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
    Yes I do. Tom Selleck circa 1983.
     
  2. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm just going to plop $500 down on his winning the league MVP, so I can walk away with $40K when he does.
     
  3. TheHighExhaulted

    TheHighExhaulted Well-Known Member

    5,820
    4,665
    113
    Jan 15, 2008
    When does this thread get moved to the "Other NFL" forum?
     
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yeah would be a real shame to move the only active thread in the mains.
     
  5. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    As soon as people can learn to scroll by something they have no interest in...so probably never.
     
    Irishman, resnor and Pauly like this.
  6. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    In addition to other offensive player talent you also have the effects of:
    - Coaching (a) scheme development and game planning
    - Coaching (b) play calling, clock management etc.
    - Coaching (c) discipline and player development
    - Opponents faced.
     
    resnor likes this.
  7. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    This is where your overall knowledge of football lacks. You never bothered to look into WHY Brady’s passer rating jumped astronomically from 2006 to 2007. Allow me to tell you why.

    In 2007, the Patriots added Daunte Stallworth, Wes Walker and Randy Moss to their roster, bolstering up their 2006 anemic receiving corps. Two of these three receivers broke the single season record for receptions that year, Welker and Moss both.

    Brady’s passer rating in 2007 has less to do with him and his abilities, which have always been there. It had more to do with having talented receivers that could actually catch what was being thrown at them.

    How many game day threads were there during Tannehill’s tenure in Miami did we as fans SCREAM for receivers dropping passes that would have resulted in touchdowns or first downs? Too many!

    But you keeping tooting your little toy quarterback whistle and pulling out irrelevant numbers. Some of us know what we know and like trying to explain to a teen, nothing we grown ups say are going to change your mind
     
    resnor likes this.
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah see and this (and cbrad's quoted post) is why you need several years of QB play to determine QB ability. The key becomes, again, the level at which QBs vary in their performance. There is nobody here (or anywhere) who is going to nail down all of these other variables with any precision and make it possible to determine QB ability in only a year or two.

    With Tannehill in 2019 for example, you have the possible effects of coaching (his passing load management) and other players (most notably Derrick Henry) that may be difficult to replicate. In a league that revolves around passing and in which EPA per passing play is so much greater than EPA per running play, I suspect teams will be content next year for example to employ the strategy the Patriots did in the playoffs and play not to defend Derrick Henry but instead stay honest against the pass. That strategy put the clamps on Tannehill and would've resulted in an easy win had Tom Brady and company not laid an egg that day (passer rating 59.4). Tannehill in a 16-game season against that strategy would be interesting to evaluate.
     
  9. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007

    Tenn has maintained fairly consistent run pass ratios for 4 seasons. Does that show and inability to do it?

    Interesting that you think the strategy to beat the Titans should focus on stopping Tannehill. Good call. You're finally coming around to my way of thinking.
     
  10. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Good call on editing your post to drop the comment below about top QBs varying from 87 to 117..... not a good point to try to make immediately after a season where Tannehill varied from 92 to 117.......


     
    KeyFin likes this.
  11. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What, you mean nobody focused on stopping him in 2019?
     
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    92 to 117 in 2018-2019 is a different animal from 87 to 117 in 2006-2007.

    Brady was 7.5 points above the league norm in 2006 and 34.6 points above it in 2007. Tannehill was 0.2 points below the league norm in 2018 and 27.1 points above it in 2019.

    Again, the best QBs vary at higher levels than the lesser ones.

    Also, I edited my post and then deleted it because I thought it better to simply block that fellow from reading my posts, since he's repeatedly demonstrated insufficient capacity to understand them. But, keep being paranoid....
     
  13. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL...... The hair splitting champion ladies and gentlemen!!!! Give him a round of applause!!

    But was Brady significantly different from average in 2006? I already know the answer is no by the way you phrased your response...... They both varied from average to way above average....
     
    resnor likes this.
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    In those two years, yes. Over their careers as a whole, however, Brady has varied at a level significantly higher than Tannehill, and the 2006-2007 variation, in comparison to Tannehill's 2018-2019 variation, is a part of that because its consistent with the overall difference between them. And the overall difference between them isn't hair-splitting.

    The main point is that you haven't been adjusting for era when you've made these comparisons. A passer rating of 117 in 2019 is not the same as a passer rating of 117 in 2007.
     
  15. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You can't simply compare variation in rating for two QBs on drastically different teams.

    I mean, you're comparing Brady playing for the past dominant team of the past two decades with a guy playing on a team that was a dumpster fire for the last decade. We were pretty close to being the Browns. One would expect that the QB playing on the most dominant team in the league would have some significant advantages.

    You gotta watch the games.
     
  16. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The problem with watching the games is that there will be widespread disagreement among people who are watching the same games. Some of them will attribute the Patriots' success in large part to Brady, whereas others will view Brady as the beneficiary of the Patriots' surroundings. How do we know who's correct? If we can't determine who's correct, then watching the games did nothing for us in this regard.

