Yeah I understand a sack on 3rd down is more important for the game, but the question is simple: do you or do you not agree that "worse pass protection" implies "more sacks" on average (across QB's and OL's) on 1st and 2nd down? If the answer to that question is "yes" then sack% is probably decently correlated with a good measure of pass protection ability. Remember, we're looking at the effect on passer rating here, not the game, and I'd bet that sack% on 3rd down is the LEAST influential (of the 3 downs) on passer rating because you usually punt on 4th down. So as long as you're using both sacks AND passer rating as a proxy you need to look at where the relationship is strongest, which is when you still have a passing attempt after the sack.
Yeah not arguing Tannehill isn't helped by a decent run game. My argument is that some people keep saying Tannehill was in a situation no other QB found themselves in. Specifically, he never had a good coach, defense, running game or OL. That is, he was missing all 4 factors. Clearly that is false. That's my only point.
More sacks definitely equal worse pass protection if they come between the tackles. If they come from outside the tackles though, then we need to look at the specific play to see who messed up (QB read pre-snap, missed block by RB/TE, etc.). Outside the tackles does not usually fall on the linemen though so that probably doesn't meet the "worse pass protection" figure you're looking for. I think it would be the most influential (sack on 3rd down) because not only do you get a negative on that play, you also lose the ability to throw more and bring that number up. It's not the loss of down or loss of yardage that makes sacks so deadly (in terms of QBr), it's stopping the drive and putting the QB on the bench. I would think that the better QB's would be more likely to overcome that sack on the following downs. So here's a thought- wouldn't better pass protection correlate with the number of snaps per game? Or the number of pass attempts? The completions would be on the QB himself, but the attempts would show the offense's ability to move the chains, wouldn't it?
Yeah.. keep in mind passer rating is an efficiency stat, so it doesn't matter how many attempts you have per se. What matters is how efficient you are given the number of attempts you had. So while it's true that 3rd down passer rating is generally below 1st and 2nd down (this suggests sacks on 2nd down have more effect on passer rating), you usually pass on a 1st down after a 3rd down sack (because you punt on 4th), meaning the effect of 3rd down sacks is not that great if you use passer rating. In any case.. using attempts is an interesting idea, but justifying it would have to be rock solid for three reasons: 1) There is a general increase in passing attempts over NFL history, from the mid-20's per game to the mid-30's today. That's a HUGE increase (almost 40% increase percentage-wise) and whatever justification you use you'd have to argue attempts matters only within a year but not across years. 2) Passing attempts is generally negatively correlated with wins for the same reason rushing attempts is positively correlated with wins: you run more when you're ahead, especially in the 4th quarter. So really you'd have to look only at passing attempts in quarters 1-3 or something like that, but each such exception you make to the stat decreases its justifiability. 3) In contrast to all this, generally the best QB's have the most attempts, at least over a career. So whatever justification you use for passing attempts it will have to fit this stat in naturally too lol.
That's what I was thinking as well (#2 and 3)...the better QB's just end up throwing more throughout the season...I'm guessing from more/longer possessions. For instance, Tannehill had several drives last season where he threw short on 1st down, then threw a bomb for a TD on 2nd down. From a QBR standpoint that's awesome, but that's just two plays out of 30-50 and doesn't tell the entire story. Hitting a WR for 80 yards on one play is also a lot different from a 10 play, 80 yard drive with 7 passes and 3 runs. I'd think that while they're both highly positive, the QB's grinding out those longer drives consistently would be the better QB's (which the year-end stats seem to support in Ryan, Brady, etc). To do that consistently though, then the line would have to be solid. That's why I was thinking pass attempts per game/season compared to the league average tells part of the story you're looking for. But then again, losing teams obviously pass more than winning teams because they have to. For instance, Cleveland should be towards the top of the list in attempts (you'd think). But maybe not since they have lots of 3 and outs....we'd have to look. I'm pretty busy with work today so I won't have a chance right away.
Okay, before I respond, I need some clarification. What's false - that no other QB was in that situation, or that he was missing all four of those factors?
False that Tannehill was missing all 4 factors. Top 10 defense in 2012 and 2013, and above average running game in 2014. Even in 2015, YPC was top 10 though YPG was way down (supporting Conuficus' claim about not using Miller enough). Regarding no QB being in a similar situation, others have claimed that BECAUSE Tannehill lacked all 4 factors and no one could point to any other QB that similarly lacked all 4, then therefore no other QB was in a similar situation. Well.. that premise is clearly false I think. I personally have no idea how good/bad Tannehill's situation was relative to other QB's. Just from a stats point of view it would be surprising if Tannehill came out dead last or close to it but who knows.. that's why we need to agree on some available stats as measures and I'll be glad to find out what the data tell us.
