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

Evaluating Tannehill's Value

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by finsfandan, Jun 1, 2017.

  1. sports24/7

    sports24/7 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    32,924
    41,461
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    What I have been trying to say, though, is you can't make the argument one way or the other with any statistical evidence like you've asked for, because it doesn't exist. Matt Moore has only played in a handful of games in that period of time, so I can't use the barometer you want to tell you Tannehill was significantly better, just like you can't say the opposite. I can tell you that from watching the two play, I feel Tannehill is a significantly better QB with room to get even better.

    I feel like I've given you some arguments to what you've said and I haven't gotten a real rebuttal. You said if Tannehill becomes a top 10 QB, that status should be tainted because he has talent around him. I gave examples of other top QBs that don't "lose points" for having good players around them. You said Tannehill was 12th in QB rating last year with a good back and good WR. I told you if you want to use Ajayi in that equation, you should look at the games when he started playing at a high level, and in those games, Tannehill was in the top 10 in QB rating.

    I don't think it's critical to say you'd rather have Moore for less money and Kuechly drafted in his place. I've said you are entitled to that opinion. I don't agree with it, but that's fine. What leads me to believe you're being critical is refusing to give him much acknowledgement at all to the point where you said you think he will be a top 10 QB next year, but while suggesting even at that status he shouldn't really get credit for it. I think it's being critical when you say he isn't and never will be as good as Luck, Wilson, or Ryan (despite their production being incredibly similar in their first 5 years in the NFL).

    My overall point remains, though. If Ryan Tannehill is in fact a top 10 QB next year, talent around him or not, no one can make a reasonable argument that resources were wasted on him. If he's a top 10 QB, the Dolphins won. They did their job.
     
    djphinfan likes this.
  2. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,070
    22,827
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    Not true. Leadership is developed. THere are personality traits that exist that make developing leadership much easier, but people aren't born leaders.
     
    Pauly and Dol-Fan Dupree like this.
  3. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,648
    67,540
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I agree with that..if he becomes top 10 then the variables he dealt with were the cause of the delay, he just needed the extra time and the better coaching.
     
    sports24/7 and eltos_lightfoot like this.
  4. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Here's a question: If the Jets sign Kirk Cousins to a $130 million contract are Dolphin fans more likely to be laughing at them or biting their fingernails in worry?
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  5. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Of course ... Their career ratings are barely any different, neither are Moore's games with us. But Tannehill is worth so much more dollar wise that we're better off without Kuechly, Vernon/Smith, Clay/Miller, etc.

    I haven't seen anything to tell me he'll ever be as good as Wilson, Luck or Ryan. One was MVP and offensive player of the year, one has a ring, and another has led the NFL in TDs.

    But of course, if Tannehill has a record setting WR and the top RB against stacked boxes and barely breaks top 10, he's just great. And we're assuming he has this potential because we're scrapping data from last season. But yeah, I haven't put up a good argument. Only in a Fins forum would anybody believe Tannehill is a big difference maker.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. sports24/7

    sports24/7 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    32,924
    41,461
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    The sample size isn't close, though, so you can't really determine anything based off of those numbers. Apples to apples, watching Tannehill play with the same team as Moore last year, Tannehill looked much better. He made a bunch of wow throws, that Moore will never make.

    Ryan has played more seasons than Tannehill. His first 5 seasons looked an awful lot like Tannehill's first 5. And actually, his 6th wasn't very impressive either. But once he settled in during his second year under a good OC that knew what to do with him, he exploded. It's entirely possible we see that from Tannehill.

    A record setting WR in receptions. Guess who's responsible for getting him the ball that many times? Again, you keep cherry picking here. Ryan had a Pro Bowl HB and the best WR in the NFL. You didn't bring that up when discussing his accolades last season.

    Once again, your last sentence says it all. You don't like Tannehill. You don't have to, but don't start a thread pretending to ask a question about something when you already have the answer decided. It's just funny that someone who clearly has little experience in the game of football, and uses zero actual breakdown of his game will make a comment about "only a Fins forum...". This is why I don't venture into the mains. You get these types of arguments.
     
