Jump to content

Ryan Tannehill bottom 5 for throwing past the sticks on 3rd


Jamalisms

Recommended Posts

Vrabel: "We gotta get ourselves in more manageable 3rd downs by capitalizing on opportunities on 1st and 2nd down. We can't have incompletions on 2 and 10 then a short run leaving us 3rd and 7. So we're gonna run it on 1st down and 2nd down. And 3rd down."

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, IowaOiler said:

 

Was that 3rd and long percentage-wise?  What is your definition for 3rd and long?

 

We were #3 in total 3rd downs, but #8 in conversion percentage. 

 

Only 3 teams had more total 3rd down conversions than us, and those teams were KC, TB, and Buffalo...none of which were in the top 10 in 3rd down attempts. 

 

To me, that speaks to an offense that wastes early downs, and then is bailed out on 3rd.  Which, ironically, is what my eye-balls tell me too.

That’s 3rd and 8+ so sharp footballs definition of 3rd and long

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jamalisms said:

 

It could be. I was asking that guy on Twitter and 15 of the passing plays on 3rd down were screens.

 

So the pass protection and receiver situation impacted this....Shocking!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jamalisms said:

Right. If you set aside every single screen for him any nobody else, Tannehill moves up to only sixth worst.

 

So pass protection and receiver play have no impact on non-screen pass plays on 3rd down?  LOL. 

 

The Rams game is a perfect example of how they specifically called plays to avoid having Bobby Hart get Tannehill killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BudsOilers said:

 

So pass protection and receiver play have no impact on non-screen pass plays on 3rd down?  LOL. 

 

Just to be clear, when someone tries to clean up the stat by removing a calculatable thing like how many screens we had on third down, you interpret that as them denying everything else is a possible factor?

 

How very rational and not at all triggered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

Just to be clear, when someone tries to clean up the stat by removing a calculatable thing like how many screens we had on third down, you interpret that as them denying everything else is a possible factor?

 

How very rational and not at all triggered.

 

Wrong.  It's very clear why the data results are what they are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not sure why some people who allegedly watched the games don't understand this.  At points during the season the Titans had awful pass protection and questionable (being really kind here) pass catchers.  Of course, they are going to be trying to get the ball out quicker (hence the passes short of the stick) to avoid Tannehill getting killed.

 

And since they had a good defense, they could afford to play a variation of Fisherball and work around the issues on offense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, rns90 said:

I'm really not sure why some people who allegedly watched the games don't understand this.  At points during the season the Titans had awful pass protection and questionable (being really kind here) pass catchers.  Of course, they are going to be trying to get the ball out quicker (hence the passes short of the stick) to avoid Tannehill getting killed.

 

And since they had a good defense, they could afford to play a variation of Fisherball and work around the issues on offense.

 

There's also no question there was a correlation between the pass protection and up tick of screen passes.  56 of the 66 screen passes were on long distance situations (7 yards or more).

 

I also suspect this was an attempt to try to generate explosive plays since the pass protection was limited the deep passing game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...