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

Most passing yards in the first four years of a players career

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Unlucky 13, Dec 27, 2015.

  1. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    Yeah, totally. I mean the line now is missing it's pro bowl center, it's 1st rd pick RT and sporting a gimpy LT.
     
  2. bakedmatt

    bakedmatt Well-Known Member

    2,129
    909
    113
    Mar 29, 2008
    Orlando, FL
    Ugh!
     
    SuhMe likes this.
  3. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    What do you expect when you put up a stat that places one next to the other? They're going to be compared. Peyton and Dan are the only two on that list that had to play before 2004 and on, and Dan is the only one who didn't start from game #1 in his rookie year which makes his numbers all the more compelling.

    Volume stats like this are cute to look at but efficiency numbers are more compelling. I think Tanny can be pretty good once there is a better staff and better oline. But you put a stat that places him next to Dan Marino then you better accept there will be comparisons.
     
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    WADR, none of that has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

    Cif thinks these stats are stupid, because Thill doesn't have a winning record nad he sucks because of that. All the other poster did was point out a lot of other QBs who are universally considered winners AND had high yards their first 4 years and had similar or worse records. Thereby proving, that CiF's criteria is more than flawed, its just wrong.

    That's it. Nothing else. Your other stuff isn't relevant to anything I was saying or Unlucky 13 was saying. if you want to talk about that stuff we can, you just need to understand that Unlucky wasn't saying Tannehill will be great because of those stats, just that CiF was wrong.
     
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    He didn't make any declarations about Tannehill just posted the goddamned stat. You Tannehaters need to stop ****ting on anything and everything that reflects a positive hue over Tanny. Doing that doesn't just make you guys look petty and ridiculous....it confirms it.

    Fight the Tannehater stereotype.
     
    P h i N s A N i T y likes this.
  6. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL

    Says the poster boy for Tannehill jock rider...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Rock Sexton likes this.
  7. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Let's be objective a bit, THill is clearly better then Henne ever was, where he fits into the 32 starting Qb galaxy remains to be seen b/c the team is so poor all around.

    I personally think he is a smarter, less athletic version of Jay Cutler atm, meaning great tools, does not really know how to win ballgames yet.
     
  8. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL

    I can see him and Cutler as a comparable in terms of tools. But not playing. Cutler is/was a gun slinger that would throw decent amount of picks due to throwing the ball "deep" often.

    Tannehill is more careful with the ball and throws less deep passes.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  9. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Is that what CIF meant? Or your interpretation of what he meant? Big difference normally.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  10. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Invalidates what? Total passing yards is good why? The correlation to success is relatively low.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
    jdang307 and dolphin25 like this.
  11. LiferYank

    LiferYank New Member

    3,088
    765
    0
    Oct 1, 2012
  12. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    If I had to take these stats to mean anything, I'd take them to be saying that Ryan Tannehill is potentially more durable than some of his colleagues.

    Let's remember that Matthew Stafford missed a TON of time during his first 2 seasons yet came right back in seasons 3 and 4 to throw for 10,000 yards. Had he been healthy for his entire first 4 seasons, he may very well be at the top of this list. To show what volume does you need only consider that over the last 4 years Stafford has thrown for 18,912 yards. That means that when he's healthy and starting he averages 4,728 yards per season!

    We can say something similar for Andrew Luck as well. He amassed 12,957 yards over his first 3 seasons. It's easy to see that after throwing for 4,761 yards last year, it would have been quite easy for Luck to reach 17,000 had he stayed healthy this year. Hell, he probably could've missed a couple games and still gotten to that mark.

    This question does need to be asked. What does overall production matter in terms of evaluating skill if we're not going to incorporate some measure of efficiency? Clearly it depends on the context in which your discussing overall production but we know that it can in certain circumstances mean absolutely nothing. Therefore, I think it's rather obvious that what this quirky stat really says is that Ryan has an uncanny ability to stay healthy despite having a very high number of attempts (not to mention doing so behind such a crap O-line).

