Right, but the mechanism of action I proposed there was different than was proposed in those analyses. Take Tannehill's rookie year for example, when his passer rating was a mere 76, the team was behind on the scoreboard a great deal, and people perceived that Tannehill's performance suffered because of the high degree of pressure he was experiencing. Well of course he was experiencing such pressure -- at that point he had no ability to play in such a way to tilt the game in the Dolphins' favor, keep opposing defenses honest versus the run, and get them to back off and respect his downfield game. So under those conditions "short sacks" (ones that happen relatively quickly after the snap) are expected. But again he was being viewed as the savior of the franchise at the time, and so anything short of his performing like Russell Wilson (who was playing very well as a rookie third-round pick the same year) had to be attributable to surrounding factors and not to him. The mantra was that Tannehill would be playing just as well with Seattle, and Wilson would be playing just as poorly with the Dolphins. And this was with no track record to go on for Tannehill other than part of his rookie season! It was as if his having been drafted in the top 10 overall was a guarantee he'd be a star.
Here's another highly statistically-driven rating system for QBs people might find interesting: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2019-nfl-predictions/quarterbacks/
What's interesting about the above article -- which is about which QB should be league MVP in 2019 -- is that the author concludes that based on the above measures, Lamar Jackson is the league MVP, yet Patrick Mahomes played virtually as well based on the "player stats," while enjoying a decent bit less "team support."
short sacks aren’t expected if the line is doing their job. In 2012, Tannehill also had a truly pathetic group of receivers. This year, he had the support of a running game like Wilson has enjoyed nearly every year. He also had a good OL. Look what happened. After years of ignoring the benefit that Wilson had, you’ve flipped it around to a criticism of Tannehill. Crazy. now look what happened in Miami, again. You argued for years that because the Dolphins made changes to their OL every year, it must be Tannehill. I argued that the players they were bringing in were not performing. I was proven right by the repeated failure of those players to succeed anywhere else. in short, you favored blaming Tannehill over the line. The first time they were separated, Tannehill thrived and the Dolphins OL continued their pathetic performance. I cannot believe you don’t just concede at this point.
I LOVE the fact this thread is still on-going, I really do! We've had other players leave the Dolphins and go on to great success with other teams and yet, none have spurred such post-Miami discussion. The facts are simple and indisputable...we had a STUD franchise quarterback and we let him go.
This is a situation where we should both make a concession in my opinion. I should concede that the Dolphins' offensive line has been bad, and you should concede that Ryan Tannehill is in perhaps the 99th percentile in the league in his dependence on offensive line functioning. Both of those factors explain much of his performance in Miami. This is again part of why I think 2019 was a "perfect storm" (or whatever analogous term there is for that in the positive sense) of circumstances in which Tannehill was highly protected by his line, against defenses that were focusing heavily on the Titans' run game, allowing his game to revolve almost completely around his arm talent. And I've agreed that his arm talent is top-notch. The question again is, how likely are those surrounding circumstances to be replicated and sustained? Will his arm talent again be what his game can revolve around, or will he be forced to play more of the entirety of the position due to less advantageous surroundings? Only another year can give us info about that. There's no guarantee that the 2020 Tennessee Titans won't be more like the 2015 Miami Dolphins than they were like the 2019 Titans.
Just a quick point about that -- take a look at how often throughout the league defenses get pressure on QBs with only three pass-rushers on hail-mary plays, for example. When the defense knows what's coming, the offensive line's job is almost impossible. So yes, the line should do its job, but it's also the case that the situation the line is in determines much of the degree of difficulty of the line's job, and that's contributed to in large part by the quarterback's performance. Ryan Tannehill circa 2012 wasn't doing his offensive line any favors.
Man, you make a lot of numbers up for a "stats" guy...... You have nothing to substantiate putting a number on dependence on the OL. It is a complete fabrication. The Titans didn't have the best pass blocking line in football this year, let alone some historic line. They had good pass protection, just like a dozen or so other teams. PFF ranked them 8th in pass blocking efficiency. With the 8th ranked pass blocking efficiency, he put up historic passing efficiency numbers. Enough said.
Just stop..... he was an inexperienced rookie on a bad team with terrible talent and terrible coaching. He made Brian Hartline and Devon Bess look like NFL receivers. Bess went to Cleveland in 2013 where he wasn't good enough to start on a 4-12 football team. Hartline had two mediocre seasons (2012, 2013) with Tannehill propping him up and after he left, he was out of the league by 2016.
