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

Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Other NFL' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

Ryan Tannehill is...

  1. A terrible QB

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. A below average QB

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  3. An average QB

    7 vote(s)
    10.0%
  4. An above average QB

    39 vote(s)
    55.7%
  5. An elite QB

    16 vote(s)
    22.9%
  6. The GOAT.

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  1. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Okay I want to take a second to de-escalate this.

    I honestly think you're one of the smartest guys on the site. It's not a crime for us to misunderstand you, you have to understand not everyone here comes from a statistics background, and the terms we use to mean something in every day life often mean something entirely different to you.

    I know you've pointed out examples of this before for us, I just ask that you understand we have full lifetimes of engrained speech patterns and it's not always easy to put that aside and use the terms in a way youd be used to using them.

    That said, I understand your opinion better now and I will keep it in mind.

    Also I fully acknowledge the errors in every methodology. I've been advocating to use your eyes to confirm statistics and the reverse. A marriage of traditional scoutin using all the data available to us.

    Using statistics to pinpoint potential FA targets for example, then the eye test to see which of those players fit the team mold.
     
  2. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Post #1874. You're answering a question I asked about why I would post what I did if I thought it didn't matter.

    Regardless, yes it's true that the statistics I post assume averaging out. It's also true that you're quite biased in criticizing stats for not taking into account motivation or other intangibles that NO ONE can see in tape while never attacking those analyzing tape for that.

    My entire point, going back to my original responses here, is that every method has the same problem. So I'd really appreciate it is you'd stop being so biased against stats for an issue that every method has.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That's false. Show me a post where I've criticized someone for not agreeing with me on motivation, or any other intangible thing. I've argued with you over types of pressure, but that is something that could be tracked better.

    However, I never said that you think things are unimportant.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Here is my post that you have an issue with...but I did not say you think things are unimportant.
     
    Pauly and Fin D like this.
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    He isn't biased against stats.

    He and I and few others, keep trying to point out you ignore things that aren't stats. I mean, you'll occasionally pay them lip service, "like tape is important", but then you often rely entirely on the stats to the point you'll argue with people telling you, what you see in the stats is because X on tape, Y on football knowledge, or Z on common human knowledge.

    You say we're biased against stats, but we use stats to back up what we see on tape. You only use stats.

    How many times have I asked you or shouright, "What are the ways a team or QB can combat the pass rush?" 10? 100? You guys NEVER answer it. That is because you guys are the ones showing a bias.
     
    resnor and Sceeto like this.
  6. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That's my point. You're criticizing stats for not taking motivation (let's say) into account. You don't criticize others for that.

    Maybe you didn't realize what you were responding to, but this is the question that post was a response to:

    If you didn't realize that it's fine, but you can see my point of view here.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  7. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    If every method has the same issue and you never hear criticism of that issue for any other method except stats, that's a bias against stats.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  8. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    What are you even talking about?

    There's been numerous issues, you hand wave all of them, stick to stats and stats only and still don't see how that makes ^ this post hypocritical and how you STILL ignored my question.
     
    Sceeto and resnor like this.
  9. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You ignored MY point. This keeps up we'll be ignoring each other lol.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  10. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I didn't ignore anything.
     
    djphinfan, Sceeto and resnor like this.
  11. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The very determination of whether a team won or not is a statistic. The final score of every game is a statistic. Which team wins the Super Bowl and by how much is a statistic.

    So yes, men are led by men and not by statistics, but what they are all seeking is the statistic that says they won the Super Bowl.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  12. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, what are you going on about? I’ve consistently said that your stats aren’t accurate because they don’t account for things that you can see, but maybe not quantify. I criticize your stats because they are your be all end all. But , you don't factor in certain things, but you act like the result you come to is fact, when you're more actually getting figures for everything
     
    Sceeto and Fin D like this.
  13. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I want to put this in simple terms but I'm not sure its accurate, at least not fully.


    Basically men lead men, and statistics are like the trail those men leave behind allowing us to analyze their impact.
     
    Sceeto and resnor like this.
  14. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    But some of that trail, while visible, can't be measured using an instrument...so it throws the whole thing off.
     
    resnor likes this.
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah and I can respect your opinion on that. Specifically, I don't mind that you weight stuff we can't measure yet to such a degree that you think the stats I post are inaccurate. Obviously I think averaging out is powerful enough that they probably are accurate, but that's a difference of opinion and I'm fine with that.

    What I have an issue with is that you ONLY attack stats for flaws that ALL methods have. No one watching tape can take motivation into account, yet I've never heard you or anyone that attacks stats for the inability to take motivation into account attack people analyzing tape for that. That's the bias against stats I'm talking about.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex and The Guy like this.
  16. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    No, it doesnt necessarily throw the whole thing off.

    A hiker who only uses his GPS will get lost when it malfunctions. One who knows how to read directions based on other environmental factors wont.

    In other words, the more tools you have the less likely you'll get lost if that makes sense.

    If you treat statistics as the end all be all, you may get burned. If you use them in conjunction with common sense you should be fine and better off for it.
     
    resnor likes this.
  17. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    yes, but if you are an expert in building GPSs and how they function, but not a Kit Carson who can traverse the land by environmental factors alone, then it makes sense to explain the benefits/abilities/limitations of the GPS and to leave the Kit Carson stuff to the Kit Carsons.

    Making strong arguments about things you don’t know or understand is one way to make the world a stupider place.
     
  18. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I am saying that your stats are not foolproof because there's things at work in there that you are assuming to be a certain way...but if those things aren't how you assume, it's giving you a faulty conclusion.

    I'm not sure why you keep bringing up motivation, cause I've never argued about esoteric things like that.

    Further, I was arguing with Shou recently that his assessment that Tannehill was better in Tennessee because he had to fight for his job (motivation!!), but he had no way of proving that.
     
  19. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Tannehill has a better game than Watson.

    Watson is a better Qb than Tannehill.


    Welcome.
     
  20. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    There is an old saying CBrad.......
     
  21. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's better to be silent and thought a fool...? ;)
     
  22. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    It sure is!

    Thankfully none of our opinions really matter in the sense we dont have final say. So we can be idiots to our hearts content here lol
     
    Pauly and resnor like this.
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And on that note I’ll bring people back to my post earlier in the thread about Tannehill’s performance under pressure, and how that is supported by both statistics and the consensus observations of people posting in this thread, who have presumably watched him a great deal.

    Every now and then we have something for which there is that kind of convergence of data across methods, and on those occasions we should afford that a great deal of validity. Otherwise we run the risk of devolving into some sort of solipsism here, where we can really know nothing.
     
  24. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Close!!
     
  25. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    hahahahaha! Is that really shou? hahahaha!
     
    resnor likes this.
  26. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yes. 100%
     
    PhinFan1968, Sceeto and resnor like this.
  27. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yeah, pretty sure. Fin D said it, and it clicked for me. I called him on it, and then he blocked me.
     
    Sceeto likes this.
  28. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Another poster pointed it out to me.
     
    Sceeto, PhinFan1968 and resnor like this.
  29. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    hahaha! That's hilarious. I can kind of see it now. shou!! Holy poop! haha! King of the Ban. Ha.
     
    PhinFan1968, Fin D and resnor like this.
  30. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    8,605
    6,743
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    One of my favorites:

    Never argue with an idiot in public, the people watching can't tell who's who.

    No that's not a dig at anybody. Just some stupid ish I say. But true.
     
    Irishman, Fin-O, resnor and 1 other person like this.
  31. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
     
    Puka-head and Irishman like this.
  32. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    I hope it is. It is ridiculous that guy was 86'd if you ask me.

    Not sure what went on behind the scenes, he doesn't strike me as a guy who would've messaged the mod team looming for sympathy or anything that may "save him".

    He was a good poster overall, just caught up in arguments with posters who have 9 lives.
     
    Puka-head likes this.
  33. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Haha my post makes no sense now because the debate got mod removed (probably a good call)

    So just pretend I was never here lol
     
  34. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    Guys - this little diversion about the identity of The Guy is going off the tracks. Let's leave it be please and stay on topic for the thread. Thanks.
     
  35. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    While I 100% agree with what you are getting at, and yes you cant put a firm measure on something like motivation, I'd probably say you can see whether a guy has a constantly running motor on tape. If he does, most likely he has proper motivation. Again though you're correct it cant exactly be quantified and compared easily or 100% accurately.

    For example if the guy is hustling in a contract year, how do we gauge his true motivation?

    The eyes can also be greatly fooled also, which is why I'm glad statistics exist to put things into perspective so we dont get ahead of ourselves.
     
    resnor likes this.
  36. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Bro put those dudes on ignore.
     
    resnor likes this.
  37. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The problem with “the eyes” is that as soon as people say they are seeing the same thing differently, how do we know who is correct?
     
  38. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I agree with that and I honestly think it depends.

    If it is fans, it doesnt really matter who is correct. I say that will all due respect to everyone here, but our opinions barely matter minus a giant mutiny of the fanbase deciding not to support the team.

    If it is NFL executives think of it this way.

    If everyone is using all the same statistics and data, how do you get a leg up on anyone? You have to either constantly come up with new ways to improve the accuracy of said statistics, which has a definite ceiling, or be able to pick out things the data doesnt show to find diamonds in the rough.

    The latter isnt necessarily a skill that has a definite ceiling.

    Again, I think eyes + statistics is the best way to go about analysis in the NFL, at least currently.
     
    resnor, The Guy and Fin-O like this.
  39. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    This is a fact and not even debatable. However, this is the main forum....you will assuredly get laughable pushback.

    There is a place for analytics in football, but it is worth no more and maybe no less than experience and knowing what you are actually seeing. That's what makes it an inexact science and really really hard to beat.
     
    The Guy and AGuyNamedAlex like this.
  40. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    In practice statistical analysis has no definite ceiling. There's tons of advances every year, most of it incremental of course. The absurdly low level of it in football means there are likely important advantages a team might accrue by investing in such research for football. Teams or the NFL would have to fund that of course since none of the major funders of scientific/math research would (NIH, DOD, etc...).

    The first step is to get better data. You'd want funds for people to go through tape and apply agreed on definitions of anything one could measure that might seem important (e.g., separation between WR and DB at the time of a catch, etc...) to create a massive database. The methods of analysis would initially be standard ones but those would be the next source of improvement as you look for properties of football data that are different from the assumptions in more standard statistical analysis.

    There's no ceiling in practice to statistical analysis.
     
    The Guy likes this.

Share This Page