Clabo is very perplexed..

Yes it's inordinately high, about 33%. Highest in the league by a comfortable margin. I think next highest might be around 20%.

It is as you say, the offensive line do not hold their blocks very long. So when Ryan Tannehill holds the ball longer than 2.5 seconds (which QBs in the NFL do statistically about 49% of the time, so it's quite common) he is pressured pretty much every time, and sacked about a third of the time.

 

You're asserting something completely different from what Clabo is.

He specifically said hits. He was wrong. Fact. The offensive line has allowed more hits and sacks on Ryan Tannehill per pass play than any other offensive line in football. Fact.

 

Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.

 

There's nothing "so few" about the number of hits they've given up on Ryan Tannehill. It's the highest rate in the league.

 

Which would be all the more reason for it to happen more often.

 

Nobody has any complaints about Aaron Rodgers' pocket presence. During the first five games of 2009 when he had poor pass protection from his offensive tackles, he was sacked the same amount per pressure as Tannehill.

Tauscher and Clifton got healthy, the tackles started playing better, wonder of wonders Rodgers stopped taking sacks every third time he was pressured.

When you make it more difficult for a teammate to do his job, he tends not to do it as well. Not rocket science.

 

If Ryan is outside the pocket and is being chased, and closed in on, he needs to throw the ball away unstead of trying to make the impossible play. Taking a negative play and sack is worse than a loss of down.

 

How many times has that actually happened?

 

Unblocked hasn't really happened very often. Unblocked would actually be encouraging because it would mean they just have some things to fix schematically.

Much more often the players are blocked, but able to quickly defeat the block, and then come in free from obstruction and able to track Tannehill to where even moving one way or another wouldn't necessarily help.

 

I'd have to re-watch all 19 sacks to be able to answer that, but my point is that every sack involves a hit, so it makes no practical difference. 19 is too many.

 

Not only is it true, but it should be pretty obvious to anyone who's actually watching the line play closely. Philbin has explained it, so has Sherman, and now Clabo.

 

Pressures/sacks etc. can be blamed on pretty much anyone. A lineman, a back or TE, the QB, receivers not getting open, a bad protection call, a superior individual play or play call by the defense.

Tannehill has been pressured fewer times and on a lower % of his drop backs than the opposing QB in 4 of the 5 games, Nawlins being the only exception. Yet the outside perception seems to move further and further away from reality as the days go by.

 

There is only so much pass rush occurring in 2 seconds. For instance when I timed tackles dropbacks, they got to their third step at roughly 1.0-1.10 seconds. The defensive ends in these situations were not even engaged with their blockers yet. Yes, there is a second still to go, but that is one tight window. If 2 seconds is all we have, no quarterback will ever reach his potential behind this line.

 

It's semantics, it's pretty clear he's alluding that there is an issue in terms of sack mitigation that doesn't involve the line. I don't care if he's incorrectly using terminology or using different terminology, he's making the same point.

 

That's a completely misleading statement. Throwing the ball quicker gives defenders less time to get to the QB, this is true, in a vaccum. But overall it doesn't necessarily make the QB harder to sack.

Defenses aren't stupid. When the offense is using the quick game the DL will adjust it's pass rush and the DBs will adjust their coverages accordingly. Receivers have less time to get open, the QB has less time to find an open receiver and is generally closer to the LOS (and the defenders trying to sack him). It's a give and take tactic, it doesn't make anything "easier".

And can we please do away with the idea that a stopwatch can decide if the QB is holding the ball too long or not? It can't. In reality you have to see each individual play to see whether the QB held the ball too long and ask... What was the play design, the coverage, the routes, was anyone open, was there pressure/quick pressure/no pressure, was there room to evade the pressure and extend the play yada yada yada.

2.5 seconds could be way too long or not long enough depending on these and other factors.

 

I've actually watched all of the sacks, all of the drop backs actually, and IMO there's no scapegoat to be had. Sometimes it's the line, sometimes it's the backs, the receivers not getting open, the QB either holding the ball too long or failing to evade the rush in time, it's a total team effort.

 

Tyson Clabo was going to retire because he was not getting serious bites, not until we offered him 3.5 mil to play one more year. The man blows. He can hear whatever he wants but when an offensive lineman is moved constantly, I mean several times each game, backwards, against his will, then he should keep his mouth shut. This game will be no different. it will be just another week where our tackles are going to be an embarrassment to the game of football, throw in a RG in John Jerry who is as bad as both tackles are. We have TEs that can block, we have no RBs that can block or move the pile with their own strength. Want to bet Sherman trys to pound the ball to start the game ? Problem is he tries one play once and if it does not work, you do not see it the rest of the game.

 

So we suck?

 

He may not be saying that THAT is why it's happening, but he DOES seem to imply it's Tannehill.

