Ryan Tannehill

"Pauly wrote:

Remember it was just 5 or 6 years ago that completion% was one of the go to stats for QBs.

Now we know air yards thrown, time to throw, the amount of separation the receiver has and what % of similar passes are caught by down and distance. In 2019 raw completion% is seen as a dinosaur stat and the higher level analysts adjust it by the factors listed above. It isn’t too hard to think that in a few years in addition to pressure% there will also data about number of rushers, number of players providing pressure, whether the pressure is from blocked or unblocked pass rushers and so on.

I know that after the 2013 season I saw you tube clips of all the sacks allowed by the Dolphins and all the sacks Cam Wake got. In 2013 Tannehill was regularly getting murdered on jailbreak sacks where the OL completely whiffed on their blocks, yet Cam Wake didn’t have a single jailbreak sack, he had to fight through a block for every single one.. so I do believe their is something to the jailbreak sack issue.

Yeah I'll agree that with better stats we can do better analysis, and that we should have better stats in the future. In fact, that's really important to point out because right now we don't have a good OL stat.

But there are mathematical reasons for arguing that the relative frequency of "jailbreak" pressure is likely to remain similar regardless of circumstance so this particular argument I doubt will be affected by that.

"cbrad wrote:

But how is it possible that in that case the OL doesn't give up more pressure in general?

They run the ball more frequently and throw screen passes. Everything is a quick release...which means there is no opportunity for pressure even on a "jail break".

For instance, Gase's favorite play on 3rd and 15? Run up the middle. 3rd and 6? Screen pass OR short pass to let the defender fight for his way past the sticks. 3rd and short? Throw an intermediate route since the defense has their run stuffers on the field and the safety is cheated up. That's how you effectively eliminate pressure with a bad OL....you play super conservative football and ask your QB to do very little.

We've seen it so many times I can't believe this is even a conversation still. Tannehill would start the game a perfect 10/10 with about 18 net yards before YAC was added in. That's the offense we played until the scoreboard dictated differently, and there would be no pressure on those 10 throws since the ball was out so fast. Later in the game, when he had to go traditional, teams would blitz and the story would change since our boy was pressured almost 100% of the time.

Yet because he didn't have pressure on his 14 screen passes of the day, the stats tell a vastly different story...maybe he was only pressured on 30% of his drop-backs total. That's how you get a seemingly normal "pressure rate" yet a seemingly high sack/hit rate with a lousy interior line.

"KeyFin wrote:

They run the ball more frequently and throw screen passes. Everything is a quick release...which means there is no opportunity for pressure even on a "jail break".

For instance, Gase's favorite play on 3rd and 15? Run up the middle. 3rd and 6? Screen pass OR short pass to let the defender fight for his way past the sticks. 3rd and short? Throw an intermediate route since the defense has their run stuffers on the field and the safety is cheated up. That's how you effectively eliminate pressure with a bad OL....you play super conservative football and ask your QB to do very little.

We've seen it so many times I can't believe this is even a conversation still. Tannehill would start the game a perfect 10/10 with about 18 net yards before YAC was added in. That's the offense we played until the scoreboard dictated differently, and there would be no pressure on those 10 throws since the ball was out so fast. Later in the game, when he had to go traditional, teams would blitz and the story would change since our boy was pressured almost 100% of the time.

Yet because he didn't have pressure on his 14 screen passes of the day, the stats tell a vastly different story...maybe he was only pressured on 30% of his drop-backs total. That's how you get a seemingly normal "pressure rate" yet a seemingly high sack/hit rate with a lousy interior line.

These statistics regarding pressure are for pass dropbacks only, not runs, and they span the years 2012 through 2016, of which there was only one season of Adam Gase.

"The Guy wrote:

If the whole league has a problem with offensive line play, then it can’t possibly be a determinant of variation in quarterback play. Quarterback play would be completely independent of offensive line play, if in fact the entire league has a problem with it.

If there is no variation in offensive line play, how can it possibly cause variation across the league in quarterback play?

He's talking about screen plays as if that somehow means the Dolphins didn't have bad oline play. One reason you might be seeing an increase in screen plays league wide is because oline play is poor all around. I do believe we ran so many screens to try to alleviate our oline problems. However, when teams can rush 4 and have 7 in coverage, screens are still hard to run successfully...and we all saw how terrible our screen plays were, more often than not.

"cbrad wrote:

That happened sometimes yes. All that shows is we had a bad OL. That is in no way evidence that there was a higher percentage of "jailbreak" pressure than "non-jailbreak" pressure, just that our OL gave up more pressure in general (which implies more jailbreak pressure). Again, you see a lot of this "jailbreak" pressure in other games too. We're not arguing about whether we had a bad OL here.

