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
    That depends entirely on your assessment of Tannehill. It is clear that the Titans value him higher than you do. There are no guarantees for highly drafted QBs. The success rate is not good.

    SD made the same move drafting Rivers and giving up on Brees. Clearly they chose wrong.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  2. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You'd bet that he will or will not finish in the top 10?
     
    resnor likes this.
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    By the way, among 93 QB seasons in the league during the years from 2017 to 2019, Josh Rosen in 2018 had the lowest EPA per play during that time period -- a whopping 2.45 standard deviations below the league average. The next-worst QB during that time period was Deshone Kizer in 2017, 2.2 standard deviations below the league average.

    So, with Rosen, and with regard to the Cardinals' trade, the caveat should be made that they went with Murray perhaps in light of Rosen's particularly terrible performance in 2018.

    The fifth-worst QB from that time period was Tannehill in 2018 -- 1.84 standard deviations below the league average. And after that the Dolphins parted with him, as we all know.

    Now consider that despite his 2019 passer rating, his EPA per play was only 0.65 standard deviations above the league average. His adjusted (to 2019) passer rating was highest in the league during that period (2017 to 2019), yet his EPA per play was only 25th-best.

    The take-home message is this -- his adjusted passer rating was 2.29 standard deviations above the league average from 2017 to 2019, but his EPA per play again only 0.65.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2020
  4. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Will not.
     
  5. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Ugh

    Of course the EPA was low for Tannehill in 2018... Gase was running the offense... This has been discussed... Gase went to the Jets and ****ed their offense up also... 3 yard passing plays... Running the same ineffective play over and over again... Predictable play calling.

    I am disappointed Guy.... This crap is weak... It reeks of desperation
     
    resnor likes this.
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The point was more about how his 2019 figure was a mere 0.65 standard deviations above league average, despite that his passer rating was 2.29.

    Among the QB seasons since 2017 that have been better in terms of EPA per play:

    Case Keenum in 2017
    Mitchell Trubisky in 2018
    Jameis Winston in 2018
    Dak Prescott in 2017
    Dak Prescott in 2019
    Alex Smith in 2017

    And by the way, I've moved on from trying to convince anybody of anything here. Only 2020 will adjudicate this issue. Nobody is budging at this point. The stuff above is merely informational.
     
  7. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    And? I'll take the QB that led the league in passer rating, YPA, and CPOE.
     
  8. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Looks to me like a terribly flawed stat when used in isolation.
     
    resnor likes this.
  9. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Better hope that coronavirus doesn't cancel the season! Otherwise this debate will continue unabated into 2021 LOL.

    OK.. so it's probably useful if you say beforehand what your conclusions will be if let's say Tannehill starts a minimum of 6 games and:
    1) makes the top 10 but not top 6 in passer rating
    2) makes the top 6 in passer rating

    If he fails to make the top 10 it's obvious: 2019 was truly an aberration like you occasionally see (e.g. Dalton in 2015 where he came in 2nd in passer rating). But what will you argue if #1 or #2 happens?

    We should have this on record beforehand. Remember, I'll just go by statistical significance tests whatever they show.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The issue is that in passer rating and YPA, all yards "are created equal" so to speak, whereas for EPA the following is the case:

    https://www.advancedfootballanalyti...s-explained/expected-points-and-epa-explained
     
  11. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    resnor likes this.
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    EPA is a solid concept, but are you using actual EPA per play or is this ESPN's "clutch-weighted" EPA? Because that could make a huge difference since we don't know what the "clutch" formula is doing.

    I ask because you can definitely get EPA data for a QB but so far I've only found it in play-by-play data. I don't know of a site that just tells you EPA for a full QB season (maybe you know of one?). The ones I've seen use ESPN's clutch-weighted EPA, and if that's the case there's reason to suspect ESPN might be messing with things in a way you wouldn't want.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  13. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I was wondering where he is getting his data from as well....
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2020
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If we're doing this with passer rating exclusively, my prediction is that his 2020 season will be non-significantly different from his pre-2019 performance, statistically speaking.
     
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    OK, but what will you conclude if it IS statistically significant?

