The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Something I stumbled across when perusing another Dolphins fan forum:


There are a bevy of misconceptions here.

1) The Dolphins' offensive line has been "NFL caliber," and throughout Tannehill's tenure.  What we've been seeing the last two weeks, on the other hand, is perhaps as good as an offensive line can possibly function in the NFL.

2) Tannehill most certainly is the most-sacked QB in the league since 2012 (his rookie year), though to what or whom do we attribute that?  The frequency of pressure the line has surrendered has been non-significantly different from that of the average line in the league.  So when a QB is pressured just as much as the average QB, but is sacked considerably more often than the average QB, who is the likely culprit?

3) The correlation between Tannehill's most important passing numbers (QB rating and YPA) and the number of sacks he's taken, on a game-by-game basis, is very weak.  That suggests that if he were sacked significantly less, his numbers wouldn't improve significantly.  In other words, the relationship between sacks and QB performance for Tannehill is weak.  And that's the case, as well, throughout the league.

And here's the clincher:

4) Let's suppose hypothetically that the Dolphins' offensive line functioning was among the league's best during the past two games.  Tannehill's average QB rating for those games was 98.4.  His career QB rating is 85.4, so by providing Tannehill with perhaps the best possible offensive line functioning in the league (again, hypothetically), we achieve for him a 13-point increase in his QB rating.

QB ratings between 97 and 100 (roughly what Tannehill's done over the past two games) since 2004 (the year the rules were changed to favor the passing game) have been associated with a 136-98 overall record, or a 58 win percentage (roughly six wins out of every 10 games).

Now, let's take a look at what would happen if Russell Wilson -- a QB who's offensive line has surrendered among the league's highest frequencies of pressure during the same period of time (2012-2016) -- was afforded with hypothetically the best offensive line functioning in the league.

Wilson's career QB rating is 100.5.  If we provide Wilson with the offensive line enhancement that would produce the same 13-point increase in his QB rating Tannehill has enjoyed the past two games, Wilson's QB rating would be 113.5.  A 112 to 115 QB rating has been associated with a 112-34 record in the league since 2004, or a 77 win percentage.

So -- again hypothetically -- if you give Tannehill the best offensive line in the league, you attain a win percentage (58%) eight percent better than the league-wide average (50%).  On the other hand, were you to give the likes of Russell Wilson the same offensive line enhancement, you would make your team likely to win 3 out of every four games.

These figures translate to 9-7 (Tannehill) and 12-4 (Wilson) regular season records, respectively.

And this is likely a conservative estimate for Wilson, because again, his offensive line has been considerably worse than Tannehill's.  And so by providing him with the best offensive line functioning in the league, you may very well increase his QB rating even higher than 113.5!

So, when folks say, "if Tannehill only had [insert team enhancement]," they should consider what that would actually do in reality.  That can actually be more or less determined mathematically, and there should be an appreciation of 1) where Tannehill is currently (an 85.4) rating, 2) how poor his line has been in reality (not different from the league average), 3) how much better he actually plays when his line does play significantly better (the last two weeks), and 4) what that would do, if it became consistent, to the team's probability of winning.

Usually none of these considerations are offered.  It's usually only something along the lines of the quote above, which anybody can sit back and say without any effort.

Oh look. Another post from Dolphanalyst bashing Tannehill. You really need to post about something else once in a while or else we are going to be forced to move them to the Anti-Fins section or delete them all together.  I mean this seriously when I say you have an unhealthy need to want people to agree with you in your hatred for Tanny.

With that said your assessment that "The Dolphins' offensive line has been "NFL caliber," and throughout Tannehill's tenure" is so outrageous that nothing stated after that is even remotely relatable.

As I've said since his rookie year, this is the huge missing piece in Tannehill's game:


http://dailydolphin.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2016/11/03/run-ryan-miami-dolphins-tannehill-learns-how-and-when-to-run/

This is the main difference between Tannehill and Russell Wilson.

To me, these are mainly coaching issues. Tannehill has had pretty bad coaching, if we are to believe what has been said (e.g. no way to change out of a bad play, no real input into game plans or play selections, etc.). Play selection has been extremely limited under at least some of his four offensive coordinators (perhaps because they never stuck around for more than a  season?). He was also asked NOT to run in his first year, despite appearing to want to. I don't think any of us fans are blind to the increased injury risks, but it seems like we've all been wanting to see more runs (designed or not) from him ever since... well, the beginning.

This raises the questions, at what point is it too late to change much with coaching? Is it ever? Certainly, there are issues with habits and overcoming them is never trivial. Just read the comments from Ja'Wuan James on trying to adapt to a new blocking scheme, or look at the issues Maxwell has been having trying to playing something other than Cover 3.

This is why I've never closed the book on Tannehill.  He certainly has the ability to move, and move well.  He just needs to do on a regular basis what he did against Buffalo, in terms of being aware of and evading pressure with movement.

There are far more plays to be made from the QB position than he's made during his career, and those plays are both 1) ones he can make simply by running when no one is open, and 2) ones he makes downfield after buying himself and his receivers more time with his movement and evasion of pressure.

It's easy to watch someone play and see what he's doing, but one needs also to consider what he's not doing, or what you aren't seeing.

Tannehill is not the answer long term, unless he makes a miraculous turnaround by season's end.  I've seen enough of him that if they were draft or trade for someone else after this season, I'm ok with it.

I truly have no faith in him to lead the Phins back from a deficit late in the game or make the throws when the game is on the line.  Yes, the BUF game he did lead them back, but did he really or was more so the running of Ajayi that broke that game open for them?

