Firstly and most importantly Lazor's job was to design and implement the strategy. It was his job to find solutions to work around offensive difficulties. Football is a complex game with multiple paths to success. It is not like tic-tac-toe where your opponent is unbeatable if they adopt the optimal strategy. Football's simplest analogy is scissors-paper-rock. It's been found that the most common throw is scissors, therefore it would seem that the optimal strategy is to throw rocks all the time. But if you do that your opponent will start throwing paper (to beat you) and rocks (as insurance to prevent losing), so the actual optimal strategy in tic-tac-toe is to remain randomized until you notice that your opponent has a pattern and then adjust to their pattern. To go to some more specifics. a) If opposing Ds were taking away the short stuff when Tannehill was behind, why didn't they do it when they were ahead? Why not make Tannehill an 85 rated QB all of the time? Your theory fails purely on the basis that Tannehill could complete more and deeper passes when he wasn't behind so it wasn't due to a failure of Tannehill's skills to make the throws as a QB that lead to the drop in his passer efficiency. b) The theory that Tannehill choked whenever he was behind is flatly contradicted by his performance in the Sherman years. The fact that Tannehill's splits under Sherman were even when the NFL average is for about a 5 point reduction is passer rating actually indicates that Tannehill picked up his game when behind in Sherman's offense. c) Tannehill's specific weakness statistically speaking has been his rating with less than 4 minutes to play. However looking at the splits for all QBs and their performance with less than 4 minutes to go there is weak correlation, at best, between passing in the last 4 minutes and winning% or win% in 0-7 point games. [Side note to cbrad, I think I might do a data search into this in the future taking into account a longer time frame] http://www.pro-football-reference.c...&margin_max=-1&quarter=4&minutes=4&tr_gtlt=lt Also his play over the first 56 minutes of a game counts towards the final result too. In any event his poor rating in the last 4 minutes only explains a small fraction of his total passing when behind. d) The deep ball opened up again in the second year. So it was put back into the offense in year 2. e) Opposing Ds weren't taking away all the possible short routes, they were sitting on the ones they expected to see. For example the bubble screen to Landy, which was effective early in the year when it was novel, but fooled no-one after game 4. [edit to add] f) Lazor did change his strategy (run/pass balance; types of passes called) as soon as the Dolphins were behind. We all saw this with our own eyes.
Passer rating when trailing: 2012: 76 2013: 82 2014: 84 2015: 85 Not sure how you can conclude the Sherman years proves he's not a choker.
Do you really think I would say something like that without having done the stats to back it up first? http://www.thephins.com/forums/show...-best-games-compilation&p=2801488#post2801488 http://www.thephins.com/forums/show...ehill-should-be-a-better-QB-now-Lazor-is-gone The short version for those too lazy to read. Under Lazor 2015: tied or ahead 96.3; behind 85.4; Difference -10.9 2014: tied or ahead 104.7; behind 83.6; Difference -21.1 Combined: tied or ahead 101.2; behind 84.6; difference -16.6 Under Sherman 2013: tied or ahead 81.9; behind 81.5; difference -0.4 2012: tied or ahead 76.2; behind 75.9; difference -0.3 combined: tied or ahead 79.17; behind 79.13; difference -0.04 According to Miriam-Webster to choke in sports is: to lose one's composure and fail to perform effectively in a critical situation <had a chance to win the game but he choked> Under Sherman Tannehill did not choke because he performed at the same effectiveness, as measured by passer rating, whether he was behind or ahead. There is a change in his stats consistent with him throwing deeper higher risk passes under Sherman, which introduces higher variance by deliberate design of the OC.
Well, truthfully, you could say that he was full time choking under Sherman, because he was failing to perform effectively at all.
I read what you wrote, I just don't agree with your logic. What if the QB had a 140 rating when ahead and 100 when behind? That would be a 40 point difference but seeing as he's still better than most QBs in the league when behind you can't really read much into the point differential. Its reminiscent of the argument that Tannehill was better than Wilson because Tannehill was ascending every year and Wilson was regressing. The overall body of work should trump these idiosyncratic splits.
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." Choking is by definition, and has to be, relative to the normal level of performance you can expect from someone. So in your example it is choking*. Their performance is diminished and it reduces the teams chance of winning. * Assuming the reason for the drop in performance is because of an adverse reaction to pressure. There may be other reasons to explain the drop such as a change in offensive strategy at those times.
So terrible that Tannehill, as a rookie, with terrible receivers, didn't tear it up. Why are you guys complaining about this stuff?