Okay then. Russell Wilson. His OL has not been stellar. "Oh but Marshawn Lynch!" Lynch didn't run for much more ypa last year than Miller. They just have a smarter coach (our coach doesn't like to run the ball).
But yet his YPA was slightly higher in 2014 than in 2013, despite that he threw for fewer yards on fewer throws downfield in 2014 than in 2013. So alongside a decrease in downfield activity, we have a slight increase in YPA. Could it be that Tannehill is a developing QB who is simply getting better?
And following your "logic," when we consider that Aaron Rodgers, for example, has the highest QB rating of all time, we should conclude that it means nothing about his individual ability, because "he couldn't do his job without a line to block or a receiver to catch his passes." Absurd.
No, I didn't say that or imply it. Its you making absolutes based on imperfect data. I think QB play is based on many things. You think its based ONLY on the QB's ability, which is ignorant. I have proven you wrong consistently. Rodgers is great. He'd appear less great with our oline and Hartline, Bess & Nannee. If not, then again, the end result of your asinine stance is that all oline & WRs are exactly the same and therefore interchangeable.
That isn't the position, but I'm not surprised you aren't aware of that, since you seem more interested in creating "so take that!" responses (that are really devoid of anything productive) than you are in actually considering information and having an intelligent discussion. This will be my last post directed at you in this thread. Thanks for the discussion.
No, no, no. You don't get to argue for years that receivers and oline play don't affect QB play, then say you don't think QB play is NOT based solely on the QB. If so, then its been objectively and robustly proven that you're a troll, Shou. That should answer why you've been banned repeatedly.
He was 6% more accurate. I'll let you work out the math. EDIT: They tailored the game to what Ryan does well. And that's short passes. Landry caught his passes 4 yards from the LOS (averaged)
Yes I didn't say he didn't get better. I'm saying, he needs to step it up a bit more. If he's a 92 QBR guy dinking and dunking color me not that impressed yet. Lots of people can play well if you restrict their passes from 15 yards and back. If he can get the passes going 15-30 yards down the field, maintain his accuracy numbers, and not throw a bunch of INTs, we'll have one of the top 8'ish QBs in the league.
He threw 0.69 fewer passes downfield per game in 2014 than in 2013. Not even one fewer pass per game.
What he needs to do, in my humble opinion, is continue the "dinking and dunking," and when those plays are covered, get better at anticipating, recognizing, and evading pressure, and make throws downfield from outside the pocket, throws that are more likely to be completed because they more frequently involve a receiver who's broken free of coverage and is wider open. Right now the "downfield" game operates predominantly from the pocket, toward receivers who are more closely covered, resulting in throws that are more difficult to complete and are completed less frequently. That isn't winning football downfield.
You say that...but then as soon as someone brings up the oline or the receivers, you throw out the "statistics don't show significant correlation between other parts of the team and QB performance." You're simply trying to be on both sides of the fence. Either you think that it's only based on the QBs ability, or you believe that other parts of the team can affect a QB's performance.
They have a contribution that isn't zero, but they don't drive the bus on the QB's performance. The QB's ability does. It's real simple.
It is known he attempted them frequently in the first few games, Lazor removed them for a big chunk in the middle of the season (almost if not completely absent), and then reintroduced them later. If you know your stats there are only a few attempts per season. After the first two games Lazor removed them until the Jaguars game and slowly introduced them back in. Even when introducing them, the results weren't that great. The total season numbers are skewed however, because against NE the second time, for some reason Lazor dialed up 8 deep passes in just the first half, and 13 total. That's an outlier, but if you look at the per game deep passing it wasn't that high and was missing for a huge chunk. That's where the stats are fooling you. Tannehill was 5 of 13, 1 TD, 2 INTs in that game on deep passes by the way. Justifying Lazor's removal of it. As of Oct 12, he only attempted 18 such passes, and against the Jaguars (their next opponent), two more. He was 1/2, 50 yarder. Outside of that completion he had a 5.2 ypa and 200 yards total with that 50. They were 31st in the league in percentage of 20 yard passes. Again, the NE game skewed those year end numbers (they saw man coverage and tried to take advantage ... they didn't). There is a lot of room for improvement is what I'm saying. Maintaining the efficiency numbers while increasing YPA will go a long way. I hope to see him do it. Is he going to get outplayed by someone like Teddy Bridgewater? We'll see.
You're arguing something that hasn't been said. Not to mention, if you'd admitted from the beginning that other parts of the team can affect a QBs performance, we wouldn't still be having this discussion. You can debate all day about HOW MUCH of an effect there is, but you simply can't deny that there is an effect.
Two things: Under Sherman and Philbin, the coaches started to keep a number. Number of times Wallace was open deep for a possible TD and the ball was poorly thrown, or Tannehill checked down. Under Lazor, Lazor has openly criticized Tannehill. He heaps lavish praise on Wallace. These are public statements. Judging from his statements he really likes Wallace, his effort, and his game.+ We can "blame" Wallace as fans for the deep ball woes, but it doesn't sound like the coaches have, yet. Sherman and Lazor have both said they like what they see from Wallace.
