The percentage of Tannehill's sacks prior to the 2.5-second mark after the snap (13.3%) was no different from the league average in that regard in 2014 (18%), which supports the notion that his line on average doesn't surrender pressure any quicker than the average line, but that his attention to the pass rush during that critical 2.5-second period after the snap is lacking. On the other hand, Tom Brady, for example, had 35% of his sacks in 2014 prior to the 2.5-second mark.
Like your able to say I have zero perspective on a RT17 subject. For ****'s sakes, your avitar and signature are RYAN TANNEHILL!
I'll ask again here, cause I've asked before, and don't think I've ever gotten an answer...do the stats differentiate between types of pressure? In other words, if QB A had pressure from one guy blowing a block and QB B had pressure from 3 guys blowing their blocks? Do you think that would be significant to know? If one QBs pressures came from more than one area at a time as compared to another QBs pressures that came from fewer spots at a time? Or is pressure simply pressure to you, and the amount of pressure doesn't matter?
I don't think Wilson is any better than Tannehill. Nor Romo for that fact. The sacks Romo takes with huge yard losses and the SB game losing Int that Wilson threw remind me of Thill's int in the final drive of the Denver game. Both balls shouldn't have been thrown. Tannehill is still learning and he's making strides that will elevate his game above Wilson's.
And that means what? That I want the kid we drafted #8 to be the franchise qb to stabilize the position? Guilty Whether he does or not has nothing to do with you or I
Certainly the greater the number of players the pressure consists of, the greater the threat to the QB, and the more likely there is to be a sack. None of the stats I'm aware of address that issue. Two facts are relevant, however: 1) the Dolphins weren't pressured significantly more than the average team in the league in 2014 -- presumably if they were surrendering pressure consisting of more players on a regular basis, which would likely indicate a greater number of "weak links" on the offensive line, they would also be surrendering pressure significantly more often than the average team, but they did not; and 2) Ryan Tannehill's completion percentage under pressure, whether or not one adjusts for dropped passes, was nearly significantly higher than the league average -- obviously if the theory is that pressure undermines Ryan Tannehill's performance, he would perform worse under pressure than the average QB in the league, not better.
Thank your for proving my point furthermore. It means it's hard to say someone else has zero perspective when you come across as a clear cut homer that looks at nothing objectively and only blames everyone else but RT17. I blame everyone.
This is where stats are dubious. You have to drill down and assess why the sacks are occurring to have any real idea on how to interpret the raw numbers. Could be bad pass pro, no receivers open, QB didn't see the open WRs, etc. Furthermore, sacks on plays designed to get the ball out quickly are more of an issue than on plays designed to attack down field. Stats can't make sense of any of these variables.
Um dude seriously, try to make it look like your argument addresses something I actually said. Where did I say RT had no blame? Nowhere. What I did say is I don't believe the final book on him is written and those that do have lost perspective. But I digress it is ridiculous to debate w someone that only talks but never listens. So again show me where I said RT was elite or was guarentee to be? Oh and does anyone here really believe they know more about playing qb in the nfl than Simms? That's funny
Sacks that occurred on plays designed to get the ball out quickly would presumably occur within 2.5 seconds after the snap, which comprises the time period in which half the throws in the NFL are made (presumably the "quicker" ones). Again, Tannehill's percentage of sacks of that nature in 2014 (13.3%) was slightly below and not significantly different from the league average in that regard (18%). On the other hand 35% of Tom Brady's sacks occurred within 2.5 seconds of the snap. I'd have more faith in that than I would in anyone's personal, subjective sort of "drilling down" that consists of nothing other than what they believe they're seeing, with no systematic comparison to the league norm, and perhaps no awareness of or control for their own personal biases, if any.
You absolutely cannot assume that. It would make more sense to me that sacks occurring in the 2.5 second range are on longer developing plays. The QB is waiting longer, because his receivers are on longer routes. Maybe out of shotgun, and the defense is coming after him with a blitz? On the other hand, if you're running a play designed to have the ball out in 2.5, but all your receivers are covered, and there is no one to throw to, most QBs are going to hold the ball longer, waiting for someone to come open, extending the play beyond 2.5 seconds. Now you have a situation where the play is no longer scripted, and there is far more chance of something going wrong, like being sacked. It really wouldn't have anything to do with an arbitrary 2.5 second number, but everything to do with the play failing initially.
He literally invented the whole over 2.5 seconds benchmark anyway. Tannehill's rookie year, his QB rating was in the 90's when he had over 2.5 seconds to throw. Russell Wilson had something like 3.0 seconds. Every QB wants more time to throw. You are being trolled.