  7. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    You completely ignored their career ratings (Moore and Tannehill aren't far off). Ryan had a lot of help, but he was #1. Tannehill MIGHT break the top 10 with the number one RB against stacked boxes (and I believe #1 YPG if you discount the same games we're discounting for Tannehill) and a record setting WR in completions who gets a ton of YAC. Marty Ice earned his nickname before this past season, everybody saw his potential.

    Everybody is biased. I'm not pretending to ask a question. I'm inviting debate over his value and you haven't made an argument for why he's a good value. I keep saying I'd rather have Moore and Kuechly and to have resigned a combination of guys like Miller, Clay, Vernon, Smith, but instead of you debating what's a better value, you're making it about how I have an opinion as if I can't have one.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  8. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Matt Ryan's first 5 seasons did not look "an awful lot like Tannehill's." Not even close.
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  9. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    His first four were very close
     
    Fin D likes this.
  10. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Matt Ryan's first 5 seasons: 90.18 passer rating.
    Matt Ryan's career: 93.6 passer rating.
    Tannehill's first 5/career: 86.5 passer rating.
    Moore as a Dolphin: 83.47 passer rating.
    Moore's career: 82.0 passer rating.

    Let's not even get into accomplishments.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  11. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    And yet he is a backup with no chance of starting.

    Ryan has a number one RB with a second RB who can start on most teams, one of the best wide receivers in the league, and talent from top to bottom on that offense. Why isn't his good offensive players used against him?
     
    Fin D likes this.
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Matt Ryan's 2016 stats are a total anomaly. I am definitely predicting he hasn't somehow found out how to be an elite QB from here on out and his stats in 2017 will come down to earth by a lot.

    This argument is based purely on stats but to point out how unlikely that 2016 season was, Matt Ryan's average passer rating per year is 93.4 with a standard deviation of 10.15, which is in the right range for most starting QB's (usually you'll see the standard deviation across years lie between 8-12).

    And he got a 117.1 passer rating in 2016?? That's 2.4 standard deviations away from the mean.. or in more common vernacular that is likely to occur 0.8% of the time (of all years that is). Stated differently, what he did in 2016 occurs only once in 125 QB years!!

    Well we'll see what happens, but comparing Tannehill and Ryan, yeah Ryan started off better but note their 2014 and 2015 passer ratings are nearly identical: 92.8 and 88.7 for Tannehill vs. 93.9 and 89 for Ryan. So who is the real Ryan??

    Anyway, I'm predicting Ryan's final passer rating in 2017 will be within 1 standard deviation of his mean, so at most 103.5 next year.
     
  13. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Like I said, he had a ton of help but he was number 1 and went to the SB, won MVP and offensive player of the year. Tannehill MIGHT break top 10 with a receiving corps posters here argue are one of the best and a RB that's one of the best. His passer rating was 12th even then.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  14. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Did Matt have all that help for only one year?
     
  15. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    I'm not a big Ryan fan but statistically he checks off some of the elite boxes. And according to Football Outsiders Atlanta has a top 10 passing offense with Ryan more often than not:

    passing offense Atlanta.png
    And compare that to Miami's passing offense with Tannehill:

    passing offense.png

    They were close over a two season stretch when both were good for a season then both were bad for the next season.
     
  16. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    His point is there are some born with the traits to make the best leaders and some who cannot be developed into a good leader no matter what. To argue against that is to argue against individuality.

    You ever see a 3 year old take over a room full of 3 year olds? There are alpha females and males. Everyone starts at a certain point on a scale, when discussing any skill. Some are good at math some aren't no matter how much they want to be and study and practice.

    Ryan Tannehill is developing into a better leader and Dan Marino is insta leader. He didn't need 6-7 years.
     
