1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Talent Surrounding Ryan Tannehill: Part II

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by shouright, Dec 24, 2012.

  1. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    If this is all just so much garbage, why do you keep clicking on it? :headscratch:
     
  2. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    unfortunately
     
  3. Hurricane

    Hurricane Guest

    If it's not garbage, why do you have to keep pulling this same excuse out of your cornhole? :headscratch:
     
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    The quarterback rating is based on people catching the ball that aren't the quarterback. You are using that stat, to prove there's no real difference in surrounding talent between Brady, Ryan & Tanny. The only way that would work is if those 3 QBs were playing with the exact same receiving robots. Here's a chart that might help:
    [table="width: 500, class: grid"]
    [tr]
    [td]Stat[/td]
    [td]# Of People Needed for Stat (Min)[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]Attempts[/td]
    [td]2[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]Catches[/td]
    [td]2[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]TDs[/td]
    [td]2[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]Yards[/td]
    [td]2[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]Drops[/td]
    [td]2[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]Sacks[/td]
    [td]2[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]YAC[/td]
    [td]2[/td]
    [/tr]
    [/table]

    Clearly, the only conclusion that can be made is that any stat that uses any of these stats, automatically accepts that person other than the QB is also important. Because of that, any conclusion using stats that use the above numbers to show whatever they want to show has to conclude its more than one person that is important.
     
  5. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    There is no inconsistency at all between my thinking the thread is not garbage and my active participation in it. :)
     
  6. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Because I want you to explain why you think your numbers prove what you think they do. That's the conversation everyone has been trying to have with you. You refuse. That means you are either trolling or don't understand what you're saying. Which is it?
     
    shula_guy likes this.
  7. Right and pointing to statistical data is not a conlcusive way to determine why the Dolphins lacked offensive production.

    Example: Say RT delivers a throw to perfection and Hartlines pulls it in perfectly, but the DB also lands a picture perfect hit on him and the ball pops free and is marked incomplete. That imcompletion is more indictive a great defensive play then it was poor QBing or Recieving. When your data is skewed you cant say it proves that your QB isnt playing well because has X amount of incomplete passes. The only way to do that accurately would be to evaluate each pass and determine why it was a sucess or failure. For all the hard work and effort he has put into his charts, he hasnt done anything close to doing that. Even if his end conclusion is correct (which I happen to agree with) his methodology is flawed.
     
  8. unluckyluciano

    unluckyluciano For My Hero JetsSuck

    53,333
    23,006
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    Again what you are arguing can be argued for almost any statistic. How do we measure say a running back unless they have the same offensive line, the same qb handing the ball, the same number of carries, etc. You don't, you go by rate. Such as qb rate which attempts to measure various aspect of the game such as tds, yards, completions, etc all measured as a rate themselves (all are divided by the attempts) and weighed. Is it completely accurate, no. So you do more digging and look at other aspects. Again this is just one view of things. I haven't seen anyone say otherwise.
     
  9. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    And I agree with you on that, which is why the premise is how much the team is riding on its quarterback, versus its surrounding cast, which IMO can be measured by the correlations between scoring and QB rating for all three teams.

    In other words, if Tannehill's surrounding cast is worse than Brady or Ryan's, then the Dolphins' scoring should be suppressed, in comparison to the Patriots and the Falcons', when all three quarterbacks' QB ratings are elevated above their norms.

    You have to grasp that initial premise, and grasp it successfully, before we can continue the discussion here.
     
  10. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    So what? I'm not saying these numbers when conflated other numbers prove Tannehill has the same talent to work with as Brady or Ryan.

    This is not an argument in a vacuum. Shou is saying these stats prove that. They don't. We've explained why.
     
  11. unluckyluciano

    unluckyluciano For My Hero JetsSuck

    53,333
    23,006
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    Your reply doesn't make any sense. What are you so what-ing? Conflated what? No ones said this argument is in a vacuum. What I am saying is you are basically trying to **** on any statistical analysis with your argument.
     
