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

Where does Tannehill rank among quarterbacks today?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by The Sportz Guy, Jul 11, 2015.

  1. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University

    Thats fair. If you factor in what you project for the upcoming year, im with ya. I think RT is about to explode. But if your factor is up until now?? That changes alot of things.
     
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Here's an idea, though, and it might be a little crazy...if someone plays WORSE in the playoffs than the regular season, then that might be a problem. It's like the criticisms of Peyton Manning for so long. If someone has a history of playing poorly when it matters, then yes, that is a problem. However, when we were talking about Joe Flacco, we were discussing how relevant one four game stretch is when compared to overall playoff/regular season averages.
     
  3. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I felt there were limitations in Dalton's game that became more apparent against better teams. For me it's never all about the numbers. I make a judgment on what the QB is doing. With Flacco, my judgment was that he was throwing it deep a lot and just had a stretch where his receivers caught an abnormally high percentage. Last year Flacco was one of the worst deep ball throwers. I don't believe that his deep throws were any worse last year. The difference was how well the receivers performed. The statistical difference had very little to do with Flacco. So I'm not going to dramatically adjust my rankings of a player up or down b/c of some high or low ratings in a few playoff games.
     
  4. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,930
    63,009
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I think that much of Peyton's issues in the playoffs have been overblown and made to be a bigger deal than they are. A lot of the games where he threw picks were against New England teams that weren't playing by the rules, and the officials let get away with it. And, like always, the media props up the QB on the winning team while slamming the one on the losing team. :headwall:
     
    PhinFan1968 likes this.
  5. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I think Flacco from 2010 is a different playoff QB. Forget eyeballs for a moment.. there is actually an argument based on statistics you can make here for that. Here are his stats again:
    http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FlacJo00/gamelog/post/

    The ONLY year that is statistically speaking an "aberration", as in it's actually too unlikely that it came from the same quarterback that produced all those stats, is 2009. There, the sample size is 2, so the range of possible average ratings can be hugely different, yet his average of 29.2 is below threshold (which is 32.2 for sample size 2). This means that there is statistical evidence for saying the data came from more than one QB (in terms of playoff ability).

    Since statistics is taking care of any changes in passer rating due to randomness (including year-to-year randomness), you're left with an argument for something being different from 2010 onwards. His average rating there is 104.7 with an std of 19.3. So, I think you'll make a more accurate prediction saying the distribution of Flacco's future playoff ratings will be between 80-130 ~70% of the time, rather than 45-130 70% of the time. I guess we'll see which prediction is closer to what actually happens, assuming the Ravens keep making the playoffs.



    On another note, let me add that one reason the statistician's way of defining "anomaly" has merit is because any single event may be calculated to be highly unlikely, but you will often have many such highly unlikely events in a distribution. So, defining anomaly the "intuitive" way will often lead to large portions (maybe even the majority) of the data collected being defined as an anomaly.

    Just look at Flacco's stats again to see this. 2009 is clearly an anomaly (much more so than 2012). If 2012 is, then 2008 is basically also. And you might argue 2014 is too if you just compare "84.8" to what happened. That's 3/5 of the data that you could reasonably label "anomaly" if you just went the intuitive route. At that point, the word ceases to have meaning. The ONLY anomaly statistically speaking is 2009.
     
    Stringer Bell likes this.
  6. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    The problem with that, cbrad, is that you're looking at every year compared to every other year. We were looking at career averages, and comparing one year of a career to the average. In that case, yes, 2009 is also an anomaly, as I wouldn't expect that Flacco would have a postseason that bad again. However, that is why you look at averages. It takes the bad AND the great into account. Look at 2010. He has a 115 the first game...but then a 61...bringing his average in that postseason to 88. Amazing. However, if you look at simply 2011, 2012, and 2014, he certainly has much better numbers, for whatever reason.
     
  7. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I don't understand what you're saying here. I was looking at year vs. career too. Technically, all the stats do is look at any sample of games from a distribution of games. How you combine the games is up to you.
     
  8. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    You can look at average, but you can also look at trendlines too. Or else we're all expecting Tanny to play worse this year, back to his 85 rating average.
     
    roy_miami likes this.
  9. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    You consider both as well as time in the league. Flacco after 7 years is probably about as good as he's going to get and you're really just wondering how long he'll stay at his current level before declining. And that great post-season (that IMO was more due to receivers than Flacco) is unlikely to be repeated either. A young QB that is still trending upwards and hasn't hit his peak years yet is an easy choice over him.
     
    Fin D, Unlucky 13 and resnor like this.
  10. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    The thing is I don't really care to make a purely statistical argument. My evaluations are always about looking forward unless they're retired. I'm looking at averages and potential going forward. And I see Flacco's stats as being inflated b/c of a post-season that is unlikely to occur again and that IMO was more due to a high number of long passes being completed due to WRs making great plays. People who are ranking him above Tannehill have to be looking at that playoff average and saying, "I want him b/c he's going to put those numbers up again". Over-emphasizing that that post-season average is the only way that makes sense. Personally, I don't see how thinking a player is going to post a rating 37 pts above his average is a reasonable expectation. Can it happen? Of course. If you throw up a bunch of long passes and your receivers make great plays you'll get a high rating. But getting lucky on hail marys is not great QBing skill IMO regardless of what the rating says.
     
