Right. That's also extremely true. This is an example of what is wrong with the Tannehill debate. One side wants to act like Tannehill is this huge problem. Then, when someone suggests that maybe everything isn't all on Tannehill, then people want to make ridiculous statements like the one above. Fact is, when ANY QB has constant, quick pressure in his face, WITHOUT defenses having to use a blitzer, their stats are going to suffer. We all understand how to beat Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, is get to them with pressure. Then, when we see that happening for two straight seasons to Tannehill, all of sudden, people forget that THAT IS HOW YOU MAKE QBs come back to earth. So, you take a team that was giving up a ton of pressure, from multiple places, without teams having to use a blitzer, and then complain that the QB wasn't doing well in obvious passing situations. Well, no ****, Sherlock.
One other question, on those splits that you posted, Roy, why does it do 1-10 yards, and then 1-20 yards? I would expect that Tannehill would have better numbers in the 10-20 range, without the 1-10 rating dragging it down, while it appears that Cam would have a worse 10-20 rating, since his rating went down when combining his good 1-10 rating into the 1-20 rating.
Well this is a bit of a pickle because on the one hand you've got a snarky, wise-*** sarcastic remark that doesn't state any evidence but does actually add much needed perspective on an issue. Then you've got a less snarky, thought out and well written piece of logic that glosses over MAJOR assumptions as if they're true while not citing nor even researching evidence to establish the veracity of those assumptions. Is there any evidence behind the assertion that Ryan Tannehill takes more pressure from four man rushes than other quarterbacks? Did you look up anything before asserting that to be the case? This is the biggest problem with these Tannehill debates. People are willing to examine what Tannehill does and then assign context to it without any real research on what represents normal in the wide land of the NFL. As for this idea of blitz pressure versus four man pressure, I don't know the answer either. I just don't bother assuming one way or another. I will say that I at least have done research into the topic. Enough to know that Tannehill's passer rating against the blitz was worse than his passer rating against non-blitz plays (94.2 vs 89.6), and that his sack rate in both situations was virtually identical (~7 percent). But I also know enough to know that doesn't necessarily demonstrate anything convincing.
You're misreading the chart. That's field position, not pass yards thrown. They did field position 1-10 and 1-20 to make it symmetric with opponent 1-10 and "redzone". If you want pass yards thrown, here's the data: http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/14876/ryan-tannehill http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/13994/cam-newton Tannehill's rating for 1-10 is 96.7, and for 11-20 is 100.4, while for Cam 1-10 is 80.1 and 11-20 is 73.5.
Res, when you have been the most sacked qb over a three year period then you have to assess blame on both parties..theres a weakness there..
Well, I have done some research into it, and I have posted links before. Granted, most of it was from the summer of 2014. For instance, the data from that summer was showing that Tannehill was seeing a tremendous amount of pressure in about 2.5 seconds, without there being a blitz. That was from PFF, and I've posted that link a couple times.
One thing we agree on 100% is the need to stay balanced. 30-35 runs and 30-35 passes. Healthy dose of play action, moving the pocket and screens. Keep the number of times that defenses can pin their ears back and pass rush to a minimum. I love the Jeff George reference, old school Jay Cutler lol. I actually think Wilson is more accurate on deep/fade passes, when I talk arm strength it's more about driving the ball into tight windows or out towards the sideline. I disagree on the volume passing and imo the stats are misleading. Even when Wilson throws 30+ times its almost always w the threat of the run to keep defenses honest. My point was that Tannehill is often asked to throw 30+ times w/o the benefit of a strong run game and he plays from behind FAR more than Wilson. It's subjective of course and I'm sure you have a diff take, just sharing my opinion FWIW.
When have I ever said different? The problem has been, that people point at Wilson, or other scramblers, and expect Tannehill to do that stuff. As I've said many times, Tannehill CAN'T do what Wilson does. He doesn't have the lateral agility. I've also pointed out, that the oline has been atrocious. So, if you have an atrocious oline, and a QB who doesn't have Barry Sanders like lateral agility, WTF do you expect to happen? I've also pointed out that Tannehill has had some of the quickest pressure in the league, when there is no blitz coming from the defense. Of course, you gloss over all the data that suggests that the way you affect even the greatest QBs, like Manning, Rodgers, and Brady, is to get pressure on them using your front 4. If you can bring consistent pressure using the dline, and not have to blitz, you now are forcing the QB to throw earlier, and to throw against more defenders. This isn't rocket science.