  12. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I grasp it just fine, its just incorrect.

    The bold is not true. The reason the bold is not true, is because all the numbers used to decide if a quarterback is at, below or above his norm require more than one person to achieve it. The quarterback rating is almost as telling of a QBs supporting talent as it is telling of a QB. Because of that, you can't use it the way you do to determine that Tanny's supporting cast is no different than Brady's.
     
  13. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    But where is the objective evidence, at anywhere near the level of effort to show it, that Tannehill's surrounding cast is more to blame than him for his performance?

    You can poke holes in this all day if you want, but that does nothing to support the alternative view that the surrounding cast is more to blame than Tannehill.
     
  14. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No I'm not.

    I'm saying he using stats that absolutely require 2 people to prove that the second person is no worse than another second person. It makes no sense. This isn't about using stats in general, its about using stats incorrectly.
     
  15. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    But once again, we have a study that shows Tannehill's QB rating isn't any higher than that of the average rookie QB, and that there have been only four rookie QBs out of 27 since 2004 with a significantly higher than average QB rating.

    What's the parsimonious explanation? The guy is a very raw rookie. Do you honestly think that with a better supporting cast he'd be just the fifth guy out of 27 since 2004 to have a significantly higher than average QB rating as a rookie?
     
  16. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    There is objective evidence. You're just not grasping it.

    The majority of stats used to come up with the qb rating require other people to do their jobs. That is all the evidence needed.
     
  17. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Its possible and more than slightly. There are number of reasons for the "rookie rating". One of the biggest, is learning a new more complicated professional offense. Often, offenses are dumbed down for the rookie. Tannehill was probably the first highly drafted QB to not have that problem.
     
  18. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    So you figure the top 10 guys in this list:

    http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career.htm

    ...were simply the beneficiaries of all-world talent around them, in comparison to the guys lower on the list?
     
  19. Hurricane

    Hurricane Guest

    [​IMG]
     
  20. unluckyluciano

    unluckyluciano For My Hero JetsSuck

    53,333
    23,006
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    That's correlation.Any wr stat is effected by the qb and vice versus. Just as you have stated. He's using one stat, one particular view via rate, where the wr would have an effect. Then using that same view to compare to others. Is it all telling, no. But again, I don't think that's been stated here.
     
  21. Patssuck

    Patssuck Well-Known Member

    1,160
    432
    83
    Dec 2, 2012
    M.I.A
    so you figured that Andy Dalton would have the same qb rating with Bess as he would AJ Green.
     
  22. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    :lol: So then what's your excuse, since I'm just the dumbass fly that doesn't even know it's ****!
     
    Bpk likes this.
  23. muscle979

    muscle979 Season Ticket Holder

    15,863
    6,275
    113
    Dec 12, 2007
    Evans, GA
    I'm scratching my head a little at this one. Why isn't how many more offensive points Atlanta and New England score on average taken into account here? You're trying to tell us that if Tannehill playing well brings the offensive production from 10 to 20 points in Miami and Matt Ryan playing well [hypothetically let's say the same or almost same increase in QBR] brings their offensive production from 20 to 40 points then that means they have the same surrounding talent level. Sorry, not buying it. These statistics back up the importance of these QBs to their respective teams but really do nothing to address the surrounding offensive talent level.
     
  24. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    ...which is probably why he's at the average level and not lower, given his rawness and inexperience at the position.

    Now, if his surrounding cast was comparatively weak, then you figure he'd be lower than average despite the lack of a system change. Nevertheless, he's average.
     
  25. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Partially, yes. It has to be. And it doesn't need to be all world surrounding talent. Look, no one is arguing the QB isn't the most important player on the field and a great one gives you a chance to win. Also, no is arguing that the QB play affects others more than the others talent affects the QB. But you cannot tell me if my fat *** was Brady's #1 receiver his stats wouldn't take a hit. If that's true, then its proof that varying levels talent at WR/TE/etc, matter at varying levels.
     
    djphinfan likes this.
  26. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Well, you have to factor in the fact that Tannehill is a rookie and performing no better than the average rookie. He's not performing like Brady and Ryan.
     
