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

Why Tannehill should be a better QB now Lazor is gone

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Pauly, Mar 27, 2016.

  1. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    23,698
    39,847
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS

    Hey Pauly. Just wanted to take a moment and thank you for all the analysis as well as maintaining your composure throughout the thread. Particularly post #98. I know much time and work you've put into this.

    Ignore Fin-O for the most part. He loves to troll and is JFWY.
     
    Pauly and resnor like this.
  2. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'll say again...everyone has the vision of the QB calling a huddle, in a game they're behind in, he gives a speech, calls the perfect play, the guys get fired up and they score and win as the clock ticks 0. Boom, leader.

    Imagine that same scenario, but the QB isn't allowed to call that play because the OC won't let him and he's waiting on the play just like the other players are.
     
    resnor likes this.
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    He's saying someone can play worse then their ability under pressure, but people don't play better than their ability under pressure. Your ability is already your ceiling. Frankly, if someone plays better than they normally do in pressure situations, that means they are dogging it in non-pressure situations.
     
    resnor, cuchulainn and Pauly like this.
  4. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well if that's what he meant I'd mostly agree, though just saying "stepping up" didn't convey that.

    Worth pointing out there are some counter-examples though. Flacco I think since 2011 seems to consistently play better in the playoffs than in the regular season.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  5. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Thanks FinD, that says it better than I was going to

    Sorry if I wasnt clear on that Cbrad
     
    Fin D likes this.
  6. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Trouble is, even if it the situation can be proven to be true,can it be quantified in the data?

    That's why I'm very reluctant to comment on his leadership skills based on data analysis.
     
  7. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Thanks for those stats.

    I suppose what I'm saying is that if there are multiple ways to measure a QBs performance under pressure, and he fails one of those tests, but doesn't fail the others can we really say his play suffers under pressure? Shouldn't he be failing most of those tests if it's true he performs badly under presuure?
     
  8. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Flacco isn't clutch, he dogs it during the regular season. Which is a horrible trait and not desirable.
     
  9. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Perhaps, but what I saw was that QB17's rating on 3rd down, when trailing and in the 4th have remained about the same, while his other stats have increased significantly, and though Lazor might not have called a good game in those situations, he isn't on the field making plays either, QB17 has not been good in those situations.

    As I said, perhaps you're right, but from what I've seen, it is on QB17 as well.
     
    dolphin25 and Pauly like this.
  10. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I wouldn't call playing with the game on the line with 2 minutes left the same kind of situation as your average 3rd down play. So I wouldn't necessarily expect performance to suffer in every type of pressure situation. Besides, you will then be left with trying to decide where the threshold is for "pressure situation" if you go that route, so that's another reason not to make the argument.
     
  11. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    It might be better to say he doesn't consistently play up to his ability, rather than dogging it. Dogging it implies laziness, butit might be a lack of focus, or it might be conservative play callling inthe regular season and the coaches getting more aggressive in the post season
     
  12. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I think there are stats that back up what a leader can do, but the only way imo to gauge a leader is on the field with the eye test, and QB17 hasn't shown that yet, and that kind of brings up the Parcells adage, (paraphrasing)"if a puppy doesn't bite, they usually won't ever bite".

    I play competitive pool, I see clutch/nerves/collapsing all the time, and the bigger the stakes, the more it shows, people who play well in the regular season have a turn for the worse when a trip to Vegas is on the line, and there are those whom you expect it of, and then there are those that play well in those situations, and that also is kind of predictable.

    I think QB17 is more "afraid" of making a mistake in those situations, than he is looking to cut the other teams throat, which leads to tentative play, but that's not what you need from the QB, and I have doubts that that will change, but QB17's most impressive feat is how much he has improved since his rookie year, so he might be one of the very few that do come around, we shall see.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  13. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yet the other constant in your stats, is the playcalling. You're stats also ignore a defense that has players rising up and playing harder in "clutch" situations.

    I have a hard time believing that our third down distance to go was close to league average last season. Seemed like every drive we had penalties or lost yards on first and second, leaving third and long many, many times.
     
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    We've been through this. Unless you have evidence ONLY the Dolphins faced the extra defensive pressure or type of play-calling in clutch situations, there's no evidence conditioning on that (which we can't do anyway with the data available) will change the conclusion in favor of your theory. So you go with the best available statistical evidence.

    Really, the onus lies on you to show with data or analysis of it that Tannehill isn't the driving force behind the abnormally large drop-off in the clutch situations we're talking about relative to other QB's. You can't just keep saying maybe it's this or that.. sure it could be anything. Time for you to go get the evidence for your theory resnor.

    Same here.. defies what I saw with my eyes (though keep in mind this is 2013 and 2014.. couldn't find 2015 with a quick search). But we didn't watch all the other teams like we do the Dolphins. The type of analysis they did is decent (probably the first thing I'd do too), so I'm going to just go with the stats they showed for now.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  15. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I know, we go round and round. Your stats, though, are assuming that defensive play doesn't change in those situations, only the QB's play. Hell, your stats assume that no other player ups his level of play, only the QB. QB's stats are better in certain situations? He's clutch. It's possible that the QB didn't change his play at all, but his teammates all upped their play. By ignoring defensive players being "clutch," your stats might actually be telling you that the "clutch" guys are even more "clutch," cause they're upping their play against defensive players who are playing even better. Who even knows?