Man, we routinely faced only 4 man rushes, and gave up quick pressure from multiple points very often. I used to constantly point this out in gameday threads over the years. Do you have stats showing jailbreak percentages? That being said, I'm not calling a 4 man rush a jailbreak. I saying I watched the Dolphins oline routinely give up quick pressure from only 4 man rushes. Teams didn't even have to blitz. In fact, want Tannehill actually pretty good when teams blitzed? They didn't have to blitz. They'd rush 4, get quick pressure, and force Tannehill to throw into tight windows.

"resnor wrote:

Do you have stats showing jailbreak percentages?

I haven't seen any, which was the point I made earlier about there being no actual evidence for the assertion the Dolphins suffered an abnormally high percentage of jailbreaks. That's why we have to make inferences. See post #500.

"KeyFin wrote:

Yet because he didn't have pressure on his 14 screen passes of the day, the stats tell a vastly different story...maybe he was only pressured on 30% of his drop-backs total. That's how you get a seemingly normal "pressure rate" yet a seemingly high sack/hit rate with a lousy interior line.

See post #500. Maybe your mind remembers those "jailbreaks" (a cool word but we have to remember this is a continuum, not something that occurs suddenly past a threshold) but not the other cases where one guy got through but not two for example. Like I told Pauly, there are actually mathematical reasons here why overall pressure might change, but jailbreak percentage won't.

Not saying it's impossible of course. I mean a coach could certainly force the issue by calling a play that deliberately allows multiple defenders to get through on one side so they're too far upfield, etc... But in general, I wouldn't expect much difference in jailbreak percentage when different players on the OL are trying to prevent pressure independently of other players on the OL.

The other issue here is, during the period of time to which these stats pertain (2012-2016), Tannehill was also slightly below the average of the 18 QBs for whom there is data in terms of his performance when not pressured.

So, it's a little tough to make the argument that whatever pressure the Dolphins' offensive line was surrendering during that time was responsible for his performance, when even when the Dolphins' offensive line surrendered no pressure, Tannehill's performance was but average.

Compare that to Russell Wilson, for example, who performed significantly better than Tannehill when pressured and when not pressured.

"resnor wrote:

Dude, you watched the games right? Teams were routinely rushing only 4, and getting 2 or 3 guys through to the QB. So teams were getting significant pressure WITHOUT blitzing. Which then allows there to be more people out in coverage, which then causes they're to be no open receivers, especially when they aren't good for runners.

He’d get hit before his back foot could hit in his drop. Most of the time from both outside and inside immediate pressure.

rush 3 drop 8 rush 4 drop 7 and get home before his back foot could even hit. These weren’t even overload blitzes or zone blitz schemes or cover 0 even.

just my 3 or my 4 is better than your 5 on long downs and distances. 3rd and plus 8 we’d have no chance he’d have to either dump it to the underneath usually back option or eat it.

and every dc in tbe league knew it. Gase did a better job of limiting the o line exposure by calling draw plays when we were behind the sticks on 2nd down to try and regain them. Pin ear opportunities we’d run a draw and get back into more manageable 3rd downs. That helped the protection too. That’s how frank gore became his first and 2nd down lead back. He pressed tbe los and maintained/regained the sticks and gained the yards the play call relative to the defense played offered up. Whereas mr east west Kenyan Drake was relegated to 3rd down back.

in 2018 we couldn’t protect a max protect pa vertical shot to save our lives. A lot of that rided on gase insistence of Mike gesicki in max protect at the critical block point or poa in the run game even and he couldn’t in 2018 block a paper bag if his life depended on it. He treated it like all tight ends are created equal. Yeah duh adam not with that frame they aren’t.

I hate the Wilson comparison. During those years they had not a good d but a 5 year run of pure all timer level d.

they also had a league leader level run game admittedly though Wilson was doing some of the driving of that. When marshawn Lynch wasn’t bull dozing the opposition into bits.

Not to mention forcing every team because of the run game threat to play 8 man boxes to try and offset most of which still couldnt stop the run out of and never having to pivot to a plan b gameplan wise on offense cause the defense was dropping 7 ppg average during that stretch.

I can win a lot of games if I only have to score 10 points to win them. I can stay in a lot of games also under that scenario and I can most importantly stick with plan a scheme and gameplan wise a full 4 quarters. 2nd and 6, 2nd and 4, 3rd and 2 I mean where do I sign up? Hell I can design plays you won’t ever even sniff my qb in that scenario all game long. I saw entire playoff games where Wilson never threw a pass out of anything other than play action. You kidding me? That’s called ideal world scenario.

that’s a luxury Miami and tannehill have never had. Hell we’ve never even had a top half of the league grade o line or defense since tannehill got here. Let alone a top 5 anything.