It could be that he thinks Tannehill is crap at escaping, sliding away from pressure. That his pocket awareness and movement is so bad that he turns possible hits into sacks.

For example, if he could slide a half step to the left to have time to get the ball out then get hit, he instead slides totally the wrong way, ducks his head and eats the sack.

Maybe that's Clabo's complaint. I mean, Clabo is watching the film. More film than WE are. And who knows, maybe Turner himself is feeling the heat in that O-line room and grumbling as they watch the film.

Also, Clabo is a free agent again after this year. He's not stupid. He knows if he is scapegoated as 'the main probelm' he will make a lot less money next year or not even find a job. The "PR" aspect of the organization not "blaming" Ryan Tannehill could cost Tyson Clabo and his family a lot of money. Like six-zeroes type money.

I am not saying Clabo is or isn't the issue. Nor that Tanny is or isn't. Just trying to get inside Clabo's mindset here.

 

Maybe his gripe is that if Tannehill would sense the rush and slide around slightly, he would have more time to throw.

Maybe. I don't know.

I think we have a perfect storm of a below average line, and a QB who is not amazing at moving around the pocket, AND a coaching staff that seems to reinforce the message that Ryan must keep his eyes downfield and not escape the pocket.. to hang in there and take the hit instead of run.

 

Is the ratio of non-sack hits to sacks in line with what's the norm for other QB's lines and teams? I got the feeling that was his gripe.

That the ratio of hits:sacks is very unusual.

 

You pretty much made my statement right there.

Again, lets keep this in context of what my comment was arguing with the original point, which is the discrepancy between sacks and total pressure. That bolded line made the point. Faster throws = less pressure being recorded.

Then:

This is just wrong. Even if all those variables are valid, which they are, a stopwatch can certainly decide if the QB is holding onto the ball long or not, and if he is getting pressured too quickly after the snap.

 

Exactly what I get from his statement. Yes he's taking accountability for allowing that many hits. He's subtly blaming Tannehill for allowing so many of those hits to become sacks.

The key takeaway in all of this is, this is something that's actually being/been discussed. Clabo isn't on PFF or thephins checking out the stats. Either the coaches, the linemen or both have discussed this. Oh to be a fly on that wall.

 

The problem I see is in the constant focus on "fault".

The quarterback's job is to not get sacked, especially on 1st or 2nd down. It's his job not to get sacked regardless of what the blocking looks like. If the blockers all just stood up and let the rushers go by, it's still the quarterback's job not to get sacked.

Sometimes coaches WILL actually coach quarterbacks to turtle up and take the sack on certain occasions, especially 3rd down which is where 11 of Tannehill's sacks have come from. From a quarterback standpoint, those sacks are not significantly worse than an incomplete pass unless they come on a very specific 10 yard patch of grass between the opponent's 25 and 35 yard lines. That's why coaches will tell quarterbacks on 3rd down to make something happen if they can but don't risk an interception which flips field position on you, so take the sack if you need to.

Simultaneously, it's the offensive line's job to hold their blocks. Holding your blocks is the same thing as a receiver catching instead of dropping the football, or getting open. It helps the quarterback do his job. If you don't hold your blocks, it creates an environment in which it is very hard for the quarterback to do his job.

It boggles my mind that people think a quarterback should be just as good and consistent at keeping pressures from turning into sacks even if the offensive line in front of him are not holding their blocks very long. To me that's like saying a running back should still average the same yards per carry even if his offensive line is blocking poorly.

What I look at is how well each unit is doing their job. That's how I can tell you that the offensive line is doing far worse at the job of holding their blocks than Ryan Tannehill is at escaping pressure that comes in on him. EVERY offense is going to ask you to hold the ball a little longer at times trying to make something happen down the field. Not every offensive line is near 100% certain to allow pressure to go screaming right at the quarterback's face just about every time such a play call happens.

It's all about teamwork. Nobody has or should ever claim that Ryan Tannehill is doing a perfect job of avoiding the pressure that comes at him. But he's being asked to operate with a bigger handicap than just about any other quarterback in the league that way. And therefore it's not that surprising that you have some poor results at times because of it.

 

Does anybody care that the Dolphins are 3 TD's, 420 Yards Tot. Offense, and less than 2 TO's from being a top 10 Offense?

Does anybody care? No? ok...got it.

 

That's a pretty big difference, for only 5 games.

 

No..I'm saying that if they produce that vs. Buffalo..they SHOULD crack the Top 10 in my Off. Pro. Stat.

 

Well then, here's a question (re: the 1st and 2nd down not taking a sack)... how does Tannehill's throwaway:sack ratio compare to other QBs on 1st and 2nd down?