    But, no, I guess only QBs can up their play and be "clutch."

    I saw stats during one of the game broadcasts towards the end of the season, and they indicated that the Dolphins were routinely in worse situations on third down than most teams. Commentators were routinely mentioning it towards the end of the season.

    Sidenote, I really, REALLY, dislike using stats from Tannehill's first two years to try to prove anything. The guy had limited college starts, was a raw prospect, and by all accounts, should have sat at least a year to develop a little more before being thrown to the wolves.
     
  16. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    First of all, the stats are from actual game situations so there's no way they assume anything that actually occurred could not have occurred. Of course they allow defensive play to vary, and of course it's false to claim they assume only the QB play accounts for any observed change.

    The problem is that you and many others (including me) think the OL is crappy ALL the time. The other problem is there's no evidence ONLY the Dolphins are getting extra defensive pressure during those situations. And the other problem is that QB rating has a ton to do with QB performance, even if it's technically a team stat (like all stats).

    So comparing drop-offs in QB rating across the league in those situations suggests a good portion of the abnormal drop-off was due to Tannehill. That's not saying all of it is. All I claimed is that Tannehill isn't clutch in those situations, and the evidence suggests that is true given the other assumptions.

    What I'm asking for is for you to provide some evidence that most of that drop-off wasn't due to Tannehill. So far I hear only possibilities, no evidence.
     
  17. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I think QB performance has a lot to do with QB rating, or, at least the way the stats see it. LOL. The QB has to perform (obviously with help from receivers) to get his rating.

    Look, when you pull up 4th quarter stats, and say, "Look, this guy played better, HE'S CLUTCH!" how are your arguing that is not ignoring defensive play? Your comparing to his "normal" play in "non-clutch" situations.

    Look, no matter how many stats you throw, I don't believe "clutch" is anything more than a made-up idea by sports media, to try to grow players into legends. It's kinda like "intangibles" for me.
     
  18. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's not ignoring defensive play because I'm not just comparing Tannehill's stats in conditions X and Y to each other, I'm doing that for all QB's and saying the drop-off for Tannehill from condition X to Y was abnormally large. So if defensive pressure exists more in condition Y than X for ALL (or most) teams, then of course that's accounted for.

    And whether "clutch" exists as a made-up idea or not is irrelevant. The question is whether the drop-off in performance from X to Y was abnormally large for Tannehill, and if yes we give it a label which for now is "clutch".
     
  19. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Could you give us your conclusion on this subject in lamen terms?...haven't read the whole thread.
     
  20. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Like I said, it is, even if misused. Fin D didn't even know it was a word. I checked ... And it is. We all learned a new word.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  21. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015

    Not trying to "troll" at all. Some are just flawed thinking blind homers who make it impossible to have any type of real discussion because you are too busy apologizing for anything a middle of the road QB does wrong.

    I have put out long well thought out analysis, it has been met with word twisting, yeah but's, and the inability for the other side to see past there hard-on for 17.

    Funny thing is, I like the QB...think he has a chance to be pretty good in the right environment. It's the constant horse shnit the same few people type out in these posts that I call out that make it seem to the uninformed I do not like Ryan.

    Too many people jump in to these threads not realizing the history of them, then make poor attempts to call out a guy on the OTHER side of their agenda.
     
    Pauly and dolphin25 like this.
  22. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015

    So Joe Flacco chooses to play poorly in the regular season.....man that is a GREAT theory.
     
    cbrad and jdang307 like this.
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    How do you come into the thread just insulting and being a jerk? Again, no one cares if you have issues with the QB. The issue has always been the attitude that Tannehill is at fault for everything wrong with the team, cancer, AIDS, and fetal alcohol syndrome.
     
  24. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Really? Cause I've tried to get you guys to realize the onus is on you all to show what other QBs have done under the following circumstances:

    - Bad pass blocking oline
    - Bad OC
    - Abandoned run game
    - Not allowed to audible

    Those aren't guesses. Those aren't maybes. Those aren't excuses. Those are the actual set of circumstances he's had to work with. Unless your stats specifically account for those variables, then they are pointless IN THIS ARGUMENT. They're fine for other arguments but are useless for this one.
     
    resnor likes this.
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The one set of statistics where there is relatively clear evidence Tannehill performs worse under pressure than most other QB's is when the team is trailing with less than 2, or less than 4, minutes left in the 4th quarter.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  26. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That's also the same set of data that Pauly used to come to the conclusion that Lazor was a problem.
     
  27. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's a maybe that the REASON you see the drop-off with Tannehill's stats (team stats) in those conditions is precisely your theory that it's mostly NOT due to the QB.

    That's total guess. No evidence provided so far whereas there's pretty good evidence a major reason is Tannehill himself.