"Hoops wrote:

that’s a luxury Miami and tannehill have never had. Hell we’ve never even had a top half of the league grade o line or defense since tannehill got here.

That's not true for 2012 and 2013. Our defense was top 10 in 2012 and 2013 by points allowed (most important measure of defense):
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/mia/index.htm

The z-scores were 0.801 in 2012 and 0.6055 in 2013, which correspond to top 22nd percentile in 2012 and top 28th percentile in 2013. All other years (2014-2018) we were slightly below average or way below average on defense.

"cbrad wrote:

That's not true for 2012 and 2013. Our defense was top 10 in 2012 and 2013 by points allowed (most important measure of defense):
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/mia/index.htm

The z-scores were 0.801 in 2012 and 0.6055 in 2013, which correspond to top 22nd percentile in 2012 and top 28th percentile in 2013. All other years (2014-2018) we were slightly below average or way below average on defense.

Well I’m shocked frankly. Cause I sure can’t recall any defense ever being worth it’s salt.

but we are talking about his rookie year when he was surrounded by Davon Bess and Brian between the 20s only hartline as his “playmakers” and year 2 with mike Sherman wasn’t it and his figured out offense that if I recall correctly had a snap count that was one go for a run and two goes for a pass and a fullback dive call with polite I think it was which you could set your watch to situationally.

one of those years that full back dive stuff was figured out from week 1 even.

"Hoops wrote:

He’d get hit before his back foot could hit in his drop. Most of the time from both outside and inside immediate pressure.

rush 3 drop 8 rush 4 drop 7 and get home before his back foot could even hit. These weren’t even overload blitzes or zone blitz schemes or cover 0 even.

just my 3 or my 4 is better than your 5 on long downs and distances. 3rd and plus 8 we’d have no chance he’d have to either dump it to the underneath usually back option or eat it.

and every dc in tbe league knew it. Gase did a better job of limiting the o line exposure by calling draw plays when we were behind the sticks on 2nd down to try and regain them. Pin ear opportunities we’d run a draw and get back into more manageable 3rd downs. That helped the protection too. That’s how frank gore became his first and 2nd down lead back. He pressed tbe los and maintained/regained the sticks and gained the yards the play call relative to the defense played offered up. Whereas mr east west Kenyan Drake was relegated to 3rd down back.

in 2018 we couldn’t protect a max protect pa vertical shot to save our lives. A lot of that rided on gase insistence of Mike gesicki in max protect at the critical block point or poa in the run game even and he couldn’t in 2018 block a paper bag if his life depended on it. He treated it like all tight ends are created equal. Yeah duh adam not with that frame they aren’t.

Why does any of that matter if 1) when you clean all that up completely and Tannehill experiences no pressure, he plays no better than the average quarterback does under those circumstances, and 2) the Dolphins' offensive line cleaned all that up just as often as did the average team between 2012 and 2016?

"Hoops wrote:

I hate the Wilson comparison. During those years they had not a good d but a 5 year run of pure all timer level d.

they also had a league leader level run game admittedly though Wilson was doing some of the driving of that. When marshawn Lynch wasn’t bull dozing the opposition into bits.

Not to mention forcing every team because of the run game threat to play 8 man boxes to try and offset most of which still couldnt stop the run out of and never having to pivot to a plan b gameplan wise on offense cause the defense was dropping 7 ppg average during that stretch.

I can win a lot of games if I only have to score 10 points to win them. I can stay in a lot of games also under that scenario and I can most importantly stick with plan a scheme and gameplan wise a full 4 quarters. 2nd and 6, 2nd and 4, 3rd and 2 I mean where do I sign up? Hell I can design plays you won’t ever even sniff my qb in that scenario all game long. I saw entire playoff games where Wilson never threw a pass out of anything other than play action. You kidding me? That’s called ideal world scenario.

that’s a luxury Miami and tannehill have never had. Hell we’ve never even had a top half of the league grade o line or defense since tannehill got here. Let alone a top 5 anything.

First, Wilson has gone on to play just as well throughout his career, despite significant variation across his career in the team variables mentioned above (defense, running game).

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00.htm

Second, the post quoted above implies that there are strong correlations between quarterbacks' performances and those other team variables (defense, running game), when in fact that isn't true, and those correlations are in fact relatively weak, meaning that quarterbacks' performances are largely independent of them. Quarterbacks' performances are driven largely by their own individual ability, not those other team variables.

"jdallen1222 wrote:

12 pages on a Tannehill thread lol.

Lol not a single page i didnt roll my eyes on either...

"Vertical Limit wrote:

Lol not a single page i didnt roll my eyes on either...

This is actually one of the most interesting threads in the forum right now because it has a lot to do with people's perceptions of where to lay blame for the team's misfortunes over the past seven seasons, during the Tannehill era. The more Tannehill plays for another team, the more insight we get in that regard.