That's why I said "perhaps" in the post you quoted. I recognize when there is uncertainty. ...and with defenses keying heavily on his team's run game. In Tannehill's best three-game stretch of the year in terms of passer rating -- against Jacksonville, Indianapolis, and Oakland -- the offensive line's pass blocking win rate was an astronomical 82% -- four standard deviations above the league mean in 2019! Moreover, Derrick Henry had just come off a game (against KC) -- his breakout game on the season -- in which he rushed for 188 yards and 8+ yards a carry. In the above three games for Tannehill he rushed for 159 yards and 8+ yards a carry, 149 yards and 5.7 yards a carry, and 103 yards and 5.7 yards a carry. Imagine how much easier it is to pass the ball in that situation. So, while the Titans' pass blocking wasn't the best in the league, I suspect that Tannehill's ups and downs in performance, game-by-game, were strongly related to those of both the line and Henry. When they made his job extremely easy, he performed extremely well.
Nah.... See you have it backwards... Because Tannehill had his three best games of the year, it made it easier for Henry to run the football.
Now why is it when the line was performing poorly in Miami, you are convinced it was because Tannehill "didn't do the line any favors" but when the line performs well, it is not because "Tannehill is doing the line a huge favor"? Can you say "bias" boy and girls?
The point is it wasn't "Perhaps 50th percentile, or 75th, or even 90th". No, your "estimates" (which is stats speak for pulling it out of your ***) are ALWAYS extremely negative towards Tannehill.
The post you're referring to was first a general commentary about how there is a bidirectional relationship between quarterback and offensive line functioning, and then about how Tannehill's performance in 2012 alone is a good example of how quarterbacking can affect the degree of difficulty of the offensive line's job. There are other examples, involving other quarterbacks, that are at least as good. Is it possible that Tannehill's performance accounts for the Titans' offensive line's performance in the three games in which they had a pass blocking win rate four standard deviations above the league norm? Sure.
Something interesting here -- I just took a look at the play-by-play in the second Tennessee-Indy game in 2019, and while Tannehill's passer rating was a very high 133.1, his EPA per play for the game was actually negative (-0.12). The primary reason for that appears to have been the six sacks he took in that game, which had EPAs of: -5.31 (included a lost fumble) -1.75 -2.09 -1.63 -1.61 -0.82 Conversely his five biggest passing plays in terms of EPA were: 5.05 (40-yard touchdown pass) 3.6 (13-yard touchdown pass) 1.52 1.39 0.97 He also threw a mere 22 passes in the game, so it wasn't like there was tremendous opportunity to boost his EPA with a high number of plays. Really shows that EPA takes into consideration a great deal more context than does passer rating.
Here's an idea.... maybe, just maybe, the OL can perform well AND the QB can perform well at the same time WITHOUT one be called an excuse or crutch for the other??? Ya think? Here is my final summary for Tannehill 2019. He was in a very good situation that HE VERY MUCH CONTRIBUTED TO. His play helped the running game and vice versa. But, his situation was not unlike many other QBs that have had strong supporting casts, or good coaching, and a real identity. His situation alone does not explain the near historic efficiency stats. It simply doesn't explain a passer rating of 117.5 combined with such a high YPA and CPOE. To do that you must have adequate protection AND be a very good QB. Maybe an OL performing very very poorly creates an environment that is very difficult for any QB to succeed in and an improvement to QB play when not surrounded by such crap DOESN'T mean that QB requires "a perfect storm" or "ideal conditions" or any of the other euphemisms you've tried to use to discredit Tannehill. Maybe having a balanced offense (like the Ravens, Eagles, Cowboys, 49ers, Vikings, Seahawks, and Bills) is just good football. Maybe having a good offensive line like the Eagles, Colts, Saints, Cowboys, Ravens, Packers, Texans, Chiefs, Bucs, 49ers etc is just a good way for any QB to have more success. Brees, Rodgers, Cousins, Watson, Prescott, Allen, Mahomes, Brissett, Wentz, Goff, Garoppolo, and Winston all had good pass blocking. It is no coincidence that several of the teams on that list that failed to make the playoffs will be changing QBs (Colts, Bucs) or head coaches (Cowboys) next year. Having a good line doesn't guarantee success at QB nearly as much as having a bad line prevents it. Even with good protection, you still have to read defenses, find the right receiver, and make accurate throws. There were numerous QBs that had better protection than Tannehill that did not throw the ball as well. Teams with good lines that don't get good QB play often change QBs. Teams with bad lines that don't get good QB play more often make changes on the line. Tannehill is not perfect. He should take advantage of his running ability more often. He should take fewer sacks. He should improvise more. He should come off of his first read quicker at times. None of those are fatal flaws and all QBs have things they can improve on. He will very likely not have a 117 passer rating next season but IMO he will still be a top 10 QB with a performance level that is in line with his salary.
