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. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    When the previous six years of his career involved an average passer rating in high-volume games of 78.4?

    No, you're right -- the 90.1 is unreliable, and the more reliable figure is probably lower than that.
     
  2. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    11,881
    4,834
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    JESUS WHY IS THIS STILL GOING ON!?!?!?!?!??!?!
     
    Irishman likes this.
  3. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    The Titans was a significantly different environment than Miami. The coaching was better, the OL was better, the RB was better and the playcalling was better. A good 70% of this thread has been dedicated to looking at how the different environment in Tennessee benefitted Tannehill. Simply assuming he will revery to Miami type numbers in a non-Miami environment when it has been established that the environments are significantly different is lazy, and you've shown throughout this thread that you can be better than such lazy and simplistic analysis.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex, resnor and Etrius24 like this.
  4. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    Wow great post Pauly. He has shown he can dig through numbers and evaluate... His bias against Tannehill is preventing him from do this.... Spot on.
     
    resnor likes this.
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It doesn't sound like we're necessarily disagreeing.

    The question for me throughout this thread has been, what is Tannehill's actual individual ability, and how does it compare to that of the elite QBs in the league?

    Any quarterback's performance (to be distinguished from his ability) necessarily involves an interaction between his ability and his environment.

    The most relevant questions for anyone in the position of paying Tannehill and trying to win a Super Bowl with him are 1) how much of his 2019 performance was attributable to his ability, and how much of it was attributable to his environment, and 2) can his environment be sustained to the degree that it permits similar performance on his part in the future?

    The posts of mine in this thread have addressed both of these questions, with the conclusions being that 1) his 2019 performance was largely attributable to his environment, in that he was asked to have a very low-volume role in the passing game, while his running back was the centerpiece of the offense, and 2) it may be difficult to sustain his environment due to the increase in his own salary cap hit.

    In the post above I don't see you making a point that disagrees with any of that. If I'm mistaken, then please further clarify your point if you would.
     
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If I have a bias against Tannehill, then I have virtually an identical bias against Lamar Jackson. My positions on the two QBs are virtually identical.
     
  7. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Tannehill is a huge upgrade over Mariota.

    And honestly thats what Titans needed all these times. They've had the talent the last 4 years but couldnt get over the hump with a noodle arm Marcus under center.

    If Tannehill could play above average aka Watson-like, Titans got a steal of a deal in this contract.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  8. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Expect Lamar sucks in the pocket. Tannehill is a better QB in this stage of his career than Lamar. Until Lamar could fix his footwork in the pocket (something Mariota couldnt do throughout his 5 years under center) than he will be a failure in this league.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  9. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I think there's a 3rd question that's more interesting for me: how sustainable is what we saw in 2019 when other teams have an entire offseason to adjust? You can keep the environment exactly the same (and on offense it's essentially going to be that) but if you give teams a full offseason to adjust the results are likely to be very different.

    The great ones, whether it's individuals, coaches or entire units, can keep producing even when others have time to adjust.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Again just to reiterate why the graph noted above doesn't necessarily support the idea that "throwing more" for Tannehill is a good thing.

    Any correlation between passer rating and passing volume will be artificially deflated by both good and bad performances in low-volume games, alongside predominantly poor performances in high-volume games.

    Again take the following 10 games:

    % Pass Dropbacks : Passer Rating
    25 : 145
    30 : 140
    35 : 135
    40 : 130
    45 : 125
    50 : 120
    55 : 115
    60 : 80
    65 : 70
    70 : 60

    The correlation between percentage of plays as pass dropbacks and passer rating above is an extremely strong -0.95.

    Now insert only one game in which there was a low percentage of pass dropbacks, accompanied by a low passer rating:

    % Pass Dropbacks : Passer Rating
    25 : 145
    28 : 61 (Tannehill's 2019 playoff game in New England)
    30 : 140
    35 : 135
    40 : 130
    45 : 125
    50 : 120
    55 : 115
    60 : 80
    65 : 70
    70 : 60

    That diminishes the correlation from -0.95 to a much weaker -0.60, yet the QB in question hasn't demonstrated any more ability to play well in high-volume games. He's now demonstrated only the ability to play poorly in a low-volume game.