Throws yesterday that stick out in mind:
1.  3rd and 5 from NYJ 15  R.Tannehill pass incomplete short left to M.Gray
I hate to think that was the playcall to go to his 1st read.  he didn't even look at anyone else, he was going there from the get go.  Gray was blanketed and was still on the line of scrimmage & wouldn't have gained a yard

2.  3rd and 2 at NYJ 6 R.Tannehill pass incomplete short right to J.Ajayi
OMG This was almost returned for a Pick 6  Tannehill was going here the WHOLE time and didn't even sell it downfield, so damn lucky here it's not even funny. 

3. 3rd and 4 at NYJ 49 R.Tannehill pass incomplete deep left to L.Carroo
Carroo got behind the Jets secondary and this should have been an easy pitch & catch and a way to put the Phins in comfortable situation.  Camera pans to Tannehill walking off the field chuckling to himself. WTF?  Seriously.

In all cases, these are plays that a rookie or 2nd yr QB makes.  NOT a 5th guy under center.

I can't stress how much MIA Off Line and Ajayi's running game has masked Tannehill's shortcomings. I know there has been reference to Alex Smith, but Smith is at least smarter and can make the throws when he has to.  RT cannot and will not.

These are all good points, but then again Tannehill threw a beautiful pass to Damien Williams down the sideline for a long gain.  Perhaps that's why it's so tough to give up on him.  He does have lots of tools.

Is there anyone here who didn't breathe a sigh of relief when Kenyan Drake returned the kickoff for the touchdown, thereby lifting the burden on Tannehill to drive the team down the field for the go-ahead score relatively late in the game?

That's perhaps your measure of your comfort with Tannehill as a QB, and your underlying belief in his effectiveness.  Do you want the game in his hands, or not?

The Alex Smith comparison is a good one.  When he's had a good running game and a good defense, his teams have been highly competitive and have come fairly close to the Super Bowl.

But what would you rather have, a QB who's presence alone puts you into Super Bowl contention more often that not, by virtue of his own play, or one who needs rare and unlikely levels of talent around him for the team to be as competitive?

This is the third game in a row the Dolphins have won, and notice that in each Tannehill has functioned within an Alex Smith-esque, game manager role.

We have a supposed "QB whisperer" head coach, who was brought here and paid a hefty salary to get the most out of Ryan Tannehill, and after five games and a 1-4 record, we have Tannehill's use modified significantly and relegated to a game manager role, which then produces a three-game win streak.

Does that not say it all?

I did breathe a huge sigh of relief (and hey, maybe Ryan did too) when Kenyan ran that KO back for the TD, the lead and ultimately the win.

You are right about the throw to Damien Williams, but the problem is these are not always consistent and the bad throws outweigh the good throws.

Don't get me wrong, I WANT him to succeed, he has what seems like the tools to get it done, big guy, above avg arm, can take the hits, etc.  I keep waiting for that "light bulb to go off" and him realize "I got this"

If he was more consistent, and with the recent play of Ajayi and a healthy OL, this team would be going places.  Let's hope this good winning feelings continue on the West Coast next week vs Chargers.

Let's Go Phins!!!!

An article from the Herald about Tannehill's new game manager role:


http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/nfl/miami-dolphins/article112970453.html#storylink=cpy

If Tannehill continues to play this way in this role, he's going to also have to continue to threw very few interceptions.  He's thrown zero during the three-game win streak, after throwing seven during the first five games of the year, which was among the worst stretches of his career in that regard.

If you look at Alex Smith's most successful seasons, he had very low interception rates those seasons.

If your quarterback's talent necessitates a game manager role, where the other parts of the team (running game, defense) have responsibility for winning games, then the QB has to make damned sure not to lose games by throwing interceptions.

Bad decision, but if the offensive lineman (think it was James) had done ANYTHING to touch his man, the receiver would have been completely open.


You need to watch more football. Every game I watch, I see top quarterbacks making a handful of bad decisions a game. Happens all the time.

The story of this game was the offensive line. It completely set the tone (or lack of it) by getting dominated. Our running backs were getting hit in the backfield on all but a few carries. Tannehill had NO time to throw and the game was called accordingly. I don't particularly like that decisions; I really think the Dolphins should have tried to go (medium) long some more, particularly early. Ju'Wuan James had a horrible game. He was getting beat on pretty much every play 1-on-1.

There were some scheme issues as well. Several safety and linebacker blitzes were not picked up and came through untouched. That's gotta change. I'd have to go back and see who was supposed to pick it up, but considering we had someone in the backfield on almost every play, someone almost certainly messed up. That has to be addressed or things are going to go very, very wrong.

I love that we finally have a power back again, because then at least all those tackles for a loss are coupled with a few breakthroughs.

This is what happens, however, when a running back rushes for over 200 yards in consecutive games.  The next team is going to gear up physically and emotionally to defend the run, and if they have any semblance of talent in their run defense (and the Jets do), the outcome will likely be what we saw.

Remember that there is another team out there, with its own talents, emotions, and motivations.  We can't always blame things on what's happening within our own team.

Like I said before this game, this was likely going to be a game in which the Dolphins had to reverse their recent offensive trend by using the passing game to offset the Jets' emphasis on stopping the run.

The problem, however, is that the Dolphins don't have much of a passing game, and so you can get what you saw Sunday -- an opposing team that can sell out to stop one dimension of the offense, and has the talent do so relatively successfully.

The Dolphins won this game because they had a 2-0 turnover margin, and because Kenyan Drake accounted for the seven points the passing offense would've needed to generate (but couldn't) to win.

Change either of those things -- the turnover margin or Drake's return -- and the Dolphins likely lose, simply because they couldn't counter the Jets' run defense with an effective passing game.

Remember, you have to relegate Ryan Tannehill to the role of a game manager to get him to stop throwing interceptions at a clip of seven over five games, or else you don't enjoy 2-0 turnover margins like this one, and you don't win games like these.

