Under Pressure: Sack Breakdown | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Under Pressure: Sack Breakdown

Well I have been asked to lay off so I will...but this dudes killing the board with his nonsense...
 
where's th'fish said:
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.
Click to expand...

This was pretty obvious from watching the game video, but thanks for posting the take of a guy who writes for a sabermetrics / statistics website. Perhaps some of the more Raymond Babbitt-esque posters on this site will find a new drum to bang.
 
where's th'fish said:
Really? Because I think I remember you -was it someone else?- posted a PFF table that said Tanehill's sacks came in average at about 2.6 seconds, if my memory serves me right, which was about half a second below the league average
Click to expand...

You can't put every sack in a vacuum and derive definitive conclusions from them...you have to take each one individually...and if you did you would say holy hell the pockets caving in in the qb an awful lot...

I know a qb that is getting sacked regularly because of their own doing...tannehill does not fit in that category...
 
hooshoops said:
You can't put every sack in a vacuum and derive definitive conclusions from them...you have to take each one individually...and if you did you would say holy hell the pockets caving in in the qb an awful lot...

I know a qb that is getting sacked regularly because of their own doing...tannehill does not fit in that category...
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but in this case the numbers heavily support that observation. FOs numbers, in any case.

And by "that" observation, I mean the observation you're making. I think it's important to have both as confirmation for each other, numbers and observation -since numbers can lie, but observations can lie, too.
 
Even if you use the data on the page in the OP, rather than using PFF's data, Ryan Tannehill is has experienced "short sacks" (prior to 2.6 seconds after the snap) 53.1% of the time, which is 1.5 standard deviations above the league average in the sample.

If that figure were 47% (instead of 53.1%) it would be non-significantly different from the league average, which would represent a decrease of only 3 such "short sacks" on the season (14 instead of 17) for Tannehill.

So what we're talking about here that's supposedly the fault of a worse-than-NFL-average offensive line (these "short sacks") accounts for only 3 of Ryan Tannehill's 32 sacks at the time the analysis in the OP was done.

Are we really down to blaming just three sacks on the offensive line, and then using that to call our subjective perceptions "confirmed"? :unsure:
 
where's th'fish said:
Really? Because I think I remember you -was it someone else?- posted a PFF table that said Tanehill's sacks came in average at about 2.6 seconds, if my memory serves me right, which was about half a second below the league average
Click to expand...

PFF times it when the whistle blows, not when the QB goes down. That creates a huge amount of variance, since the whistle is subjective and is applied inconsistently on a play to play basis. Which basically makes PFF worthless for determining that sort of thing.

Based on actually watching the plays with a synchronized stopwatch we concluded that almost all of the sacks actually occurred within 2.5 seconds of the snap.
 
where's th'fish said:
Really? Because I think I remember you -was it someone else?- posted a PFF table that said Tanehill's sacks came in average at about 2.6 seconds, if my memory serves me right, which was about half a second below the league average
Click to expand...
His average time to be sacked according to PFF is 3.59 seconds, which isn't below the league average.
 
where's th'fish said:
Absolutely, but in this case the numbers heavily support that observation. FOs numbers, in any case.

And by "that" observation, I mean the observation you're making. I think it's important to have both as confirmation for each other, numbers and observation -since numbers can lie, but observations can lie, too.
Click to expand...

Yeah I wasn't meaning that towards you...this requires a little football common sense too...is it a 3 step drop did the defense just catch us in a bad protection and sometimes you are better off the qb takins a sack and living for another play...it's in those critical moments however ie game tying or winning drives when these plays are magnified...hell we took one of those critical moment sacks at the end of the cinci game...lost our last timeout as a result...

But the qb made the play and I mean a hell of a coverage read and throw to space where only the wr could go get it to keep us in the game to Mathews...I can't tell you how many qbs can't make that read and throw in that scenario...tannehill bails us out all the time...

He had mayock saying wow the entire game tying drive...mayock knows that kids legit...

Again though drop scenario pressure recognition and accountability coverage protection break downs all play into it...if you put these 8 games in a vacuum and said the qb is the biggest issue to date from a sacks stand point well I would say show me proof on tape so I can shred it
 
shouright said:
Even if you use the data on the page in the OP, rather than using PFF's data, Ryan Tannehill is has experienced "short sacks" (prior to 2.6 seconds after the snap) 53.1% of the time, which is 1.5 standard deviations above the league average in the sample.

If that figure were 47% (instead of 53.1%) it would be non-significantly different from the league average, which would represent a decrease of only 3 such "short sacks" on the season (14 instead of 17) for Tannehill.

So what we're talking about here that's supposedly the fault of a worse-than-NFL-average offensive line (these "short sacks") accounts for only 3 of Ryan Tannehill's 32 sacks at the time the analysis in the OP was done.

Are we really down to blaming just three sacks on the offensive line, and then using that to call our subjective perceptions "confirmed"? :unsure:
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. The % in those tables are a secondary point of analysis. The main information to be derived from the net numbers is that the Dolphin pass protection is weak. Very weak.
 
where's th'fish said:
You're missing the point. The % in those tables are a secondary point of analysis. The main information to be derived from the net numbers is that the Dolphin pass protection is weak. Very weak.
Click to expand...
And that point is based on exactly the data I analyzed in the post you quoted, i.e., the percentage of "short sacks" Tannehill has experienced.

Again, had he experienced just three fewer "short sacks" at the time the analysis was done, his percentage of such sacks wouldn't be significantly different from the average number of "short sacks" in the sample.

I think you're missing the point, actually. You can't say the fact that the offensive line is so much worse than the average line in the league is responsible for Tannehill's inordinate number of sacks when it would take only three fewer sacks out of 32 to bring the number of sacks that can be attributed to the line within the average range in the league.

The line can't be just three sacks of 32 from the average range and at the same time be called "terrible."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom