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. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    This x1000. Flat out different standards. Those supporting Tannehill never shied away from recognizing that a better supporting cast was needed.
     
  2. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    No surprise to me!

     
  3. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's actually the 4th highest if you use unadjusted ratings (they forgot Foles):
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_single_season.htm

    Of course when comparing across eras one should adjust ratings and Tannehill comes in #13th all time with a z-score of 2.5528 if you only look at the SB era from 1966, which is still very impressive. The best single season passer rating z-score ever was a 3.5708 by Steve Young in 1994. What's really amazing is that Young was way beyond #2 on the list: Montana with a 3.0702 in 1989.

    So I'd quote #13th all time in the SB era.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  4. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    That stickum's a mother.
     
  5. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    [​IMG]

    Strikes again!!!!! LOL
     
  6. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Referees are going to do everything possible to cheat this game and give it to the Patriots.
     
  7. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    They did against the Saints and Texans...why stop now?
     
    Cashvillesent likes this.
  8. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Yup
    Titans got robbed by the Saints.

    When will the league hold referees accountable?
     
    Tin Indian and PhinFan1968 like this.
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Here's an interesting perspective on ESPN's QBR:

     
  10. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Umm.. correction: 99.9999% of all criticisms of QBR have no idea how it's calculated because ESPN keeps the formula proprietary! Why? Obvious: they don't want everyone to see what all the subjective assumptions they make are.

    And if ESPN's QBR is just "EPA with minor adjustments" why is it that they need 10,000 lines of code to calculate it?? Traditional passer rating is just 1 line of code. And calculating EPA takes only one or a few lines of code if you have a lookup table (which is the only practical way to do it). So they're obviously hiding something in those 10k lines of code, and we know conceptually what that is: a subjective means of apportioning credit among players.

    No.. ESPN's QBR shouldn't be seen as any kind of "valid" statistical method for estimating QB ability until they show us their formula (and then it'll probably be obvious why it shouldn't have any credibility).
     
    Hiruma78, Tin Indian, Pauly and 4 others like this.
  11. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    cbrad what do you think about the explanation on this page:

    https://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo...-calculated-we-explain-our-quarterback-rating
     
  12. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    Amen.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  13. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Right.. note this quote under the "Division of credit" section:
    First question any statistician/scientist would ask is how did they determine the weights they put on "how far the ball travels in the air", "what percentage of the yards were gained after the catch", and "whether the quarterback was under pressure".

    Like precisely HOW do you find the relative weights there. Saying it's "based on statistical analysis of 1000's and 1000's of NFL plays" does not tell you HOW they assigned those relative weights.

    It's very simple. Regardless of the number of lines of code that are needed, the question is: after reading a description of a rating system like ESPN's QBR or FO's DVOA, can someone reconstruct the formula?

    If the answer is no, they didn't explain how they calculated it. And NO ONE can reconstruct the formula based on their description.
     
    Tin Indian likes this.
  14. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    They cheated what, like 10+ years ago? (While every team was also doing it)Give me a break lol deflate gate was a joke and the recent "spying" on the lowly Bengals drifted away as fast as it came in... The reality check is that every team cheats but people only care about the pats cheats because they're successful and win
     
  15. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    Lots of subjectivity built in there. And I'm no stats guy, but that was my first question too.
     
  16. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    Not because they're successful and win, but they do it REPEATEDLY...and make a mockery of the league and "fair" competition to extremes. There's a reason no team has EVER dominated for 20 years in the NFL...and there are reasons one now has.
     
    resnor and RGF like this.
  17. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I forgot to add earlier that Tannehill moved up to 9th overall in ESPN's QBR...despite leading in almost every critical passing statistic. Given that he was in the low teens only a few weeks ago, I'm curious if that "proprietary formula" was edited last week to align a little more with reality.....or if they just artificially moved Tannehill to 9th since there's nobody to catch them cooking the books. They did have Tannehill 1st overall last week with a 92.4 QBR....which likely puts him towards the bottom of their top 100 performances ever (they don't list all the way to 100 so I'm guesstimating on that one).

    So they're saying he generally sucked on the year but because he torched some backups last week, he's deserving of #9 overall. Thanks ESPN!