"The Guy wrote:

First, Wilson has gone on to play just as well throughout his career, despite significant variation across his career in the team variables mentioned above (defense, running game).

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00.htm

Second, the post quoted above implies that there are strong correlations between quarterbacks' performances and those other team variables (defense, running game), when in fact that isn't true, and those correlations are in fact relatively weak, meaning that quarterbacks' performances are largely independent of them. Quarterbacks' performances are driven largely by their own individual ability, not those other team variables.

You are the one that referenced 2012 to 2016 with Wilson and conveniently or maybe purposely left out any real world application of the differences in what each qb had to work with.

As if that doesn’t matter. Just numbers in a vacuum type application.

And what’s this it doesn’t matter what’s around the qb as to qb success or level of play? Since when.

I’ve seen more QBs get exposed once they no longer had those crutches.

"Hoops wrote:

You are the one that referenced 2012 to 2016 with Wilson and conveniently or maybe purposely left out any real world application of the differences in what each qb had to work with.

What those QBs had to work with means little when both QBs have had significant variation in their surroundings throughout their careers and their own play hasn't varied correspondingly. So it really isn't worth mentioning. We aren't still talking about Tannehill and Wilson's first seasons in the league here. We're a long way down the road now.

"The Guy wrote:

What those QBs had to work with means little when both QBs have had significant variation in their surroundings throughout their careers and their own play hasn't varied correspondingly. So it really isn't worth mentioning. We aren't still talking about Tannehill and Wilson's first seasons in the league here. We're a long way down the road now.

so what? One guy still drive down a nice freshly paved 4 lane highway, while the other was driving down a crowded dirt highway full of crazy foreign drivers in India. One guys career will look a lot better, regardless of difference in ability. One guys situation allowed growth and development, one guys didn’t. I could go on and on.

"The Guy wrote:

What those QBs had to work with means little when both QBs have had significant variation in their surroundings throughout their careers and their own play hasn't varied correspondingly. So it really isn't worth mentioning. We aren't still talking about Tannehill and Wilson's first seasons in the league here. We're a long way down the road now.

I quoted a post where you referenced 2012 to 2016.

"resnor wrote:

so what? One guy still drive down a nice freshly paved 4 lane highway, while the other was driving down a crowded dirt highway full of crazy foreign drivers in India. One guys career will look a lot better, regardless of difference in ability. One guys situation allowed growth and development, one guys didn’t. I could go on and on.

Exactly.

"resnor wrote:

so what? One guy still drive down a nice freshly paved 4 lane highway, while the other was driving down a crowded dirt highway full of crazy foreign drivers in India. One guys career will look a lot better, regardless of difference in ability. One guys situation allowed growth and development, one guys didn’t. I could go on and on.

That doesn’t fit with the fact that when Tannehill experienced no pressure, he played no better than did the average quarterback under those circumstances, whereas when Wilson experienced no pressure, he played significantly better than Tannehill and significantly better than the average quarterback in the league under those circumstances.

If in fact their surroundings were responsible for their performance, you wouldn’t expect such a significant difference in their performance when a key element of their surroundings was performing equally well.

"The Guy wrote:

That doesn’t fit with the fact that when Tannehill experienced no pressure, he played no better then did the average quarterback under those circumstances, whereas when Wilson experienced no pressure, he played significantly better than Tannehill and significantly better than the average quarterback in the league under those circumstances.

If in fact their surroundings were responsible for their performance, you wouldn’t expect such a significant difference in their performance when a key element of their surroundings was performing equally well.

I’m sorry that reality doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions and precious stats.

"resnor wrote:

I’m sorry that reality doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions and precious stats.

You’re presenting yourself as omniscient with regard to a reality about which there is widespread disagreement among people.

"The Guy wrote:

You’re presenting yourself as omniscient with regard to a reality about which there is widespread disagreement among people.

You love to dispute things without presenting facts. You disagree that Wilson was on a team with great coaching, all time great defense, and a stud running game while he was developing?

"resnor wrote:

You love to dispute things without presenting facts. You disagree that Wilson was on a team with great coaching, all time great defense, and a stud running game while he was developing?

What I don’t necessarily agree about is whether there is some sensitive developmental period that quarterbacks experience that determine their performances throughout their careers. What evidence is there of that?

And if there is evidence of that, how do we distinguish the quarterbacks whose careers were derailed by deleterious surroundings during their developmental periods, from those who were simply inadequate individually?

Essentially you’re making an unfalsifiable argument, where any quarterback who doesn’t reach his potential can be argued to have been unduly influenced throughout his career by his deleterious surroundings early in his career. How do we know that didn’t happen for JaMarcus Russell, for example?