Who's the weak link on our Oline. Where are the sacks coming from

 

The line was terrible against the Colts. That has to improve if they want to even think about the playoffs.

 

Playoffs are a pipe dream. team can't beat elite QBs. Aka, teams with a winning record.

 

I don't think it's a total reflection on the Oline, which I do agree needs to start protecting much better. Any rookie QB is going to face more blitzes than a vet QB.

 

It also a reflection on Tannehill's ability to buy more time.

 

I absolutely agree with that. You definitely saw that Luck was escaping our rush via small side steps moves where RT is not there, yet.

 

Peole fail to show the other end of the spectrum. True, our Right side with a rookie in Martin has not been great and Jake has not been himself but if you look at the QBs that have the most time its pretty evident they have two things Tannehill does not have and it has nothing to do with the Oline. Cutler is one of the top QBs in time before being sacked at 4.01 seconds. Nobody on this planet is going to tell me the Bears Oline can even compare to ours. No, 1 Cutler can move and does it well. 2 Cutler has a BIG receiver to throw to, Tannehill doesn't and besides roll outs, the kid is not too mobil. The best one on the list is Wilson from Seattle at 4.05. No receivers to really speak of, average Oline but Russel Wilson is a born runner and moves like Tannehill can never do. Vick, Freeman all the speedy guys are up on top not because they have great Olines but because they can move really good , they are elusive or they have a Larry Fitzgerald or Brandon Marshal that actually get seperation. John Skelton, AZ, their Oline BLOWS they have given up more sacks then anyone in the league ( 41 sacks ) Chicago 28 sacks Green Bay 29 sacks and all of the above mentioned teams QBs STILL have the most time to throw before being sacked so no, it really has nothing to do with Olines because most of the teams, Chicago, Arizona ETC. do not have better Olines then us.

It does though have all to do with the kind of receivers they have and the mobility and/or the experience their QB has. If you take a good look at the list and sit down and digest it most of the top guys all get sacked almost twice as much as Tannehill does. I admit, Martin could be better and so can Long but in reality ? The top guys can all move very well and have receivers that are actually number one type receivers.

 

While both our tackles had poor games I have to say this team needs to start using Bush differently. He certainly is NOT an inside the tackles runner, no way. Yeah he had a few decent good games but by far, he is not an inside runner. Now, get him on the outside in space ? Yep, thats Reggies World. Teams have stacked the box against us all season long knowing our main bread and butter inside runner, Bush, is not an inside runner at all. Shawn Peyton from NO knew that. From what I have seen this staff has not come to that realization thus far. Reggie , in between the tackles, will break loose on a RARE occasion but for the most part, he cannot move a pile and cannot break even an arm tackle when he is in that situation.

 

RT is more accurate the longer he has the ball.

 

Most of the hits and sacks I have seen a good amount of them could be lessoned to avoided if Tannehill was better at working the pocket.

One a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is excellent and 1 is Rob Johnson, I would put Tannehill at 3.

 

My guess is everyone except for Pouncey.

 

Wow, Tannehill is the NFL's 6th best passer (96.5 QBR) at 2.5+ seconds.

 

The tackles have definitely been the weak links in Pass Pro. Not sure you can put it all on them though, as I know there have been some blocking assignments on the blitz pickup missed by RB's. I can recall Bush, Lane and Thomas all missing blitzers causing a sack this year.

 

I disagree with this. His pocket presence has been adequate. Not great, but OK. I'd rate him a 5 or 6 at this point.

 

I would these numbers would be affected by scheme. Not sure how much I can take away here.

 

He's been pretty impressive throwing on the run.

 

Really? You are seeing something I am not. I have seen way to many times when he simply could have moved out of the way to help his offensive line. Plus there have been a few times where he moved himself into being hit.

I have seen little adequate about his pocket presence.

 

I've seen times where he saved his line sacks. I think you're being a little rough on him.

There has to be a correlation between pocket presence and sacks, would you not agree? Tannehill has only been sacked 15 times this year. That's the same number as Russell Wilson, who's #1 on that PFF list OP posted of "Time to Throw".

 

I don't think the line is as bad as people are saying it is. I think pass blocking has been pretty good.