    Don't get me wrong -- we all watch lots of games, and I'm not saying there's no value in watching games. What I'm asking is how watching games, alone, can adjudicate the issue of the proportion of responsibility for the Patriots' success that is attributable to Brady.
     
  17. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That is, for the most part, meaningless to my post. Acting as if you can simply compare two QBs from drastically different teams, comparing their variation in rating, is in no way going to be accurate. Worse takes are going to make the QBs job much more difficult.

    I mean, even your Brady example proves that. Give him two HoF receivers and a stifling defense, and Brady goes from average to superstar.

    Brady's stats when Gronk (possibly greatest TE of all time) is in the lineup are very different than when he doesn't have Gronk. There are examples everywhere of this, if you're willing to look.
     
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Try to follow your own point here. This is what you said:

    You said "you gotta watch the games." What exactly is "watching the games" doing for us in this context of determining the degree to which a QB, versus his surroundings, is responsible for his performance? You said "you gotta watch the games" -- I didn't. Then when I ask you how watching the games can help us in that regard, you say the question is meaningless. Are you following your own point?

    Sure, but a lesser QB with that same improvement in surroundings goes not from average to superstar, but rather from dumpster fire to average. That's the point! The better QBs vary at higher levels!

    Just because Tom Brady played at a superstar level with the 2007 Patriots doesn't mean ANY QB could've done that. Surely you don't think Josh Rosen for example would've posted a 117 passer rating with the 2007 Patriots?
     
  19. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Just because Tannehill played at a superstar level with the 2019 Titans doesn't mean ANY QB could've done that. Surely you don't think that Josh Rosen or Marcus Mariota, for example, would've posted a 117 passer rating with the 2019 Titans......
     
    resnor likes this.
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, I don't, but there's still a question of whether Andy Dalton or Nick Foles could have.
     
  21. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Hell, it is a legit question whether Brady would have...... His career high YPA is 8.6.... not sure he would have excelled trying to make the throws as difficult as Tannehill did...... Brady is a career 82 passer rating on play action passes...... Tannehill's passer rating on play action in 2019 was 143.....

    Totally different systems.... playing to totally different strengths.
     
    resnor likes this.
  22. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Again you're not considering changes in those statistics that may have occurred across eras there.
     
  23. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Brady's passer rating on play action passes in 2019 was 82.7.
     
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    OK my misunderstanding apparently. I thought you were making a point about what could be expected from Brady on the basis of his overall career performance, rather than just what happened near the end of it, when he was 42 years old.
     
  25. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    And the season following a SB win.......
     
  26. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah but we don't measure quarterbacks' ability in wins. We measure it with the level at which they vary over several seasons.

    Take a look for example at this performance over several seasons, and the win percentage involved:

    https://www.pro-football-reference....comp=gte&c1val=0&c5val=1.0&order_by=game_date

    Moreover, in terms of their performance, QBs tend to hit a wall as they age, where their performance declines relatively sharply and permanently from one year to the next, as opposed to a gradual decline. Brady 2019 and thereafter could very well be a different critter from pre-2019 Brady.
     
  27. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Well Brady has never excelled at passes targeting the intermediate areas (10- 20 yards) of the field. His YPA has been meh for his whole career. Different offensive system and I still have no reason to believe that he'd have outperformed Tannehill in the system that Tenn used.
     
    resnor likes this.
  28. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    We’re not comparing Rosen on the Patriots to Brady on the Patriots. We’re talking about comparing Tannehill's splits vs Brady's. Two different teams. I think Tannehill's 2019 rating is actually more impressive than Brady's 2007.
     
    The_Dark_Knight likes this.
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    OK now we've somehow morphed the topic to include "splits." I was addressing your point in post #7935, where I don't see anything about splits.
     
  30. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    The problem with using only stats is that there will be widespread disagreement about what the stats mean among people who reviewing the same stats. How do we know who's correct? If we can't determine who's correct, then using only stats did nothing to help us in this regard.

    Maybe, just maybe, stats devoid of watching film is terribly insufficient and potentially misleading. As was said on a site I linked awhile back:

    Our stance has always been this – film first, numbers second. If the numbers don’t match what is seen on film, something is likely wrong with the numbers.
     
    resnor likes this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Everything in that regard is a function of sample size. For small sample sizes, flim is more (but not completely) reliable, and for large sample sizes, statistics are more (but not completely) reliable. The question at hand here, however, is "how good is Ryan Tannehill?" That question can't be answered reliably by a single season of film (e.g., 2019).

    Film in the absence of statistics is potentially just as insufficient and misleading when the question of interest regards a large sample size of play -- for example, "how great a career did Peyton Manning have in comparison to other QBs of his era?" You'd have to watch all of his film, as well as all of the film of a representative sample of other QBs of his era, to address that question on the basis of film exclusively. Obviously that isn't feasible, and if you did attempt that in a more feasible manner, there's a good chance you could make erroneous conclusions on the basis of non-representative film samples.

