Tannehill isn't in any advanced danger of getting hurt. He isn't taking that many hits, and he's not taking many big hits. The single remarkable thing about this situation is that a normal amount of pressure is being translated into an astronomical number of sacks. That's it.
My take on the situation is if you can't pass protect or run block well, at least get one down and then move towards a winning approach in other respects. The Denver Broncos' OL in the early 00s couldn't pass block all that well, but they ran the ZBs to perfection by getting mobile, athletic guys in there and getting things moving. I realize you want Tannehill to drop back and that's good but it'd be much better if you simply take the best you have and use them effectively. Run PA with a number of boot legs. Move the linemen to the perimeter and use your speed to attack, go deep on PA to Wallace rather than through straight drop back.
While keeping track of the total hits taken is a good idea in terms of tracking how much injury risk the lack of protection truly poses Tannehill, it's not sufficient. Two points to be made here. 1. There seems to be a difference between number of times when a quarterback is "hit as he threw" versus the number of times when a defensive player scores a "hit" via PFF. There have only been a total of 47 pass attempts where the QB was "hit as thrown" according to PFF's position stats on QBs. However, there have been 456 instances of a defensive player scoring a "QB Hit" in pass rush. 2. Being sacked, and being hit as you're throwing the football, are far more dangerous to a quarterback's health than the category of "QB Hits" which produces 456 instances during the 4 week sample. Heading into today, only one quarterback had been sacked or hit as he threw the football as often as Ryan Tannehill. That quarterback is Brandon Weeden. And it's probably not a coincidence that Weeden missed two games due to injury.
I really don't want Tannehill to end up injured... but damn it I don;t see how he makes it through this season right now.
You keep saying this as if you're insinuating the o-line is doing a reasonable job not allowing pressure unless it is a sack. It is simply inaccurate. The o-line is getting bailed out by the offensive game plan and Tannehill getting the ball out quickly, thus negating a lot of the would be pressure. The o-line is basically 70% of the time bad, and 30% of the time really bad. The offensive plan and Tannehill are quick enough to offset the bad most of the time, but cannot do anything against the really bad. Hence the disparity in pressure and sacks.
Everyone keeps talking about the O, and I realize they didn't score all the points today, but this D is letting opposing offenses take the games from us... Terrible...this is the worst D we've had since Cam-Cam....
It has probably been mentioned but Charles Clay's drop, which would have gained the offense back everything it had lost with the sack, probably cost the game to the same extent that the sack did.
You're leaving out the time it takes the normal amount of pressure to reach. Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk now Free
The O Line cost us the game. Too many sacks. We should have at least put the game into OT today. Tannehill is not going to last the season if this continues, he will get hurt. The two RBs we have are below average at best, so with a bad O Line, we will have zero run threat. I hope they figure something out over the next two weeks......we cannot lose the next game.
I was OK with Clabo but now I don't like any C's on the team. First Colombo, now Clabo, and Carroll. I also saw very poor technique on the sack Incognito gave up. He allowed too much ground into the backfield then got Juked for a direct hit on T Hill. They rarely recognize stunts or blitzes. I think Philbin sees the problems and knew at 3-1 that this team may not be ready this year.
what's that gotta do with my statement about posters operating harshly in hindsight? We're obviously getting subpar production from our right tackle, but I'm not sure many people saw that coming considering Clabo has been an adequately reliable player, came from a winning organization, and played on a line that averaged just 23 Matt Ryan sacks per year over 5 seasons. I just find it hypocritical when fans lambaste a GM for a decision that they themselves were behind at the time of the signing/drafting. Would think they'd be a little more humble about their criticism in instances like these.
Or perhaps they're simply arguing that since the General Manager is showing no more wherewithal than fans on a message board when it comes to evaluating players, he should probably be relegated to the same status they currently enjoy, which is to say not employed by the team to oversee and direct all personnel decisions.
I admit completely that I had no idea if he was any good. I assumed he was cause the falcons were so effective on offense last year.
Even Though im pretty sure the kick wasnt blocked i thought he sent it wide to the left so it wouldnlt be blocked. either way the pressure affected him
Running the ball 9 times cost us the game, allowing the defense to pin their ears back and attacks the ends.. No respect up the middle, no play action, terrible game plan.. Even if u can't run you still have to try.. When we had the ball in a tied game with 5 mins left we threw it 3 straight times and ended up getting sacked.. We punted to them and they had 3 mins left, guess what they did? You got it they ran the football..
Gimme a break man. So being a paid professional GM means being provided with a crystal ball to advise against poorly playing players who initially look like adequate signings? You don't have to be a paid professional to know Claybo was a Pro Bowler in 2010, came from a winning program, and did his job well enough for Atlanta's offense to rank 5th, 7th, and 7th in scoring the past 3 years and for Matt Ryan to be well protected during his tenure. You and others are essentially saying our offense will fail to produce greater point totals as long as Clabo is at RT. Well, Atlanta scored points just fine with him at RT. There were no red flags shouting out for us to seek another option, and it doesn't take a GM to understand that. There are decisions to legitimately hate on [like Colombo].... and then there are decisions that just don't pan out even though they appear satisfactory at the onset [like Clabo]. Unfortunately the fans who are against Ireland choose to lump all of it together in one giant hate category, which is irrational.
Wait so because the Clabo signing SEEMED like a good idea at the time, Ireland is absolved of blame now when that pick-up joins his long list of failed free agent acquisitions? Lol hilarious logic.
I thought it was pretty obvious from last years reps but whatever, apparently we don't have anyone else..Yeatman flashed some in preseason.
Yeah Atlanta's dire need for salary cap relief after giving Matt Ryan a truck full of cash had nothing to do with it, nor Atlanta drafting a right tackle to make the move feasible. Without releasing Clabo, Atlanta didn't have enough cap room to sign their draft class. I'm sure your post sounded good when you were typing it though.
If they thought he was any good he would still be a Falcon. I'm sure your post sounded good when you were sitting on the toilet as your brains came out of your ***.