    For the record, Fitzpatrick was 8th overall on the season, LOL, and had the 2nd best QBR last week in toppling the Patriots.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  18. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
  19. Dol-Fan Dupree

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

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    PhinFan1968 and resnor like this.
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I don't think they've changed their formula. The biggest embarrassment for that formula as I mentioned long ago was that the highest ESPN QBR ever was by Charlie Batch who had a 99.9 rating in a 3 TD and 2 INT game lol:
    https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/1490/type/nfl/year/2010

    When confronted with this absurdity, ESPN stopped listing Batch's 99.9 in their overall ranking of best QBR by introducing a convenient threshold for minimum number of passing attempts that excluded Batch (Batch had only 17 attempts in that game). But they never changed their formula in response. So I guess their formula has Tannehill at 8th. Really absurd.. as absurd as having Tannehill 2nd worst in 2018:
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2018/passing.htm
     
    KeyFin and PhinFan1968 like this.
  21. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Reason A: They taped signals from an angle that isn't allowed. Taping signals is fine, but the camera angle they used is a absolutely heinous.



    Reason B: They managed to luck into a combination of an all-time great HC, QB, and an owner that didn't feel the need to micromanage everything in the football department.



    HMMMMMMMMMMM
     
  22. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    [​IMG]
     
  23. Dol-Fan Dupree

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

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    I'm convinced now
     
    resnor, Fin D and KeyFin like this.
  24. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    B seems the least likely. On any level.
     
    resnor likes this.
  25. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Well option B is the answer for every reasonable person with eyes that have been used to watch football for the past 15 or so years. Let's not even bring up all of their league peers consistently voting both of them into all-time great lists. The stars aligned for the Pats in a way that will probably never happen again for awhile for any other team.
     
  26. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

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

    I'm not going to sit here and suffer through faux incredulity.

    They have cheated. They have been caught. Numerous times now.

    You can be all cocky and bullish about this when you understand:

    At some point, there needs to be a logical and cogent explanation for.....

    A formerly failed HC picks a 6th round nobody QB, and they put together a heretofore unheard of dynasty no matter the assistant coaches, or offensive or defensive talent, all while cheating numerous times in numerous ways, but that somehow everyone does, but never get caught, while the "genius" has gotten caught multiple times, risking so much for cheating that supposedly gives them no benefit.

    i mean, there is no way to make that not sound as insane and absurd as it it. it is literally an unsquarable circle.
     
    resnor and PhinFan1968 like this.
  27. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Wow.

    The entire premise of this latest "cheating" theory is honestly too dumb to even react, but I have EDIT OK ONLY 17-whatever-thousand posts so obviously I just can't resist.

    The Patriots needed to "cheat" on one of the worst teams in NFL history to beat them, so the story goes.

    I think that's why not many people are taking this seriously.

    I should just quit there but one more thing - on its face it is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard/witnessed. And I hate the Patriots.
     
  28. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    Look what happened when they didn't tape the Dolphins sidelines.....

    And you can call it ridiculous, if that's how you see it, that's how you see it. It's all good.

    Many people agree with you, many people don't. We'll likely never know the full extent to which the cheating (that you and others flatly CAN NOT deny) helped them.

    Remember...6th round QB, not on ANY scout or team's radar, very poor athlete in comparison to his peers, below average arm. Here's some scouting reports on him:

    “He had that great bowl game but I think he’s just very common,” a scout of NFC team said, according to McGinn. “He’s a bony, very thin kind of guy. God, you can see his ribs on his build. His arm is just adequate.”

    “I don’t like him,” said the scout. “Smart guy. That’s it.”

    --Poor build
    --Skinny
    --Lacks great physical stature and strength
    --Lacks mobility and ability to avoid the rush
    --Lacks a really strong arm
    --Can’t drive the ball downfield
    --Does not throw a really tight spiral
    --System-type player who can get exposed if forced to ad lib
    --Gets knocked down easily
    --5.28 40 yard dash, 24" vertical

    But he was smart. Smart enough to shift his vision when told where to go with the ball, DURING the play, through an illegal speaker in his helmet (this speaker's existence is FACT, by the way...tin-foil hat not required...you can believe it, it won't make you a conspiracy theorist). On a team, that has been PROVEN to know what plays a team was running against them for years.

