But that's when he does pass, not when he doesn't pass and takes a sack.
The article is about the response to pressure, not the response to normal circumstances.
Why is everybody so quick 2 4get that tannehill was supposed to sit for 2-3 years
- Thread starter phinatic1399
- Start date
The article is about the response to pressure, not the response to normal circumstances.
WTF are you talking about? You claimed that Tannehill doesn't pass the ball quickly. I showed you a stat that shows he's second fastest.
He is also 6th fastest in the league at scrambling and time to sack. All your claims about Tannehill are just wrong.
As to why the disparity between % of times under pressure and the sack rate? This might have something to do with it:
According to ProFootballFocus.com (subscription required), Tannehill has often been under pressure very quickly after the snap. He's spent 2.5 seconds or less in the pocket on 64.9 percent of his dropbacks, which is the second-highest percentage of such passes in the league.
They are running very quick passes most of the time. When they don't sacks result at a high rate because the OL sucks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, that's when he does pass, not when he doesn't pass and instead takes a sack. In other words, we can't conclude that because he passes the ball quickly when he does pass, he also eludes pressure by passing the ball quickly. It could be the case that when he has a clean pocket, he gets rid of the ball quickly, but when pressured, he holds the ball too long, or vice-versa, that when he holds the ball too long, he gets pressured, and instead of getting rid of the ball under those circumstances, he takes a sack.
The stat I bolded is correlated neither with the percentage of dropbacks in which QBs are pressured, nor with the percentage of sacks on pressured dropbacks.
The verbiage used above suggests that spending less time in the pocket equals more frequent pressure, but that isn't the case. The two variables aren't correlated.
WTF? Why do you make this stuff up?
No it doesn't. In fact just the opposite should be true. Just as alluded to in the article:
Manning is at the other end of the scale. He felt legitimate pressure on just 19.9% of his drops, half as often.
It’s no coincidence that Manning also has the lowest average time to sack figure in the league, by almost a quarter of a second to the next guy. When he does get sacked, it is when the protection is destroyed immediately and even he has no chance to react to it.
Well then I'll leave it to you to explain, in terms of Ryan Tannehill's sacks, what you yourself quoted:
It is simple.The observations about Manning last year are (to a slightly less degree) also true about Tannehill this year. Because he gets rid of the ball so quickly he is under pressure less often than you would think based on the quality of the OL. Tannehill and the play calling are compensating for poor OL play. Manning had the lowest average time to sack despite being under pressure much less often than normal. You have claimed numerous times that this just couldn't be. Well it can be and not just for Manning but for Tannehill as well.
The Dolphins throw the ball very quickly at the second highest rate in the league. This lowers (by design) the % of time Tannehill is pressured. But, when they don't get rid of the ball very, very quickly (down and distance situations, mixing up play calling, or whatever), pressure often happens quickly and leads to sacks. In addition, sometimes the blocking is so poor that even quick passes are not fast enough. It is simple and logical and yet it somehow escapes you.
If these are all true:
He's spent 2.5 seconds or less in the pocket on 64.9 percent of his dropbacks, which is the second-highest percentage of such passes in the league.
His 2.28 seconds to attempt a pass on average is the second fastest.
His 4.3 seconds to scramble on average is sixth fastest in the league.
His 3.6 seconds to be sacked on average is sixth fastest in the league.
How do you explain the high number of sacks? I explained it easily. I've tried to explain these concepts to you before. Now that an article that you referenced backs up my claim that a QB can be under pressure less often but more quickly when it does happen, you can stop claiming the opposite.
If the variables you mentioned were correlated with sacks, you would have a point, but they are not. I suspect those variables are not correlated with sacks in large part because of the following, also from the article I referenced:
Like I've said from the beginning regarding this topic, and like I said again when I mentioned the above article earlier in this thread, Tannehill is not moving sufficiently in response to the pass rush.
No. The OL is not blocking sufficiently in response to the pass rush.
The article you referenced blows up your original argument about Tannehill and sacks. It all stems from your fundamental misunderstanding of football.
Ah, well, now that we've gotten that solved.
Not solved, just recognized. Solving the problem might not even be possible.
And I'm hopeless, too!
"If you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness." :)
And I'm hopeless, too!
"If you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness." :)
When you have destroyed the evidence and the witness responds with "la, la, la, la, la..." there is little choice.
So you're telling me that the time it takes for the pressure to get to the QB is not correlated with sacks...? Is that what you are saying?
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.
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.