Under Pressure: Sack Breakdown

[Shouright]

No, it's not THREE sacks. It's not even SEVENTEEN sacks. It's the bulk of THIRTY TWO sacks that are on the OL. I don't give a crap about % of pressures, sack rates, standard deviations, blah, blah, blah.....

I can WATCH the plays and determine, in my opinion (and these are all just opinions), that the OL has not been playing up to par. You can ignore the obvious all you want, luckily you are in the minority. Your "analysis" is flawed is too many ways to keep trying to convince you. Several posters (myself included) have shot more holes in it than we can count, but please, continue on.....

Then please, give a coherent statement about the percentage of "short sacks" the Dolphins have allowed over and above the average team in the league, and the number of actual sacks to which that translates.

If that's truly a confirmation of what we're all supposedly "seeing" with regard to a comparison between the Dolphins' line and the typical NFL offensive line, then it should be only too easy to grasp that from the data and render a coherent statement about it.

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------

We all went over the PFF sack times in another thread weeks ago. they're times are way off all you have to do is watch the game clock to see.

Then like I said, use the data in the article in the OP. Neither that nor the PFF data jibe with the subjective impressions of the offensive line of many people here.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Then please, give a coherent statement about the percentage of "short sacks" the Dolphins have allowed over and above the average team in the league, and the number of actual sacks to which that translates.

If that's truly a confirmation of what we're all supposedly "seeing" with regard to a comparison between the Dolphins' line and the typical NFL offensive line, then it should be only too easy to grasp that from the data and render a coherent statement about it.

For the 1 millionth time, the stats do not matter. When the sample size is so small (32) and there is video evidence, you don't need a FLAWED statistical "analysis" to tell you anything. I don't care if Tannehill is the least pressured QB in the league. If a lineman whiffs on a block but yields no QB pressures on 99% of the pass plays, the whiff is still on him. He doesn't get a pass on that particular play because 99% of the time he provides adequate protection.

OTOH, on average, the ratio between short sacks (OL at fault) and long sacks (QB at fault) are about 1 to 1. On the Dolphins, the ratio is over 6 to 1.

 

[Shouright]

OTOH, on average, the ratio between short sacks (OL at fault) and long sacks (QB at fault) are about 1 to 1. On the Dolphins, the ratio is over 6 to 1.

How do we know who is at fault on a "short" versus a "long" sack? Isn't a "long" sack understood as a "coverage" sack? Couldn't a "short" sack happen because a quarterback failed to recognize an impending blitz and/or failed to get the ball out quickly enough to the hot read?

The arbitrary demarcation of blame according to the length of the time after the snap the sack is taken is tenuous at best, and completely off-base at worst, especially when the percentage of "short sacks" in the league is inversely correlated with the rate of QB pressure! :)

What we come back to as I see it is that Ryan Tannehill is pressured no more often than the average NFL QB, but sacked astronomically more when pressured. When someone can make logical sense of that in a way that doesn't lay the blame on Ryan Tannehill, let me know.

Until then we can all make ourselves feel better by focusing on me. I'm a big boy. I can take it.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

How do we know who is at fault on a "short" versus a "long" sack? Isn't a "long" sack understood as a "coverage" sack? Couldn't a "short" sack happen because a quarterback failed to recognize an impending blitz and/or failed to get the ball out quickly enough to the hot read?

The arbitrary demarcation of blame according to the length of the time after the snap the sack is taken is tenuous at best, and completely off-base at worst, especially when the percentage of "short sacks" in the league is inversely correlated with the rate of QB pressure! :)

What we come back to as I see it is that Ryan Tannehill is pressured no more often than the average NFL QB, but sacked astronomically more when pressured. When someone can make logical sense of that in a way that doesn't lay the blame on Ryan Tannehill, let me know.

Until then we can all make ourselves feel better by focusing on me. I'm a big boy. I can take it.

No blame can be assigned? All you have been doing is trying to lay blame..... hypocritical much?

You arbitrarily dismiss everything that points to the OL, including THE VIDEO EVIDENCE. Just once I'd like you to drop the pretense of "objectivity" and admit you have an agenda. It really is obvious.

Address the point. If a lineman whiffs on a block and gets the QB sacked, do any plays, percentages, calculations, standard deviations, trends, stats or anything else have ANY impact with respect to responsibility on THAT PLAY? NO. NO. NO.

 

[KevInMotion]

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." :)

I'm not hating on Tanny, nor do I think that all of the sacks are his fault. The O-Line play has been nothing short of pathetic this entire year. But every once in a while he's held on a little too long and the result is a unnecessary sack.

I'm just giving you a thumbs up for the confirmation bias argument. That's the mindset of the majority of all fans (not just Dolphin fans, but fans around the world). We are wired to agree with what we believe and dislike what goes against those beliefs. Most people hear something that backs them up and that is good as gold.

That's just the way the world works.

 

[DisturbedShifty]

And here I thought this was a thread about Tannehill's theme song:

[video=youtube;YoDh_gHDvkk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoDh_gHDvkk[/video]

 

[Shouright]

No blame can be assigned? All you have been doing is trying to lay blame..... hypocritical much?

You need to slow down and comprehend what you're reading better. I said (in so many words) that it's difficult to assign blame based on the theoretical constructs advanced in the article in the OP (i.e., "short sacks" versus "long sacks"), especially since "short sacks" were postulated to be the fault of offensive lines, yet they correlate inversely with the rate of quarterback pressures league-wide.

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! :)

You arbitrarily dismiss everything that points to the OL, including THE VIDEO EVIDENCE. Just once I'd like you to drop the pretense of "objectivity" and admit you have an agenda. It really is obvious.

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:

Address the point. If a lineman whiffs on a block and gets the QB sacked, do any plays, percentages, calculations, standard deviations, trends, stats or anything else have ANY impact with respect to responsibility on THAT PLAY? NO. NO. NO.

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.

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:

 

[njFinsForever]

Is there a breakdown of not only sacks, but hurries as well? As in, the line gives up quick pressure, but the QB gets rid of the ball before a sack is given up. I think we would be selling ourselves short if we didn't consider both sacks and hurries as an evaluation of the offensive line

 

[Shouright]

Is there a breakdown of not only sacks, but hurries as well? As in, the line gives up quick pressure, but the QB gets rid of the ball before a sack is given up. I think we would be selling ourselves short if we didn't consider both sacks and hurries as an evaluation of the offensive line

Well, and this comes back to "pressure" IMO. Tannehill is pressured no more often than the average NFL QB, yet he is sacked astronomically more than the average NFL QB when pressured.

Now, try as we might, I don't think we're going to find a better measure of offensive line play than the rate of QB pressures. When we can say that the Miami Dolphins' offensive line surrenders no more frequent pressure than the average NFL offensive line, I think we got the line covered. The offensive line is average at worst, objectively speaking, and whatever fault we're attributing to them over and above that is likely a product of confirmation bias in our part.

Now, how do we make sense of the fact that Ryan Tannehill is sacked so much more often than the average NFL QB when pressured? One theory is that the offensive line is surrendering a different "kind" of pressure than the average NFL offensive line, a kind of pressure that causes more sacks than is typical.

However, if the offensive line were guilty of that, why wouldn't it also be guilty of more frequent pressure than the average NFL line? The line can't be so terrible that it surrenders this supposedly different "kind" of pressure, one that causes a great deal more sacks than is typical, but at the same time be not so terrible that it surrenders no more frequent pressure than the average line! :)

 

[Shouright]

I'm not hating on Tanny, nor do I think that all of the sacks are his fault. The O-Line play has been nothing short of pathetic this entire year. But every once in a while he's held on a little too long and the result is a unnecessary sack.

I'm just giving you a thumbs up for the confirmation bias argument. That's the mindset of the majority of all fans (not just Dolphin fans, but fans around the world). We are wired to agree with what we believe and dislike what goes against those beliefs. Most people hear something that backs them up and that is good as gold.

That's just the way the world works.

I agree, and this is precisely why when we have a subjective impression of something regarding the team, we should check and balance it with an exploration of the objective data with regard to it.

I think things about the team all the time, go check the data, and find that my subjective impressions are disconfirmed, or at the very least, not supported.

 

[where's th'fish]

lol, you're still trying to hijack the thread into thinking the stats from the article show Tannehill is bad in the pocket with that spin on the %s?

Listen, those %s are just %s of the player's sacks. They're meaningless without looking at volumes. Pryor has 13 long sacks for 60% of his sacks, because he only has 3 short sacks. Do you really think it would matter if that % was 33% because he had 13 short and 13 medium sacks? Would you then say "oh, he doesn't really hold on to the ball that long"? If you read the comments to the article you'll see many posters complaining that the %s don't show anything and asking for them to be replaced by more meaningful stats.

So as far as this thread goes, all that's really appropriate for you to say is "in this case stats don't agree with my opinion" and move on. Or not *cough* troll *cough*

 

[KevInMotion]

I agree, and this is precisely why when we have a subjective impression of something regarding the team, we should check and balance it with an exploration of the objective data with regard to it.

I think things about the team all the time, go check the data, and find that my subjective impressions are disconfirmed, or at the very least, not supported.

That's the ticket.... don't just go off of what you hear, or what you are told... how about you find out for yourself and form your own opinions? At least that's the way I was raised.

“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.”
― Edgar Allan Poe

or

"So don't believe everything your earlobe captures
Its mostly backwards
Unless it happens to be as accurate as me
And everything said in song you happen to see
Then actually, believe half of what you see
None of what you hear even if its spat by me"
― Jay Z

 

[Shouright]

That's the ticket.... don't just go off of what you hear, or what you are told... how about you find out for yourself and form your own opinions? At least that's the way I was raised.

“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.”
― Edgar Allan Poe

or

"So don't believe everything your earlobe captures
Its mostly backwards
Unless it happens to be as accurate as me
And everything said in song you happen to see
Then actually, believe half of what you see
None of what you hear even if its spat by me"
― Jay Z

And that's actually how people behave when information doesn't jibe with what they believe. When it does, however, they're good to go with no further investigation.

 

[Shouright]

I'll respond to the part of your post that was substantive:

Listen, those %s are just %s of the player's sacks. They're meaningless without looking at volumes. Pryor has 13 long sacks for 60% of his sacks, because he only has 3 short sacks. Do you really think it would matter if that % was 33% because he had 13 short and 13 medium sacks? Would you then say "oh, he doesn't really hold on to the ball that long"?

Sure it would matter, because it would imply that his offensive line was behaving differently, that is if one were to believe that "short sacks" is a valid measure of poor offensive line play, which is dubious at best IMO.

The percentages are precisely what's meaningful in the data at the link because they show the distribution of blame for the sacks a QB has taken, again, that is if you believe that "short, medium, and "long" are valid measures of such blame, which again is dubious IMO.

 

[where's th'fish]

I'll respond to the part of your post that was substantive:

Sure it would matter, because it would imply that his offensive line was behaving differently, that is if one were to believe that "short sacks" is a valid measure of poor offensive line play, which is dubious at best IMO.

The percentages are precisely what's meaningful in the data at the link because they show the distribution of blame for the sacks a QB has taken, again, that is if you believe that "short, medium, and "long" are valid measures of such blame, which again is dubious IMO.

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.