    This is one of the biggest reasons I think Tannehill has a good chance under the right coaching. Given you can keep getting up and going out there and getting experience to develop yourself, you will eventually meet the standard that's required to win. In a way I guess it's a tortoise vs the hare sort of thing.

    We knew he was a project. I think toughness is the one thing he needed to have to get to this point. He's not really a QB who can afford to miss time and give away experience.
     
    number21 likes this.
  13. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    I really don't care how many yards Tannehill throws for, he is still not a good QB
     
    Itsdahumidity likes this.
  14. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    A most convincing argument! :)
     
    Ducken, 3Pmi, LI phinfan and 2 others like this.
  15. LiferYank

    LiferYank New Member

    3,088
    765
    0
    Oct 1, 2012
    To be fair Stafford had a pretty good WR to throw to those years. ( yes folks that is sarcasm )Luck is supposed to be the next Elway. I dont think anyone ever thought at any time that Tannehill was going to be an all time great.

    However he doesnt suck.
     
  16. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    I see The early version of Alex Smith, surroundings were bad coaching was bad then along came a Harbaugh. Now? He's a very valuable quarterback in this league in the Chiefs have a chance to go far in the AFC playoffs.

    I have no doubts that he will struggle next year and be a Casualty of the cap...then catch on in the right situation and go on to be a very solid quarterback.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  17. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    53,148
    31,935
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    I agree that efficiency numbers are more compelling, however, I also think it is more difficult to be efficient with the more that is placed on your shoulders. It is what has made some of Brees' numbers in New Orleans so outstanding. Tannehill, despite being raw, has had to shoulder a lot more load than most young QBs. And I don't mean from a learning the offense or audibility standpoint, I mean from an actual position of being asked to carry the team with his arm or legs (from a volumetric point).

    Now, he hasn't been good enough to make that volume work, as he hasn't been nearly efficient enough, but most QBs that young couldn't either IMO. I think what we've seen from Luck is why everyone was sure he was special, and he's had his own struggles due to the burden placed on him to carry his team as well.
     
    number21, DolphinGreg and Unlucky 13 like this.
  18. Brasfin

    Brasfin Well-Known Member

    2,435
    1,672
    113
    Apr 27, 2013
    Brazil
    Yes, and it says even more when you consider that he's been one of the most sacked QB's in the last few seasons.
     
  19. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    We all understand that the expectations for Ryan Tannehill were lower than for someone like Andrew Luck, however the goal here is to reach the Play-offs and potentially win a Super Bowl so simply outperforming expectations is not the correct measure of success.

    I agree. I updated my post while you quoted this.

    That said, Tannehill invites quite a few sacks himself. He's not particularly adept at recognizing pressure. I have my doubts that he's where he ought to be at this stage in his career in regards to understanding where pressure is going to come from and how to deal with it. This past game against Indy showed more evidence of that. There were at least 2 sacks I recall wherein Tannehill honestly had more than enough time to get the ball out and avoid the loss of yardage.

    It's simple really. You combine a QB that's not particularly good about avoiding sacks with an O-line that's doing everything it can to get him killed and you wind up with looking really bad in the sack category.

    One of the interesting things that I believe is true yet we don't hear about is how Tannehill keeps himself healthy and avoids potentially dangerous situations by often giving himself up and going down without a big fight. Over the last couple seasons I've seen him do that a lot and I think it's helped keep him from suffering the types of injuries we often see from QBs who are less comfortable with contact (i.e. ribs, shoulders, ankles, knees, etc.). It is possible that having been a WR Tannehill has a sense of how to get tackled and when to simply give up the fight.

    In a sense, this is both good and bad. It's given us more sacks yet it's kept our QB healthy.