The consequence, however, is that you have a weak and non-explosive passing game.

This game was unfortunately a preview of what you'd likely see from the Dolphins in the playoffs, where they'd face teams with stout run defenses and couldn't just march over them with the run game as they did in the two games prior to the Jets.  They'd be forced to win the game through the air, and a QB with the talent of only a game manager is going to have trouble doing that.

This is typically where the game manager QB falters -- in the playoffs, where QBs often have to win games, not just manage them.

But that's not (just) what they did. Their defenders didn't just stop the run, they dominated to the extent that they owned our backfield. You can't have a passing game with that kind of pressure.

The kind of pressure brought by the Jets should leave them open downfield, but there was almost never any TIME for Tannehill to let the play develop enough that he could throw it downfield. Our receivers were also having major problems getting separation. If you watch this game again, notice how easily Revis follows Landry downfield. Part of that was because he (Revis) gave some cushion at the line, but the Dolphins / Tannehill didn't really try and get the ball out quickly to Landry to force him closer to the line.

It also didn't help that Stills, our supposed deep threat, was sick from the get-go and didn't see the field after halftime. Stills got an IV before the game, but apparently it wasn't enough and he clearly wasn't feeling well.

This was exactly the type of game that the team hasn't figured out how to handle offensively and the number of 3rd and long plays was ridiculous. Much of that was on ineffective running on 1st and 2nd down. If you keep finding yourself in 3rd and long, that's setting your quarterback up for trouble.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled the Dolphins won the game, but NOTHING was working offensively until that last drive when the Jets seemed to break. Not the running game, not the passing game. And much of that was on the offensive line getting completely dominated. Very rarely do you win games when your offensive line gets its collective ass handed to itself like that. Very rarely.

God you people are miserable. Fins win 3 in a row and you aren't happy because they didn't look pretty enough in your eyes.

I swear some of you hope they lose just so you can bitch more. Im not even sure some of you are actual fans

So then that sort of analysis begs the question:  why don't defenses throughout the league bring that sort of pressure on every play, against every team?

If the result is penetration into the opposing backfield such that the opposing team can't run and has no time to throw downfield, why not do it all the time?

Do you want to win just three games, or a Super Bowl?

If in the midst of winning three games you see weaknesses that Super Bowl winners don't typically exhibit, it may color your optimism a bit.

Well, incorrect usage of logical fallacy aside, the Jets were the #1 ranked defense against the run (depending on metric) and the team with the most stuffed runs, so clearly they have been able to get into the backfield. They haven't really been getting sacks, though, it's pretty much hard penetration all along the line, but without a lot of outside speed rushing. So if you have an offensive line that can protect the quarterback long enough for the play to develop, you don't really need to keep a bunch of tight ends and running backs in to help block and you can hurt them in the passing game.

With the Dolphins soft offensive line, the decision was made (as it was last week) to give the line a bunch of help with tight ends, extra linemen, running backs. That makes it easy for the Jets secondary to handle the limited receivers and the penetration that occurred anyway allowed them to be physical in coverage without risking getting beat on double moves or plays that take a long time to develop.

That's not going to work on a team with a better offensive line.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about how good the Dolphins' offensive line is.

You can't trot four first-round draft picks and a former Pro-Bowler at left tackle (Bushrod) out there, spend three weeks talking about how well the team and Tannehill play when they're all healthy and playing together, rush for 200 yards in consecutive games (fourth time that's been done in NFL history), and then suddenly claim they're inadequate when the going gets tough.

The more likely explanation is that the weakness lies elsewhere.

By that logic, Jay Ayayi must have played poorly, 'cause he had a very rough game.

It's simple math. When you have four guys trying to get by your five guys, that should give the quarterback a bit of time. If you keep another guy in to help, that should result in plenty of time for your quarterback to throw and space for your running back to at least reach the line of scrimmage. If you keep two-tree guys in and you still have your running back hit in the backfield, then that's just not good enough.

Before this game, Ayayi had about twice the league average against "8 in the box" looks and he had great numbers for yards after contact.

I'm thrilled the Dolphins won the game, but I am worried that the Jets provided a template other teams can use to beat the Dolphins. On the other hand, the Jets are really good at stopping the run and, considering it's been five years since the last Dolphins' home win (Matt Moore with a 60-something passer rating in an ugly New Years day win where the Dolphins were outgained by something like 50% in total yardage), the Jets are just a bad matchup for some reason. So hopefully the template is more "be the Jets" and not just "do like the Jets".

It's entirely possible that a running back can have a poor game because a team's passing game is unable to make the opposing defense play honest enough against the pass to open up the run game.


From where did you obtain the information I bolded above (i.e., how many players were kept in to block, and how often; how many defenders were in the box, and how often)?

I would've given the source, had I been able to remember it. I'll try and find it... I do remember that it was specifically about Ayayi and not a list of all running backs (sadly). There aren't that many *real* sources of raw data and they are mostly pay-walled, but my source was almost certainly not the original source of the data.

(The original source was probably ESPN. I've found similar numbers on other players (and older Ajayi numbers) that cited ESPN as the source.)

Interesting that Omar graded Tannehill out as a B for the Jets game. He is far from being a fan of his but he put things in perspective.

Passing game: B+

Ryan Tannehill continued his streak of putting together efficient performances, completing 17-of-28 passes for 149 yards and a touchdown (86.8 passer rating). While that stat line doesn’t seem impressive, keep in mind he had a respectable day while playing with only one healthy starting receiver (Jarvis Landry) and a pair of backup tight ends. The biggest area of improvement Tannehill has showcased the past few weeks is improved pocket presence, which led to him being sacked only once.

I don't know if Kelly chose his words poorly or he's just uniformed about the matter, but the measure of passing efficiency is yards per pass attempt (YPA), and Tannehill's was a woeful 5.3 against the Jets.