I'm not misreading...I don't believe. I'll go back and look at the chart again. However, I believe one of the charts was giving the passer rating when going from his own 1 yard line up to the 10 yard line, and then his rating when going from his own 1 yard line to the 20 yard line, then his rating when in the 20-40 yard line. Edit: So, I think it's the second box, the one for field position: Own 1-10 yard line, Tannehill with a 59.3 rating. Own 1-20 yard line, 79 rating. What I'm saying is, since you're including data from the 1-10, where he is clearly struggling, in the 1-20 rating, it's bringing that rating down. Clearly his rating in the own 10-20 yard area is better than the 1-10, since the rating goes up about 20 points when including the 10-20 in it. If you said Tannehill has a 59 rating when going from his 1-10 yard line, and a 85 rating in the 10-20 yard line, see how that is different? It paints a different picture when you combine a bad with a good, drawing the overall down.
Well, if you're not misreading, then I'm confused as to why you'd expect Tannehill to be better from his own 11-20 vs. 1-10 or vs. Cam's 11-20. Not sure where the intuition comes from there. Either way, the answer to your question is that they made it symmetric with "redzone" on the other side. Edit to your Edit: OK.. but then I don't see why this is an important stat.. Pass yards thrown is more relevant.
This is PFF's OL rating for Miami in 2014 32. Miami Dolphins Pass Blocking Ranking: 32nd, Run Blocking Ranking: 31st, Penalties Ranking: 29th Breakdown: Just horrible. The 210 combined sacks, hits and hurries they allowed were most in the league and they weren’t much better in the run game. The musical chairs that saw Mike Pouncey to guard and Ja’Waun James to left tackle had a detrimental effect and it was brutal to watch them. It’s a young group that needs to play better. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/01/08/2014-pff-offensive-line-rankings/ I don't necessarily believe that PFF's ratings are fact, but it certainly shows that the idea that Tannehill had particularly weak OL play is not some fanciful concoction created in this thread. PFF thought that the previous year our OL play was better (21st) and I disagree. I thought Miami's OL play was far worse during the bullygate fiasco. I saw more jailbreak type rushes that year than I've ever seen. (I consider jailbreak rushes as those where the QB has almost no shot due to multiple breakdowns along the OL). Personally, I believe that over his three years Tannehill has had some of the worst protection I have ever seen in my 30+ years of watching football. The only comparable I can recall is what David Carr faced, but I didn't watch every game of Carr's so it's difficult to really say. Regardless, yes I do believe that Tannehill has faced more pressure than any QB in the league over the last three seasons. I do think that bad pass pro can be mitigated by shifting your run/pass balance more to the run side or by using more zone/read to make the D hesitate. I think that's what Seattle did so well and what Miami has done so poorly. (I do think Miami wanted to do this last year, but didn't have a back it trusted after Moreno went down). I don't say this to discredit Wilson. I was among the few who had him rated as a potential franchise QB in his draft. And I still think he's great. But I also believe he's had some advantages. I believe that if Miami had had arguably the best defense in the league the past three years and arguably the best run offense in the league the past three years that Tannehill would have a much better overall record, playoff record and possibly two SBs as well. I also believe that Tannehill's stats would be better and that people would be heaping just as much praise (if not more) on Tannehill as they do on Wilson (deservedly, IMO). (I believe that Wilson has been/is better at this point but that the difference is small and that having great D and run offense would have made the difference moot). I just think people have difficulty separating team and individual evaluations and can't get past the poor team records enough to see how good Tannehill is/has been.
1000x this right here. So much talk about Tannehill's YPA and the amount of short passes, Ignoring the fact that Moreno's injury forced Lazor to use the short pass as an extension of the run game. Miller can only handle 15 or so carries per game and there was next to nothing behind him. Which is unfortunate bc for the run blocking was stellar for most of the season. With Ajayi on board to provide depth and better/more versatile WRs who can make plays in the red zone the offense is set up to make major strides this year.
Ive understood your point all along. My point is that Tannehill isn't that type of QB, Wilson has a natural ability, it's not something that other guys can decide theyre gonna do.
I don't know, man, when you look at the run blocking in the second half of games, or in normal run situations, they didn't do well, judging by the production of the back. I mean, we virtually abandoned the run game in the second half of games, and I don't think that's all on Miller. In fact, I find it hard to blame a back for not gaining more yards if he's getting hit in the backfield, or right at the line of scrimmage. It's actually amazing to me that Miller got 1000 yards, without really having any significant running in the second half of games.