And yet, they are pursuing a long term deal with Tannehill, while looking at restructuring Wallace, and potentially cutting ties with him altogether. Weird.
We are talking about the deep ball/ypa issue. Not performance as a whole. Jay Cutler got a monster deal. Doesn't mean anything. Cutler got a bigger contract than the one they're looking at for Tanny. In this league if you have a not crappy QB you keep him. Pretty elementary. And Wallace is overpaid.
I'm talking about coaches criticizing some, while lavishing praise on another, and what their trajectory looks like in Miami. And by talking to some, it would seem that the deep ball/YPA are all that matters in regards to his performance.
Where these issues tend to get started is when someone says, for example, that a quarterback would be playing better if he had a better offensive line. What the objective data show, however, is that quarterbacks are very unlikely to play significantly better when their offensive lines are better. Why is that? Because, as I've been getting at, there is simply so much of quarterbacks' play that is attributable to their own ability, that it makes no sense to say they'd play significantly better if their offensive lines were better. Now, if no one's saying that, then I suppose then we're in agreement.
We are talking about ypa and how Tanny can improve his game. Someone tried to say it was Wallace. I addressed that. Never said Wallace was more important to the team or anything of the like. That's purely strawman introduced by you.
I don't see why there is relevance in breaking this down in terms of its peaks and valleys during the 2014 season, when the issue is how Tannehill's YPA is a function of the deep passing game, and the deep passing game wasn't "restrained," overall, in 2014 any more than it was in 2013.
We are not talking about your usual deep ball peaks and valleys. I'm not saying you just remove the NE attempts, but that is clearly an outlier. 13 in one game? Seems like the coaches got cute and got carried away. Seeing as he only had 54 in all of 2013, you dial up 13 in one game. So I'm not saying you remove it from the totals, because it's in there. I'm saying you need to look at the per game numbers to see the pattern of it being removed for a huge chunk of the season. And removing 11 from 54 is a significant change, especially in year two of having a deep ball WR where you'd expect the numbers to at least stay the same in attempts. Why does it affect his ypa? Because he's not completing them. If Ryan throws 10 passes at the LOS and they all fall incomplete, or he throws 10 fifty yard bombs, and they fall incomplete, both sets have the exact same effect on his ypa. They're just 10 incompletions. The only thing that is going to affect his ypa is to hit those longer passes. Seeing as he isn't that good at it, they would need to dial up even more of them. That's why it seems he hits that wall with YPA. He won't nudge them until he starts hitting those, and coaches will be wary to call them, unless he can show he can hit them.
Here's an article you might be interested in: http://www.footballperspective.com/guest-post-marginal-yac-2014-in-review/#more-23630
Actually, I do not believe Lazor thought Tannehill would survive the season if he called slow developing plays. While it seems to indicate a lack of faith in Tannehill's deep ball, I do not believe that is why the number of deep balls went down.
The above post is essentially loaded with misconceptions. 1) The performance of almost all passing games in the NFL decreases dramatically on throws that occur at 2.5 seconds and beyond after the snap (i.e., the "slow-developing plays" referred to above). 2) The overwhelming majority of sacks in the NFL (including those of Ryan Tannehill in 2014) occur after 2.5 seconds after the snap. 3) Tannehill threw less than one fewer deep ball per game in 2014 than he did in 2013. So, one can't very well argue that Tannehill threw a fewer number of downfield passes in 2014 than he did in 2013, to avoid something that happens to almost all of the teams in the league with regularity.
Again, the statistic about 2.5 seconds is meaningless, without other information. Such as, was the play designed to be completed in under 2.5 seconds, but was unable to be completed in that time due to coverage, leaving the QB scrambling because no one was open? Or, was the play designed to take longer, but the offense lacked the ability to execute it properly? An example of that were the 5 step drop PA passes that Sherman had Tannehill running. There are all sorts of variables. You throw out this stat, as if it says all sorts of stuff, but the statistic itself is severely lacking in context.
The fact the statistic covers hundreds of thousands of passes, across nearly every team in the NFL, over many years of play, obviates the need for any further analysis. The conclusion can simply be made that throws that occur at 2.5 seconds and beyond after the snap result in far worse performance in the passing game in the NFL than throws that occur prior to that point. Perhaps you're talking about the analysis of a single play (i.e., the bolded portion above). I'm not. I'm talking about the analysis of the passing game in the NFL.
You don't get it at all, that was a terrible defense. Your #'s are meaningless. It's affected by play calling and execution. Because Tannehill can not execute the deep pass, and luck can, is hwy tannehill doesn't get to throw deep as much as luck. And is why Tannehill and wallace have a smaller ypa, because they have to run shorter routes to account for tannehills lack of deep ball accuracy.