    This is correct. While there isn't a great deal of information provided in a (young) QBs career yardage total, we can say that Tannehill's high attempts paired with the below-average W/L record of his team is evidence that winning probably won't come from continuing in the fashion that the team has. That said, people do need to realize that if the team called more runs, they'd often result in no gain or worse. There is a very good reason that the team is passing as much as it is. The O-line does not make running the ball for 4 quarters a good option. There also seems to be a lack of understanding that were Lamar Miller carrying the ball 250 times as compared with 190 to 220 per season he would certainly not be the 5 ypc RB that he is now.

    You combine the knowledge that you'd like to run Lamar Miller and Jay Ajayi more but to a large degree can't with the fact you'd like to have Tannehill throwing less, using play-action and working from under center more and you see that all roads lead to improving the O-line (at least on the offensive side).

    I don't think it's really that complicated. Miami just needs to fix the O-line. How they do that is up to them.
     
    number21 and Unlucky 13 like this.
  20. LiferYank

    LiferYank New Member

    3,088
    765
    0
    Oct 1, 2012
    How do you truly judge a QB with a historically bad O-line?
     
  21. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    I'm not even going to bother because the bold part clearly shows you didn't comprehend what I wrote. It's week 17 it's not even worth it at this point.

    Plus I won $3,600 last night in my dynasty league so I'm giddy.
     
    Fin-O and djphinfan like this.
  22. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Very interesting that passing efficiency is highly correlated to wins, but rushing efficiency isn't, and volume/yards matter more.


    [​IMG]
     
    Nappy Roots likes this.
  23. JimJaime

    JimJaime New Member

    15
    6
    0
    Dec 28, 2015
    Impressive, but Luck IMO been the better QB. Hard to argue w bringing a team 1 step further in the playoffs every year. This year he been riddled with injuries so his stats would even be better if he had been healthy.

    but Tannahill/Phins need stop the safeties I mean do the Phins lead in that stat this year most safeties?
     
  24. shadokp

    shadokp Active Member

    348
    127
    43
    Aug 15, 2011
    Massachusetts
    i think if the Oline played as a top 10 Oline then any QB would be better. Tannehill would be better. You couple that with a half way decent receiving corp and a capable coaching staff and in theory, the team would be good on offense. The question then is "Would Tannehill play good enough to get to the play-offs?"

    I was all in on Tannehill but this season you can see that he is not as good as we all hoped. He has had the moments to shine. There have been plays where the Oline somehow did their job and the receivers were open and the play call was correct and the defense has given the offense the chance and Tannehill has not sealed the deal.

    He needs to perform when these rare moments occur and they have. If he is given a chance and can only succeed 30% of the time then he needs to get better. If he succeeds 70% of the time given the chance and yet the chances are rare or non existent, then the problem is with something else. That last play was no chance for him at all but what about the plays before hand? He can only do so much but he needs to do his part and he hasn't consistently.

    If the oline, receivers and coaching became elite in the off season, would he improve as a QB, sure, but by how much? Enough to win a Superbowl, enough to go to the playoffs, enough to win a game?

    How many passing TDs does Tannehill have this December? 2? In 4 games. He has to take blame on some of this.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  25. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    The same way you evaluate a QB with a historically great offensive line or with an historically great WR. You take the numbers for what they are while taking some consideration for the good or bad qualities of the environment. What other choices do you have?

    Step 1 involves acknowledging that you cannot fully predict what would happen if the scenarios were completely reversed (i.e. Tannehill had an historically great line or someone like Brady continuously had an historically bad line). For example, we'll never know if the 2007 Patriots would've reached the Super Bowl with a lesser line or if Tannehill would've taken them there in place of Brady. In other words, how much of the historically great protection of the 2007 Patriots was driven by Brady's abilities behind center and how much of the nonsense in Miami falls at Ryan's feet?

    Step 2 involves evaluating how the QB has performed when the protection is good. We've done this. Ryan looks good in these instances but there are still questions on the table. For example, you can't say that Tannehill's troubling placement with deep passes would automatically become more accurate if he had more time. That's nothing but a guess. All we can say is that he'd probably do as well as he is doing now, probably better, but to what degree we do not know.