    So, we have to more closely examine the QB performances associated with the correlations in the graph noted in the post above. When we do that with Tannehill, we determine that his performance in high-volume games from 2012 to 2018 resulted in an average passer rating of 78.4. In 2019 that figure was 90.1.

    It would take a tremendous amount of work to determine the degree of deviation from the league norm of those statistics, but we do know that they distinguish Tannehill from Russell Wilson in that regard, whose average passer rating in high-volume games from 2012 to 2018 was 98.5.

    Why is Russell Wilson meaningful in that regard? Again because the question of relevance is, what is Tannehill's individual ability? Wilson is a player who is thought by many to have benefited from the kinds of surroundings that enable him to play a low-volume passing game while riding the coattails of his running game and defense.

    However, Wilson's performance in high-volume games (98.5 average passer rating) argues against that and suggests that if those favorable surroundings weren't present and he were forced into a high-volume game, he'd play almost as well!

    That isn't the case for Tannehill, however, which suggests that his individual ability and Russell Wilson's are significantly different. Wilson isn't as dependent on his surroundings as Tannehill, because Wilson has more individual ability.

    So what does all this mean? Only that Tannehill's league-leading passer rating probably doesn't establish him as one of the league's elite QBs, because it was accomplished under conditions that compensated for at least some of the deficiencies in his individual ability. It also means his probability of similar performances in the future is likely a function of whether his 2019 surroundings can be sustained.

    Wilson's future performance on the other hand is less dependent on whether a certain set of surroundings can be sustained. His greater individual ability will compensate for decrements in his surroundings.
     
  11. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I never said the graph is showing "throwing more" is a good thing. In fact the graph shows that on average it's better for the better QB's in the league to not have to throw more. No, what that graph shows is that YOUR argument is unsubstantiated: namely that there's no statistical evidence Tannehill's decrement is worse than would be expected for a QB playing at his level.

    This is nonsense, as in it's mathematically incorrect.

    Start with a low correlation (like in that graph.. I mean we're talking small correlations like -0.2 or so) and plug in more data anywhere, whether it's for low volume or high volume games that reinforces the trend. Those games you add could be really bad low volume games or really good ones it doesn't matter. If it reinforces the (weak) correlation, it will either increase the correlation or keep it the same while decreasing the confidence intervals due to increasing sample size.

    Your example starts with an absurdly high correlation and then adds a data point that doesn't fit the trend. Obviously the correlation goes down. You seem to think that can only happen if you have "both good and bad performances in low volume games" or "predominantly poor performances in high volume games". It has nothing to do with volume! You can have fantastic performances in high volume games and the same thing happens. Anything that breaks the trend will do that.

    So no it's not true that "any" correlation will be artificially deflated by what you said. In fact, most won't and for the actual correlations in that graph they're likely to be strengthened by more such data points.

    And no, 2 data points with Tannehill and Wilson do not in any way counteract a comparison to the entire league. Like I said, your post only shows Tannehill is likely to do worse than Wilson, nothing else.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The 2019 playoffs didn't augur well for that prospect, in that when the stakes were higher and there was more previous game film available to review, Tannehill's performance was considerably worse.

    His regular season passer rating was 117.5, whereas his playoffs passer rating was 98.5, despite that two of the playoff games were extremely low-volume (28% pass dropbacks against both New England and Baltimore, while Derrick Henry ran wild).
     
  13. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yes, I didn't mean to imply I was attributing that to you.
    Certainly! And where are they?

    The correlation isn't diminished for that reason, is it. Rather, it's diminished by poorer performances in low-volume games.
     
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Again, sample size is too small to make anything out of Tannehill's playoff rating decrement. Remember, the average decrement in the playoffs is about 10 passer rating points and no statistical test would show Tannehill's was statistically significant with just 3 games.

