Based on what?

]How about this... couple a bad OL with a young QB and receivers inexperienced in the system in a complicated passing offense with poor or inconsistent support from the running game against defenses that sack the QB a lot (6 of their opponents are in the stop 10) and you get sacks at a high rate.

Well, in the spirit of a truce (), I'll agree partially and say that the team should damned sure be running the ball more. :up:

 

[Andyman]

In this article J.J. Cooper breaks down FOs stats for sacks.

This is what he had to say about Tannehill:



It only goes to prove what all but the most foolish Dolphin fans realize, that our issues start with the OL, not with Tannehill.

It's pretty obvious if you watch the games that this is true. The whole 'pocket presence' thing with him has been overblown. He just doesn't have time to feel the pressure and move around. Three step pressure makes it awful hard to do much of anything.

 

[twohype]

In this article J.J. Cooper breaks down FOs stats for sacks.

This is what he had to say about Tannehill:



It only goes to prove what all but the most foolish Dolphin fans realize, that our issues start with the OL, not with Tannehill.

Well....I'd say that there is PLENTY of blame to go around for the crazy amount sacks on T-Hill this year. There are clearly a few times T-Hill held the ball too long or should have threw the ball away, however it is also clear that T-Hill is trying to make plays (and let routes develop) so that is OK in my book, he wants to trust our OL, but our OL is garbage. IMHO the Phinz offensive line is the primary problem with the crazy number of sacks. The Phinz pass protection this season has been just AWFUL...most of the time it's been too painful to watch, pure crap. I'm so sick of seeing our RT (i.e., Clabo) get beat like a damn drum that I didn't know what to do....that bum Clabo has cost da Phinz TWO games this year. Martin at LT was a f---ing joke, that dipstick always looks like he has skates on if ANYBODY bull rushes him. Our old LG gets SMOKED on all inside spin moves and our RG Jerry once he's gets tired (and that does not take long at all) well let's just say it is not very pretty to watch. At least da Phinz have a very good center.....I think that Pouncey has a real chance to be an ELITE center in the NFL. IMHO Pouncey is a stud center...a star in the making....but our current G's poor play is pulling down him down.

Clearly it is true that Offensive Linemen are NOT play makers....but the OL allows play makers to make plays. It is true that Offensive Linemen do NOT run for TDs....but the OL allows RBs to run for TDs. It is true that Offensive Linemen do NOT pass for TDs....but the OL allows QBs to step up in a pocket to pass for TDs. It is true that Offensive Linemen do NOT catch passes for TDs....but the OL allows WRs time to run their routes to catch TDs. Bottom-line, it's time to show me da BEEF in the 2014 draft, get some better offensive linemen to let da Phinz play makers make plays. IMHO the Phinz MUST focus on the OL in the 2014 draft, the Phinz need two new starting Tackles (both LT and RT) next year.

 

[where's th'fish]

The proportion becomes relevant, however, when you're talking about a number of sacks that have been taken that are above the league norm, rather than simply talking about a number of sacks overall.

Tannehill had taken 32 sacks overall on the year when that article was written, which was nearly 20 above the league norm. If we consider "short sacks" to be a valid measure of poor offensive line play (which again is dubious IMO), then we should be able to show that his percentage of such "short sacks" are likewise well above the league norm.

But that isn't the case. Those sacks on the Dolphins' part represent only three of the 17 sacks in that category.

In other words, when you're distributing blame to either the line or Tannehill (in which case you're using proportions -- to distribute blame), you find that the distribution of "short sacks," in comparison to the league norm of "short sacks," isn't sufficient to justify the number of total sacks that are in excess of the league norm.

For example, did you also notice that the Dolphins are leading the league in "normal sacks" (the middle column in the table)? How should we explain that?

Again, however, the point is moot IMO, because these "short sacks" are strongly and inversely correlated with the rate of QB pressure in the league, which puts its validity as a measure of offensive line play in serious jeopardy.

You are incredibly confused. Yes, comparing to the league norm is fine. The league norm is the average of short sacks allowed per team (more or less). It has nothing to do with this non-existent distribution you made up to support your point.

Now, I put in bold the only argument you've said so far that makes any sense to me, with all due respect, but which I won't get into because it actually has nothing to do with the simple observation being discussed in the article and this thread.

Your last paragraph is downright scary. You say the point is moot because of some correlation you're pulling out of god knows where. But if it IS moot, why in the world are you even arguing it at all? Don't you see how crazy that is? You've spent all this time arguing something that, by your own admission, doesn't mean anything at all? Excuse me, but isn't that exactly what a troll is?

That's it for me. Have a ball. :3w: