Why is everybody so quick 2 4get that tannehill was supposed to sit for 2-3 years

[russianbear]

That variable (bolded above) wasn't included in the ones mentioned, and there are no data available that address that variable to my knowledge.

In other words, there is no variable that indicates "the time it takes for pressure to get to the QB." Instead we have the "time to be sacked," which indicates how long it took a QB on average to be sacked, and which says nothing about how well the QB avoids sacks with throws or movement.

And no, that variable is not strongly correlated (0.33) with the percentage of sacks taken on pressured dropbacks, again I suspect because many QBs are able to avoid pressure with movement, as I said above, and which was stated in the article I referenced.

What would be a "Strong" correlation?

 

[Shouright]

What would be a "Strong" correlation?

Well, a 0.33 correlation indicates that about 11% of the variance in one variable is explained by variance in the other variable. In other words, knowing how long it takes a QB to be sacked, and using that to determine how often he was sacked when pressured, would make you wrong 89% of the time.

A "strong" correlation is about 0.71, which is when you become more likely than not (over 50%) to be correct about one variable on the basis of what you know about the other one.

An example of a strong correlation in football is QB rating differential, which is correlated with wins at 0.81, and which Joe Philbin remarked about in his introductory press conference:

(On how much did your vision involve around a quarterback) "We're going to build a football team, number one. I think obviously the play and performance of a quarterback in the National Football League is obviously very important. One of the things I believe in strongly when you analyze your football team is that you have to look at the quarterback rating differential. So how your guy is performing as oppose to the opposition. So it's certainly a key component in winning football games.

http://www.thephinsider.com/2012/1/22/2725109/miami-dolphins-coach-joe-philbin-introduction

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Not really. You could just "destroy" the evidence as you put it, and stop there.

Of course if you don't stop there, it sort of reveals your own insecurity about whether you really believe you've destroyed anything at all.

Or it could just reveal the fact that you will continue to post things that have already been debunked.

 

[Shouright]

Or it could just reveal the fact that you will continue to post things that have already been debunked.

Well if they've truly been "debunked," then one option for you is to let me keep posting those things and look like a complete moron, without any assistance. :)