    Fin D and resnor like this.
  11. heylookatme

    heylookatme Well-Known Member

    902
    438
    63
    Sep 12, 2012
    People have disdain for Andy Dalton because he is a poor QB with big limitations who plays on a stacked offense.
     
    resnor likes this.
  12. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Raheem Club Member

    51,930
    63,009
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I think that if anything, Dalton has greatly overachieved to get to the point where he is. Having the playmakers around him that he's had has made his job easier and his numbers better than they otherwise would be. Does anyone fear playing against him? Our defense shuts him down with ease.
     
  13. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    If you want to compare Flacco and Tannehill by including post-season performance, then we have to solve the problem of what Tannehill's expected post-season performance is, given league-wide average differences in passer ratings between the regular season and the post-season for those QB's that made the post-season.

    Let's just use this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_career_passer_rating_leaders#Postseason

    Now.. keep in mind that link above shows "combined" passer ratings (they treat the entire body of work as one season). This is why Flacco's post-season average in that link is 88.6 instead of 84.8. I don't like that, but so be it. I'll just note that for small samples (can even be hundreds of games) you'll probably see a discrepancy, and averages across games is better than combining them (because that's what the damn question asks.. what is the "average" of the ratings). However.. in the limit (if you could theoretically play an infinite number of games) the two methods produce identical values, so the trend should be similar.

    OK.. let's compute the average difference between regular season and post-season passer ratings listed in that link for all QB's that are currently active (in green) and have been to the post-season with 150+ pass attempts in the postseason and 1500+ pass attempts in the regular season (so.. green in both tables). This is what you get:

    Average regular season rating: 90.6
    Average post-season rank: 86.5

    So.. if we go by league-wide averages, we can expect Tannehil to post an average rating 4 points LESS than his regular season average. His regular season average in that table is 84, meaning his expected post-season average is 80. Flacco's post-season average in that table is 88.6, so if you go by this simple measure, yes Flacco > Tannehill in the post-season. This btw supports the argument that the average post-season game is more difficult than an average regular season game, and so should be weighted more.

    That's obviously not including things like trends in a QB's ratings, whether in the regular or post-season. If we include a trend, say of Tannehill's rating going up over his last 3 years, then yeah one can bump up that 80 to high 80's, and maybe in the best case (realistic) scenario after a few years.. in the 90's.

    But we have to then include a trend in Flacco's ratings too, specifically for his post-season. I don't care if you use stats or not, he is a different QB from 2010 onwards in the post-season. You want to exclude the 2012 post-season? Fine, then also exclude 2008 and 2009 because those don't have any real relevance to what he's been doing in the last 4-5 years. You get a 95 average rating in the post-season for Flacco when you do that.

    So based on the current body of work, I would say Flacco > Tannehill. However, if one had to choose a QB today for the next 5-10 years, then I think it's fairly even. Flacco in 5 years may not be that good (not all QB's age like Brady) and Tannehill has a fairly high ceiling and is young. But right now? Yeah, Flacco > Tannehill because of the post-season.
     
    DolphinGreg likes this.
  14. heylookatme

    heylookatme Well-Known Member

    902
    438
    63
    Sep 12, 2012
    How to defend Andy Dalton: make him throw to the perimeter. Done.
     
  15. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Unless of course you actually watched the games and concluded that Flacco was just throwing it up and got lucky b/c his receivers caught an inordinate number of long passes. I never just look at the stats. I watch a ton of games. I used to work as a scout. When I evaluate a QB it's not just a statistical analysis or an exercise in number crunching.
     
    Fin D, resnor and Unlucky 13 like this.
  16. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Not all scouts agree. Why do most in the NFL put Flacco over Tannehill then? Right.. they care about the post-season record.

    And being consistently lucky = skill.
     
  17. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Except that his deep passing success was really poor last season. Did he lose his skill?
     
    resnor and Fin D like this.
  18. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's possible.. never claimed he did or did not. What matters is the overall analysis as you pointed out (however you weight stats) and most "experts" say Flacco > Tannehill overall. So how does your "I'm a scout" argument counter that?
     
  19. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I agree with one half of your post and not the other, I cannot chalk up his deep ball prowess as someone who was just throwing up stuff and wishing..I watched those same throws and i saw a guy measure things, he was not off balanced, his feet were set and he threw a few where his receiver could make a play..Thats good talented qb'ing.
     
    DolphinGreg likes this.
  20. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    My point is that it is unlikely that Flacco lost his skill. If you watched the games he was throwing up the same passes. The difference was that more of those passes were caught in 2012. Flacco didn't do anything different.