    Finster likes this.
  17. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    11,035
    4,419
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Okay, I'm not asking this to be a smart alleck. I just want to make sure I got it straight before I weigh in on this. You're making an argument that Matt Moore + Another player or so would be better value than Tannehill. Is that correct?
     
  18. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    It amazes me that people still believe this.
     
    eltos_lightfoot and Fin D like this.
  19. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah I know you like Football Outsiders, but for me they're in the same category as ESPN because they insist on having a black box methodology. I mean how can you really evaluate FO rankings when you don't know how they arrive at them??

    I know ESPN's QBR and FO's DVOA have slightly higher correlations with win% than simple passer rating, but how do we know that's not due to little tricks like including something that correlates well with turnover differential (put that in and correlation to win% goes way up!) or some derivative of points scored against in addition to points scored?

    So for those reasons I'm dismissing those rankings. Let's go with simple passer rating rankings.

    Since 2008 Matt Ryan has ranked 11th, 20th, 11th, 8th, 5th, 12th, 11th, 20th and 1st in passer rating ranking among "starting" QB's as pro-football-reference defines them here:
    http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2016/passing.htm

    That is pretty far from "elite".

    Compare to Brady for example. Despite missing a year (2008), from 2009 he was ranked #9, #1, #3, #6, #17, #5, #4 and #2. So Ryan averaged #11 and Brady averaged #6. Ryan was top 5 twice and Brady 5 times.

    Not trying to argue Tannehill is at Ryan's level with this. Ryan started off better for sure (especially if you adjust passer ratings to some baseline year) and you can't dismiss Ryan's unbelievable 2016 season. But Ryan for me was "elite" ONLY in 2016. I got to see him be in the top 5 more consistently before I'd say he checks off some of the elite boxes.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    When it comes to math it's DEFINITELY true. I mean you can try to explain certain math concepts to certain people for as long as you want and they'll never understand it (has happened on this board many times btw). Everyone has such a limit, even professional mathematicians.
     
    Finster and jdang307 like this.
  21. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Its only Tannehill homers (and maybe Bengal fans) that don't believe human traits are innate.
     
  22. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Unless someone has a brain injury or a rare brain disorder, this has been proven wrong, over and over again. This is an idea that gained its popularity in the 1800s that just won't die.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  23. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Total bull****. The great majority of people who major in math can't hack graduate level math where you actually have to prove non-trivial theorems. The great majority of those that get a PhD in math simply never succeed at solving long-standing problems in math no matter how hard they try.

    Differences in innate ability are apparent in math FAR more than in the rest of the sciences. Oh.. and there are TONS of scientists that fall into the category of not being able to understand simple statistical analysis (you know.. the kind that's automated for them with software so they don't NEED to understand it?) no matter how hard you try to explain it to them.
     
    Finster and Pauly like this.
  24. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Do not agree at all. I have not seen one proof of a math gene. Call it total bull****. However, if one person solves it and then discovers a way to teach it, then it can be learned by anyone who is willing to put in the work, unless they have a deformity.

    This idea of innate ability is an idea that is has a foothold in our consciousness. That is all it is. An idea. One that does not look to be correct.
     
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You don't agree because you have NO experience talking about this with researchers in math or in science where math is applied. Ask ANY researcher in a math heavy field (and I mean researcher, not someone who teaches what others have discovered.. which is what you referenced) and they'll agree with me and tell you you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    btw.. I work among people who are arguably some of the very best in their field. Specifically, clinicians in all areas of ophthalmology. Clinicians aren't trained to be scientists or statisticians so they collaborate with them (I'm one of those) when publishing research. And everywhere you look most of them never get to the point of truly understanding why the math works, no matter how often you try to explain it (and you have to explain it so they get an idea of where the potential problems with the methodology are).
     
    Finster and jdang307 like this.
  26. eltos_lightfoot

    eltos_lightfoot Well-Known Member

    4,297
    720
    113
    Apr 14, 2008
    Strange I work in big data, and I am not sure the data corresponds with the idea of a math gene.

