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
    In a predominantly low-volume passing role, so the "pressure" you speak of was borne by Derrick Henry, primarily. When due to the circumstances the pressure was turned up on Tannehill and he had to assume a high-volume passing role, his performance plummeted.

    That's the question here: can the Titans replicate a season in which they can feature the run game to the degree that it allows their QB to remain in the kind of low-volume/game manger role that only one other QB in the league surpassed in 2019.

    It appears that Tannehill's performance hinges on it.
     
  2. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Or Tannehill was so efficient that often only a low number of passes were needed for the win.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    He played in 11 regular season games and had at least 15 pass attempts in all of them.

    And if I can't be trusted, I would recommend you ignore me completely, and certainly not task me with collecting objective data, as you did above. What's the use of tasking me to collect objective data if what I produce can't be trusted?
    Greater than 58.8, the average percentage of pass dropbacks per game throughout the league in 2019.
     
  4. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If that were predictive of his overall performance, then it wouldn't have plummeted so far beyond the league norm in high-volume games.
     
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If you don't trust my numbers or my analysis, then I certainly won't be doing any further work of the kind you're asking for above.
     
  6. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    58.8? Do you mean 38.8? or 28.8? Or, are you counting dropbacks by both teams? If so, why the hell would you do that?

    Also above average is not "high volume". Aren't you the one always insisting on at least 1 SD from average for something to be significant?
     
    resnor likes this.
  7. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Some of the questions I raised in my previous post are exactly why I question your numbers.
     
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The average team in the NFL dropped back to pass on 58.8% of its offensive plays per game in 2019. I considered anything greater than that high-volume and applied that definition to all teams in the analysis.
     
  9. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL. What a twisted definition of high volume.....58.8% is not even a volume measure. 10 runs and 15 passes in a game is 60% passes but hardly "high volume". Now I understand why you wanted to include the Denver game. I couldn't understand why you would want to include a game with low number of passes for Tannehill. It should skew down his passer rating on low volume games. LOL. Now I understand.... again, you cannot be trusted.
     
    Cashvillesent and resnor like this.
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure it is. Of the total number of offensive plays, the percentage of passing plays was elevated, suggesting that the quarterback had more of the offensive load placed on him than it was on other parts of the offense. And that's when Tannehill falters -- when more of the offensive load is placed on him than is typical in the league.

    Go ahead and do the analysis yourself with whatever definition of "high-volume" you prefer and we'll see what happens. Just make sure you apply the same definition to all teams as I did. Let's see if you're willing to put forth some effort instead of just comfortably sitting back and criticizing others'.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2020
  11. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Teams are built and coached to play a particular style of offensive football. When a team is forced to deviate from their game plan it puts stresses on their offense. The whole offense, QB, OL, RBs, WRs, TEs, and coaches. The Titans pass play % from 2016 to 2019 was:

    52.78%, 55.41%, 51.49%, and 51.21%

    It makes no sense to compare what happens when a team that has prepared for several seasons (with Mariota as the QB) to be a more run oriented team throws as often as a team that has prepared for several seasons to be a more pass oriented team. For the last 4 seasons (at least) when the Titans are throwing 60% of the time in a game, something is wrong. Either the offense isn't working or the defense has collapsed and forced the offense out of their game plan. You cannot just assume that the QB should throw it more and all should be fine. They have prepared and practiced all season (or multiple seasons) to do something different. Even if the QB could just flip a switch, what about the blockers and receivers? You don't think the team drafts and acquires free agents to play a particular style? Come on......

    I prefer a definition that a high volume passing game is any game where a team attempts more than their average number of passes. With Tannehill, Tenn averaged 24 attempts per game. In the games with more attempts than that he has a passer rating of 111.1. In games with less attempts than that he had a passer rating of 119.8.

    Frankly, your approach shows a lack of understanding of the game.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  12. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I'm just using your method on you. Make spurious claim, expect everyone else to provide proof proving it wrong, then argue why their proof is not really proof.

    You've taught me well.
     
    Cashvillesent and Irishman like this.
  13. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You are redefining things to fit your narrative. High volume is certainly not 10 passes on 16 plays. By your definition, a QB throwing 50 times would not be high volume if they ran 115 plays.

    Ludicrous.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Go back through our histories of posting and compare the percentages of the time we've made assertions with at least the attempt to support them with objective evidence.

    The result will be some non-zero percentage (mine) versus zero (yours).
     
  15. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Like I said, choose the definition of high-volume you prefer and do the same analysis, applied to all teams.

    Something tells me that won't be forthcoming. You're far more comfortable making unsupported assertions and sitting back comfortably and critiquing others' work to support theirs.
     
  16. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I'm perfectly comfortable with a passer rating of 111.1 in high volume games.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  17. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Problem is, Tannehill has demonstrated this pattern (playing significantly more poorly than the average QB in high-volume games) throughout his career.

    So perhaps Tennessee went out and got a QB that fits its offense, but again, Tannehill's future success, as it has been throughout his career, will likely be dependent on whether they can replicate that. The fact that they prefer that kind of offense doesn't make Tannehill's individual performance any less dependent on it.