It's kind of funny though because if you flip that statement around- name a quarterback that had a great run game, great defense, great coach and great OL.....it really doesn't matter how good the QB is. They usually win 12+ seasons and end up in the Super Bowl either way. The Pats made it to the show after starting the season 4-0 with their backup QB in 2016. The Ravens won in 2013 with Flacco, the losing team was helmed by Kaep The Giants beat the Pats with the other Manning- twice (2008, 2012) Russel Wilson, Cam Newton, Brees, Rodgers, Big Ben, Luck....we think of all of them as top 10 QB's. Yet they all had extremely good defenses and run games to compliment their Super Bowl marches. In the years they didn't have those pieces in place, they were middle of the pack. My point is that if you have a great organization with an awesome defense, a top run game and a great offensive line, then your QB is going to end up with top 10 numbers. Folks like Peyton Manning and Dan Marino are the exceptions to the rule where they literally made up the majority of the team's offense on their own....but they also both had smart coaches who focused on building defenses and solid lines. So I don't how you can say that Tannehill would be great if he had all these other pieces- history shows that every quarterback looks great with all those pieces. You can go all the way back to the 80's with QB's like Doug Williams for the Redskins- it was a dominant Super Bowl winning team (42-10 if I remember right) with a quarterback that a lot of people wouldn't even remember today. Or sticking with the Skins, who was their other SB winning QB in the 90's? He was a one-hit wonder that everyone raved about...and then forgot after one season. He won it all in year 4 and then spent 7 more years bouncing around the league as mainly a backup- but he had that coaching, run game, line and defense in 1991! Was Mark Rypien an elite QB? Because his first five years look strikingly similar to Tannehill (85.2, 88.1, 78.4, 97.9 and then never above a 78 QBR again). I'm not using this to say that Tannehill is bad- I'm just so fed up with the excuses. He's a good QB that likely belongs in the top dozen once he reaches his potential...and there's nothing at all wrong with that. Why keep bringing up crap that it's someone else's fault? We didn't play that game with the dozen QB's before him...including one that's still on the roster.
I dismissed him as a credible source. Anyone can write and publish an e-book. What exactly makes him an expert? I would agree that 80-90% of the time it's not Tannhill's fault.
I would say the 2014 ypc stat is definitely a bit of an an illusion. YPC correlares to pass% in a given situation. (In situations where the D is expecting pass ypc goes up and when the D is expecting run ypc goes down). Under Lazor the phins passed at a significantly lower rate than league average especially when behind. Miller's ypc was getting inflated because opposing Ds were selling out to stop the pass because they had figured out Lazor's tendencies. Last year in Houston Miller faced the reverse where opposing Ds knew Osweiler was, well Osweiler, and sold out to stop the run driving his ypc stat down.
Top 10 defense? They were top 10 for points scored, I remember, or something like that, but they were not good in ToP, 3rd down, etc. And we were always bottom of the league in total carries, and I believe it was you that showed total carries was more important than ypc.
No measure is perfect. Just like YPG is confounded by more rushing attempts when leading. But YPC and YPG are two of the better measures overall. Now for individual running backs no measure is better over a career than TD's scored. Just look at running backs at the top of that list and they're essentially all in the HoF. No other measure compares. Same with receiving TD's for WR's. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/rush_td_career.htm If you go by total rushing TD's then the Dolphins ranked #11 in 2012, #15 in 2014 and #17 in 2015, hardly the rankings you'd assign to a "bad" rushing team. Only in 2013 where we were #27 could one argue that. So while I have no problem with using multiple measures, no matter which you use you can't argue Tannehill always had a bad running game pre-2016 (not even close).
Miami was 20th in points allowed per game in 2014, which is the only defensive stat that really matters. So, stop saying they were a top 10 defense.
Was saying, our defense was the best at getting defensive tds, but they were ranked 20th for points allowed per game. That's not a top 10 defense.
Read before you criticize. I said 2012 and 2013! We were ranked #7 and #8: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/mia/ It's so clearly stated in post #33.
They were 6th or something against the pass, the L pass defense was in the top 10, not sure ant other part was the top of anything.
So, then, his rookie year, with garbage at receiver, and the underused run game, lousy coach...the raw rookie was supposed to overcome that stuff?
My point is, that in year 3 and beyond, when Tannehill was really starting to hit stride, he was handcuffed. Even in the first two years, it was obvious that he wasn't being developed properly.
