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
    LOL..... you are so full of crap........ I knew I was comparing Tannehill to a SB MVP....... LOL

    Exclusive video of The Guy riding a bike

     
  2. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You back from those boards already? What did they tell you when you told them Steve DeBerg/Eric Kramer/Mark Rypien/Vinny Testaverde were anything more than average because of their 11-game stretches?
     
  3. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    They said they were very good QBs and added that only an idiot would question how a SB MVP (whose career was derailed by a knee injury), a 14 year veteran, 21 year veteran, and 18 year veteran could be considered above average QBs.
     
    resnor likes this.
  4. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Ah, so now you're making the case that Rypien, DeBerg, Testaverde, et al. were something other than average. Let's see you support that one with data. Go ahead. I'll sit back and watch.
     
  5. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Give it up, you lost. Every prediction you made was wrong.

    The mistake you are making is assuming that my evaluation of Tannehill is based on 11 games. It isn't. It is based on what I saw in Miami as well. Clearly you missed it. My observations of him in Miami led me to predict he would do well elsewhere. Your observations led you to predict wrongly. At some point you just need to question what you are looking at. You are clearly missing significant information.

    One last appeal for you to watch some film, learn the game, and be prepared to discuss football. Your act is old....
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2020
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    My prediction was that Tannehill would be a career average QB, and nothing has happened to dispel that.
     
  7. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Curious as to what the argument is with the guy now. Kinda difficult to pick up on just one side of the conversation
     
    Irishman likes this.
  8. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I'm going to dig up all of these....... LOL.....

    upload_2020-6-5_18-37-15.png
     
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And as you go along, everything you do will be based on a mere 11 games....
     
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    The average length of tenure for a QB isn't even close to the years they played. The average length of an NFL QBs career is 4.44 years. So they had to have been better than average or they would have been replaced by younger average QBs who would have had more potential than an aging older QB.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  11. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    OK, so I have a partial answer to your question. If you condition on a minimum of 1500 attempts with the first year of the QB's career being 1978 or later, then 11.69% of all QB's that were "average" or worse (defined arbitrarily as a z-score of 0.25 or worse) have had an 11-game stretch in the top 95% percentile of all 11-game stretches.

    The reason that's a partial answer is that it's conditioned on 1500 attempts, which I think for this conversation is totally fine because that's like saying the QB played an equivalent of 3 full seasons. That percentage gets smaller as you lower that passing attempt threshold, and of course it gets absurdly small if you include QB's that didn't even play 11 games lol.

    I should also add as a disclaimer that there are a few QB's missing in my database, but we're talking single digit numbers here for post-1978 (first year starting was 1978 or later) with 1500+ attempts. Some things in pro-football-reference's database the program just isn't reading correctly because of some added character to the name or something (I haven't gone through all exceptions to fix that).
     
    The Guy likes this.
  12. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    So if you wanted to predict whether a QB that had an 11 game stretch in the 95th percentile was average, you’d have to say there is only an 12% chance of that and an 88% chance they were not.
     
  13. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You based your assessment on 6 seasons of faulty observations. That assessment was proven wrong in the very first opportunity.
     
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No. IF they already have an 11-game stretch in the 95th percentile, then it's ~20% probability they're average. But the probability an average QB would have such an 11-game stretch is ~12%.

    In other words, the probability Tannehill is average (as I defined it) based on just 2019 and using no other information is 20%, but the probability an average QB with 1500+ passing attempts would do what Tannehill did in 2019 is 12%. Hope the distinction is clear.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  15. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Fine. The odds are in favor of Tannehill being above average in either case so case closed.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  16. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah the case ain't closed for Tannehill any more than it was for Eric Kramer when he did it. The case will be closed either way when there are more data regarding Tannehill. As it stands now, there isn't sufficient probability he isn't Eric Kramer.

    You can't ride the coattails throughout the thread on the finding that Tannehill's 2019 distinguished him from his own history at a probability level of .05 and then suddenly claim that a probability level of .20, regarding a different finding, is sufficient as well. There isn't any known science in which probability levels of .20 are sufficient.
     
  17. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL.... oh, the desperation......
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You mean that you have? You're saying 11 games means something definitive. I'm saying that based on the historical data, their meaning is unknown at this point. Who's in fact desperate?
     
  19. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's like you don't actually read anything that anyone posts.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, it’s like you’re incapable of understanding the conversation when it’s functioning on this level, and you’re incapable of understanding that you lack that capacity.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
     
  21. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I predicted Tannehill would be top 10 in a better situation. You predicted he would be no better than he was in Miami. For 2019, who was correct? Answer with a one word answer- “you” or “me”.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  22. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    ***ME***

    :lol:
     
  23. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    BTW, I'm pretty sure the Kramer that cbrad was referring to was Tommy Kramer. He had the same injury issue as Rypien. They both played at a time where QBs were not protected. There were probably a lot of QBs whose careers were altered and abilities were hidden due to it.