    And I personally think an entire offseason is an entirely different ballgame with respect to making adjustments. So we really haven't seen the effect of that yet. I also think any "regression to the mean" we might observe in 2020 for the entire Titans offense will likely be due to the kinds of adjustments I'm talking about and not relatively minor issues like salary cap.
     
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Big picture: the correlation between game by game passing attempts and passer rating is LOW period.

    Like really low, meaning that this isn't a major factor to consider in most cases. Just keep that in mind when trying to explain things. You're operating on the fringes of what explains performance.
     
  16. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I wouldn't explain Russell Wilson's performance in this way for a second. Tannehill and Lamar Jackson's in 2019, however, yes.
     
  17. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Honestly, I dont like the high volume passing statistics.

    If he stopped throwing at 25 would his rating be better in those games? Probably not.

    If the team was winning big and he kept throwing more than 25 would his rating plummet? Probably not.

    That statistic is probably more dictated by individual circumstances than any of the others.
     
    resnor likes this.
  18. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL @ The Guy being proven wrong again and again and again.... then, liking the posts that prove him wrong.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Of course it is, and the point is that QBs vary in their need for such circumstances to be present for them to perform well. Tannehill and Lamar Jackson need those circumstances to be present; Russell Wilson for example doesn't.
     
  20. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    The reason for this should be OBVIOUS to anyone that understands football. There is more that one reason for a high number of attempts in a game and more that one reason for a low number of attempts in a game. The game situations have a larger affect on passer rating than just the number of attempts.
     
    Irishman, cbrad and resnor like this.
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure, but if there is a strong relationship between such game situations and the percentage of pass dropbacks, then for all intents and purposes the game situations and the percentage of pass dropbacks are measuring about the same thing. The percentage of pass dropbacks is simply a quantification of the game situation, as applied to the quarterback's role in the game.

    When Lamar Jackson for example threw 59 passes (percentage of pass dropbacks) in the playoffs against the Titans last year, obviously that was a representation of his team's being behind fairly big on the scoreboard the whole game (the game situation).
     
  22. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    The thing is though I dont see the statistic as measuring that.

    For example, you have teams that are BUILT to pass that many times a game. It goes beyond just the QB himself. So even if their rating dips slightly, it's not going to be drastic.

    When a team that isnt built with great WR and TE talent you're obviously going to see a reduction in passer rating.

    I dont see what part of this is actually measuring the QB at all.
     
    resnor likes this.
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It isn't measuring the QB. It's measuring the situation he's in.

    QBs vary in the degree to which they play more poorly in a high-volume passing situation. Russell Wilson for example plays hardly any more poorly at all, whereas Ryan Tannehill plays considerably more poorly.

    Russell Wilson would be a round peg in round hole in a high-volume passing offense (situation). Ryan Tannehill on the other hand would be a square peg in a round hole in such an offense (situation).

    So, in 2019 Tannehill was a round peg in a round hole, in that he was in predominantly a low-volume passing offense. However, when the situation dictated at times that he perform in a high-volume manner, his performance plummeted. That wouldn't happen with someone like Russell Wilson. He'd likely play well nonetheless.
     
  24. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    But there isn't a correlation.

    Being behind in a game is just one game situation where pass attempts go up. There are others.
     
    resnor likes this.
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So what case are you making exactly to explain the degree of change in Tannehill's career performance as a function of percentage of pass dropbacks, in comparison to Russell Wilson's?
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2020
  26. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    They are two different players in two different situations. There are far too many variables to make simplistic conclusions.

    Why are you not comparing the team's centers based on the number of pass play snaps vs running play snaps and the resulting team success? Why not the OLs and pass blocking performance as a function of run/pass ratio? Why not compare the offensive coordinators?
     
    resnor and Cashvillesent like this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So we can't say Russell Wilson has more individual ability than Ryan Tannehill as an explanation for the difference in their performance in high-volume games across seven seasons and many combinations of surrounding personnel (players and coaches) because it's too simplistic?

