This is where I will step in and say I think he has improved and will continue to do so Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If that's your argument then you are not wrong. The team around him has never been good enough to win consistently, so naturally a young developing QB wasn't equipped to overcome that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gotta love these narratives also. You know the last time I complained about Ryan's deep ball??? When he struggled with it. You don't hear or see much complaining about it now, yet it is still brought up like it is a week old argument. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We are not really in disagreement. I thought the environment was not conducive to winning (I tend to see QB wins as a long 5-10 year thing, not year to year, which is why you never saw me engage in his year to year record discussion) but also can look just at his play, and want to see more. He showed me some things last year, but he needs to play more like the last half (minus Balti) for the entire year. That's not guaranteed. They finally asked him to throw less, which I argued he needed, he's not the 600 passes a year type of guy ... He just isn't. Maybe later. Not now. I even pointed out how fantastic Romo was even at 600 passes, but their successful year with Demarco Murray he threw it like 450 or something ridiculous (but still hit 3,800 yards or something). He showed a lot last year, individually. He plays like that the entire year, and he creeps into the top 10 for sure.
Right. So, you're questioning the content, simply because he didn't pay money for his site. That's fine. But you are acting like I'm being ridiculous, when I'm not. It would be like me saying that I won't buy vegetables from a farm stand because they must not be good vegetables because the guy is too cheep to rent a store front. All good vegetables have to be in a store.
I don't know why people keep trying to make excuses for tannehill. He did not have very good pocket presence and feel for the rush and did not process things and get rid of the ball very quickly early in his career. He has progressively gotten better at it and has shown continuous improvement in all areas. Tannehill was a raw talent coming out of college who was relatively new to the QB position. It should not be a surprise that it has taken time for him to develop and improve several things. Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk
No one is arguing against this. No one is saying he has great pocket presence throughout his career. People are not making excuses, they are pointing out reasons why people who say, "Tannehill has no pocket presence" or "Tannehill sucks at the deep ball" are just plain wrong. Yes, Tannehill has improved his deep ball, however, he was never bad at it. In fact, he always had a pretty good deep ball and just had a problem with Mike Wallace. That could be scheme, chemistry, or whatever. Yes, Tannehill has improved his pocket presence. He is still not as good at escaping as Russell Wilson, and cannot work the pocket like Peyton Manning, however he was never bad at it. Tannehill is a fine quarterback. People try to make him out as terrible. Then people point out how he is not terrible. Then people say those people are just making excuses. That Tannehill through shear force of will, X-Factor, and leadership, should be able to take Miami to the playoffs. Then people point out how that is just plain stupid, that football is a team sport. And then people say they are just making excuses. Tannehill is by far the overall quarterback Miami has had since Dan Marino. He is upgradable, however, the 12 or so quarterbacks Miami tried to get since Dan Marino shows how difficult it is.
I actually think there's evidence of this. From a different thread where I plotted Tannehill's passer rating vs. passer rating allowed by the team he faced (allowed in that year), you can see that there's a stretch where Tannehill tends to perform worse than passer rating allowed: http://img.pixady.com/2017/05/889624_tannehill_passer_rating_differential.png Look at game numbers 50-70 or so. That corresponds to 2015 (game numbers 49-64) and the first 1/3 of 2016. About 2/3 of the time Tannehill did worse than the defense on average allowed. There's no other comparable stretch. So I think that's statistical evidence where you adjust by opponent strength that Tannehill regressed for about a 20 game stretch until Gase finally got things together last year. btw.. that best-fitting line predicts that Tannehill's average passer rating points above what the defense allows in 2017 should be around 8.8. That should put Tannehill's predicted 2017 passer rating at about 96.5 which would finally put him in the top 10 (around #8 going by 2016 rankings).
Define bad? There were some really bad times in 2015. Sure they were plenty of sex where he couldn't even breeze before they were on them but there are the times were he looked shellshocked. Those two might be related.
He never looked like Byron Leftwich or David Carr. Plus a lot of times when people said he looked, "Shell shocked", it was just them seeing what they wanted to see. Edit: Saying that, I do think he needs to improve his ability to throw the ball away instead of taking the sack. That would have probably saved about 5% of his sacks.
cbrad and I kind of feed off each other. I think cbrad started by showing rushing efficiency doesn't really correlate with winning so I went looking at why do teams rush at all and found that PR is affected by rushing %.
I thought I would look into this slightly more systematically From the pro-football reference website I got the league splits for: down and distance; game situation (trailing/tied/leading with 2 or 4 minutes left to go); win probability and shotgun/center. I looked at the 4 years from 2013 to 2016. I then calculated the rushing % for each situation. There were 17 different situations, and across 4 years that gave me 108 data points. In that period passer rating had a 0.57 correlation to rushing% in that situation. The trend line is 64.23 + .5011 (at 0% rushing expected passer rating is 64.23 and for every 1% additional of rushing you can expect to add .5011 to your passer rating)
Yeah.. let's just remember that there's a good deal of evidence showing much of the difference in rushing attempts between good and bad teams comes from killing the clock in the 4th quarter when the winning team has a lead (that is, rushing attempts for the winning team vs. the losing team are similar in the first 3 quarters but diverge in the 4th). So this is one case where I wouldn't put much stock into the correlations between wins (or passer rating) and rushing attempts because the causal relation seems to go in the opposite direction (rushing attempts is the effect not the cause).
I figured it out....knowing the defense's calls due to illegally tapping them is being "clutch". Having a guy in the booth telling you who is open due to your mic being on after the snap is "it factor".