    Try to learn the game, please......

    upload_2020-6-6_8-51-45.png

    upload_2020-6-6_8-54-6.png

    upload_2020-6-6_8-55-3.png
     
  24. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You were clearly to MOST CORRECT!!!!! I am still amazed by the playoffs and comeback player of the year predictions. Kudos sir!!

    :theman:
     
    Pauly, The_Dark_Knight and resnor like this.
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You.

    I have no problem whatsoever acknowledging what 2019 is and is not.

    You however have a problem acknowledging what it is not.
     
  26. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Here is what it is to me: A confirmation of the talent I saw in him in Miami (particularly from 2014 - 2016) but no guarantee of future success. It also does not (IMO) make him an elite QB. Only additional elite seasons can do that.

    That is the difference. You claim that 2019 means nothing and have tried everything you can think of to take credit away from Tannehill. I claim it validates that my opinion of him being a top 10 QB when surrounded with a good team and coaching. Nothing more. Nothing less.
     
    resnor likes this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I haven't said it means nothing. I've said its meaning, with regard to the determination of his ability, is unknown at present.

    What you see as an attempt "to take credit away from Tannehill" is simply what anyone with any intelligence would do if he was determining whether to bet on how Tannehill will perform in the future, given that his history involves six years of average performance and one year of far better performance. Under those conditions any sensible person would explore whether he was experiencing situational advantages in the one far better season, and the likelihood that those, if they existed, will be sustained.

    Put yourself in the position of having to bet on how Tannehill will perform in 2020, with the monetary amount being left to your discretion. Would you not conduct the same kind of exploration of 2019 when determining how much money to put down?
     
  28. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    It never was based on just 11 games of top 5 production. It was based on seasons of 6 film study (and really the last 4 seasons where his development was obvious) where he was excellent regardless of the stats. He had multiple stretches of top 5 production relative to his peers during those years as well. He had two 3 game stretches in 2018. He had a 6 game stretch in 2016. A 4 game stretch in 2014. There were also many times where he was excellent for one or two games. The result is that since 2014 *(his third season), based on the film, he was excellent in more than half the games he played in before 2019. And stat-wise, he produced a top 5 rating in around 50% of the games. There were injuries and stinker games in there which obviously hurt the overall ratings. And of course, any football person would readily recognize that it was a horrible situation in Miami. Over the years he had repeatedly shown that when he got just average protection (sometimes they faced teams with average pass rushers, or a decent rushing attack kept opponents from teeing off or sometimes the Miami OL just had a good game) he regularly produced at a top 5 level. So it really was an easy prediction to guess that Tannehill, in a better situation, would produce at a top 5 level more than 50% and, if he stayed healthy, would have fewer stinkers to bring down the average.

    So any assessment going forward would not be based on just 11 games. That would be a ridiculous approach. The reasonable approach would be to look at all the information. And that information shows that Tannehill is a QB with elite accuracy who has generally produced at a top 5 level whenever he had average protection. He doesn't need great protection b/c he can run reasonably well, is great at throwing on the run, has a fast release and is good at pre-snap reads. So Tennessee reasonably should expect that Tannehill will almost assuredly (outside of injury) produce at a top 10 level and very likely much better than that if they can give him at least average protection.
     
    resnor likes this.
  29. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Raf.. say whatever you want about your interpretation of film, but Tannehill was never impressive statistically in Miami. First of all, you have to compare apples to apples. You can't pick out a X-game stretch and compare it to season ratings, or just a QB's best 50% of games and compare them to season ratings and say he was "top 5" or so. No, just as I did, you have to compare X-game stretches to X-game stretches, or best 50% of games to best 50% of games. And the best of example of Tannehill being average even when you try to do that was in 2016 where I showed he was #12 not only in season rating but also in best 8-game stretches.

    Secondly, let's remember that for any argument based on stats, you can't use too small a sample size because the confidence interval (a measure of uncertainty in your estimate) is so large you can't distinguish between "average" and "elite" for almost any two sets of games (rare exceptions of course). Usually I put the minimum threshold for passing attempts at 150 because statistically it's rare that you can distinguish any two QB's with less than 150 attempts chosen under the same criteria (e.g. best X% of games, etc..).

    So say what you want about film, but in Miami Tannehill was almost the prototypical average QB from a purely stats point of view. He never did anything in the "elite" or "well above average" category when you compare apples to apples and where you care about statistical significance (i.e., put a minimum 150 passing attempt threshold), at least not with key passing stats.
     