    And if your "not accounting for X" is valid in THIS argument, then the same logic MUST apply in all others, which is why you're implicitly implying no stats are valid. Like I said, I'm not going down this "defend at all costs" path with you, so if you decide to keep arguing against what is pretty obvious there you're on your own and I won't treat it with a respectful response.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Pauly showed ONE way of looking at things. If that was the ONLY stat available he's right. In this very thread I showed another (more traditional) way of looking at things where you look at variance-to-mean across games. You get a different conclusion about consistency, namely that Tannehill was MORE consistent under Lazor.

    So while I commend Pauly for trying to tease out coaching, you can easily point out it just depends on the stats you look at.

    And none of those arguments applies ONLY to the 4th quarter <2 or <4 minute stats while trailing I'm talking about.
     
    Pauly and dolphin25 like this.
  29. dgfred

    dgfred Free Agent pickup

    642
    259
    0
    Dec 17, 2015
    N.C., USA
    Stats show the OL was extra sucky when down by 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 with 4 minutes left. Even with 60 minutes left and a halftime.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  30. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Which stats?

    And keep in mind, you have to show the OL was "extra sucky" relative to the rest of the league in those conditions. That is, the drop-off was worse. Every OL is expected to play worse in pressure situations. Gotta show the drop-off was way worse for ours than for others.

    btw.. there are mathematical reasons why that is unlikely. It's harder to see a larger drop-off the smaller the number already is. So if the OL is already sucky, it can't go down much more anyway.
     
  31. dgfred

    dgfred Free Agent pickup

    642
    259
    0
    Dec 17, 2015
    N.C., USA
    Already sucky... then comes the extra.

    Do you agree the play calling was terrible?
    Is that play caller gone?
    Should current QB do better now that terrible play calling is gone? I am thinking yes.

    Isn't that what this thread is about?
     
  32. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

    You claim all teams face the same amount and type of pressure at the same point in games, therefore Thill is too blame (even though you don't provide evidence they are all facing the same stuff). Then you more or less negate the fact that Thill has specific circumstances that only he faces by reverting back to data that doesn't account for those circumstances. Its kinda crazy actually.
     
    resnor and dgfred like this.
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The thread moved on to another debate, specifically about Tannehill's stats when trailing with <2 or <4 minutes left. You can get those here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TannRy00/splits/

    But to answer your question, yes I agree we had a bad OC and he's gone. Will we improve without him? Who knows. Especially with this being the Dolphins and their terrible history of trying to improve the team, I'm going with "wait and see".
     
  34. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    They don't need to face the same stuff. You can assume there's variance across teams. What is a fact is you see an abnormal drop-off. Now, there are many possible reasons for that, and you've pointed out possibilities. The QB is one of those possibilities.

    What is clear is that the QB has a huge influence on those stats. So does the OL but the OL is always crappy according to you and me and others. Defensive pressure is greater for everyone in those conditions. They aren't precisely the same, yes, but it's always greater. Those are the 3 big possibilities here, and because 2 of those are adjusted for, the QB remains the main culprit.

    Now you're right there are some specific differences, from specific play-calling (on the more influential side) down to the exact height of the players or exact amount they sweat (on the less influential side) or who knows what. Point is, to show that something so hard to quantify like the effect of specific play-calling is a MAJOR reason why Tannehill had that drop-off you need evidence and you guys provide none.

    The evidence is clear: Tannehill is a major reason for that drop-off.

    Anyway, I'm done arguing the validity of these stats. I'm pretty good at that stuff in real life and I know I'm right here.
     
  35. dgfred

    dgfred Free Agent pickup

    642
    259
    0
    Dec 17, 2015
    N.C., USA
    What does 'pretty' good mean? Good at scrambling the stats or looking at them.
    I am good at watching games and seeing what the problem is. I do, I have.

    RT is not the reason... maybe a very small percentage of the 'problem', but that is all. Other factors are much more 'responsible' be it early game, late game or in between.
     
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Like I've actually developed new statistical techniques. In fact I presented one of them at a conference on how to analyze test scores in education in D.C yesterday.

    Believe what you want, but there's one stat that can be defended: the abnormal drop-off in <2 and <4 minutes left while trailing as having a lot to do with Tannehill. Doesn't mean he's the only reason but he statistically speaking played a major part.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  37. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    lol.

    Typical. You make a declaration based on your own bias, then declare you're done talking about it, because you know you literally cannot back up your point.

    You are very good with stats, however, you are poor at divesting your beliefs from them, which in turn, makes you poor at relating the stats to what is actually happening.

    To put it bluntly, your argument is faulty because your logic is non existent and your stats don't actually deal with the issues in this argument.
     
  38. dgfred

    dgfred Free Agent pickup

    642
    259
    0
    Dec 17, 2015
    N.C., USA
    We shall see. After you compare your 'stats' between this year (new play calling and hopefully better OL and D) and last year (horrible D, horrible OL, horrible play calling) you will find RT has had a remarkable end-game turnaround. Interested how this 'new' stat theory will be defended/refuted on who is the suckiest when <2 or <4 at the end of a game if those other things are addressed.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  39. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I'll go wherever the data takes me. But whatever the data suggest right now, I seriously hope your prediction comes true.
     
    Pauly, jdang307 and dgfred like this.

Share This Page