Here's an interesting comparison: Tannehill's turnovers were capped at -4.5 EPA as for the other QBs above.
Dude you do realize that he had a very good year with a new team, new offense, and a new coaching staff... why dont you credit him on that too???? Not alot of QBs can come to a brand new team and adopt as good as Tannehill did...
It's more of a commentary about how passer rating can be high when EPA per play is low. In fact the correlation between Tannehill's EPA per play (in the above graph) and his passer rating is 0.49, which is probably much lower than people would intuit.
I wonder if, for 2020, you folks could establish a minimal set of QB statistics that meet all the conditions of Statistical Science. Include the statistical reasoning for each statistic and the calculation used. Then set up two or 3 models based on those statistics to determine the effectiveness of the running game, the passing game and the performance of the offensive line. Set up a special post that would analyze all this stuff after every game. Using that information, predict the outcome of the next weeks game. I suppose this would require a similar analysis of each opponent in order to draw any conclusions. At the same time poll the board each week for predictions of the score and who will win that game. Compare the polling estimates with the statistical predictions. At the end of the season lets see which approach was closest to the actual record. If the statistical analysis is better, that's that. If the subjective polling is better, what can be learned from that. It may reveal some missing element in the statistical approach used, or maybe just show some people are psychic. Maybe even gifted psychics, or maybe just lucky. Repeat this for at least 5 years, or until we win the super bowl. That should give us a big enough sample size to reduce any ambiguities associated with small sample sizes. Anyway, thank you guys for generating some truly interesting insights to the analysis of the game in a relatively civilized discussion, including a few outliers. It made coming to the board much more interesting then the normal arguments based on who understands football the best and why the front office never knows what they are doing.
This answer is probably going to disappoint you but: 1) No purely statistical model does as well at predicting games as Vegas does (collective human intelligence). You can marginally improve on Vegas using statistics if you include in your model the Vegas predictions, but not if you don't include Vegas odds (not yet). So if you're just interested in predicting games use Vegas odds. Also, stats are really useful post-hoc and with large sample size, so you wouldn't want to use them on a game-by-game basis like you're suggesting. 2) Not sure what you mean by satisfying conditions of "statistical science", but in this case I'd require transparency (no propriety stats), including only events that are directly affected by the QB, as high a correlation to win% (or points scored) as possible, and where confounding variables can be easily averaged out with large sample size. That last condition is only partially satisfied by all widely used "QB stats" (e.g., coaching is nearly impossible to average out), meaning they're really "team stats". So the best one can do is satisfy 3 out of the 4 conditions, and candidates are passer rating (adjusted to a common year), EPA and simpler stats like NY/A. 3) Because we can only partially average out confounds, it's really hard to estimate the effect of a particular running game or OL. One can try using partial correlations and stats that more directly measure the RB or OL (e.g., that Pass Block Win Rate isn't bad though I don't like the fact they set a hard threshold of 2.5 seconds.. they should set the threshold at the point the QB throws the ball or at the point the defender is close enough to the QB), but in general the inability to fully average out means there's always going to be a lot of room for interpretation. Like I said, that answer might be a bit disappointing but that's my response.
Now compare the pros and cons of that approach to the one in which a fan on a message board engages in non-systematic observations of the league, with varying degrees of attention (i.e., watching his own team far more intently than others), potentially rife with confirmation bias.
Yeah, humans are biased, have imperfect memory, and often can't make logical inferences, while properly done statistical analysis has none of those flaws (with the emphasis on the words "properly done" lol). On the other hand, humans can incorporate tons of data that statistical analysis throws away (sometimes for no other reason than because no one can quantify it). So there are pros and cons to both approaches. Ideally you can use both, but in general statistical analysis (when applicable) is more reliable than human intuition when sample sizes are large (e.g., comparing 2 starting QB careers from different eras) while humans are better for smaller sample sizes (e.g., analyzing a play or even a full game). I think the more important point is that there are tons of questions about football where neither approach works well lol.