I do agree about the improved pocket presence, however.  Interesting how sacks decrease when pocket presence improves.

I never knew that The Measure of passing efficiency is YPA.
So why does passer rating exist?

[edit: reverted change]

Passer rating has within it the component of efficiency (YPA), but there are also the components of TDs and interceptions, which don't necessarily have anything to do with efficiency.

The measure of efficiency for a running back is yards per carry, but obviously that can have little to do with touchdowns or fumbles lost.

So touchdowns, interceptions, and completion percentage are all irrelevant when talking about passing efficiency... it's YPA, and that's it.

Your innovative new approach to evaluating quarterbacks provides for some very entertaining conclusions.

They aren't winning the super bowl this year. They have had probably no or only a couple 3 game winning streaks the past 5-10 years. Just be happy they are winning .

Plus watch the rest of the league, every team has issues. People want perfection and they get upset with "good" these days. Nobody can just be happy with winning anymore. It's all style points and fans let 1 or 2 bad plays in a game even that you win piss ya off.

Some of ya all are just miserable

The fact that you consider this "my innovative new approach" is indicative of how well-read you are in the area, i.e., minimally if at all.

You just can't stop embarrassing yourself, can you? ;)

You're the one saying that yards-per-attempt is THE ONLY measurement of passing efficiency.

One would presume that a well-read person would be able to support such a claim.  It seems to me that you're the only person I've ever seen make that ridiculous claim.

Just to clarify your position here, according to your given metric for passing efficiency:

- an incompletion and an interception have precisely equal efficiency
- a 3-yard passing TD is significantly less efficient than a 9-yard pass

Pass efficiency within the NFL analytics community starts and stops with how many yards a QB is getting per throw, as efficiency is defined as the ratio of production to effort if you will.  A QB is more efficient if he gets more yards (production) on fewer attempts (effort).

In fact, there are folks who believe, and with good reason, that the very best measure of QB play is YPA (pass efficiency), since things like TDs can be accounted for by other factors (a 95-yard run, followed by a tackle at the one yard line and a one-yard TD pass, for example), and interceptions are too random for their taste (the correlation between first half and second half of the season interceptions is relatively weak across QBs, which suggests such randomness).

So, again, I don't know if Kelly was choosing his words poorly, but quarterback efficiency, within the NFL analytics community, typically refers only to YPA.  That's not to say there aren't other valuable measures, just that they aren't exactly efficiency alone, per se.

Now, if you want to broaden this analysis of Tannehill's play against the Jets to QB rating and not just efficiency, then he fared at only a mediocre level there, as well, as a QB rating in the mid-80s is merely average in the NFL.  There is certainly nothing special about a QB rating in the mid-80s.

That's just not accurate. Passing Efficiency has been used for decades as, among other things, synonymous with passer rating, particular in college football.

But don't take my word for it, check out NCAA's site:

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/individual/8

So measuring interceptions is too random to be a reliable metric, but measuring YPA (which includes yards gained by the receiver after the catch) is a perfectly legitimate indicator of a quarterback's efficiency.

Highly entertaining analysis.

Again, I'm talking about the terminology the analytics community typically uses nowadays, which tends to be more precise in my opinion (i.e., "efficiency" means only one's production to effort ratio, and not other things).

But let's not lose the forest for the trees here.  This back-and-forth was started by what Omar Kelly wrote above, which in my opinion is just plainly off-base.  Tannehill's game in terms of efficiency was nothing special, no matter how you define it, and if you define it the way the analytics folks do (with YPA alone), it was downright poor.

Still waiting for that citation from "the analytics community" on how THE MEASURE of passing efficiency is defined as YPA.
Note: "some folks say" is not a citation

You're welcome to do that research on your own, since I'm not being paid here, but let me ask you this:  what does all this have to do with what Omar Kelly said?

What we're looking for is a measure of a QB's dispositional (as opposed to situational) playing ability, and so random factors obviously don't lend themselves to dispositional conclusions.  Yards after the catch, however, don't vary enough from QB to QB to detract from YPA's ability to measure QBs' ability over the long haul.

That said, no measure is perfect, but you should probably learn something before you make a conclusion about what's "entertaining" and what isn't, since, again, you're only embarrassing yourself.

Omar Kelly said Tannehill was performing efficiently.
You claimed that such a statement exposed Kelly's ignorance, as the only measure of efficiency is YPA.
You then claimed that the analytics community has coalesced on this position, and implied that I, too, was ignorant for suggesting otherwise.

But now that the utter folly of such a position has been exposed (here's a hint: if your metric says that incompletions and interceptions are equally efficient, it's garbage), now you want to try to pivot?

Your best option at this point is to silently chalk this thread up as an L and hope everyone forgets about it.  Of course, if you want to try back up your claim that THE MEASURE of passing efficiency is YPA - again, your entire basis for rebutting Kelly in the first place - I'm happy to watch you attempt to do so.  I'm sure you can provide some more useful quotable material in the process of going down with this particular ship.

Kelly is rebuttable no matter how you define efficiency, and don't look now, but that's the ship you're on. ;)

Interesting recent article here:


(http://a.espncdn.com/i/infographics/20161111_cowboysrunning/passprotection.png)

Notice that in the image above (and I have no idea why these get copied over so large), the best team in the league in terms of percentage of passing plays in which the offensive line controls the line of scrimmage is just 4.5% better than the average team in the league.

If we assume a normal distribution (which is a logical assumption in this case), then the league ranges from roughly 43.9% (worst) to 52.9% (best) with regard to the percentage of passing plays in which a team's offensive line controls the line of scrimmage.