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Cbrad, you are looking at statistics, not the throws, mechanics, etc. Your are looking at a mathematical representation of the results, which are a combination of the QB AND the oline AND the coaching AND the receivers AND the run game. All those things influence the end result, which you see in number form.
     
  31. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, I'll say this, you stats guys, are you saying that Tannehill should have been elite right out of the gate, despite the following:

    1. Tannehill was a raw rookie. He was going to need AT LEAST 3 years to develop (like EVERY QB that Congress into the league)

    2. What was it, 3 head coaches in his first 5 years, who went nowhere after leaving Miami.

    3. Learning a new offensive system like almost every other year.

    4. Players around him washing out of the league after leaving Miami.

    You have a guy who worked as a scout, telling you that the signs were there that Tannehill would produce at a top 5 level if the team around him wasn't a dumpster fire.

    I honestly don't understand why you insist on using his first few seasons as any legitimate way of judging him.
     
    FinFaninBuffalo likes this.
  32. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Of course.. I only responded to raf's statement about stats, nothing else. And it's simply wrong to say that Tannehill did anything distinguishable from average when looking (only) at stats.

    Now, you can argue those stats aren't the whole picture, and I'm fine with that, but keep in mind that most "insiders" (i.e., GM's, coaches, etc..) all put Tannehill in that "average" category during the Miami years (referring to those insider rankings for QB's). So the popular opinion from "experts" was also that Tannehill was average even when taking into account whatever each person looks at.

    Never said that.

    Yeah, but he also predicted multiple years Tannehill would end up statistically in the top 10 and got that wrong. So it's not like he was good at predicting what would happen with Tannehill in Miami. Like I said above, most "experts" said Tannehill was average, and scouting doesn't have a good track record either (see the draft). So the fact raf worked as a scout doesn't mean he's better at prediction. He knows the lingo, but he hasn't shown he's better at prediction.
     
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't agree with that. There were insiders and coaches who didn't agree with that assessment of him.
     
  34. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Of course, some disagreed. But year after year the great majority put him in the same place: average.
     
  35. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    cbrad, the reason I ask about how Tannehill should have played, is because you and Guy both default to weighing his statistical performance in Miami more than what he's done elsewhere. You use all his years. I understand those are the stats, but realistically, the first three years shouldn't really be weighted all that heavily. You want to see improvements those years, which we did. Every year he seemed to get better something. There were always signs that he would produce very well in a situation where he didn't have garbage around him, regardless of what the stats said.
     
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Tannehill was average in years 2015-2018 if that's what you're asking for. His z-score over that period is 0.0324. If you want to include 2014 then it goes to 0.1545 = "average" statistically. You're not gaining anything by looking only at certain periods.

    Of course you'd have to compare to career ratings without including everyone's rookie year or first 2 years etc.. in which case those z-scores go down because you've removed some of the worst ratings. Besides, I already showed Tannehill's rate of improvement in his first few years didn't distinguish him statistically from the pretty large range observed among starting QB's.

    No.. statistically, no matter how you look at it Tannehill in Miami = average. That's why 2019 was statistically significant. It takes a lot for statistical significance, and there are many cases where a QB performed in the neighborhood of what Tannehill did in 2019 and it's not statistically significant because there's far more variation in that QB's prior performance or they simply performed at a higher average level.
     
  37. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What was also the case was that nobody was banging down the Dolphins' door to get him when the Dolphins were finished with him, despite that 1) anybody with football expertise on that level would've been fully aware that his surroundings were a ball and chain on him, if that was indeed the case, and 2) the entire league clamors for QBs of exceptional quality.

    How does one explain that there are fans on a message board who were supposedly exquisitely aware of Tannehill's tremendous ability in isolation from his surroundings, via film, when there are a great number of football experts throughout the league who were privy to that same film who had little or no desire to obtain Tannehill when they could?

    Again, those sorts of things are consistent with the explanation that he was the beneficiary of exceptionally good surroundings (for him) in Tennessee in 2019, not with the explanation that he was an elite QB who was merely needing to shed the ball and chain known as the 2012-2018 Miami Dolphins.
     
  38. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Miami was purging the roster. Why would you offer anything for a guy when you know that they are probably releasing him as they go into a rebuild?

    We've been over this stuff numerous times, but you continue to pull this garbage out as if it means anything.

    And who's saying Tannehill is "elite"?
     
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If it was so readily apparent via film that Tannehill had 2019 ability in isolation from his surroundings, and that his surroundings were at fault for his performance 2012-2018, there would've been a bidding war like you wouldn't believe for him.
     
  40. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That's not how it works for a veteran QB with two knee injuries.

    But keep trying! You'll get there eventually!
     

Share This Page