  27. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ok, let's come at this a different way.

    Explain to me how the numbers he used prove this statement he made in the OP:
     
  28. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Keep in mind the crucial element of that statement, which I've bolded:

    That's the part I think you're failing to understand, how the study incorporates the relative differences among these teams.
     
  29. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You think he's a below average QB and are arguing from that already held belief. So much so, you'll try and prove there's no difference between Wes Welker and Brian Hartline.

    We are saying he's better than average for a rookie and his cast is holding him back.

    Look at YAC for example.

    Why is Welker #1 with 619 and Hartline is tied for #72 with 240? YAC, while it does depend on the QB, its one stat for WRs that is mostly based on the WRs ability?
     
  30. Disnardo

    Disnardo Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    10,641
    2,121
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Hialeah, FL
    Shou, your correlation thread is not a bad idea, but can you do one with the score and turn overs??? I think more than not this part of the data might be better.... Thoughts...
     
  31. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Its more or less gibberish for the point you're trying to prove.

    The offensive performance of the Miami Dolphins depends on all members of the Miami Dolphins offense. Yes, Tanny is far and away the most important. But even if he's 75% of the offense, the other 25% is lacking.
     
  32. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Right, but the question is, would that kind of difference in surrounding talent yield a measurable difference in the performance of a very raw, rookie QB? Again, we don't have any objective evidence to support that. We just have theory.
     
  33. Hurricane

    Hurricane Guest

    I don't want it where I spend my time.
     
  34. Disnardo

    Disnardo Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    10,641
    2,121
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Hialeah, FL
    FD... Well I believe he should have stated "IMO," because he really cannot prove nor disprove the statment provided, since neither the WR from NE nor Atlanta will be playing with Thill any time soon...

    on a side note... was not Chad Ocho Cinco in NE, and how was his performance (2011) there with TB???

    The numbers were in 15 games he caught 15 passes (1 catch per game) for 276 yds... The same Chad that could not catch much in Training Camp and was let go after one Pre-Season game...

    and how bout Legedu Nene and his great acrobatic catch and fumble...

    Yes... This is the veteran WR talent that was picked for our Rookie QB... Can Shou find out if they can start for Atlanta or NE???

    Yeap, this team seems to be no worst at WR than the talented players no longer playing in the NFL currently, which we cut this season...
     
  35. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    You should probably count up your number of posts in this thread, then, to make sure you're staying true to yourself. ;)
     
  36. Hurricane

    Hurricane Guest

    Pretending that the thread didn't exist would make me almost as ignorant as you are.

    Almost.
     
  37. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Well, at least my thoughts and my actions are consistent. :)
     
  38. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    You wanna take a stab at analyzing how Rich Gannon goes 11 years looking average at best to suddenly winning NFL MVP and 3 AFC Player of the Year honors in 4 years after going to Oakland's talent-rich offense?... or how Mark Rypien goes from winning NFC Offensive POY honors & SB MVP with an elite WR trio to looking like crap the following year despite being only 30 and no injuries?... or how Brett Favre goes from having a troubled year in a weak Jets offense to suddenly finishing 4th in MVP voting the following year in Minnesota with Rice, Harvin, and Berrian?.... or how Randall Cunningham goes from a 74 QBR/16 TD 14 game season in Philly to a 106 QBR/34 TD 14 game season in Minnesota with an elite WR corps?
     
    shula_guy likes this.
  39. Hurricane

    Hurricane Guest

    Consistency does not make them any less illogical.
     
  40. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Sure. Exception to the rule?

    However, if it can be shown adequately objectively that it isn't, I'll be the first to be convinced. ;)
     

Share This Page