The point is that offensive lines throughout the league don't vary a great deal, and so there is less room for improvement for any one team than one might think.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18016146/how-dak-prescott-ezekiel-elliott-cowboys-shredding-defenses-2016-nfl

^ The image gets "copied over so large" because the image IS so large. ESPN simply asks the browser to scale it on their site, which is a bit lazy (and inefficient), but considering the amount of video one is spammed with on ESPN, the effect is likely negligible.

It's also entirely possible that the (small) variation in offensive line play in the post I made just above is more a function of how often teams are in obvious passing situations (3rd and long and/or down big on the scoreboard) than it is a function of player talent on the offensive line.

Obviously when an opposing defense knows a team has to pass, it can sell out against the pass, making the offensive line's job that much harder.

If true, that would suggest that offensive line play is more a function of talent elsewhere on the team (offense and defense) than it is talent on the actual offensive line.

So again, offensive line play can be affected by play elsewhere, whereas during the Tannehill era the belief seems to be that the relationship between offensive line and QB play is only unidirectional, such that the offensive line affects the QB and not vice-versa.

**cough** straw man **cough**

I'd challenge you to find a single post in this forum since 2012 (that wasn't one of mine) in which it was suggested that Tannehill's play affects the offensive line.

Conversely, if you were to compile all of the posts during that time period that mentioned the offensive line's effect on Tannehill, you'd be quite busy. ;)

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-mia-sd-grades/

I don't expect any QB to be that good every week, but this kind of downfield passing game is what the offense needs to be successful when defenses key on stopping Jay Ajayi, and what Ajayi needs to open up the run game for him.

Since you cited PFF:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-ten-mia-grades/

Quarterback grade:  Ryan Tannehill, 76.7

Tannehill performs well despite loss

The headline coming out of this game will be how poorly the Dolphins’ performed, likely followed by questions of whether or not Ryan Tannehill should continue to be the starter. While Tannehill may not be lifting the offense as expected, he actually played above-average against the Titans, especially considering that he was under pressure on 66.7 percent of his dropbacks. The late interception resulted from the offensive line not giving Tannehill time in the pocket, as he was hit on the pass, causing the ball to sail. While Tannehill might not be the best QB in the league, he is playing better than most will give him credit for.

PFF rated Tannehill only 1.7 points better in the SD game than in the TEN game, assigning most of the team's problems to the Dolphins' OL ("Offensive line struggles immensely against Titans’ D-line").  In fact, in the TEN game, his passer rating was an unimpressive 62.3, but his YPA was 10.9... higher than the 10.0 he posted against SD.

How, exactly, would you say one should make sense of the following data?

Opp.    NFL rating     YPA     PFF rating
TEN     63.7             10.9    76.7
PIT      97.4             7.9     82.4
BUF     99.4             8.2     74.2
NYJ     86.8             5.3     46.4
SD      130.6           10.0    78.4

The correlations between PFF's rating and the other variables mentioned above are the following (I added ESPN's QBR below):

YPA:  0.77
QB Rating:  0.23
QBR:  0.23

So what you see there are very weak correlations between PFF's ratings and both QB rating and QBR.  The 0.77 correlation between PFF's ratings and YPA is very strong, on the other hand.

If you believe that PFF's ratings have validity, then this is a good result for you, as there are folks who believe that YPA is the single best measure of QB play because it's contaminated least by factors attributable to other parts of a team.

What's interesting about the post I made above is that, according to PFF, Tannehill enjoyed as they call it "a clean pocket" on 15 of his 26 pass dropbacks, or nearly 58% of them.  According to ESPN, the best team in the league in that regard (i.e., a clean pocket) achieves clean pockets on roughly 53% of its pass dropbacks.  So, the Dolphins' offensive line played quite well on passing plays yesterday.

However, the counterintuitive result from yesterday, again according to PFF, is that Tannehill performed better on the pass dropbacks in which he was pressured than on the ones in which he wasn't.  It's difficult to reconcile that with the belief that Tannehill needs better offensive line play to play better himself.

What it suggests, rather, is that he needs to continue to play well in the face of pressure, since pressure happens on pass dropbacks roughly 47% of the time, even for the best team in the league in that regard.

Based on YPA, Tannehill's best game that stretch was the one in which he posted the worst passer rating by far; a game in which the OL played incredibly poorly and the offense was completely inept.  Yet in that same stretch, PFF had Tannehill's best game as the one with his second-worst YPA.

Tannehill had only one poor game in that stretch in terms of YPA, and that was New York.  The rest ranged from above average (7.9) to exceptional (10.3).  So the game in which he had his second-worst YPA (7.9) wasn't bad at all in terms of YPA.

The problem I have with PFF's ratings is that we have no idea what they're based on.

The "huge key" of having been sacked only three times in those four games again tends to get people off into the wild goose chase of attributing Tannehill's play to the offensive line, whereas 1) the game-to-game correlation between sacks and QB rating throughout his career is weak (i.e., he's had a fair number of games in which he was sacked far more times and had a high QB rating nonetheless, as well as a fair number of games in which he was sacked minimally and had a low QB rating nonetheless), and 2) the three sacks in four games mentioned could just as easily be attributable to improved awareness and evasion of pressure on his part, i.e., his playing the position better.

BTW, Tannehill's 91.3 QB rating, if it continues, will be the second time in his career he's had an above-average QB rating.  It's not significantly above-average, but it is nonetheless.

Really the best sign from the game yesterday in my opinion is that he put together all of the elements of the position -- aggressive downfield passing (YPA = 10), accuracy (70.8%), ball protection (0 INTs), and passing well under pressure (QB rating under pressure was 155).  It was a complete game.