    The reason I ask is because statistical significance alone won't actually answer the question of how much of the improvement was due to the surroundings vs. Tannehill himself (the crux of the debate here). I'm just wondering what you'd argue if it is once again statistically significant? Will you still say Tannehill is mostly an average QB but in perfect surroundings? Or will you say it's actually more likely Tannehill is above average but was held back in Miami? The stats alone don't answer that question.

    Personally, I only use words like "average" or "elite" in this debate to represent actual performance, so when I use stats I sidestep that issue (precisely because I don't see how current stats can answer it).
     
    Irishman likes this.
  16. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    There may be something to it, however, because when we subtract the z-score for EPA from the z-score for adjusted (to 2019) passer rating and then find the z-scores of those differences -- again for the sample of 93 QB seasons from 2017 to 2019 -- we find that Tannehill leads the league in that regard, on both of his occasions in the sample, in 2018 and 2019.

    He's slightly above a whopping three standard deviations from the mean in both instances (3.04 and 3.01), and there are but seven of the 93 QB seasons during the period from 2017 to 2019 who are at least two standard deviations above the mean.

    So whatever is going on that makes Tannehill's EPA so much different from his passer rating, it's now happened in multiple seasons, both a good one and a bad one, and he's far and away beyond the league norm in that regard.
     
  17. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Its flawed because it punishes for failure on first and second down that may have nothing to do with the QB.

    It assumes that a better play was available or asks the QB to hold the ball an indefinite amount of time until it becomes available.

    What if on both of those plays the only open man was the 4 yard slant or drag? Why are we punishing what is possibly the correct and only read?

    As a QB that isnt a bad decision to begin with. You're hoping your WR can beat one defender and pick up the first.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2020
    resnor likes this.
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It's the clutch-weighted EPA from ESPN. Apparently they down-weight EPA during garbage time, which is probably defined as some level of win probability at and beyond some point in the game (e.g., 10% or less likely to win, in the fourth quarter), and they don't weight it upward or downward at any other time.

    So, because of that, no one can argue that Tannehill's EPA is artificially inflated by garbage time performance, because it isn't inflated in the first place.
     
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I think I would need to see some teasing apart of Tannehill from Henry's performance, amidst a similar season in terms of Tannehill's performance, to regard him as having greater individual ability than I previously thought.

    If the correlation between Tannehill's passer rating and Henry's yards per rush, game-by-game, is again far and away the highest in the league, and the team's use of Henry again permits Tannehill to throw so few passes, while he performs significantly more poorly when he does throw more passes, well then it'll be tough to conclude that he has greater individual ability than I'd thought.

    What I'd like to see is what happens if and when their performances do become independent of each other.
     
  20. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Guy

    Stop lying.

    2020 will only adjudicate this issue for you if he fails... As has been pointed out by all of the other posters here. You have been on this crusade for years getting banned from other sites because of it. You were hell bent on proving these things before the 2019 season... Tannehill went out there and killed it and you just tweaked your arguments and proceeded forward with your cause.

    All evidence points to you merely changing your argument and finding other stats to try to prove your point if Tannehill has a successful 2020 season.
     
    PhinFan1968, resnor and Irishman like this.
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No it actually accounts for that, because passes on third down, after failures on first and second down, are associated with a relatively low number of expected points. So when the QB does what's expected on third down, after failures on first and second, he isn't penalized. The EPA in that situation is near zero.

    In other words, not much is "expected" of a QB on third down, after there were failures on first and second.
     
  22. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If all that were true then I would be highly unwilling to put anything in that regard in writing right now, when it can easily be referred back to after next season.
     
  23. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Right.. so 2020 won't settle it unless Tannehill performs similar (statistically) to 2012-2018.

    That's a problem. It's important to lay out how to test a hypothesis, and you're making it very hard to reject the point of view you have.
     
    resnor, FinFaninBuffalo and Irishman like this.
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No he could perform similar to how he did in 2019, but in a way that's far less strongly associated with Henry. That would make me revise my appraisal of his ability.
     
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    But there's the problem. Correlation doesn't imply causation, and you're assuming that all the effect of that correlation is due to Henry to test whether Tannehill's passer rating was due to Henry or Tannehill?

    Can't do that. The test has to be independent of the hypothesis you're trying to test.

    btw.. that IS confirmation bias.
     