Here are some data regarding Ryan Tannehill at the time his team needed him most in 2019. At the start of the fourth quarter of Tennessee's playoff game with Kansas City, the Chiefs were ahead 21-17 and were 89% likely to win the game. Here are the plays involving Ryan Tannehill from that point on: Ryan Tannehill pass complete short right to Corey Davis for 15 yards (tackle by Bashaud Breeland) Ryan Tannehill pass complete short right to Derrick Henry for -2 yards (tackle by Damien Wilson) Ryan Tannehill pass complete short middle to A.J. Brown for 5 yards (tackle by Daniel Sorensen) Ryan Tannehill sacked by Tanoh Kpassagnon for -8 yards Ryan Tannehill pass complete short left to Derrick Henry for -6 yards (tackle by Daniel Sorensen) Ryan Tannehill pass incomplete short right intended for Corey Davis (defended by Bashaud Breeland) (defended by Daniel Sorensen) Ryan Tannehill pass complete short left to Jonnu Smith for 8 yards (tackle by Tyrann Mathieu) Ryan Tannehill pass complete short right to Jonnu Smith for 8 yards (tackle by Bashaud Breeland and Rashad Fenton) Ryan Tannehill pass complete short right to Corey Davis for 22 yards (tackle by Daniel Sorensen) Ryan Tannehill sacked by Tanoh Kpassagnon for -2 yards Ryan Tannehill pass complete deep middle to Anthony Firkser for 22 yards, touchdown Ryan Tannehill left end for 6 yards (tackle by Daniel Sorensen). Penalty on Chris Jones: Illegal Use of Hands, 5 yards Ryan Tannehill pass complete short right to Adam Humphries for 9 yards (tackle by Tyrann Mathieu) Ryan Tannehill pass incomplete short left intended for Adam Humphries (defended by Tanoh Kpassagnon) Ryan Tannehill pass incomplete short middle intended for A.J. Brown (defended by Tyrann Mathieu) Ryan Tannehill sacked by Frank Clark for -17 yards EPA per play for the above was a very low -0.21. Now contrast that with Patrick Mahomes's performance at the end of the Super Bowl. With 8:53 left in the fourth quarter and the 49ers ahead 20-10 and 93% likely to win the game, here are the plays associated with Patrick Mahomes from then on (excluding his kneel-downs at the end of the game): Patrick Mahomes left end for 9 yards (tackle by K'Waun Williams) Patrick Mahomes pass complete short left to Tyreek Hill for 9 yards (tackle by Emmanuel Moseley) Patrick Mahomes pass incomplete short left intended for Tyreek Hill (defended by Emmanuel Moseley) Patrick Mahomes pass incomplete deep right intended for Tyreek Hill Patrick Mahomes pass complete deep left to Tyreek Hill for 44 yards (tackle by Jimmie Ward) Patrick Mahomes pass incomplete deep left intended for Tyreek Hill Patrick Mahomes pass incomplete short right Patrick Mahomes pass complete short right to Travis Kelce for 1 yard, touchdown Patrick Mahomes pass complete short left to Tyreek Hill for 5 yards (tackle by K'Waun Williams) Patrick Mahomes pass complete short middle to Travis Kelce for 9 yards (tackle by Jimmie Ward) Patrick Mahomes pass complete short right to Tyreek Hill for 3 yards (tackle by Richard Sherman) Patrick Mahomes pass complete deep right to Sammy Watkins for 38 yards (tackle by Jimmie Ward) Patrick Mahomes left end for 6 yards (tackle by K'Waun Williams) Patrick Mahomes sacked by Jaquiski Tartt for -1 yards Patrick Mahomes pass complete short right to Damien Williams for 5 yards, touchdown EPA per play for the above was an extremely high 0.60.
lol.. OK, now list the plays where Marino's team needed him the most: 2nd half of SB 19 against SF. You know.. where the Dolphins scored zero points in the entire 2nd half with a QB that shattered records in the same regular season. C'mon.. this is not how you evaluate QB's. I agree it's a snapshot, but it's just one snapshot out of a whole movie. And yes, we all agree Tannehill is not Mahomes. Mahomes is like a modern day Marino with a ring. Tannehill? Only one great season so far. Me thinks no need to keep comparing Mahomes to Tannehill lol.