    Under what conditions would that explanation (one quarterback's simply being better than the other) for the difference between two quarterbacks' performances not be too simplistic?
     
  28. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Yes.

    By blindly looking at data? None.

    Ask yourself a simple question.... why do teams watch film of college players, watch them in person, do interviews, etc, etc, etc? Why not just crunch some numbers? 2, 3, 4 years of data (according to your approach) is plenty of information. Why go through all the expense?

    Because you cannot come to any conclusion based on data alone. You have to watch the games and SEE what is happening. How can you not know this?
     
    resnor likes this.
  29. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Example: WR comparisions. If you compare the absolute greats...

    Alot of people say Hopkins is a generational talent because of his stats, wich I would disagree beacause of the simple fact that the guy was showered with targets in Houston. He benefited simply because of volume.

    You take guys the last 6 years: AB, Julio, Adams & Michael Thomas. Theyve been better than Hopkins with an offense that wasnt targets towards those players.
     
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So you're taking the position that the data associated with Russell Wilson's career (for example) isn't capable of telling us he has greater individual ability than let's say Rex Grossman? We would need to watch all of their games to conclude that with any certainty?
     
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You're using a statistic (volume) to determine the validity of other statistics (receiving statistics). None of that indicates the games have to be watched to make that determination. You're doing that completely with data.
     
  32. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Yes.

    And, you didn't answer my question.
     
  33. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What we're talking about here is the concept of "incremental validity." There is incremental validity to be gained from watching the film of college prospects, over and above using their statistics exclusively, as we predict their performance at the NFL level, because there is a difference between the NFL level and the college level. Take Joe Burrow for instance, whose statistics are marvelous but for whom there is a question about arm strength. Watching his college film can tell us whether his statistics were generated in an offense that mitigated his (possible) weakness in arm strength, which might then have a bearing on his draft position, again because arm strength is more important in the NFL than it is in college.

    When comparing two players at the NFL level, however, as in the comparison between Tannehill and Wilson with regard to high-volume games, there is no such prediction or projection to another level being made. Both players play on the same (NFL) level. In other words, the data comprised of their statistics is being used in a descriptive (i.e., who is better than the other) and not a predictive manner (i.e., how will this college player play in the NFL).

    For that reason, there is no incremental validity to be gained from adding many years of film-watching to many years of data generated amidst many combinations of surrounding personnel (players and coaches). When we have seven years of such data generated by Wilson and Tannehill, we can be comfortable using that data to make conclusions about their ability, without needing film to aid us in that effort. There is no incremental validity to be gained from using film in that instance.

    To take your position about "film" and put it in greater perspective, consider this: whenever someone is being inducted into the NFL Hall of Fame and the induction speech features some celebration of their performance by describing the statistics associated with their career (which it almost always does), if we were to take your position we would simply laugh and say "yeah, but that all of that means nothing unless we watch all of their games."

    In other words, Dan Marino's 5,000+ yards and 40+ TD passes in 1984, which was previously unheard of -- meaningless, unless we watch the games from that year. The person making his HoF induction speech should've made no mention of that -- he should've shown the audience the entire 1984 season of video on the big screen in Canton, or else the audience would've wondered what Marino was doing there.
     
  34. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Seeing that in writing is mind blowing....post 6106. I don think this thread will die until Tannehill retires.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  35. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    That is because people who talk about stats and accomplishments ALSO watch the games and place significant weight on what is actually happening on the field. Their observations are already baked in.

    You seem to be completely missing the fact that football is a team game. You are fixated on one position and that fixation clouds everything you think.

    Why do so many consider Archie Manning a good NFL QB?

    https://www.neworleanssaints.com/ne...manning-from-one-of-nfl-s-all-time-g-18174156

    According to Roger Staubach:

    Staubach, who played for the Dallas Cowboys, was voted the NFL's quarterback of the 1970s. He is a Pro Football Hall of Famer, winner of two Super Bowls, four conference championships and one Super Bowl MVP Trophy.

    Manning, on the other hand, never quarterbacked a winning team.

