Tannehill and the Offensive Line

[fyo]

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?

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.

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

[fyo]

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".

[Dolfanalyst]

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

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.

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.

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)?

[fyo]

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.)

[CF DolFan]

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.

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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

[edit: reverted change]

[Dolfanalyst]

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

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Baba Booey]

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.

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

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

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?

[Spider-Dan]

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

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

[fyo]

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).

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