    Are you trying to say you have solved the nature vs nurture argument?
     
    Fin D likes this.
  27. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Who said there was a "math gene"? Read my post #122 for a decent synopsis of how you should think about the genetic basis of any complex trait. The way I described things in that post is probably the way you want to think of the "nature vs nurture" argument.

    All I'm saying is that it's essentially untenable to argue there aren't genetic differences that allow some people (if those differences are properly expressed) to exceed what others can exceed no matter how much they try (what jdang was saying). And a GREAT example of that is in making discoveries in math or science. It's easier to teach that research process in science than in math because you can rely on experiments to give you some insight. For many math problems it's your logical thinking ability vs. the problem.

    In any case.. if someone thinks they can actually teach people how to solve problems that have resisted solution despite lots of effort, that's a discovery worth far more than a Nobel Prize. And it's no accident that some people solve many such problems while others NEVER do despite working their whole lives at it.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  28. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Finster and cbrad like this.
  29. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Weird benchmark considering it has nothing to do with the discussion.
     
  30. sports24/7

    sports24/7 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    32,924
    41,461
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I didn't ignore their career ratings, I'm saying the sample size makes the comparison invalid. You yourself said it's not an apples to apples comparison. How can you argue that you can compare the two validly if it's not apples to apples?

    Ryan was #1 in his 7th year after being an above average QB in his first 6 seasons. And again, nobody takes anything away from him because of his supporting cast just like nobody does that with any other QB in the top 10. Kurt Warner is being enshrined into the HOF after a career with one of the best supporting casts you could ever ask for. Nobody says "Kurt Warner shouldn't have been given the credit because he had Torry Holt, Marshall Faulk, and Isaac Bruce."

    Also, you keep bringing up that he saw a stacked box, suggesting this helped him out so much, and that he had a record setting WR. I watch a lot of NFL games, and Miami didn't see significantly more stacked boxes than most other NFL teams. Teams wanted to stop Ajayi, but they also had to respect Miami's pass game, and especially what Stills could do deep. And again, with respect to that "record setting" WR, it was receptions that he has the record for. Who is on the other side of those record receptions? Does Tannehill seriously not get any credit for that?

    Matty Ice earned that nickname in college. I guess every guy given a nickname in college means he'll be a star. This "everbody saw his potential" argument is a bit silly. He was criticized quite a bit after the 2015 season (when he still had all of those weapons), and his QB rating dipped to 89 with 16 interceptions (both somewhat significantly worse than Tannehill in 2016).

    Didn't you start this thread with: "Can anybody make the argument that we've gotten good value team-wise paying Tannehill when he was due a new contract?" If you weren't asking a question, then what was the point of starting a thread other than to declare you don't like Tannehill?

    I haven't? Maybe you should go back and actually read what I wrote.

    I have actually said multiple times that you are entitled to your opinion. Again, reading my posts might help. You HAVE said this, multiple times. What you haven't done is give any kind of a real explanation of why this is true. You have said their QB ratings are similar with zero context, but that's it. What does Moore do better than Tannehill? To me, Tannehill has a stronger arm, he's more accurate, makes better decisions, is more athletic, and throws better on the run. He made multiple throws last season that most NFL QBs flat out don't make. Can he put that together into a full season of consistency, and improve at the same rate he did last year in his first year in this system? That remains to be seen. If he can, no one in their right minds will question whether drafting Kuechly, and starting Moore was a better decision.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
    danmarino and eltos_lightfoot like this.
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah.. the issue people can raise with that is that they're not demonstrating different types of teaching methods don't compensate for what seem to be genetic differences, but it's nevertheless useful data.

    Still.. the REAL issue with those studies is what I pointed out a bit in post #122: when large numbers of genes interact, modern genetics almost always fails to discern what the cause-effect relationships are.

    But that's another story as you point out. The basic idea that some have better genetic predisposition to things (even for complex traits that are hard to define) is axiomatic.
     