Who said that? I'm just saying the claim you guys have been making for years now that Tannehill is the only QB that had to deal with ALL those factors is flat out wrong. Of course Tannehill was in a sub-par situation. I hated Philbin by year 3 at latest too (I sure hope I hated him earlier but I can't quite remember!). But let's not try to act like no other QB had it worse until we agree on how to measure how bad the situation was and then go and see where different QB's rank.
No, no. I give Tannehill a pass in years 1 and 2, when he was raw and developing. Over the next two years, though, that's been the situation. Under Gase, thugs seem to have changed.
People have been crapping on Philbin being the guy Tannehill had to start his career with for a long time. So pointing out we had a top 10 defense in 2012 and 2013 is important evidence, and as you see by some of the posts above our running game wasn't bad in 2014 (not even in 2015 unless you choose YPG as your stat.. YPC and TD's say we had it average at worst).
Measuring it is simple: 2 different coaching staffs in 5 years What is it, 3 different OCs? Bad oline, just watch the games Lack of commitment to run game Bad defense three last 3 years Not allowed to audible What other QBs have had that combo over a 3 year span?
Philbin was terrible, that's why he was fired. Again, the run game has been explained to you numerous times. Didn't you do all the work to show that number of carries was more important than god? Why are you now defaulting to ypc as the be all stat?
I must have had an effect. You left out running game (efficiency stats, etc..), and you're restricting it to the last 3 years. As far as "measuring it" is concerned.. OL and coaching are still issues on how to measure. I use sack% and you won't get the result you desire. Not sure what else to use.
Because most of the high correlation between rushing attempts and win% is due to the reverse causal relation of rushing more often AFTER you have the lead. That's been shown by various people on the net too, not just me. In fact, most of that difference can be seen just in 4th quarter stats between the team that's leading vs. trailing.
No QB has had a **** oline, no commitment to the run game, bad coaching and not allowed to audible....AND succeeded. Not one. Drop the bad coaching and there still has never been one. I've been asking for years and you people roll your eyes....and then promptly fail to give a single example that meets the criteria. Because you can't. It has never happened. Those things changed last year, and he became a Top 10 QB as predicted.
I believe we've always argued that it was a lack of commitment to the run game. Also, the argument over those missing things had been the last maybe two or three years, as people started arguing that Tannehill had had enough time, so the bad win % was on him. Don't pull a muscle trying to pat yourself on the back. LOL Are you only using sack percent on first and second down?
I remember enough arguments where his entire time with Philbin was brought up. Regarding the running game, yes commitment to it was one, but the other was simply "not having a good running game". Anyway I'm OK with the argument changing as long as it's more defensible than it was before. Personally, my only issue is the claim Tannehill had it worse than anyone else without a good way of measuring that. Otherwise I have no dog in this fight. Some others might go further. Re: sack percentage. I just used overall sack percentage. See post #35. Basically for each percent increase in sack% from the mean sack%, add 1.15 passer rating points to compensate, meaning you'll only be able to add a few points to Tannehill's rating due to sack%. pro-football-reference doesn't have "pressures".. otherwise that + sack% would be a more acceptable proxy.
It has. I don't expect you to agree, but I think there are enough people here that remember the argument was over all of Philbin's tenure and that it included "good running game" as a more general issue.
No, it has not. I don't give a good damn what you remember. You're a 100% wrong. I know what the argument because I've been the one making it more than anyone.
If you trust Fahey's eyes, then you'll like Fahey saying Landry is overrated, and is schemed open on a significant number of his routes. http://slicemiami.com/2016/12/21/jarvis-landry-free-agent-cian-fahey/ Is he right on both? Wrong on both? right on one, not the other? He loves Tanny, hates Landry. My point is, I'd rather wait for someone else's opinion. Or, if someone would provide the cutup of all his sacks, and make that decision for myself. Fahey has shown himself to be subjective on a lot of things.
Here is a sack from last year, it's a good one. Is it avoidable? Is it not? It's on a designed rollout. It's very subjective. One could argue Judon was on him so fast, Tanny had no choice. But he was outside the tackle, he could have thrown it away. That closing speed by Judon was very impressive but he was in Tanny's sights. Tanny tried to avoid it, which made it unavoidable, so to speak. If Tanny doesn't cut back, and just stall, he could get the ball away. So what's the verdict, avoidable? Unavoidable? http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-...-Tannehill-sacked-on-rollout-by-Matthew-Judon
I'm showing you how biased he is. He formed an opinion about Landry under Philbin, where indeed he was schemed open a lot. That changed in 2016, but Fahey's opinion didn't. Did any of you guys go check his work and verify he was right? Or just taking his word for it?