The point really is that there is no objective evidence that the Dolphins' line surrendered quicker pressure on Tannehill, or pressure from a greater number of players at a time, than the average line in the league. And once again, Ryan Tannehill performs nearly significantly better than the average QB when pressured, and so the issue of "pressure" is really moot anyway. Tannehill performs better than the average QB under pressure, not worse.
That's not true. 60% of his dropbacks his rookie year were under 2.5 seconds when he had a 67.5 qb rating. 40% of his dropbacks his rookie year were over 2.5 seconds and he had a 96.5 qb rating. So again, you're wrong/lying/trolling. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/11/07/signature-stat-snapshot-time-to-throw/2/ In fact, we're even recycling things we argued right after his rookie year when you tried to pull the same crap.
And I could go 'round and 'round with you about how that isn't so, but I'll pass, and choose instead to speak with people who demonstrate intelligence, emotional stability, and an openness to information. There are plenty of folks here of that nature.
Right. Here we go again. If your benchmark were true, then the numbers would bear it out. They do not. From the same link: Question my intelligence all you want, but one of us proves their point and you just make declarations without evidence.... Either the rule exists and Tannehill is the exception or it doesn't and it doesn't matter for this conversation. Either way, its crap in regards to Tannehill.
There isn't evidence because it isn't tracked. It's complete silliness to act as though plays designed to take longer than 2.5 seconds are subject to the same interpretation as a play designed to complete in 2.5 seconds or less, but fails. If a QB is under center, and the play call is designed for a 3 step drop and then a play action and then pass, chances are that play is designed to take longer than 2.5 seconds. Now, for that play to be successful, several things have to happen: 1. Receivers have to run good routes 2. Oline has to block successfully AND sell the play action 3. Defense needs to bite on the play action If any of those things doesn't occur, then the play most likely will fail. Does it have anything to do with a subjective assigning of 2.5 seconds as the optimum play length? Looking at data, and determining that the majority of successful plays occur in 2.5 seconds does NOT mean that successful plays MUST occur within 2.5 seconds. It simply means that, most likely, the majority of plays occur in 2.5 seconds. The ones taking longer than 2.5 seconds are either broken plays, or plays designed to take longer. Further, it becomes obvious, that it is incorrect to lump designed plays of longer than 2.5 seconds with broken plays that take longer than 2.5 seconds. There is a simple concept, correlation =/= causation. Yet, over and over again, you're seeming to use correlation as the evidence of truth. That's not how it works.
I'm not clear on the overall point you're trying to make about these issues. What I will say is that while correlation certainly doesn't equal causation, there is no causation in the absence of correlation. One thing can't cause another if the two things don't covary, i.e., correlate.
The point is clear: 2.5 seconds is an arbitrary and meaningless number, unless you have knowledge of how many plays that were designed to be 2.5 seconds or less, but ended up taking more than 2.5 seconds because something went wrong. Clearly, most everyone would agree, if a play is designed to be completed in 2.5 seconds or less, and it breaks down and the QB has to hold the ball longer than 2.5 seconds, there is a greater chance of a sack, or something else bad happening. However, that has zero to do with the 2.5 second number, and everything to do with failure of the offense to properly execute it's play. Just the same, plays that may be designed to take longer than 2.5 seconds shouldn't be counted among plays that were designed to take 2.5 seconds, and failed. Bottom line, there literally is no way to account for these things, thus, I find the 2.5 second barometer to be lacking for any sort of meaningful discussion. Specifically, while 2.5 seconds may correlate to successful plays, it is not the 2.5 seconds itself that is lending to the success of the play. You seem to be indicating that the 2.5 seconds dictates the success. That is simply not true.
2.5 seconds is simply the amount of time after the snap that divides approximately half the passes in the NFL from the other half. There is no more meaning embedded in it than that. It's simply a median split of data. The original point made was that almost all passing games in the NFL perform far worse on throws made after 2.5 seconds, and that covers hundreds of thousands of passes, every NFL team, and many years of play. So again, what we can say in light of that is that if a pass is thrown in 2.5 seconds or sooner, it has a far better chance of resulting in success. If there is no more meaningful discussion to be had for you regarding this issue, that's sure fine. We're all our own individuals.
So, I guess to summarize, the data you are referring to shows that throwing further downfield has a lower success rate. Great. Nothing newsworthy there. We also all agree that a broken play has a lower success rate. What your data doesn't show, is how many of the plays taking longer than 2.5 seconds are actually broken plays, and broken plays will unfairly bring down the success rate of plays taking longer than 2.5 seconds.