I used to live in Austin way back when Carr was the Texans' QB. I didn't watch all their games, but damn I felt like he was getting crushed in a way Tannehill has not been. Now, that's comparing experiences over a decade apart from each other so maybe it's best to watch some film to evaluate again, but I remember Carr's OL problems being on another level compared to ours. That Seattle argument is probably in the same category as the Tannehill-Wallace deep ball argument. So hard to really pin down which point of view is correct. That is, it's hard to tell how well RW would do in Tannehill's situation (or vice versa). I also tend to think RW's better right now, but not by huge leaps.
Its like Cash said, Miller isn't the type of back who can handle 20 carries. The staff was clearly limiting his carries and using the quick pass to augment the run. I'm all ears for how Miller led the league in YPC behind soup sandwich run blocking, is he really THAT good?
I thought the run blocking was decent last season as well, but it was somewhat limited. I thought we did a great job of spreading teams out and then gashing them, but we looked over-matched when the D was expecting run. IMO that made Miami's run game appear efficient statistically, but that efficiency was an illusion since we couldn't run when we needed to.
Agreed. The offense ran well from the spread/shotgun. However when teams decided they'd stay in base or load up to stop the run there wasn't a whole lot Lazor could do about it. Not having an effective lead blocker and not being able to run consistently when the QB was under center was a major issue. Losing Moreno was a killer as well bc he's the guy that was supposed to grind out the the tough yards.
ok..then theres really no way to put any of this into perspective..wilson with just his passing numbers is the better qb, on top of it he has elite escapability prowess and playmaking ability, even though you have ryan is better at everything a pocket qb does...somethin isn't adding up in your position.. so from what you've been saying, you think ryan is at and has surpassed wilson as a qb...because he's throws harder, and reads coverages better...ok, got it.
I'm gonna reiterate the point again, because people tend to ignore/forget it. Pass pressure is not being counted correctly by anyone. If oline X allows 1 guy to apply pressure on 1 pass play it is not the same as oline Y allowing 3 guys to apply pressure on 1 pass play. Also, Oline X allowing 3 guys to pressure on 1 play but with staggered timing is different then Oline Y allowing 3 guys to pressure at the same time. PFF and many of the posters here are considering all of those the same thing. They are not, and its not because I'm a homer or crazy. Its because pressure is about taking away space for the QB to maneuver until someone has him. People look at Wilson getting pressured by 1 guy and him escaping and then compare it to Tannehill having 3 guys close in and getting sacked and say they are the same thing and Wilson is just worlds better at evading pressure and that Seattle's line is just as horrible as Miami's. I think it would be great if someone with access to the film could actually go back and see the TYPE of pressure Tannehill was under.
Yeah, it would be nice to have that info, but no one has posted a link that seems to discriminate any better than saying there was "pressure" (except for saying "pressure" + some other condition), so I'm not sure what else we can do except to assume pressure = pressure for the time being, even if it's clear there must be differences.
If multiple guys are in on a QB, do they all get credit for a pressure? Kinda like if two guys take down a QB, each gets half a sack? If they do, then I suppose someone with way more time on their hands than me, could go through game logs, and see if there are instances of multiple defenders being credited with pressures on Tannehill. Then, if really bored, they could do it for other QBs, and compare.
WADR, that's insane. We know pressure is different. Its common sense. Its logic. Assuming X to be true, just because no one has done a study yet makes no sense and is the opposite of stats. That would be like saying, we can assume Tannehill and Wake are siblings because no one as done an in depth study into their family histories.
I already said we know they're different, but every stat assumes something that's known to be different is the same. It's the difference between "knowing" and "measuring". As long as you use ANY stat, you are throwing away information (e.g. the mean and std of a distribution don't tell you what all the data points are). So, by throwing away information, you are implicitly assuming things that are different are the same. Nothing insane here.. just standard statistical practice.
Don't know how pff does it, but this chart of defensive hurries for all players shows all integer values: http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/defensive-hurries/2014/ That suggests that maybe they aren't crediting "half a hurry" or so even when they should?
People oversimplify debates of pressure. When you consistently see a high level of pressure, it is almost always indicative of bad protection calls in addition to poor blocking. Poor blocking has become a lot more prevalent in today's NFL.
That really wouldn't help b/c many sacks happen where pressure comes from two places but one side just flushes him to the other defender who gets the whole sack. I really don't think there's anyway to quantify this beyond tape and even that will have a subjective element. All I can say is that I watched all the Miami games and almost all of Seattle's games and my impression was that Tannehill faced pressure from multiple places far more often than Wilson did. And that while I believe Wilson has more escapability due to experience and quickness (I think Tannehill is stronger), that when Wilson faced pressure from multiple areas he almost never escaped either.