And this is not a Tannehill witchhunt, for the record. I am not (hopefully no one is) disputing that the Oline has been horrible. Just want to ascertain if Tannehill is helping to compounding an already bad situation and what he can do to improve it.

 

Good point, as is CK's.

On our current pace we'd end up 10 TDs behind the 'best offense'.

1344 yards behind the top O.

6 turnovers behind them.

Where would that rank our Offense? Middle of the league?

 

Assuming the guys ahead of you do nothing, right?

We should also point out, that this "difference" between the team and 10th place lands us at 28th place (in yards per game). So it's not like we're on the outside looking in. We're not even in the parking lot yet.

We're also 24th in ppg.

 

That leaves out a fairly important variable, does the QB have a place to go with the ball? That's the give and take I'm talking about.

Receivers are hard pressed to consistently win on the outside that quickly. None of the guys we currently have excel at creating separation quickly, especially vs aggressive coverages. We don't have a reliable 50/50 ball receiver either so it's not like Tannehill can just "put it up there" and trust his receivers to make a play. Another aspect w/ the quick game is that if you're keeping backs in to check for pressure before they release they too will have a hard time getting into their routes in time.

If you go back and look at the sacks Tannehill has been taking you'll see that a good number of them involve decent protection initially, RT holding for an extra hitch or two b/c he doesn't see anything down field and then WHAM. There have only been a handful of sacks (if that) where a rusher was unblocked or able to defeat his man immediately, or where Tannehill had no chance whatsoever.

I get what you're saying, I just don't think it leaves any room for context. If the protection breaks down in say, 1.8 seconds, in order to avoid a sack (that's what we're discussing right?) the ball needs to come out based on what's happening on that specific play, not some arbitrary time that the QB or anyone else feels is reasonable. Likewise, if the QB is afforded extra time due to above average protection he should recognize this and use the available time to locate the best possible option instead of just throwing the ball in 2.5 or whatever amount of seconds.

 

By the way, going back to the whole 3rd down sack thing...Miami is 9th in the league at converting on 3rd down.

And newsflash, that ain't the running backs doing the heavy lifting there. Tannehill's gotten the call on 62 out of 67 of the 3rd downs. He's converted 25 of 62 of them, even with the sacks.

Their average distance-to-go on 3rd down is 7.42 yards. That's #17 in the league on distance-to-go but #9 in the league on conversion percentage.

And for those wondering, the Dolphins are the 2nd-most unbalanced team in the NFL in terms of run/pass selection on 3rd down. They call passes 91% of the time. Only Atlanta calls passes more often, which is strange because they have a pretty low distance-to-go average.

Ryan Tannehill has the 8th highest passer rating on 3rd down.

 

Well, the media is going bananas w/ the "OL sucks" storyline and peppering anyone they can get a mic in front of w/ questions and insinuations about how the "OL sucks". And of course if the OL says anything to defend themselves then the new storyline will be "OL calls out QB". It's media 101.

Clabo is pointing out the obvious, that sack numbers aren't the only (or best) way to gauge how well the protection is. I don't take it as a dig at Tannehill at all.

 

Miami's the 6th most unbalanced play caller on 1st down and the 2nd most unbalanced play caller on 2nd down. Funny thing is their 2nd down distance-to-go is 14th best, so they're not calling pass plays on 2nd down just because they they're behind on down-and-distance.

We know that the Dolphins have the 4th-highest sack rate on 1st & 2nd downs. What we don't know is what that is relative to pressures because PFF does not offer pressure data based on down.

 

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I think the biggest handicap Tannehill has is the total lack of a running game.

 

That's also a significant handicap.

 

If we can't pass block AND we can't run, whose fault is it?

I 'm ticked at Clabo because he's clearly trying to deflect the blame. A man who isn't doing well says: "I'm not doing well; I need to get better." A lesser man looks for excuses or shifts the blame.

 

Did you see the Packers-Ravens game?

First two plays for GB, two rushes for 47 yards.

 

Part of Miami's problem is likely that they're a bad 1st down team.

Only Tampa and Tennessee gain fewer yards on 1st down than Miami.

Lamar Miller gained 5.1 yards per carry on his 30 runs on 1st down, but Daniel Thomas gained only 3.2 yards per carry on his 16 runs on 1st down.

The big culprit though is the passing game on 1st down. Tannehill is averaging only 9.4 yards per COMPLETION on 1st down. That's down to 6.0 yards per attempt and then when you figure in his 6 sacks on 1st down, this is a big part of the problem on 1st down.

I tend to see this as part of the issue with the line's limitations though. As I've said, sacks on 1st/2nd down are drive killers so the Dolphins try and avoid them. They do so with a lot of quick passing. Tannehill is completing these passes 64% of the time so he's generally getting what he wants, but what he wants or what the play calls for is generally pretty myopic.