    The difference between the two?

    "Luck and geography," Staubach said years ago. "I played for the Cowboys and Archie played for the Saints. In other words, I got lucky. Archie didn't."

    ....

    "You know the Saints today are a really good team, highly successful. It's a highly successful organization," Staubach said. "The Saints that Archie played for were none of that. Archie Manning was a great quarterback on bad, bad football teams.

    "On the other hand, I was lucky and went to the Cowboys. I had one coach the whole time. I lost count of how many Archie had," Staubach said. "Unless you've played quarterback in the NFL, there's no way you can understand how big a difference that makes."


    You regularly dismiss supporting casts, coaching, etc and the difference they can make. In the meantime, I (along with manhy others), claimed that if Tannehill were on a good team, he'd do well...... We can all see how that turned out.

    You don't find it at all strange that you've been looking for YEARS for the stat that proves Tannehill isn't a good QB? You've tried numerous angles and keep getting shot down. Your latest is comparing Tannehill to one QB.... Why would you do that?
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  36. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    BTW, this is BS. You are regularly trying to predict Tannehill's future performance.

    This is so wrong that it is actually funny.

    I was at Marino's HOF induction. They played portions of his highlight film. They did not put up graphs...... Not one single mention of high volume games vs low volume games and impact on passer rating.
     
    resnor likes this.
  37. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    We're actually agreeing that he performed better on a better team, but I suspect for different reasons. My position is that he played better because the team he was on was able to all but eliminate a source of diminished performance on his part, historically speaking -- high-volume passing games.

    So, he can continue to play better if the team he's on can continue to all but eliminate such games for him.

    That, however, regards only his individual performance. There is also the team performance to consider, and as I've said the Titans have very little chance of winning a Super Bowl with Tannehill in my opinion, even with his continuing to play at his 2019 level, unless they can assemble one of the league's best pass defenses.

    The reason for that is how he played in high-volume games in 2019, especially the playoff game in Kansas City. Derrick Henry was shut down, Tannehill was forced into a high-volume passing game with Patrick Mahomes, and the Titans were beaten handily under those conditions. They'll therefore need a pass defense that can diminish the typical performance of QBs like Mahomes if they hope to get by them in the playoffs in the future, because Tannehill is highly unlikely to outduel them in a high-volume passing game. Or they can attempt to count on Derrick Henry to perform in a superhuman manner in every game, but of course that's unrealistic.

    So perhaps we can just agree that Tannehill did play better on a better team, but that he still is not an elite QB in the league, despite his 2019 passer rating. He'll therefore need the same surroundings as an average QB to win a Super Bowl, and so for all important intents and purposes he remains no different from an average NFL QB.
     
  38. Phin McCool

    Phin McCool Well-Known Member

    713
    735
    93
    Jan 29, 2017
    United Kingdom
    I'm copying and saving most of this thread so I can reproduce it in the 'Tannehill Retires' thread... :evil:
     
    Pauly, KeyFin and Irishman like this.
  39. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I agree.

    This makes no sense whatsoever.

    Why isn't the conclusion? -

    Tannehill is a very good QB and is just as likely as any other very good QB to win a SB.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It sounds like the only source of disagreement between us there might be in how we label QBs who aren't elite. I call all of them "average" until we get down to the ones who are significantly below average.

    The elite QBs don't need defenses of their own that can shut down opposing elite QBs. They have the ability to outduel them without needing a defense that can diminish the opposing elite QB's typical performance.

    Every other QB is "average," in that they need such a defense to help them compete with the elite QBs. And then of course there are a number of QBs who are so bad that they can't compete with elite QBs, even with one of the league's best pass defenses, and those QBs aren't even "average."

    So for me Tannehill is an "average" QB because he isn't elite. That means he needs a great pass defense if his team is going to win a Super Bowl.

    The question for me all along here has been, did his 2019 passer rating establish him as an elite QB, and the points I've made throughout the thread simply bore on that question. I have no problem agreeing that he played better on a better team.
     

Share This Page