Tannehill and the Offensive Line

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

[Pappy13]

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.

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

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.

[Pappy13]

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.

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

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

[Dolfanalyst]

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

Pressure rate accounts for all pass plays including scrambles but not including spikes. Plays cancelled by Defensive Pass Interference are also included. Plays count as having pressure in the following situations:

a) any pass or scramble charted with pressure by a specific defender, or "overall pressure",
b) any sack charted as "rusher untouched," "blown block," or "overall pressure",
c) any sack charted as "coverage sack" or "failed scramble," but only if these sacks are also charted with a specific defender giving pass pressure. (For example, a "coverage sack" can also have pressure if a specific defender forces the quarterback out of the pocket immediately, but the sack takes a lot longer because of the coverage.)

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.

[fyo]

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.

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

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.

[fyo]

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.

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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

[Dolfanalyst]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

Well, after you've set your standard for rebuttal 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.

[Dolfanalyst]

Well, after you've set your standard for rebuttal 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 detailing response.

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

[Spider-Dan]

Everyone and everything is probably average at everything until proven otherwise.

...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.