    So, frankly, your approach shows a lack of understanding of Tannehill.
     
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Certainly. Problem is, they'll likely need to replicate that volume -- the second lowest in the league in 2019 -- for Tannehill to be successful, because his performance plummets when the volume reaches a league norm (as opposed to a Tennessee norm) for high volume.
     
  19. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    They've maintained their run/pass ratio for four years. They added Tannehill and turned that style offense into approximately 30 points per game and a trip to the AFC Championship game. Why would you be concerned about their ability to maintain it? Seems like you are reaching.

    It is a run/pass ratio similar to 6 playoff teams last season and 2 of the final 4.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Like I said, bet on Tannehill's future success squarely as a function of whether you believe they can sustain his passing volume, because his success depends on it. Sounds like you would make the bet, and that's fine. Whether you do or not doesn't change the fact that Tannehill is dependent on low-volume passing, however.
     
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The other issue here, and it's beside the point that Tannehill is dependent on low-volume passing but worth mentioning nonetheless, is that if you applied the "Tennessee passing volume norm" you've come up with to all teams, chances are it would get Tannehill and his team beaten in significantly greater number of games, as other QBs in the league likewise benefited from such low-volume passing.

    So, 111.1 wouldn't mean the same thing or produce the same results under those circumstances. This is why I said "make sure to apply your definition to all teams." But you haven't done that. You've applied it only to Tannehill.
     
  22. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You have no idea what Tannehill is dependent on. You haven't established anything of the sort. A dependency implies some notion of causality and I've seen nothing to suggest that.

    Only 1 of the top 10 highest pass ratio teams made the playoffs last season. That team was 10th.

    6 of the top 10 running ratio teams made the playoffs, along with the 11th and 14th. Not sure why you are harping on something that reduces a teams chances of making the playoffs.
     
  23. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You're guessing again.
     
  24. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Include only starts and report the actual average passer ratings not the delta.

    I have a sneaking suspicion were are going to see something like:

    Tannehill - 135 and 97.5
    League average - 95 and 82
     
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Not sure why you don't see a seven-year, career-long, greater-than-normal performance decrement in high-volume games as evidence of causality. Only you know your own internal goings on -- I don't.
    We aren't talking about the playoffs or even about winning. We're talking about Tannehill's future individual performance and what it depends on. This is about determining Tannehill's individual ability, not what his team accomplishes.
     
  26. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    As a stats guy, I would have assumed this was obvious. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Correlation does not imply causation"?

    You have to prove causation. You're not even close.

    Well, his individual ability resulted in being the league's most efficient passer and turning around a 2-4 team and taking to the AFC Championship game.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If that doesn't establish causation, then nothing in the NFL does, including that Tannehill's 2019 passer rating is indicative of his ability, since that's merely a correlation as well.
    ...again, when the passing volume was low enough to facilitate it.
     
  28. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Still waiting on this.
     
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    From the guy whose numbers you don't trust?
     
  30. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Okay.
     
  31. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Something tells me you don't want to provide the numbers.......
     
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    To someone who's going to claim they're bogus if he doesn't like them? Of course not.
     
  33. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Busted....... LOL
     
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So if I produce numbers, they're bogus, and if I don't produce them, I'm "busted."

    You got yourself a nice little world there.
     
  35. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You already produced the numbers. You just won't provide the backup to your questionable numbers and conclusions.

    LOL..... damn I have great instincts.... your "stats" are not to be trusted.
     
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I have the numbers right here, but I'm not your do-boy. Someone who claims they don't trust what I produce isn't going to be my taskmaster from then on.
     
  37. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL.
     
  38. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Just reading over some of this, it begs a question...

    Who says playing a high volume passing game is a smart strategy?

    There’s only a HANDFUL of quarterbacks in the league that have the God given talent to be able to play that type of game...provided of course, the TEAM is built for that.

    So does that mean that other quarterbacks who don’t throw the ball 40-50 times a game are average at best? Of course it doesn’t, but I would be hard pressed to convince some here.

    If I had my choice of a quarterback that averages 6 yards per completion and throws the ball 40-50 times a game versus a quarterback that has a 9.6 yard completion rate and only throws the ball 20-25 time a game, I’m taking the latter.

    At least I’m virtually guaranteed a 1st down by the latter quarterback than the former...unless of course the First down standard has suddenly been reduced under 10 yards
     
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The question isn’t whether playing a high-volume passing game is a sound strategy. Obviously it isn’t. However, not all quarterbacks‘ success is dependent on low-volume passing like Tannehill’s.

    With Tannehill, you’re forced to play low-volume passing game, or your quarterback’s performance plummets. That isn’t true for all quarterbacks, and it isn’t even true to the same degree for the average quarterback.
     
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Pertaining to the above, Tannehill's CPOE 2012-2018 was 0.4.

    For comparison's sake, during the same time period, Drew Brees's was 5.8, Matt Ryan's was 4.2, and Russell Wilson's was 4.6.

    So the assertion that Tannehill's surroundings in Miami were poor and he was nonetheless exhibiting superior talent despite them isn't supported by his CPOE during that time period.

    https://rbsdm.com/stats/stats/

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page