No doubt, but at that point in the Chiefs game, when Derrick Henry had been stopped and the team needed Tannehill to rise to the occasion and do something along the lines of what Mahomes did in the Super Bowl, he looked no different from the Tannehill of old, despite what he'd done previously in the season. It would've been different had the team ridden Tannehill to some degree during the playoffs, but it didn't. It rode Henry until Henry was stopped, and then Tannehill was unable to do his part. These are the kinds of analyses that actually have some merit when a player's career track record is what his is. Consider that if the rest of Marino's career after 1984 would've been no better than Tannehill's 2012-2018, we'd be looking back at that Super Bowl as a snapshot of failure that was consistent with the rest of his career as well. It's only because Marino performed so well virtually throughout his career that that game stands in contrast and has the (little) meaning it does.
OMFG Give it the F*** up... Tannehill kills it all year... He takes a team that was 2-4 and among the worst in points scored to the #2 scoring and the #1 red zone offense in football. He goes 7-3 as a starter... Beats the Pats and the Ravens on the road.... ( Yes Henry helped ) And you have nothing to say.... you point to one-quarter of a playoff game where Henry was not playing well. Every single poster here has debunked your numbers... you have been outed as trying to manufacture arguments here We get it... Tannehill had sex with your wife and you found out about it. Please go talk to a therapist and get the help you need. You have been banned from two boards already because of this obsession and it is really unhealthy. He posted the 4th highest QB rating all time in the history of the NFL Just stop... Take a breath And admit you were wrong about Tannehill. This was hilarious for a while... Now it is getting sad. Just stop.
LOL Henry helped thats a bit of an understatement. The Titans had 572 yds of total offense vs the Ravens and Pats 418 of those yds were rushing yards, 377 of that was from Henry. Some might call that carrying the workload.
Yep, the Titans offense goes through Henry and when Henry and the rush offense was held to under 100 yds vs the Chiefs Tannehill was not good enough to pick up the slack because thats not who he is. He is what he's always been an above average QB who can have success as long as he's not the focal point of the offense. He is not a guy who can consistently shoulder more of the load if needed, and there's nothing wrong with that. He is essentially an Alex Smith type of QB which is not an insult as I'm sure there are teams who wish they had an Alex Smith/Tannehill type of QB.
Another way to look at is Tannehill was never going to have success here because we don't have the pieces in place to help him flourish ie a strong running game and a good defense. Had he stayed he would continue to get beat on and probably injured since pocket awareness was never his strong suit combined with our terrible OL and thats a recipe for disaster. We also don't have a running game to take pressure off him which is something he needs. It was the best thing to do for both parties.
Moose, you DO realize that EVERY team that makes the playoffs has a solid offensive line, good running game and a strong defense...don't you? If you don't realize this, you can't objectively comment about Tannehill or any other quarterback in the league for that matter.
What about the fact that as soon as Tannehill got to Tennessee he was completing screen plays... Showing patience... Letting the pass rush commit and then casually dumping off to wide open players in space for huge plays. Epic fail on this one guys.... come up with another argument.
The simple fact is Tannehill was on a better team...an organization that knew you build the team then get the quarterback. The Titans were the exact same team with Heisman Trophy winner Marcus Mariotta at quarterback and THAT offensive unit struggled to score and win games. Pull Mariotta and insert Tannehill...now this exact same team goes from struggling to one game shy of the Super Bowl.
Totally not true, especially since you emphasize the word "EVERY". Seattle won a SB and has been in the playoffs many times with a bad OL. And what kind of "good running game" did Denver have in 2015? It's more likely in recent decades that a team that makes a deep run in the playoffs has a QB that plays well above average (especially in that year) than an OL that plays well above average. And in general, the running game has become less and less important as the passing game has taken over (since 1978 due to systematic rule changes and interpretations). That's "objectively speaking" true if you look at percent of plays that are rush vs. pass for example – vast decline in rush% over time since then.
Well thanks for dropping the "just looking for statistical evidence" facade. We all knew it was bull**** all along. At least the "I'm biased against Tannehill and will look for any reason to knock him" is honest. Using your way of looking at it, 31 QBs "fail when their team needs them the most" every season. Marino failed when his team needed him the most every season. You have finally reached the point that many of us knew would be coming - Tannehill must win the SB (or maybe a few) or be considered a failure. Goalposts firmly placed to the farthest spot you can move them to. Now we can skip the inane arguments next season. You've exposed yourself already. You've wasted far too much of other people's time. When Tannehill got the start, he wasn't going to do well. Then, it would only last for a few games. Then it wouldn't last the rest of the season. Then, he wouldn't win in NE. Then, he wouldn't win in Baltimore. Finally, he wouldn't beat Mahomes on the road. Congrats, you were 1-5.