Under Pressure: Sack Breakdown

[Awsi Dooger]

I wouldn't have taken Tannehill. There was a player with extremely rare instincts and production in Luke Kuechly. He was my stated choice. We need to stockpile legitimately great players, regardless of position. That's what gave Kansas City a chance to exponentially improve on short notice...all those Pro Bowlers.

Still, it was obvious we'd take a quarterback. Ireland had to buy time. My issue with Tannehill has always been the upside. I remember posting before the draft that maybe he could reach 12th in the league, if everything broke perfectly. I still think that's fair. A guy like that with an atypical background and who has never been great is very unlikely to become great, no matter the debate toward his skills or surrounding personnel. The details change but it always spits out at moderate.

My frustration is that Tannehill shouldn't be treated like a franchise quarterback. Don't give him a 5-year hands-off policy and otherwise ignore the position. He was never considered an early first round pick so ignore you took him there. We need to evaluate everybody at that position carefully and draft at least one quarterback per year until our quarterback is at unmistakable Pro Bowl level, whether it's Tannehill or somebody else.

For one thing, the scoreboard seldom lies. We now hold the longest streak in the league at avoiding 30+ points, now at 17 games. Think back to the playoffs last year, and how many games were won with fewer than 30. Now project Tannehill to the playoffs. We might need to string together 3 or 4 consecutive games against playoff opposition with 30+ points yet Tannehill hasn't proven he can get to that level even semi-regularly against mediocre or bottom of the barrel foes.

 

[Shouright]

You are incredibly confused.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. :)

You say the point is moot because of some correlation you're pulling out of god knows where.

Are you aware that data can be typed into Microsoft Excel, which contains statistical analysis capabilities?

 

[Shouright]

I wouldn't have taken Tannehill. There was a player with extremely rare instincts and production in Luke Kuechly. He was my stated choice. We need to stockpile legitimately great players, regardless of position. That's what gave Kansas City a chance to exponentially improve on short notice...all those Pro Bowlers.

Still, it was obvious we'd take a quarterback. Ireland had to buy time. My issue with Tannehill has always been the upside. I remember posting before the draft that maybe he could reach 12th in the league, if everything broke perfectly. I still think that's fair. A guy like that with an atypical background and who has never been great is very unlikely to become great, no matter the debate toward his skills or surrounding personnel. The details change but it always spits out at moderate.

My frustration is that Tannehill shouldn't be treated like a franchise quarterback. Don't give him a 5-year hands-off policy and otherwise ignore the position. He was never considered an early first round pick so ignore you took him there. We need to evaluate everybody at that position carefully and draft at least one quarterback per year until our quarterback is at unmistakable Pro Bowl level, whether it's Tannehill or somebody else.

For one thing, the scoreboard seldom lies. We now hold the longest streak in the league at avoiding 30+ points, now at 17 games. Think back to the playoffs last year, and how many games were won with fewer than 30. Now project Tannehill to the playoffs. We might need to string together 3 or 4 consecutive games against playoff opposition with 30+ points yet Tannehill hasn't proven he can get to that level even semi-regularly against mediocre or bottom of the barrel foes.

Given the state of the franchise since Marino's heyday, I think the temptation is very great to view a quarterback recently taken by the Dolphins in the first round to be rarely if ever at fault for any major problem.

 

[Shouright]

It's pretty obvious if you watch the games that this is true.

Was this obvious in watching the games?

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

"Watching the games" is given far too much credit around here as some sort of reliable assessment tool. Not only is it a circumscribed view of the relevant features of the game (in comparison to the all-22 film Sharpe uses in that clip), but the people doing the "watching" (us) are heavily prone to confirmation bias.

 

[Phindog]

was this obvious in watching the games?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/0ap2000000269528/playbook-dolphins-vs-patriots

"watching the games" is given far too much credit around here as some sort of reliable assessment tool. not only is it a circumscribed view of the relevant features of the game (in comparison to the all-22 film sharpe uses in that clip), but the people doing the "watching" (us) are heavily prone to confirmation bias.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

ossum4286::rotfl1::lol2::sidelol::bs:

Shouright,you are what we thought you were a stats freak.Thank you so much for the laugh.....:clap:

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

This is my last post on the subject of who to blame for sacks and specifically if Tannehill has "pocket presence". Here are a few articles written about Tannehill (going back to college) that specifically call out his abilities in the pocket. IMO, it was one of his strengths last season. I thought he had a very good feel for the pocket and avoiding pressure. He hasn't been quite as good this season, but (as others have noted) he has the ability.