The fact that Rusell Wilson has more "time to Throw" with the same amount of sacks shows that Tannehill has a problem working the pocket. Russell Wilson is pretty good to great at buying more time with working the pocket.

I would put Miami's line as it is right now over the Seahawks in pass blocking.

 

I would say that RT's pocket awareness has been very good. I would also characterize his mobility as very good. Luck was incredible last week, but in general RT does a decent job of moving around in the pocket. Since about week 2 or 3 he noticeably improved in climbing the pocket. I have said that he would be well served to figure out when running for a few yards on his own is the better plan. I also don't agree about the receivers being a big factor here. I do agree that the scheme factors in.

 

Actually, it shows the opposite. Also, the Seahawks use a lot of playaction. You can do that when you have a solid run game (Seattle is 7th in rush yards).

If Miami's line appears better that Seattle's, this can largely be attributed to Tannehill. I don't have to tell you that the quicker your QB releases the ball, the better the O-Line is going to look. Conversely, the longer the QB holds the ball, the higher the chances of a sack.

 

It doesn't show the opposite. How could it?

The offensive line looks better in Seattle, however Miami's is actually better.

 

You have it backwards. Seattle's looks better because it is better.

 

Didnt need them to tell me that… lol

 

I think the sack against the Jets was Martin and Jerry being in a 2 on 3 situation that Tannehill should have seen pre-snap and either rolled out of or threw the ball away hot.

 

Seattle's is not Russell is constantly running for his life. They have a lot of injuries.

 

Our guards are cross-eyed and our tackles act like a bear trap

 

Nope. The injury sack vs the Jets was John Jerry getting confused and blocking Pouncy's guy. Then Pouncy was left doing nothing, while Martin was left having to block 2 guys.

 

We may have won but the Jets really had our Oline scratching their heads for a little while. Rex may suck as a HC but he does things and defense that can confuse the best people even for just a little while.

 

Really Tannehill pocket presence and pocket movement is adequate. I'd like to see him get better, obviously, but considering the expectations we had on Ryan at the beginning of the year, to where he is now, i think people are a bit unreasonable when they continue to ask more of him. He's already way ahead of where many of us were lead to believe he was.

I've seen him make subtle movements, i've seen him step in the pocket, i've seen him buy time for his o-line and for his receivers. Could he get better, sure. Should he improve, specially at feeling blindside pressure, sure.

But also, the o-line needs to improve. Seen them many times get beat of the snap; seen them many times miss blocking assignments; seen them many times make mental errors and make bad decisions.

This team is still a work in progress.

 

I disagree. I think the confusion was on Tannehill. I just watched it again and it's pretty obvious that Pouncey never even looked at the guy Jerry blocked.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000086197/Ryan-Tannehill-injury

 

8 games. He's played 8 games. And at 4-4, I'd say this team has over achieved to this point. Let's let the season play out and go from there. But to strip every aspect of his game down to the smallest of small details is unfair and truth be told, kind of ****ty of the fanbase. We finally have a QB. How about we let him develope and look at him for real in 2 years?

 

That suggest better OL protection could improve our passing attack just as much as a better WR would.

 

You look like you're about to time travel, hehe...Spice must flow, mofo:chuckle:

 

Lebatard went over this new stat, he said it was a fraudulent stat because the good scrambling qb's are skewing the information.

Perhaps if they tweaked the stat to include only plays that ended in the pocket.

Our offensive line has been leaky in spots but never entirely overwhelmed.

Jake will have his Dawson's Creek moment in the offseason. Where he'll re-devote himself and undergo some kung fu training montage where he'll perfect some sort of crab technique.

Martin will be making quantum growth all-around by year two. Probably indirectly due to some sort of Nazi eugenics program back when his dad was the first black man at Harvard.

and me, well let's just say there is a sort of subtle dream-like intertwining that pops up occasionally to give me reprieve. Yeah, I'm talkin' bout the three gameday thread win streak that is typically Pandarilla's signature style...











I know! I can't stand his sodomizing of the ellipsis either!

 

Seattle is running the ball better and has allowed the same amount of sacks. So if Tannehill is making the line look better than it is, why is it a stretch to suggest the Seahawks line is better?

I will say that if Long were playing like the Long of years past there's no question about which line is better, but he isn't.