    A set of cbrad's z-scores based on career statistics constitutes the far better approach in that situation.
     
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I was responding to you comparing Brady's variation in rating on the same team to Tannehill's variation in rating on two teams. You then tried to compare what Rosen would do on the 2007 Patriots to what Brady did.

    Splits was most likely the wrong word, but I thought it conveyed what I meant.
     
  33. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Maybe someone should have suggested using both.... oh wait, I did..... repeatedly.......

    And, as I have noted many times before, I have NEVER seen you refer to actual plays on the field when debating a point. You just admitted that for small sample sizes, film is more reliable. Yet, in the discussion of 13 games in 2019, you steadfastly refuse to comment on film yourself or present much commentary on the film from others. You avoid any and all discussion of football plays on a football message board. It is odd.

    This was true when Tannehill was on the Dolphins as well.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2020
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    But you don't need film with large sample sizes, and in fact the use of it can only diminish the validity of your conclusions in those instances. Film provides incremental validity over and above statistics for small sample sizes, but for large ones it actually has negative incremental validity.

    Certainly, because there will always be someone who disagrees with my view of the same play(s), I have no way of proving I'm right and they aren't, and there will be no omniscient being who intervenes and determines who's right.

    Likewise someone can disagree with my use or conclusions on the basis of statistics, but at least with statistics we're starting with the same numbers that are irrefutable. We're not sitting here debating for example whether Ryan Tannehill had a passer rating of 117.5 in 2019 like we might the notion of whether he was "pressured" on X or Y play.
     
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah the point I was making referred to what you said here:
    The point is that a change in surroundings doesn't do the same thing to quarterback X as it does to quarterback Y. Josh Rosen would perhaps go from dumpster fire to somewhat below-average with the additions of Randy Moss, Gronkowski, and the like. He wouldn't go from somewhat above-average to the stratosphere like Brady did.

    There is an interaction between QB ability and QB surroundings, such that both determine QB performance. This is why we need several years to determine the level at which a QB varies to be able to say what his ability is with any certainty.

    This image here may help:

    [​IMG]

    Forget about the numbers along the x- and y-axes and just consider that what we're looking at could represent the distributions of passer ratings in Andy Dalton's career in red, and Tom Brady's in blue. When the stars a aligned for Dalton in 2015 (the area shaded pink with the alpha sign pointing to it), he performed nearly as well as Brady's average. However, the level at which Dalton varied is well below the level at which Brady varied, as evidenced by the significant distance between the peaks of those distributions.

    What those distibutions also show is that Dalton's maximum performance -- perhaps with the surroundings of Moss and Gronkowski et al. -- would still be much lower than Brady's. It takes Moss and Gronkowski et al. just to get Dalton somewhere arond Brady's average, while Brady on the other hand vaults into the stratosphere with those same surroundings.

    This is what we don't know about Tannehill yet. Did the stars align for him in 2019 like they did for Dalton in 2015, or is Tannehill's career distribution (post-Miami) like Brady's?
     
  36. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Of course you still need film with large sample sizes. Stats alone will never be enough to tell the full story. Too much complexity. The day that teams stop using film for the evaluation of players is the day I will agree that someone has figured out how to use stats alone. We are talking about a trillion dollar industry. They have all the resources necessary to deal with player evaluation any way they want. The fact that film is still the primary mechanism should be enough to convince anyone.

    No, instead, we're just debating for 7900 posts about the conclusions. I think we have PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of stats in a vacuum will get us nowhere.
     
  37. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Now you're introducing the concept of film evaluation by the expert eye. Two issues there: 1) we aren't them, and 2) even they disagree with each other on the basis of film. This is why many teams have analytics departments. The Dolphins for example have a Director of Personnel Analytics on staff.

    That's because we're dealing with a small sample size, and so any conclusions on the basis of it are tentative.
     
  38. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    film review is necessary. Any conclusions using stats that aren’t supported by film review (either by people making the conclusions or via third party analysts) should be discarded.
     
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The problem is, how do you support with film review the finding, for example, that Peyton Manning's career performance varied at a level significantly higher than that of the average QB? Do you watch all of his career film and all of the career film of an average QB? If you don't watch all of their film, how do you determine which portion(s) to watch? How do you determine who the average QB is? How do you know you aren't comparing him to a QB who wasn't average?
     
  40. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    There are thousands of people watching film and publishing their opinions. You supplement the film you do watch with the opinions of others. But, IMO, without a good deal of game film analysis of your own, it is impossible to make informed conclusions from data. No amount of analysis of medical data is going to allow someone to make reasonable conclusions without actual medical knowledge. You make be able to analyze and present data, but nobody should consider any of your interpretations of the data. That should just be obvious.

    When the opinions largely agree (good, bad, or average), you gain a consensus of opinion.

    When no consensus can be reached, it becomes something to debate endlessly on message boards.....
     

Share This Page