    Finster and eltos_lightfoot like this.
  32. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It does after post #146 where Dol-Fan-Dupree specifically disagreed with a post that included that claim. It's the best area in math/science to see the differences, but you'll see them to lesser degrees when the problem isn't as challenging.
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  33. eltos_lightfoot

    eltos_lightfoot Well-Known Member

    4,297
    720
    113
    Apr 14, 2008
    Either way, we are WAY off topic here. Tannehill's leadership (whether genetically expressed and environmentally strengthened) shouldn't be in questioned according to what we know. Gase has repeatedly mentioned Tannehill's leadership. Every offseason he gets his receivers together voluntarily and they work. Tannehill IS a leader.

    http://dailydolphin.blog.palmbeachp...ony-fasano-ryan-tannehill-is-the-team-leader/

    “Well, even as a rookie, I thought he was very poised and had great leadership qualities,” Fasano said Wednesday. “(He’s a) smart, athletic player but that’s just grown. I think he’s vocal. He’s definitely the team leader. Everyone knows it. He commands it in the meeting rooms and in the huddle. I think it’s just the natural progression for him. It’s turned out well.”

    As an example, Fasano said Tannehill called for voluntary throwing and catching sessions in Davie in March.

    “Everyone – most everyone – came,” Fasano said. “The willingness to work, encouragement and the quick pace and everyone was on the same page pretty quickly. (From) where I’ve been, that really doesn’t happen in March, so that was encouraging.”
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
  34. eltos_lightfoot

    eltos_lightfoot Well-Known Member

    4,297
    720
    113
    Apr 14, 2008
    I would agree with your last statement, however, it has been proven that simplifying beyond that point is extremely difficult.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  35. eltos_lightfoot

    eltos_lightfoot Well-Known Member

    4,297
    720
    113
    Apr 14, 2008
    I always felt that leadership was a "trailing indicator". If one was a successful quarterback, then leadership is mentioned. If one is a bad quarterback, then suddenly they are not able to be a leader-of-men.
     
    Dol-Fan Dupree likes this.
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It may be a "trailing indicator" to some degree but I'd argue there's an important component that's not because the ability of a person who is technically put in charge of a group of people to actually get them to do what he wants isn't best described as a "trailing indicator".

    Again though.. no one has a good definition of "leadership" so it's really nebulous (not even subjective.. just nebulous lol).
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  37. eltos_lightfoot

    eltos_lightfoot Well-Known Member

    4,297
    720
    113
    Apr 14, 2008
    Completely agree. It is like when research tries to discover "charismatic speaker". They can't even agree on a definition of what to study. They either end up oversimplifying or undersimplifying.
     
    Fin D and cbrad like this.
  38. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah, no. it was weird benchmark then and he was disagreeing with the gist of what you were saying. Acting like that specific example makes sense now to the argument because you slipped it in earlier is like saying Cosby's victims agreed to be knocked out because they drank the drink he offered them.

    At no point, has anyone in here argued, that any given person can solve heretofore unsolved equations.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
  39. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Wait, you've chewed my head numerous times telling me that there's no way to know everything but we work with what we got and call it good. Now you're undercutting that quite a bit.

    Clearly, the only reason can possibly be is that you've seen the error of your ways and realized I've been right this whole time.
     
  40. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    LOL.. Fin D, one thing I'll give you (other than absolutely needing to have the last word) is that you're funny sometimes.

    The distinction is that when using stats you have precise definitions of every concept that's used, whether it's "mean", "standard deviation", "statistical significance", etc..

    Once you have operational definitions you can do analyses that determine the probability of an event occurring or the likelihood of one hypothesis (out of several) being correct, etc.. even if you don't know how to incorporate everything that's not in your model.

    The problem with "leadership" is that we don't even have an operational definition.

    OK.. waiting for your last word haha!
     
    Steve-Mo, Fin-O and eltos_lightfoot like this.

Share This Page