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/barry-jackson/article114720223.html#storylink=cpy

My only comment on Tannehill and the O-line this week is going to be to note that DVOA is going to *kill* Tannehill for the 3rd and long strip sack despite it being 100% on Branden Albert. The sack was helpfully timed by the CBS crew and happened in 2.38 seconds. Getting hit that quickly is always really bad, but on a long drop back, it's a killer. Especially when it happens on the outside and Albert doesn't even get in position to allow Tannehill to step up. Blind-side strip sack. Even a few tenths more and *maybe* Tannehill has a chance to step up into the pocket. Overall, I suspect DVOA will give Tannehill an solid game since he did complete 70+% of his throws, threw 2 touchdowns, 10 yards per attempt, the first down run, and 11 first downs by passing. Still, DVOA counts a fumble as half a turnover, plus the sack will cost as well, so it's going to cost.

I keep meaning to rewatch all of Tannehill's plays and note how he does in different situations. Historically, he's been *elite* when flushed/bootleg and the numbers have felt pretty good this year as well. Certainly in this game he made a lot happen on the plays where he got away from the offensive line. Historically, he's been pretty bad at quick outs from the pocket and I have a feeling that he's still not looking great in that area.

And, not to excuse Rivers, but he played a lot better than his numbers (traditional or DVOA) will show. His receivers were dropping balls all over the place and not making the proper reads.

And that may be true, but that's problematic with regard to DVOA's validity only if either or both of the following are true:  1) the formula associated with that play is applied unequally among QBs across the league by the folks at Football Outsiders (i.e., when it happens to Tannehill, it's counted against him, but when it happens to Tom Brady for example, he's given a pass), and/or 2) those sorts of plays happen significantly more frequently for some teams than others over the long haul.

The first of those two possibilities is exactly why subjectively determined statistics can be problematic.  It would take superhuman abilities (which none of us have) not to apply subjective appraisal formulas unequally across QBs.  And if that happens to a sufficient degree, then any distinctions among QBs, i.e., the sorts of rankings of them we see all the time, are invalid.

Also, we know that ESPN's QBR involves the appraisal of QB pressure and divides responsibility for the outcomes of plays on the basis of it.  Tannehill had the 10th-best QBR in the league this year at San Diego, so one may prefer that statistic.

There are still more than a few subjective elements to QBR, there is an egregious win-bias, and there's a whole boat-load we don't know anything about, because ESPN haven't shared that information. The bottom line is that, while Tannehill scores well this time around on QBR, I cannot consider it significantly less subjective than, e.g., PFF or Bleacher Reports play-analysis grades (where care *is* taken to apply a consistent standard, although it (like QBR) has subjective elements).

As for quick sacks vs slow sacks, there is absolutely no question that this happens to some quarterbacks more than others. FO themselves did a study and for the season they looked at, no quarterback had more of these quick sacks than Tannehill. Unfortunately, no one publishes weekly sack times, so we're left to wonder at magnitude of the effect.

I don't mean to sound combative, but even the variable of quick versus slow sacks likely has variance attributable to things other than the offensive line.  A couple come to mind immediately:  1) how often teams are in obvious passing situations, which lets opposing defenses tee off on the offensive line and the passer, and 2) how well QBs recognize blitzers pre-snap and evade them post-snap.

Personally I come back, once again, to the idea that there is very little variation across the league in how often teams produce a "clean pocket" for the QB (i.e., ESPN's study I mentioned above).  When that's the case, it becomes difficult for me to attribute differences in QB play to offensive lines.  There just isn't the variance in offensive line play needed to account for the variance in QB play.

There is next to nothing a quarterback can do to evade a sack that happens after 2.38 seconds on a long drop with the blind side tackle getting beat 1-on-1 by his guy. This wasn't because of a blitz, this was just Albert getting beat badly, resulting in a strip-sack.

The ESPN study you linked doesn't come to the same conclusions that you do, doesn't state what its objective criteria were, and doesn't consider what kind of help the offensive line had in keeping the pocket clean.

One of the problems we continuously face is that there are no good, objective measures of line play. Sack speed would be one possible objective measure. For run-blocking you could look at avg running back yards before first contact. ESPN and PFF both chart the latter, but neither make the numbers available.

Right, and so on that particular play, the quick sack was attributable to the offensive line.  That doesn't mean all or even the majority of quick sacks are attributable to offensive lines.  At best it's a variable with multiple sources of variance, the degree of each is unknown.


I don't need ESPN to tell me that less than 10% variance between the best and the worst team in the league in terms of frequency of clean pockets is comparatively miniscule.

But yes, as with the point I'm making with regard to "quick sacks," there are likely multiple sources of variance with regard to the frequency of clean pockets provided.


Yes that's an issue.  And it's also an issue that quarterback play is weakly related to the measures we do have, such as sacks and frequency of QB pressure.

Everything in football is a variable with multiple sources of variance, each of unknown magnitude. The same argument could be made about a quarterback throwing an incomplete. Was that a bad throw? Bad route? Something else?


With no methodology, no "time" resolution, and no differentiation between a 6 and 8 man rush, or between 5 offensive linemen and max protect, the vague ESPN numbers are fairly useless.

Ding Ding Ding

For small sample sizes that's true, but there must be some way we arrive at the conclusion that a player is "good," and that's done intuitively via larger sample sizes.  At that point it becomes possible to tease apart the various influences on his play.

Nobody is still wondering whether Dan Marino was good, for example, and concluding that "there were indeterminable sources of variation in his play, each of unknown magnitude, and so we really have no idea how good he was."

Should be interesting this week to see how Tannehill performs with Albert and possibly Pouncey out.  I suspect that his success will hinge on how well he continues to move in response to pressure.

It depends on how much time he has to move. Our o-line doesn't just struggle. At times it doesn't even slow down the opposition. Fortunately it isn't Thomas and Turner as the back-ups.