    And my counter is that I'm not trying to compare the career of a 7 year player on a better team in a better organization to a 3 year player on bad teams in a bad organization who came in raw but was forced to play before he could possibly be ready. That's a ridiculous comparison. Of course, Flacco has had the better career thus far. But as I've said repeatedly my ranking is for who I'd take today for the coming season. I'm evaluating progress and projecting going forward. Most "experts" don't do that. They're limited to number crunching and win counting and looking back.
     
  21. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    You are reffering to one play, albeit a huge play. If you think Flacco is the product of THAT Wr core than I question what the hell you are watching.
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  22. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    All deep passes have a big element of throwing it up and wishing. The goal is to throw to an area and have the receiver adjust. This past season Flacco was still measuring things, setting his feet and throwing on balance but his success rate was much worse. The difference was that the receivers simply made more plays in 2012. That's not a change in QB skill. That's a change in luck and WR play.
     
  23. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Wait.. I excluded 2012 from my analysis on evaluating Flacco for the future, and now you're saying he didn't lose skill but was lucky in 2012? If I excluded it, then what exactly are you arguing against in my post #453?
     
  24. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    but that doesn't mean he didn't do his job or make good throws, that means his receivers made some plays one year and not the other..flacco hasn't had a great collection of skill set players in his career..
     
  25. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I don't know what you included or excluded in your statistical analysis. I'm not focusing on that and never have.

    I'm comparing a QB starting his 7th year to a QB starting his 4th year, considering the supporting cast and circumstances and saying who I would prefer for this coming season.
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Maybe that's your problem. You didn't even READ my post yet assumed it can't be right because there were too many (I might add VERY relevant) stats in it.

    Read it please. I explicitly say I excluded 2012 on the part where I talk about Flacco moving forward. And if you do read it, you'll see that part is not purely a statistical argument. No.. it's based on a bunch of possible scenarios that you cannot deduce from statistics.

    In the future, before acting like someone's argument is so off-base (and then trying to pull rank), try reading the post first.
     
  27. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Sure he did his job. IMO he's a good QB. But I also believe that people over-estimate how good he is b/c they saw him throw up a bunch of low percentage passes one post-season and win a SB. It makes people say words like "proven" when they were just luck. I see Flacco as likely 84-88 QB that you could win with. I just would not prefer him to a QB whom I see as likely an 88+ QB for this coming season.
     
    djphinfan likes this.
  28. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    2014 or 2013?

    Because he was excellent in 2014 on deep passes.
     
  29. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I'm not trying to pull rank and I did read your posts. I just didn't go back and reference each one before the multiple responses in this thread. I'm saying I never just do a statistical analysis, that I base my rankings on my evaluations. As such it didn't matter what you excluded or included. And I just said 2012 as an example. I believe he's inconsistent b/c he throws too many passes up. My evaluation differed from yours and number crunching and stat talk wasn't going to change that. So your argument was off-base b/c you were trying to get me to agree to a stat analysis I wasn't using.
     
  30. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Your responses make no sense if you really read it, and I'm only talking about post #453. You were talking about what happened in 2012 as a counter-argument to an argument that excluded 2012 (as you wanted). I also said Flacco > Tannehill based on past performance but going forward I think they're fairly even. Yet your responses suggest my argument was Flacco > Tannehill for the future.

    No, I don't think you read that post.
     
  31. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
  32. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Not sure why the br is using 15 yards as the metric and I'm not sure of the accuracy of the stat. I'm on my phone so I can't see the ESPN splits but this is what PFF is reporting

    He’s 21 of 56 on passes over 20 yards with 11 touchdowns, two interceptions and seven drops, according to Pro Football Focus. His accuracy percentage is a solid 50 percent, ranking him sixth among starting quarterbacks, and he threw for 663 yards.

    http://nesn.com/2015/01/bill-belichick-joe-flacco-is-one-of-the-best-deep-ball-passers-in-nfl/
     
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    BR didn't use 15 yards as the measure...they used 20.
     
  34. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
  35. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    Thats why we will be 11-5 and in the playoffs sir.
     
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Two things I found interesting about Tannehill:

    1. They had him ranked the same as Flacco (weird, I know!!!)
    2. They said that Tannehill was able to hit downfield targets (not named Mike Wallace) consistently (again, weird...where have I heard that before??)
     
    Unlucky 13 likes this.
  37. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Good observation, but note that their methodology de-emphasizes the outcome of a play. So, it's really looking at the decision-making ability of each QB given the physical attributes of that QB. I think it's good someone did that, especially when based on what they claim is extensive film study. But unless you think such a methodology captures what's necessary to predict what ultimately does matter = outcomes, then I'd say you gotta give stats on those outcomes some weight too.
     
  38. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Then they're completely blowing it. Flacco did not throw 150 deep passes. Go to ESPn splits. It's closer to 55-56

    Edit: looks like BR combined 2013 and 2014.

    All other places have 2014 as excellent for Flacco as I posted earlier.
     
  39. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    :headwall:
     
  40. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    When we start needing stats to tell us how what we see cannot be true then you know the debate has gone south, flacco is an excellent thrower of the football, especially deeper routes..him and Ben
     
    Sceeto, Fin4Ever and Fin-Omenal like this.

Share This Page