Under Pressure: Sack Breakdown | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Under Pressure: Sack Breakdown

Thats the problem he does watch the sack in the pats game on 3rd down before sturgis misses a 50 yard fg. Its 3rd and short he has 3 guys wide open in front of him and holds the ball from some reason and gets sacked moving the fg back. This was the 2nd time in fg range he got sacked on 3rd down. The guy simply must understand the situations and get rid of the ball
 
Thats the problem he does watch the sack in the pats game on 3rd down before sturgis misses a 50 yard fg. Its 3rd and short he has 3 guys wide open in front of him and holds the ball from some reason and gets sacked moving the fg back. This was the 2nd time in fg range he got sacked on 3rd down. The guy simply must understand the situations and get rid of the ball

Oh you mean the play where none of the pass catchers read the hot and checked up after they released from the Los??? They have to recognize the free clean edge rusher as much as the qb does

It's 3rd and 2 if he makes that one guy miss its a first down...but egnew was flexed never once checked up and I'd bet money he was the hot
 
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."

It's not three, it's seventeen. A league-high seventeen.
 
They were all wide open he just stares at them for days and get sacked
 
It's not three, it's seventeen.
And if it were fourteen (three fewer), which for Tannehill would be 47% of his total sacks, the percentage would be in the average range of "short sacks" in the sample.
 
If PFF puts Tannehill's average time at more than 3.5 seconds on average than that site hardly qualifies a a now all end all source of reliable information. Any knucklehead can watch and see how narrow the pocket is and how quickly it crashes.
 
Yeah, you can throw all kinds of stats and percentages around, but we all watch the same game. I've watched enough football to see this is one of, if not the worst, line we've had in over a decade. Watch the game. Tannehill is far from perfect, but just watch the game - the line is garbage.
 
If PFF puts Tannehill's average time at more than 3.5 seconds on average than that site hardly qualifies a a now all end all source of reliable information. Any knucklehead can watch and see how narrow the pocket is and how quickly it crashes.
Then go with the data in the original post. I've already shown how that fails to support a view of the offensive line as anywhere near as bad as some of the perceptions of it I've seen here.
 
Yeah, you can throw all kinds of stats and percentages around, but we all watch the same game. I've watched enough football to see this is one of, if not the worst, line we've had in over a decade. Watch the game. Tannehill is far from perfect, but just watch the game - the line is garbage.
Those who watch the game realize this. Those who rely on statistical data to shape their opinion are pretty well lost. I seriously doubt they even watch the game(s).
 
Yeah, you can throw all kinds of stats and percentages around, but we all watch the same game. I've watched enough football to see this is one of, if not the worst, line we've had in over a decade. Watch the game. Tannehill is far from perfect, but just watch the game - the line is garbage.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.

Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

When you're able to mentally assess and control for the extent of that to which you may be engaging in, let me know. At that point we'll be able to consider your subjective impressions to be as reliable as objective data.
 
Then go with the data in the original post. I've already shown how that fails to support a view of the offensive line as anywhere near as bad as some of the perceptions of it I've seen here.
Nor is the QB play as bad as you try to paint it. If you watched the game you'd see that.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

When you're able to mentally assess and control for the extent of that to which you may be engaging in, let me know. At that point we'll be able to consider your subjective impressions to be as reliable as objective data.

for weeks now, members have pointed out that the criteria you use are parsed, subjective and selectively not taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances, yet your pride of authorship in your grasp of stats 101 compels you either dismiss or ignore alternative but valid realities. Hell, trying to limit your attention-whoring threads to those who agree by restricting certain critical posters before the admins put a stop to that BS loophole IMO says it all.

 
Looks like the explanation that Tannehill doesn't move sufficiently or quickly enough in response to pressure wasn't considered or analyzed by the author.

Of course none of us wants to hear that Tannehill is at fault for anything major, because we need to preserve our positive impression of him in order to have any hope at all for the franchise's future.

Only the most foolish fans among us don't consider the inherent confirmation bias to which we're all prone, and instead settle for any analysis in which it isn't ruled out. "I've heard what I need to hear. I'm good." :)
Shou, sometimes I wonder if you watched games last year at all. If you really believe Tannehill is not capable of escaping pressure effectively, how do you explain the complete absence of this issue last year?
 
I've consistently stated the QB play to be around average.
You have consistently tried to paint a picture based on selective statistics to fit your agenda that he is near the league bottom. To suggest you have tried to portray him as average is as inaccurate as your evaluation of his play.
 
Back
Top Bottom