From college:

"This is excellent pocket management given the the kind of poise a quarterback has to display in this down and distance situation in bad field position after a sack. Its plays like these that make me a fan of what I see from Tannehill. "

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2012/02/11/managing-the-pocket-part-ii-texas-am-qb-ryan-tannehill/


From his rookie year:

"“When I evaluate quarterbacks, I look for attributes that result in high-level play in the NFL. One is the ability to subtly move within the pocket to avoid pressure. At times the moving seems imperceptible, but it’s critical to consistent success. Look at that – that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Tannehill felt the pressure and adjusted without losing his downfield focus. You see it again on this long touchdown to Brian Hartline: front-side pressure on a deep drop shot play. Look how comfortably Tannehill avoids and steps up.
“For a rookie, Tannehill was very good throwing with bodies around him, in what I call a muddied pocket. You really saw it against a tough Seahawks defense, a late November game the Dolphins won. I want to show you this play from the coaching tape. Tannehill wanted to get the ball to Hartline on the curl route at the top of the screen. What happened was his back, Daniel Thomas, drifted into him, squeezing his functional space. You see that clearly from the end zone angle. Tannehill was forced to move, which broke down the designed timing of the throw. But look at how calmly Tannehill worked the pocket, stepping up into a quieter area, ready to throw. There’s a lot of people around him. That’s advanced NFL quarterbacking."

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/07/2013-jaws-qb-countdown/#tannehill


From the Baltimore game this year:

http://www.thephinsider.com/2013/10/10/4822694/miami-dolphins-anatomy-of-a-play

"Tannehill has the third fastest passing time of all NFL QBs this season at 2.3 second. Despite getting rid of the ball 0.5 seconds faster than the average and faster than 90% of all QBs, he was getting pressured/hit/sacked at or before the moment he would normally be throwing the ball. Meaning, that he's already playing fast and throwing fast, but to avoid the pressures against Baltimore, he would have had to play even faster. That's just not acceptable. The O-line MUST hold their blocks long enough for Tannehill to have a chance, if only another half of a second. In this game, that 0.5 seconds could have been the difference between a big play and a sack - a win or a loss. In the plays I've highlighted, they didn't and it resulted in sacks. No amount of checkdown options or pocket presence will make up for the fact that Tannehill just didn't have the necessary time on those plays."

 

[Shouright]

This is my last post on the subject of who to blame for sacks and specifically if Tannehill has "pocket presence". Here are a few articles written about Tannehill (going back to college) that specifically call out his abilities in the pocket. IMO, it was one of his strengths last season. I thought he had a very good feel for the pocket and avoiding pressure. He hasn't been quite as good this season, but (as others have noted) he has the ability.

From college:

"This is excellent pocket management given the the kind of poise a quarterback has to display in this down and distance situation in bad field position after a sack. Its plays like these that make me a fan of what I see from Tannehill. "

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2012/02/11/managing-the-pocket-part-ii-texas-am-qb-ryan-tannehill/


From his rookie year:

"“When I evaluate quarterbacks, I look for attributes that result in high-level play in the NFL. One is the ability to subtly move within the pocket to avoid pressure. At times the moving seems imperceptible, but it’s critical to consistent success. Look at that – that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Tannehill felt the pressure and adjusted without losing his downfield focus. You see it again on this long touchdown to Brian Hartline: front-side pressure on a deep drop shot play. Look how comfortably Tannehill avoids and steps up.

“For a rookie, Tannehill was very good throwing with bodies around him, in what I call a muddied pocket. You really saw it against a tough Seahawks defense, a late November game the Dolphins won. I want to show you this play from the coaching tape. Tannehill wanted to get the ball to Hartline on the curl route at the top of the screen. What happened was his back, Daniel Thomas, drifted into him, squeezing his functional space. You see that clearly from the end zone angle. Tannehill was forced to move, which broke down the designed timing of the throw. But look at how calmly Tannehill worked the pocket, stepping up into a quieter area, ready to throw. There’s a lot of people around him. That’s advanced NFL quarterbacking."

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/07/2013-jaws-qb-countdown/#tannehill

Since people's perceptions of the same events vary, I suspect we could find quotes that similarly laud the shortcomings responsible for Chad Henne's failure to ascend to the level of a starting quarterback in the NFL.

From the Baltimore game this year:

http://www.thephinsider.com/2013/10/10/4822694/miami-dolphins-anatomy-of-a-play

"Tannehill has the third fastest passing time of all NFL QBs this season at 2.3 second. Despite getting rid of the ball 0.5 seconds faster than the average and faster than 90% of all QBs, he was getting pressured/hit/sacked at or before the moment he would normally be throwing the ball. Meaning, that he's already playing fast and throwing fast, but to avoid the pressures against Baltimore, he would have had to play even faster. That's just not acceptable. The O-line MUST hold their blocks long enough for Tannehill to have a chance, if only another half of a second. In this game, that 0.5 seconds could have been the difference between a big play and a sack - a win or a loss. In the plays I've highlighted, they didn't and it resulted in sacks. No amount of checkdown options or pocket presence will make up for the fact that Tannehill just didn't have the necessary time on those plays."

Ironically, that quote regards the Baltimore game, which was the focus of Sterling Sharpe's critique in the clip I posted earlier. Sharpe highlighted two of the six sacks (33%) in that game that were the fault of Tannehill.

Do you realize that if Tannehill has been responsible for 33% of the sacks on the season, his season total would be 23 (rather than 35), which would be within the normal range in the league? How do we know Sharpe's sampling of the sacks for which Tannehill was at fault doesn't apply across the board on the season? What "film" do we have available that rules that out, because the statistics sure rule it in.

If the line is responsible for 67% of the Dolphins' sacks on the season, and Tannehill is responsible for the other 33%, then the line has functioned no worse than the average NFL offensive line, and the excess number of sacks over and above the NFL norm that the Dolphins have taken as a team are attributable to Tannehill.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Since people's perceptions of the same events vary, I suspect we could find quotes that similarly laud the shortcomings responsible for Chad Henne's failure to ascend to the level of a starting quarterback in the NFL.

Irrelevant.

Ironically, that quote regards the Baltimore game, which was the focus of Sterling Sharpe's critique in the clip I posted earlier. Sharpe highlighted two of the six sacks (33%) in that game that were the fault of Tannehill.

And that article provides a different perspective. Tannehill can share the blame but the OL is not protecting well enough.

Do you realize that if Tannehill has been responsible for 33% of the sacks on the season, his season total would be 23 (rather than 35), which would be within the normal range in the league? How do we know Sharpe's sampling of the sacks for which Tannehill was at fault doesn't apply across the board on the season? What "film" do we have available that rules that out, because the statistics sure rule it in.

How do we know it does apply?

If the line is responsible for 67% of the Dolphins' sacks on the season, and Tannehill is responsible for the other 33%, then the line has functioned no worse than the average NFL offensive line, and the excess number of sacks over and above the NFL norm that the Dolphins have taken as a team are attributable to Tannehill.

Do you not see the fallacy in that argument?

 

[Shouright]

And that article provides a different perspective. Tannehill can share the blame but the OL is not protecting well enough.

What is "well enough"? Is it something within the normal range in the NFL?

What we have one one side of the debate are objective data that say the line is performing within the normal range, and all-22 film analyzed by a former would-be HoF player in the same offense (Sharpe) that lays the blame on Tannehill for a number of sacks in a game that, extrapolated to the season as a whole, would put the line's play with regard to sacks within the normal range.

On the other side of the debate, we have the opinions of people prone to confirmation bias because they want to see Ryan Tannehill succeed, based on their viewing of the kind of "film" (the TV view) that's inadequate to adjudicate the issue.

Do you not see the fallacy in that argument?

And you're asking me that? :unsure:

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

What is "well enough"? Is it something within the normal range in the NFL?

What we have one one side of the debate are objective data that say the line is performing within the normal range, and all-22 film analyzed by a former would-be HoF player in the same offense (Sharpe) that lays the blame on Tannehill for a number of sacks in a game that, extrapolated to the season as a whole, would put the line's play with regard to sacks within the normal range.

On the other side of the debate, we have the opinions of people prone to confirmation bias because they want to see Ryan Tannehill succeed, based on their viewing of the kind of "film" (the TV view) that's inadequate to adjudicate the issue.

And you're asking me that? :unsure:

I don't expect you to be able to find it.