The exceptions would be games like Jayjay's 200 yders and mainly elite RBs, it's definitely a passing league but I bet run stats would be different back in the 70s and 80s, when teams ran to win, but in todays league it's a pass to win league. That doesn't mean you can't win running the ball however, Seattle recently is a team that used the old blue print, stifling D and pound the rock, it's especially effective late in the season in bad weather games, you do need an elite RB though, one of the exceptions.
But even back in the 70s the truly effective teams had efficient passing games complementing the ball control side of things. It took the addition of Russel Wilson to take the Seahawks into the SB. The early '70s phins had Griese to Warfield to punish defenses for selling out to Csonka, Kiick and Morris, the Steel Curtain Steelers had Bleier and Harris carrying the ball allowing Bradshaw to make plays to Swann and Stallworth. The list of great RBs in the league like Adrian Peterson, Barry Sanders and Ricky Williams who never made it to the superbowl is longer than the list of great QBs who never made it to the superbowl. Walter Payton, who many consider to be GOAT RB only made it to one SB when possibly the best Defense in NFL history carried the team.
in this case I think that the causal relationship is plausible. Definitely there is evidence that the rushing % in the 4th quarter is dependent on whether a team is trailing or leading. But for example that doesn't explain why PR for 2nd or 3rd and short is much higher than 2nd or 3rd and long. Some of the explanation might be related to the removal of short/intermediate passes as a viable option in the latter situations. Also with win probability good teams against bad teams will account for some of the differences at the 0-19% and 80-99% situations. But on the contra side teams with low win probability will take higher risk pass options resulting in lower completion percentages and higher interceptions, and teams in a high win probability state will avoid risks and start with better field position because the losing teams will give them more turnovers. to get better answers I'd have to slice the data into smaller pieces, and I don't have access to that information.
To see how the game has changed, I think it's better to look at correlations between rush/pass yards and points scored rather than correlations between rush attempts and wins. Why? Correlation to wins tells you what it actually takes to win (when correlation = causation), but I think correlation to points scored is more indicative of what teams try to do to win (whether it's the best approach or not). And because rushing Y/C and passing Y/A has remained fairly steady over the years (what's gone up is completion %), rush and pass yards should tell you where teams place their emphasis (easier to manipulate yards than efficiency!). OK.. so here's a graph of year-to-year correlations between rush/pass yards and points scored from 1966-2016: http://img.pixady.com/2017/05/760810_correlationrushvpassyards.png You can see there have been two periods where teams heavily weighted the pass: when Marino came in the league and the last 10 years. Otherwise, pass is still more heavily weighted than run but not that much. There were 14 years (mostly in the 1970's) out of 51 where rush yards correlated more to points scored than pass yards to points scored. Well.. at least it provides SOME data to answer your question.
Awhile back, I made a post comparing the two using statistics against common opponents. Long story short... * Ryan Tannehill was statistically better than Andrew Luck against common opponents. It wasn't a significant margin, but he was better. * The real difference was divisional stats. Andrew Luck's yearly statistics are significantly inflated because of his dominance vs. a notoriously bad AFC south. Tannehill was the opposite. His year statistics were brought down because of his poor statistical output against the AFC east. I believed RT17 has struggled against the division mainly due to pressure (IMO). As in, we can't block for ****, and the AFC East has very solid pass rushing defenses. This year, behind an improved line, Tannehill statistically was better than at any point in his career (albeit a 3 game sample size due to injury) against the AFC East. In Tannehill's limited time in the NFL, he's improved almost every year (2015 was the anomaly, as that whole season was a giant cluster**** for everyone in the organization).
I know the media likes to harp on the fact that it takes Brady just over 2 seconds (I believe he's at about 2.25), on average, to get rid of the ball, but he's not that much better (And he's not the quickest) than the rest of the league. At least 20 other QB's in the league get rid of the football in less than 2.5 seconds. And RT is included in that 20. The biggest difference is Brady has great protection.
More Patriots talk? Do you go a day without it? And you're smoking if you think Brady has always had great protection. Their online looked like *** in 2014-2015. It did get better last year when Scarnecchia returned
Before you look even more foolish, maybe you should address the person who brought up the Pats and Brady? Over the past 15+ they have consistently had one of the best offensive lines in the NFL. Now, in your usual Brady/Patriot-homer fashion I realize that you can't see this, but cherry picking one year (I'm not even sure you're correct about 2014-2015) is your thing...so have at it.
Their line was abysmal for like three or four games, during which time Pats fans around here were talking about Brady being done. I told them that once the line got situated, he'd be back to his usual self. They did, and he was.
I've never even heard of least avoidable sacks. There's too much analysis being done. The fact that so many people here are letting this silly stat resonate is a sign of the off season. I just wish Tannehill would've avoided Calais's sack that knocked him out and put Matt Moore AKA Turd Sandwich in causing our offense to wilt like a boner at a 2017 Cher concert.
You are being ridiculous- I shared my opinion. If you don't agree with it then that's fine, but you've been saying for months that myself and others aren't allowed to think independently here if it doesn't match your viewpoints. And here you are still arguing that, saying that I have no right to not believe a freebie domain is not reputable. That's fine though- the mods will ban you eventually. Just keep telling people that they're not allowed to have opinions and the rest will work out fine.
Dude, I never said any such thing in that post you quoted. I'm fact, I said you're free to have that opinion, but I pointed out why I think its silly to hold the opinion that his analysis is no good simply because he doesn't pay for a site. That's what you said. You didn't offer any evidence to counter what was on his site, you just said it couldn't be good because it's free. I'll solve our problem.