    Irishman, Pauly, resnor and 1 other person like this.
  26. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Told you.....
     
    resnor likes this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No what I'm saying is that another strong association between their performances provides inconclusive data regarding any change in the appraisal of Tannehill's individual ability. I'm not saying it provides another year of conclusive data consistent with 2012-2018.
     
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I didn't say that this hypothetical scenario would mean 2012-2018 was similar. I'm just saying it IS confirmation bias. You're not considering all kinds of different hypotheses and then filtering them out based on evidence. You're starting with one specific hypothesis (the one you prefer) that's so hard to test that it's really unlikely you'll be "proven wrong" in 2020.

    So saying 2020 will determine this is simply wrong. There's a decent chance it's (as you say) "inconclusive".
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Hold on -- what we have here is just one season that stands in contrast with his others, and during that season he 1) had by far the strongest correlation in the league between his performance and that of his running back, 2) threw the second-fewest number of passes per game in the league, which was a much lower number than he threw from 2012 to 2018, and 3) performed far more poorly when the situation dictated that he throw more passes.

    I don't see how such a season can permit a conclusive change in previous appraisals of his individual ability. And then if he has just another season of that type, I don't see how that one can do it either.
     
  30. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Exactly!

    That's all I wanted you to admit. You started this off (many times actually) by saying 2020 will determine this. All I'm pointing out is you've created a hypothesis that's easy to confirm IF Tannehill performs average, but really hard to disprove (not impossible, but really hard).

    Point is.. let's stop with this notion that 2020 will determine things. There's a good chance it won't given the hypothesis you've chosen.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    OK I see what you mean now. I should've said 2020 will likely determine this, because I think it's probable that Tannehill and Henry's performances won't be so strongly related.

    What I would put money on right now are the following:

    1) Henry performs significantly worse than he did in 2019.
    2) His and Tannehill's performances, game-by-game, are much more weakly related.
    3) Tannehill performs significantly worse than he did in 2019, in terms of passer rating.
     
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Why does he keep liking your posts that prove him wrong and point out his logic errors that he continues to use? Weren't we all told that 2019 would settle this? Tannehill crushed it, but nothing is settled.
     
  33. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Define "significantly". If he drops to 100, is that "significantly worse"?
     
  34. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    So many mike dropping moments in this thread .... Mind blowing.
     
    resnor likes this.
  35. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    I would think his placement would hold more water than a flat rating number. If he finishes at like 16th or some crap like that, you could easily call that significantly worse.
     
  36. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I agree with that. I don't expect him to regress to his last decent season (2016). He finished 12th that season, after a very slow start. I will be shocked if he doesn't have a rating around 105 and finish in the top 6 or 7.
     
    PhinFan1968 and resnor like this.
  37. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You want to use the actual rating, assuming The Guy is talking about statistical significance. If instead he's talking about something subjective then he should specify his personal thresholds for us. But for statistical significance you'd use a t-test for unequal sample sizes on his 2019 ratings vs. 2020 ratings to see if there's any statistical significance.

    The problem with ranks is that the differences between neighboring ranks aren't a priori equal (e.g., difference between ranks 1 and 2 is in general different from the difference between ranks 2 and 3, or between N and N+1, etc..) and you'd have to first transform ranks into something where the differences between neighboring units are equal (a necessary condition for measurement) which introduces error.

    However, one should note that what The Guy wrote in post #6549 isn't really complete. That is, there's no question there are other things that will be looked at, including how Tannehill's 2020 stats compare to 2012-2018 for example, and one could easily get statistical significance for one of these but not the other which would allow for a lot of room for interpretation.
     
  38. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Im willing to bet Tennessee ground game wont be as good as it was last year. They just let one of the best RTs go. One of the best run blocking RT at that. Tennesee will have to keep developing their passing game if they want to keep up with the Chiefs or the Ravens. Tannehill worst game was against KC, but it is hard for any QB to go on a 3 week back to back away from Nissan stadium and expect to make it to the SB, especially in that playoff atmosphere. Thats just too much for anyone.

    I think Tannehill could even be better next year.
     
  39. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I can see larger volume stats, but it would be very very difficult to be more efficient.
     
    resnor likes this.
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    @cbrad if you wouldn't mind, I would would like to hear your best guess interpretation of the above, given the stats involved and how EPA is formulated.
     

Share This Page