Rg3 ran to contact and couldn’t read the field to save his life. once his elite level quick acceleration threat was gone with his legs so was his game. next.
If you do a t-test on Tannehill’s eight games this season and Griffin’s five noted above combined with the three of his that followed, they aren’t statistically significantly different.
Your floor of 100 was too low. There have been more than 100 4 game streaks of ratings of 100 or higher. There have been 12 streaks of 120 or higher and 3 streaks of 130 or higher.
During the eight games in question for both quarterbacks, they are not statistically significantly different from each other, at least in terms of passer rating. Obviously it’s fine if you want to judge them on grounds other than that.
Even still...people on here have argued that RGIII only fell off because of injuries. If that's true, then there's nothing wrong with being compared to RGIII.
And if you cherry pick enough stats, they mean nothing. You can't combine the three games that followed for RGIII unless you include the next season. The 5 game streak was near the end of the season.
More the threat of his legs was gone more than anything else. He outflanked defenses when his legs were right. Which taxed the hell out of dcs with the zone read primary and easy built in passing concepts witb primary over the lb level and in front of the safety level in cutters. but the real threat was the qb outflanking you with the quick acceleration. Once he played to contact all he did was scrape shelf life.
The other thing to note here is that not all of those passer ratings of 120 are created equal. Many of those were achieved when the average passer rating in the league was far lower than it is presently.
The passer ratings for Griffin for those three games were 66.9, 77.7, and 104.2. They were added only to make the sample sizes equal. They certainly aren’t doing Griffin any favors in the comparison to Tannehill, yet the two, eight-game stretches are nonetheless not statistically significantly different.
All those stats tell me is that RGIII at one time had one heck of a stretch of games. One similarity I guess is that knee injuries derailed the momentum they were gaining.
I definitely agree with looking at deviation from average when looking at QBs from different eras, to find out how good QBs were relative to their contemporaries. However, when you adjust their ratings up, To compare to today, you are assuming that they would have been just as effective in the game today, with the passing concepts which are popular today...which they might have been...but it's not fact.
So two of the three added games he was well below average, and somehow that equates to not being statistically different?
And that ultimately may be the only conclusion we can make about Tannehill, as well. That’s the point.
Trust me, he is stretching the meaning of significantly different....... first of all, the 30 point difference in the lowest passer rating in the stretches are already significantly different.
When the matter rests on which three games you choose, the ones preceding the stretch of elevated play or the ones following it, it certainly highlights the tenuousness of any conclusions we could make based on what we’re looking at, don’t you think?
We should just stick with the table of streaks you posted earlier. Based on that and Tannehill‘s career statistics, we have no idea to whom in the table Tannehill is most similar in terms of ability, statistically speaking. Do you disagree that we need more time to determine that? Or you are you ready to anoint him Steve Young at the present time?
Given the names on that list, does it matter? I don't need any more time. I knew in 2016 that he was a very good QB and plenty good enough. Clearly he won't keep up this streak, but he is easily a top 10 QB.
The only tenuous part is making conclusions based solely on what Excel tells you rather than watching the games.
You’ve dug up all these worthless stats to tell us that we need more time to determine that he’s not as good as Steve Young?
Sure it matters. There are differing levels of ability of the quarterbacks listed there. Obviously Hadl, Luck, and Plum are not the same caliber as the rest.
I think this study is personally helpful in determining who I will and won’t have further arguments with. Lol!
I guess I might’ve been confused about the meaning people were making of Tannehill’s recent performance. What meaning exactly is that?
Luck could have been great. Hadl is considered one of the best players of all time that is not in the hall of fame. https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/list...t-in-the-hall-of-fame/john-hadl-quarterback-8 A pretty stellar group no matter how you look at it.
I don’t have a problem with looking at it that way, but we still need to adjust the passer ratings for the players involved, because a passer rating of 120 or more was a much rarer event in the early 1970s for example that it is presently, owing to changes in the league’s rules surrounding the passing game, and perhaps other factors as well.
Again, you're only looking at stats. You are and have been neglecting the fact that there is tape to back a lot of this up. You have this notion that the only things that are true are the stats and literally nothing else can confirm or deny an opinion. If people have been saying Player Q needs X, Y, Z to play at a high level, then Player Q gets X, Y, Z and plays better.....then maybe at some point you don't need to parse it down as far as you can. Because honestly, at some point it comes across as more about defending your one avenue of analysis rather than proving anything about Player Q.
LOL. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Great thread to provide examples of statistical irrelevancies and misleadings. Anyways, damn proud of that kid, Ryan.
Yup. It is fairly consistent that stats people always have their judgments justified. Rarely seen someone change their opinion
And that could be a function of bias, as it sounds like you’re implying, or it could be a function of the fact that in many cases, statistics are better than people at predicting things, and so positions based on statistics are more likely to be correct.
Whether you’re using statistics or videotape, you would still need more time to determine whether Tannehill’s recent performance can be sustained to the degree that it makes him a significantly different quarterback than he has been throughout his career. It’s not like videotape makes that period of time magically shorter.
The fans ran him out? If we have that kind of power please let me know, I have some other things I’d like to see happen with this team.
Hoops...my man. I'm glad somebody else saw it. I know the seam throw you're talking about and it was plain INSANE! I don't believe I've ever seen a smoother, more perfectly timed and placed, throw to that area of the field...in DOUBLE COVERAGE! (1:16 in the video below). Maybe even better than the rolling-to-the-right, throw completely across the body, to the left edge of the endzone and hit the dude right in the mitts. (2:09 in the video below). I don't know of very many QBs who can make both those throws. How about you?