Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Fin-O, Apr 6, 2017.
And thighs, have you seen Troy?
When you consider that
A) he said it was once every 4 penetrations, not once every 4 sacks,
B) he was saying it was a problem, when in fact it is the opposite. Tannehill has good ball security vis a vis line protection.
He was so far wrong that his assertion that it objectively made the world more stupid.
Also saying it isn't much of a differenceis like saying there isn't much of a difference between an RB who averages 4.5 ypc and one who averages 4.0 ypc.
Fister is bad at math. That's not an insult. It's just the facts.
Tannehill gonna make a lot of people around here look really silly, really soon.
He already did.
Finster, I apologize as my last post was too harsh. I will rstate it.
The point was wrong in fact.
He used the word 'penetration', which as far as I know isn't tracked. Generally it is used in the context of penetration leads to pressures and pressures lead to sacks. There is no reasonable way to mix up 'penetrations' and 'sacks', but I wouldn't be hard on someone mixing up 'penetrations' and 'pressures'.
But when you look at the figures Tannehill's sack per fumble is better than the claimed sack per pressure or sack per penetration rate.
Th point was wrong in interpretation.
He claimed Tannehill's fumble rate was a problem. Firstly not all of a QBs fumbles are due to penetration of the OL. QBs fumbles can be caused by botched snaps, botched handoffs, open field running, not just the pass rush. As far as I can tell there is no publicly available way of measuring the breakdown of each QBs fumbles. I think most people would agree the fumbles caused by the opposing pass rush would probably be in the region of 50 to 75% of a QBs total fumbles. At least half but not more than three quarters. On the easily available information then fumbles per sack is the closest proxy we can use.
Every fumble is a bad thing and in a perfect world your QB would never fumble. But since we live in the real world we have to look at how often the average QB fumbles. Again I couldn't find an easily available database that listed total fumbles by QBs per season. Since we know that the NFL fumble rate has been decreasing over time I thought that that the most relevant sample to get a comparison would be QBs drafted in the same year as Tannehill.
Based on that sample, and reinforced by stats other posters dug up it seems that the average NFL QB fumbles roughly once every 4 sacks. RG3 is a QB with a reputation as having a bad fumbling problem. Tannehill is about as far above average as RG3 is below average.
Saying Tannehill fumbles once every 4 penetrations and that it is a problem is not merely misinformation, it is disinformation.
Finally, In this type of analysis, like a RBs ypc stat, or passer rating, the most important factor is how much better or worse you are than average, not the raw number.
Here's a quick and easy way to see QB's who have fumbled 10 or more times in a season since 2000.
You can also change the parameters.
LOL, I've been offline for a few days so I didn't realize the war I started- sorry about that. I was quoting a 2016 Miami Herald article that said Tannehill had fumbled once every four pressures over that horrible three game span (I'm assuming weeks 3-5 when the line was at its worst). I didn't see that last part though, so I was wrong in making the statement that it has applied to his whole career.
So yup- I was wrong. That's what a man does when he makes a mistake. He admits it and moves on.
With that said, that doesn't mean RT17 didn't have problems protecting the football throughout his career. His pocket presence has always been questionable up until the second half of last season and the few times he's started scrambling early to beat pressure with his legs. Despite what others may say, that's never been 100% on the line and it's still a concern if his knee isn't 100%.
Gase said it himself dozens of times last season, so I'm not sure why this is even a thing here. But like I said earlier, only men admit their mistakes and move on. Children call people names and refuse to see truth in anything but their own opinions. So I'm very relieved that we are mostly all men here.
Thanks for that keyfin. We all make those kind of goofs and I've had my share.
But even then I still don't trust the stat even as it applies to that 4 game stretch. (1) accepting the article got it right: it is the sort of thing where small sample sizes are volatile and not indicatve of long term performance and (2) it isn't a well tracked stat so I would want to see the underlying data of where they got it from. It is so far from normal it doesn't pass the sniff test.
But that's the point, keyfin. RT doesn't have problems protecting the football. His overall rate of fumbling is less than most QB's in the league.
How many fumbles over that three game span? If he only had 12 pressures over that span, which would only be 4 per game, he'd have 3 fumbles. However, I have a hard time believing he's ever had a 3 game span where he's only had 4 pressures per game. So, I find even that stat hard to believe.
He had two fumbles in the end zone if I remember correctly, plus a few more strip sacks in that span. I'll hunt down the article and share it- I want to say it was on the Herald's site so I took the stats at face value. It may not be accurate though- who knows?
One of those fumbles was a snap that went over his head.
So, let's say he had 6 fumbles. That would be only 24 pressures. Do you believe he only had 4 or 5 pressures per game?
You're right- that was the TD, which I wouldn't think would count as a pressure or a QB sack/fumble.
god the media is so dense when it comes to qb play
Brees and Manning I'll buy but Tom Brady is the worst example of a successful QB who was "born to play QB". Brady's career behind center from HS to College was mediocre at best.