    Step 3 involves factoring in what effect you think bad protection in the past influenced bad performance by the QB when he had time. In other words, if Tannehill is under major pressure on two consecutive plays and subsequently misses a 3rd down throw because he was slightly inaccurate. Is that really Ryan's short-coming or is that simply an artifact of being hit twice in a row on the two previous plays?

    To answer your question briefly though, you do exactly what you would for anyone else.

    Some people seem to think that Tannehill cannot be evaluated without the line being made better. I don't know what world they live in where the QB gets perpetually awarded more time because of a bad line, bad receivers, a bad defense, bad coaching, etc. but at some point you'd better find a way to evaluate him through the smoke because you can't be sitting there with a 30-year old Ryan Tannehill still making excuses about why you don't know what to think. There's a practical limitation to that kind of thinking. ;)
     
  26. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    It's interesting to me that passer rating has a good correlation because IMO people complain too much about it. Its simplistic but yet it's pretty damn reliable at the end of the season. I can usually look at the list and generally agree with what it says. Certainly over time I think it's pretty damn accurate.
     
    Nappy Roots, number21 and jdang307 like this.
  27. RevRick

    RevRick Long Haired Leaping Gnome Club Member

    7,191
    3,940
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Thomasville, GA
    If you take a look at the W-L column - neither was Peyton Manning. Would you refuse him, or are you just relying on knee jerk reaction about likes and dislikes to affect your opinion.

    To me Tannehill looks like a winner stuck behind an atrocious line with an even more atrocious head coach for 3.33 years, who has also absorbed at least 40% more sacks than his nearest compatriot on that list, and almost four times that of Marino. (Part of that was due to Marino's spectacular talent and quick release, but.... Marino type quarterback only appear every 50 years or so. How good would his record have been if Shula had not kept Olivadotti around, or hired him in the first place?)
    Back to Tannehill. The only thing most of the people who are clamoring for Tannehill's hide to be nailed to the door have to use for the basis of their disdain is the W/L record - which is a team record. After all, Tannehill does not tackle other team's runners, break up the other quarterbacks' passes, catch his own passes', or run routes and get open enough to hit for his own passes - NOR BLOCK THE OTHER TEAMS DEFENSIVE LINE!

    That is capitalized because the problem of 177 sacks in four years ought to have stood out like a 2" X 4" X 8" long Sore Thumb every time someone sat down to consider a trade, free agent pickup, or a draft pick. To not have put together an at least adequate offensive line after four years with the Philbin regime and the previous three years of FistPump (both alleged offensive line experts!) is the most damning offense the team managers have incurred.

    Now, you are probably going to categorize me as a "Tannehill" suckup..... BullaSheetHell... I am a realist. The problems we have on this team do not solely resolve around the quarterback. Further, doing anything to change that right now will do absolutely NOTHING to help this team, but will by any reasonably thought out means of investigation set the team back another two years - on top of the number of years it will take to get the front office to sit up and finally take notice that adding high priced, newsprint attracting free agents to the Salary Cap influenced budget while ignoring the offensive line will get the team NO WHERE except into the battered quarterback club. At this rate, it is a miracle that Tannehill is not compared with Tim Couch, David Carr, Steve McNair and Mark Brunnell!! The fact that Tannehill is throwing shorter passes is solely because he has about as much time as a fox in a foxhound convention to get anything done.

    Go ahead with the short sighted and poorly conceived plot to get rid of Tannehill - then prepare to sit back for another ten years to find the right solution... Even 'capable' NFL quarterbacks do not materialize in each draft, and each time you draft one sets the planning for a proper offensive line and/or defensive backfield back another year. Have fun throwing bricks at the incorrect problem.... It will just aggravate the hell out of those of us who are looking to fix the real problems, and not the one which will satisfy short term thinking complainers.
     