I think what you may be getting at is this: In addressing the bolded part of the top post, what I should've said in the bolded part of my post is that "sacks that occur more quickly after the snap are more of an issue than ones that happen later after the snap, regardless of what the play was designed to do." That may help with what you're talking about. And again, there was no objective evidence that Ryan Tannehill was sacked more quickly after the snap than the average QB.
I'm not sure...all I'm really talking about is that this 2.5 second number doesn't really matter. If you're sacked in 2 seconds on a play designed to be completed in 2.5 seconds, or you're sacked in 3.5 seconds on a play designed to take 4 seconds, what does it really matter? Both were sacks. However, the data you've been throwing about would put the failure of the second hypothetical play on the basis of it not being completed in 2.5 seconds or less, but that would't really be the issue, would it?
Actually the data regarding the passing game before and after 2.5 seconds have nothing to do with sacks. When a sack occurs, of course a pass doesn't occur, and the data covers only instances in which passes were actually made.
That's fine, the point still remains. We KNOW that throwing downfield has a lower success rate than throwing short. It really doesn't matter if the throw occurs at 2.5 seconds or 4.5 seconds. Further, a broken play that extends beyond 2.5 seconds has a lower success rate than that same play with the throw coming at or before 2.5 seconds, as designed. So, again, I really don't see how assigning the 2.5 second number is really all that relevant.
What it suggests is that having "more time" to throw isn't necessarily a good thing. It can be a good thing, but it isn't necessarily one.
Agreed. It depends on what the play design was initially. Which is why I took exception to this idea that 2.5 seconds is, in and of itself, a good barometer of anything.
It isn't a barometer of anything in and of itself, but it can be used to demarcate other things. For example, Ryan Tannehill threw the ball no sooner or later after the snap than the average QB in 2014, and his number and percentage of sacks within 2.5 seconds of the snap was no different from the league averages. That should tell you something about the likelihood that the offensive line was surrendering quicker pressure on him than the average QB.
I wasn't referencing any actual Dolphins stuff in that scenario...and I'm not getting pulled into a Wallace discussion in this thread.
He's saying your points based on your assumptions of association between causation and fact are not accurate, and that therefore is the basis of the disagreement (for lack of a better term ATM) you two are currently engaged in.
I'll bite. I'm more interested in pressures, knockdowns etc. If you add them up and then add up how many times player x actually rushed then you have a nice number that tells you how many times player x actually applies pressure of any kind, which is far more telling IMHO than looking at sacks alone.
you know we've gone back and forth, and argued, and sometimes been pissed off at each other, but this is the point PH, this is the main point of the whole damn argument..i've tried to respect other peoples stance or loyalty to our own, but this is a legit question when it comes to championship play by the qb. I think he's waiting til the last possible moment and not understanding whats going on around him...that I believe we should all agree on, and i'll tell ya why, the times where ryan does escape the pocket and make a play, it is very rare where its done with a plan in mind..most of the time its done because he finds himself in a predicament to late and luckily escapes, then realizes sh*&!! I need to gtfoh..ive seen it happen a dozen times..a poor tackle attempt is when it usually wakes up the other side of his brain. so, the discussion to me is whether this all comes from the speed of the game, cause my hope is the game has not slowed down for him yet, so therein lyes the ceiling to improve, after three years of play, for the game seemingly not slowing down in this particular component of the game is discouraging, but considering his journey, maybe there is a different timeline.. This is why I think we need to go and get Pounceys boy Mike iupati...build that line once and for all, so we can literally slow the game down for him thru protection and a great run game.. I know that he's improved a little each year, but remember Im only projecting what the game will look like when were o the road, in the playoffs, in a hostile situation, with everything on the line, do I trust that ryan has the capabilities of dealing with chaos that inevitably will come his way..I made the comment that I don't by saying ''I'm out''..and i said that not in a knee jerk way, i said that because it was what i thought for a while, then watching him at the jet game from an end zone view that this topic were talking about, is very real.. There are 4 things that i feel ryan is struggling with.. leadership..touch throws..spacial awareness..and Running with the damn football at his own discretion. Leadership and being a leader is something that he is trying to learn to become, I see some progression in this dept. spacial awareness, I have seen very little progression. running on his own I have seen not progression but regression. and touch I've seen some progression. I think priority #1 is not a defensive tackle, it is to sign the best possible guard on the market..Then draft a nice tackle prospect just in case.
I don't think its to the point where it is hurting our QB play, the guys are certainly getting open ecspecially intermediatly. Ironically imo our best route runner is/was Brandon Gibson...who didn't have a good year at all.