Right, but he also needs to understand that he'll be working without one and possibly two starting offensive linemen, and so moving in response to pressure should be more at the forefront of his mind than usual.

This is the same thing that should happen for him when he's in an obvious passing situation in game and more likely to face increased pressure that possibly overwhelms the offensive line.

There are times when a QB can devote more of his attention downfield, and other times when he should devote more of it to what's going on with the pass rush.  This of course is called "situational awareness," and is part of playing the quarterback position.  Anybody who hopes to play the position well needs it.

Just did a little research here:  teams that have had a QB whose rating was between 128.6 and 132.6 have had an 80-9 record since 2004, the year the league changed the rules to favor the passing game.

That's a 90% likelihood of winning.  Gives you an idea of just how tremendous Tannehill's game (QB rating of 130.6) was last week.

Obviously when you get that kind of performance from your QB, you're very unlikely to lose.

I just did some research and 100% of the teams that scored more points than their opponent won the game. Can you believe that? Seems like it's pretty important to score more points than your opponent. Course that goes back pre 2004 when they changed the rules for QB's. I'm not really sure what the stat is since 2004 because everything changed then.

Sure thing, and when your QB has a rating between 128.6 and 132.6, you're 90% likely to do so.

See if you can find me a statistic that gives a team anywhere near as strong a likelihood of winning.

Oh, and don't look now, but points are statistics as well.  When you score more points than your opponent, you've won yet another statistical battle. ;)

The funny thing is that it doesn't matter HOW MANY points you score, only that you score MORE. Interesting. That would tend to suggest that you can go 16-0 only averaging 3 points a game. That can't be right. I'll have to check that. In any event I'm sure that's not correct since 2004 when they changed the rules for QB's.

Check on the likelihood of it while you're at it, since I prefer to deal with probabilities. ;)

From premium (i.e., paid) content at Football Outsiders:


According to the above criteria, the 2015 Dolphins were pressured on 28.2% of their offensive plays.  The league average in that regard was 26%, with a standard deviation of 4%, and so the 2015 Dolphins were not significantly different from the average team in the league in that regard.

The 2016 Dolphins have been pressured on 16.9% of their offensive plays.  The league average has been 16.95%.

Since Ryan Tannehill arrived in the league in 2012, I still have yet to see a purported quantitative measure of offensive line play that both 1) establishes the Dolphins as a standard deviation or more worse than the average team in the league, and 2) is strongly correlated with either quarterback play in general in the league, or Ryan Tannehill's play game-to-game.

Look, you are arguing that the sky is yellow. Watch a football game. Look at what the influence of the offensive line is. It affects EVERYTHING. (And, you know what, it's just blind luck that this Miami Dolphins offensive line hasn't gotten their quarterback concussed yet.) And because the offensive line affects everything, separating out the effects is neigh impossible. Short of actually breaking down game tape, there's just no way to get a good offensive line statistic.

You're arguing essentially what a team would look like if it had no offensive line whatsoever (which would obviously produce tremendous variation), and I'm arguing what the lines throughout the league actually look like in reality.

There's very little variation among them.  Certainly too little to explain anywhere near the variance we see elsewhere.

Yes, if a team had no offensive line whatsoever, then downplaying the effect of the (absent) offensive line would be the equivalent of saying the sky is yellow.

But when there is very little variation among lines throughout the league, then downplaying the effect of them on the much bigger differences we see in other parts of teams is hardly as delusional.  In fact it's sensible.

Circular reasoning for the win.

As I stated, just look at a bunch of game tape. Look at the Dolphins line when healthy and when playing with their backups. They kept in two tight ends and a running back to block on most plays, leaving just 3 players running routes. That hamstrung the passing game even without any actual pressure on Tannehill.

I'm not going to keep arguing this with you until you provide a credible statistic for evaluating the offensive line. I've seen a couple that might do well in highlighting certain aspects of o-line play, but they depend on (objective) data that isn't readily available.

That's just the point -- no one can produce one that doesn't suggest there is miniscule variation among the lines across the league.

ESPN.com identifies the plays teams run as a function of the personnel groupings you mentioned (2 tight ends, etc.).

I'm certainly not going to comb through the entire league and do this, but a quick look at a comparison between the Dolphins and Cowboys (who seemingly have the consensus best offensive line in the league) in 2016 reveals the following:

Dolphins:  324 passing plays, 44 (14%) with 2 or 3 TE sets; 244 (75%) with a lone setback; 67 (21%) with 4 WRs.
Cowboys:  332 passing plays, 38 (11%) with 2 or 3 TE sets; 216 (65%) with a lone setback; 107 (32%) with 4 WRs.

The biggest variation there (roughly 10%) is in plays run with a lone setback and with 4 WRs.

However, when we drill that down a bit, we find that the Dolphins have run roughly 32 passing plays a game, and the Cowboys 33.

If we consider theoretically that the roughly 10% difference in lone setback and 4 WR formations represents the difference in the strength of the two teams' offensive lines, thus permitting more players to be put in pass routes versus protecting the quarterback, we find that the Cowboys are able to put more personnel in pass routes on an average of roughly only 3 passing plays per game.

Again, this variation among offensive lines you're implying exists just isn't found anywhere numerically.

fyo, it turns out that the offensive line, unlike every other unit on the team, really doesn't make any difference!
Groundbreaking stuff.

When all you can do is caricature someone's position, it suggests you have no adequate rebuttal.  Thanks for letting us know. ;)

Well, after you've set your standard for rebuttal (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=24456.msg339824#msg339824) at "well, I suspect the supporting cast for the player we are discussing is probably average, so your point is therefore erroneous and misleading," it's hard to work up the effort for a more detailed response.

Everyone and everything is probably average at nearly everything until proven otherwise.  Welcome to the real world.

...you said in response to an article attempting to provide proof that Tannehill's supporting cast is below average.