Yeah.. exactly the situation we have here: incomplete data on what type of pressure Tannehill faced vs. other QB's. Until we have better data, we can't do much more than just go with the incomplete data, which (sadly) assumes pressure = pressure.
resnor's right.. it would help because it would allow you to see more clearly whether the pressure was by one individual or multiple ones, by giving partial credit for a hurry (even one that led to a sack by someone else). Yeah, someone has to go in and watch tape and that will have a subjective element to it, but it looks like that just hasn't been done, so it would help to have that data. As far as Tannehill facing more pressure from multiple places than RW, I'd add that RW tends to move around (almost like a headless chicken sometimes) in such a way that his movements make it less likely pressure from multiple places will occur. That's the QB element of this equation that won't be captured by the type of stats Fin D was hoping for.
Yes, they do. There's a fairly easy way of checking on this theory that every time Ryan Tannehill was pressured it was by 3 guys whereas every time Russell Wilson was pressured it was by 1 guy. Personally I find the theory to be a combination of convenient, totally unsupported, not to mention exaggerated. But let's approach it seriously for a moment. How many defensive players were credited with a pressure against Ryan Tannehill during the 16 regular season games? The answer is 321. Ryan Tannehill was only pressured on 248 plays though, so how does that work? As I said, PFF will award pressures to multiple defensive players on a play. If they pressure the QB, then they pressure the QB. If they sack the QB, they get a sack. That is true whether anyone else shared that sack or not. If two players sacked the QB on the play resulting in the infamous "half sack" then PFF will award a sack to each guy. So it is with hurries and hits. If multiple guys hurried or hit the QB on a play, they're both (or all three) awarded it. So how many defensive players were credited with a pressure against Russell Wilson during the 16 regular season games of 2014? The answer is 357. Wilson was pressured on a total of 251 plays. So not only is the theory incorrect that whenever Tannehill was pressured it tended to be by 2 or 3 defensive players whereas Wilson it was only 1 defensive player, but Russell Wilson actually faced a higher ratio of defensive players applying pressure per pressured snap. This is why all this perception/massive-assumption based arguing is so frustrating sometimes. You see people just say these things about the way it works in the rest of the NFL and it's totally unresearched, totally unsupported. That's exactly what is going on with the deep ball thing with Ryan Tannehill. You see it on twitter. Everything will be "proven" if we gather together all the video clips of Tannehill throwing a deep ball. Then the answer will be clear, right? Not. Even. Close. The problem is you've done that for one guy but now you have absolutely no way of putting his tendencies within the context of the rest of the league, because you know what? You need to turn around and do it with all the other quarterbacks too. And then you need to do it for multiple years to try and account for sample size issues. And who the hell has time for all that? But people go on making these absurdly extreme accusations all the while when the fact of the matter is when faced with this much statistical uncertainty we should probably be erring toward the middle.
Stats are only definitive in a probabilistic sense. Usually, no one states that qualifier because it's so obvious it need not be stated, but if you're ever unsure of that, keep it in mind that stats tell you only about probabilities (of events) or likelihoods (of hypotheses being correct) OR they deterministically tell you the distribution of those probabilities/likelihoods.
So anyway, short story short: Ryan Tannehill was pressured by 1.29 defensive players per pressured snap. Russell Wilson was pressured by 1.42 defensive players per pressured snap. There goes that theory.
Boom goes the dynamite. People cling onto the notion Wilson MUST have faced less pressure, must have had a better oline, because on what planet would 5'11" Wilson be better than Ryan Tannehill? Their oline was devastated last year. Only just a little better this year. Yes he has a better defense and a coach who sticks with the run game, and that's why they were within a yard of winning back to back superbowls. But individually Wilson's been the better player and that's with Doug Baldwin their best receiver (blech).
CK.. thanks for pointing out what pff does. It is interesting though that they assign equal weights to every player that contributed to an outcome (be it a sack or a hurry etc..). You know, there are many machine learning methods (methods that automatically "learn" how much contribution any component of a system had to a final outcome), and none work that way. So while it's great that pff gets all that data, there's some low hanging fruit here for improving the way they assign value.
Yeah they do.. they tell you the conditional probabilities (which are probabilities) of events occurring given that some condition was satisfied. That condition is that you made a measurement of "pressure" in a certain way.