    Too much there to ignore, unless you're blinded by rings.
     
    resnor likes this.
  29. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Wrong on everything in this post. Every single thing you wrote is incorrect.
     
    RGF likes this.
  30. RGF

    RGF THE FINSTER Club Member

    6,066
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    NY
    And that's not nearly enough for a team in professional sports to dominate opponents for this long. Why people STILL debate this fact is borderline delusional.
     
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The thing about that Charlie Batch game is that the interceptions were relatively meaningless. The first one came with only 40 seconds gone in the first quarter when the game was still scoreless, and the second one came with 6:10 left in the fourth quarter when Batch's team was ahead 38-6. Neither of those is going to affect win probability a great deal.

    If you give those the meaning they deserve and then focus on the rest of his performance, you're left with a 46-yard touchdown pass at 8:04 in the first quarter that made the game 7-0, a 41-yard touchdown pass at 7:25 in the second quarter that made the game 21-6, and a 9-yard touchdown pass at 0:23 in the second quarter that made the game 28-6.

    At that point Batch has essentially won the game with three touchdown passes in the first half alone. In other words, I suspect those plays were associated with relatively large increases in win probability, culminating in all but a lock of a win in the first half alone, whereas the two interceptions were meaningless because they were likely associated with very small changes in win probability.

    You're also left with a 12 for 17 performance with 10.9 YPA, which is of course very good in terms of completion percentage and efficiency.

    Now, I'm with you in that I don't think ESPN should've reacted to the criticism by implementing an arbitrary cutoff in number of pass attempts. I think they should've reacted to it with the information above about the specifics of Batch's performance.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2020
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Your post history indicates the opposite of a hate of the Patriots.
     
    xphinfanx and RGF like this.
  33. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Let me just stop you right there. Are you talking about Hoodie?
     
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, but the fact that there are unknowns regarding the formula doesn't in itself render it invalid. Wouldn't you agree with that?

    There are all kinds of proprietary things out there whose ingredients or mechanisms of action are unknown or kept secret that are nonetheless valid and highly effective. The scientist in us would like to know "what's under the hood" so to speak, but the fact that we can't know that doesn't necessarily mean the formula is invalid.
     
  35. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Care to explain?
     
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah.. but keep in mind that for ESPN that game by Charlie Batch is the highest rated game ever by QBR.

    Here's one comparison: Nick Foles in 2013 had the following stats in a 49-20 win against Oakland:
    22 completions in 28 attempts = 78.57% completion percentage
    14.5 Y/A
    406 yards passing
    7 TD's no INT's

    Every single one of those stats is much better than Batch's. So.. in your opinion would you rate Charlie Batch's 12 out of 17 for 186 yards with 3 TD 2 INT performance higher than not only what Foles did but higher than what every other QB ever did? ESPN does.
     
    PhinFan1968 likes this.
  37. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Depends on the goal. If the goal is ONLY to increase predictive power then it doesn't matter if it's proprietary or not, but in that case you wouldn't use ESPN's QBR anyway. You'd just apply machine learning to the problem because it's trivial to increase predictive power by adding as many parameters as possible (in principle as many parameters as data points gives you perfect prediction).

    If however there is to be any validity to the method – that is, if we are to have any level of confidence that ESPN's formula adequately represents QB ability – then we absolutely need to know what they're doing.
     
    resnor and PhinFan1968 like this.
  38. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    In the end...the Patriots will go down as the most dominating dynasty in NFL history, Brady and Belichick will both be called GOAT, and it doesn't make a difference, 'cuz people need a tip to ride. Good for them, now they can beat it...

    Luckily, it should all be over with soon/soon'ish...right about the time this iteration of the Miami Dolphins hits its stride!
     
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    no, I don’t. We’ve had this discussion too many times on this site.
     
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Well now let's start with the fact that Foles's QBR for that game was 98.3. Obviously there is going to be error associated with any formula of this kind, and I suspect it goes beyond 1.6 points on a single-game basis.

    I think the question becomes, at what sample size does QBR become a valid representation of QBs' ability, as opposed to a(n) (in)valid representation of their performance in a single game?
     

Share This Page