This is why I don't bother putting much effort into these responses to you.  I see the amount of effort that FO put into their article (and fyo put into his analysis) and you come back with this "Yeah, but they're probably still average anyway so that article is wrong" nonsense without even a pretense of trying to support that claim.

If it weren't inappropriate, I'd be rolling around grasping my sides. Or throwing up. Or just giving up.

Seriously, I'm not going to do this 10 times every single week. Go watch some football. Have you heard of a guy called Jason Witten? He's a tight end for the Dallas Cowboys. He has 49 receptions this year (more than 50% more than all Dolphins TEs combined). Do you think it's possible tight ends don't always perform the same function in an offense? How often do you think Witten stays in to block compared to Gray / Sims / Jones? That is the relevant statistic, not the number of tight ends on the field in this age of the receiving tight end.

The problem is that you're placing credence in the article's position without holding it to an appropriate standard of supporting its own claim.

Claims aren't supported by "effort apparent to Spider-Dan."  They're supported by the appropriate rigor with regard to the material.

If you tell me I might be persuaded.

Please, tell me, and allow me to verify that with something more objective and definitive than "go watch a game" or "because I said so."

You're the one saying the sky is green. Your claim that offensive lines are basically all the same, with very little variation, and thus no net effect on the outcome of games is beyond preposterous.

Dolfanalyst, if you think my responses have lacked effort so far, that was before I knew that you seriously consider "I suspect that if we dig deeper, we will find that the players in question are about average" a devastatingly effective rebuttal that simultaneously 1) requires no further evidence and 2) swiftly trivializes opposing evidence given.

I thought I caught you in a hole in your logic, but it turns out that that's your actual position.

And once again, if you tell me why, and provide something to support your position that's more objective and definitive than "go watch a game" or "because I said so," I'll very likely be persuaded! :)

I'm very open-minded, but only to a certain kind of evidence.  Ipse dixit ain't it.

It trivializes the evidence given only if that evidence is so superficial as to permit no rejection of the null hypothesis (i.e., things are likely average until proven otherwise).

Again, I'm open-minded, but I'm not gullible.

Also, and I've said this before, it isn't preposterous on theoretical grounds to believe that the parity in the league causes the largest unit on the field (five players) to have comparatively little variation from team to team.

The more players in a unit, the greater the likelihood that the parity the league is founded on will lessen the variation in those units across the league.  It's hardly "preposterous" to believe that.

Again, you seem to be arguing from the position of "offensive line versus no offensive line," in terms of how that would affect a team, rather than from the position that every team in fact does have an offensive line, and so the question becomes how much they differ from each other, not from some hypothetical world in which there is no offensive line at all.

Yes, it's indeed preposterous to think that a team with no offensive line at all would perform just as well as a team that had one.  But of course that isn't what I'm saying here.

No remotely reasonable person would think fyo is arguing for a case of 6-on-11 football, where the football somehow magically snaps itself.
But I guess it's easier to attack that strawman than to continue to defend your ridiculous position that the performance of the offensive line doesn't matter.

I'm simply trying to make sense of his statement that it's "preposterous" to think there is comparatively little variation among offensive lines throughout the league, and that's all I can come up with, that he must be misinterpreting my position to mean "offensive line versus no offensive line."

Just trying to reach some common ground, if possible, that's all. :)

Ironically though, within your post above, you've again caricatured my position (i.e., the same straw man you're speaking of).

I haven't said "the performance of the offensive line doesn't matter."

Once again, what I have said is that offensive lines, according to the quantitative measures of them we have available, differ so little from each other that they can't possibly explain the differences we see in QB play.

When QBs differ from each other at (hypothetical number) 100, and offensive lines differ from each other at only (hypothetical number) 10, offensive line play can't possibly explain QB play to a significant degree.

The variation in QB play has to be explained by something else.

You accuse me of constructing a strawman when I summarize your position as "the offensive line doesn't matter."  Fine.

You literally just said that the offensive line is an insufficient explanation for level of QB play (i.e. it doesn't matter).  Again, fine.  So what, exactly, does the offensive line matter for... the run game?  That can't be true, because (unless you have a new groundbreaking theory to unveil) the effectiveness of the run game definitely affects the passing game (i.e. the play of the QB).

The degree to which it matters is a direct reflection of the correlation between offensive line play and QB play league-wide.

Consider the following hypothetical correlations:

Between offensive line play and QB play -- 0.25
Between running game play and QB play -- 0.15
Between receiver play and QB play -- 0.35
Between QB individual ability and QB play -- 0.90
Between luck (random variables) and QB play -- 0.15

All of those contributions to QB play "matter," but clearly one of them matters far beyond all the others, and we should therefore attribute differences in QB play to that one well before doing so with the others.  That one should be our "default" explanation for QB play, not the offensive line.

My point here is that the variation in offensive line play across the league is consistent with those numbers above, in that it suggests that offensive lines have such a minimal relationship with QB play.

I could also make up some hypothetical numbers that support the point I'm trying to make, but that seems like a complete waste of time.

The problem is that every time someone has tried to take the position that the offensive line affects Tannehill (or QBs in general) "yay" much, and they nominate some way of measuring offensive line play in that regard, the correlation ends up being roughly what I noted above -- 0.25, which is relatively weak.  That number in fact isn't hypothetical.

So, the issue is precisely the opposite of the way you framed it in the quote above.  Other people are proposing a relationship, and the objective data don't support their position.  My position on the other hand is supported by the objective data! :)

Who would've predicted that Tannehill would've been sacked only twice and posted a 130.6 QB rating and 9.5 YPA with Albert, Tunsil, and Pouncey inactive?

And without a running game thanks to the inactive linemen. Very impressive game for him.

He and the turnovers won the game.