    3Pmi, number21, CitizenSnips and 5 others like this.
  28. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Tannehill isn't a BAD quarterback, but he is a quarterback that needs a full supporting cast
     
    Fin-O and RevRick like this.
  29. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't understand why people say that he needs an "elite" oline. How about we give him an average oline, before we say that he needs an "elite" oline. Hell, let's give him a below average oline, that would still be better than an historically bad oline.

    Tannehill needs a little help, yes, but not as much, I don't believe, as some make it out to be. Give the man an average oline, and I think you'll see the offense, as a whole, be much better, and Tannehill will look like the real deal.
     
    2socks, DolphinGreg and Unlucky 13 like this.
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yes, because again, quarterbacks determine success.
     
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Just so this isn't misinterpreted, those don't show correlations of "passer rating", "pass YPA", etc.. to wins/losses. They show winning % as a function of whether you won a statistical battle, so it's a function of passer rating differential, or pass YPA differential, etc.. And even then it really isn't because they're not considering the actual differential, just looking at whether the differential was positive or negative without caring about by how much.

    So it's a bit lazy for them not to show the actual correlations to the differentials, which would be far more informative. Nevertheless, it does show the differentials in various stats are good predictors of winning.. just saying they're not giving the best info there.

    Anyway, this link shows correlations between some of those stats to wins, from 1990-2011:
    http://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/

    Passer rating: 0.51
    Pass Y/A: 0.43

    They don't have the rush yards though.. I'm sure that's easy enough to find if you search.
     
  32. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015

    I disagree that cutting him after next season is short sighted or poorly conceived. If he performs any where near the level as he has this year? You absolutely can not take that cap hit. Rather its all on the OL or not. We aren't going to wake up one day with a good OL, it takes good drafting, developing the player and finding solid mid tier FA's....all things this organization fails at annually.

    I don't foresee a huge upgrade by the start of next season, a season in which our QB is basically going to have to show he is worth 19M.

    Like a lot of QBs a change of scenery will likely do wonders for Ryan, and we will be stuck hoping for some miracle that makes us a stable and respectful franchise.
     
  33. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,553
    1,793
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    This team shouldn't be held hostage by "time". After next season, five years should be enough to know what they're working with ...... which at this stage is an average QB who flashes at times, but is basically the same player he was in college.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Tannehill shouldn't be held hostage by an offensive line that would struggle to be competitive in DII football.
     
    RevRick likes this.
  35. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,553
    1,793
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    Ya, no.
     
  36. jw3102

    jw3102 season ticket holder

    7,760
    3,486
    113
    Sep 4, 2010
    Maui, Hawaii
    While I won't argue his passing stats. The major problem I have with Tannehill is that when the game is on the line and we need him to lead the team down the field and score a TD to win the game. I have zero confidence in his ability to get the job done.

    Between the 20 yard lines and in the second and third quarters, Tannehill is a decent enough QB. In the fourth quarter and inside the red zone, especially late in the game, he is below average at best.

    I don't know the stats, but I would bet he probably has less fourth quarter winning drives after 4 years as a starting QB in the league than any other QB in NFL history, with the same number of starts.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  37. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Welcome to the NFL. Wilson and Rodgers have dealt with crappy olines. People say he doesn't need much help but then immediately say he needs a good to decent oline.

    So yeah, that's more help.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  38. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Have you looked at Rodgers stats this year? Volume stats, with a sub 7 ypa.

    Wilson has elite escapability. That's why he's able to function behind that line.

    Also, the argument has never been that he doesn't need help. He definitely needs other players to do their damn job.
     
  39. Shane Falco

    Shane Falco Banned

    916
    468
    0
    Nov 22, 2015
    And I'm taking my ball and going home, so there!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  40. Shane Falco

    Shane Falco Banned

    916
    468
    0
    Nov 22, 2015
    I think we would settle for half a supporting cast. We don't even have that much.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

Share This Page