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 that's entirely possible. And like cbrad said above, the standard deviation has exploded, which has a significant impact on what we're talking about as well.
     
  2. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Oh, it’s “entirely possible” but you don’t know what the numbers are. You spit something, I make a comparison and you say it’s irrelevant without knowing what the actual difference is/was.

    If you’re going to counter something and assert its a fact, be sure you have the facts
     
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I can tell you exactly what the difference is to date. Last year's average passer rating was 90.4 with a standard deviation of 10.3. This year the average is 96.3, with a standard deviation of 17.2. Those are substantial differences.

    What that means is that a QB who was two standard deviations above the league average in passer rating in 2019 had a passer rating of 111. This year that figure is 130.7. Huge difference.
     
  4. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The above is also why Russell Wilson, whose season passer rating is currently 139, has vaulted above Lamar Jackson and Patrick Mahomes to leading the league in Vegas league MVP odds, whereas Tannehill remains where he was previous to the start of the season, in the middle of the pack, with a much more middle-of-the-pack passer rating of 105.8.

    Passer rating and its variation have increased substantially, and Wilson has distinguished himself nonetheless. Tannehill on the other hand has regressed considerably in comparison to last season. There's a lot of football left to play, but that is indeed where things are right now.
     
  5. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    So you present numbers that are worse than what Tannehill is projected for, and then extrapolate that to somehow Tannehill is average?
     
    Irishman likes this.
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You aren't considering the current league standard deviation from those numbers, which places Tannehill in the average range in relation to them.

    Consider that Russell Wilson's numbers currently project to a season of 4,900 yards, 74 TDs, and 5 INTs.

    Consider that there are currently nine quarterbacks in the league with passer ratings better than Tannehill's. That's where we are right now.

    He's doing nothing special right now. Average range. 0.56 standard deviations above league average. He was 0.42 standard deviations above league average on the season in 2014, his third year in the league. He's performing at about that level right now, when considering the current league context.

    You aren't considering the current league context, however. You're placing his numbers within the context of previous seasons.

    Hell if we go back far enough in terms of previous seasons, he'll be three standard deviations above league average and look like a Hall of Famer. That would say nothing, however, about how he compares to his contemporaries in the present-day NFL. Of course if you did that for the nine QBs in front of him this year, all of them would be a ridiculous number of standard deviations above league average back then as well. Russell Wilson perhaps a ridiculous six standard deviations.
     
  7. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    And? Saying Tannehill is in the top 10 is pretty much exactly what myself and others have been arguing for years. You act like we've been arguing that he's the best QB in the league.

    I'll be surprised if at the end of the season, the average QB throws for almost 4500 yards, 30+ TDS, and 5 or fewer INTS.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If "top 10" places a QB a mere 0.56 standard deviations above league average, it'll be virtually what Tannehill did in 2014. So you're arguing that he's essentially going to perform like he did in Miami, in his third year in the league?

    In other words, "top 10" doesn't mean much. It's degree of deviation from the norm that means something.
     
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Coming back to this, why not do the same analysis only as a function of point differential and leave the down and distance situations out?
     
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I mean, not for nothing, but we've been arguing for years that there isn't a ton of difference between most QBs.

    Again, I do not believe that at the end of the season, that the average QB will be throwing 4500 yards, 30+ TDS, and fewer than 10 ints. If that is average QB play, then why would you ever care about paying elite Qbs big money? You'd just pay average QBs average QB money, and use your savings to improve the pieces around him.
     
  11. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You would care because the teams with the elite QBs would still outplay the ones with the average ones, with all else equal. The effect of quarterback performance on the game, in terms of distinguishing teams from each other, would be no different.
     
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I thought you wanted to look at the effect of run probability. If you're not interested in that, then sure looking at performance as a function of point differential is useful (but based on what I showed, note that you need high granularity there — can't have bins too wide because the effect of even small point differentials is huge, especially around zero).

    If you want to look at the effect of run probability, then down and distance matter. However, the effect of point differential on run probability changes based on quarter. Remember this graph:

    [​IMG]

    That shows what you should really be doing (this has to be done by computer program, can't do this manually but it's the right thing to do) is to take run probabilities in each game situation (e.g., down and distance and quarter), divide them by the run probability predicted through point differential in the graph above, and then multiply it by some constant that is easy to interpret such as average run probability across all situations. That would adjust all run probabilities to numbers that remove the effect of point differential. Do the same thing with passing yards on each play and then compare.

    Where looking at performance based only on point differential is useful is when you're trying to compare QB's abilities in retaking the lead, and possibly in losing a lead (i.e., the drive tends to stall more often with that QB). That's useful info, but it won't tell you anything about dependence on the run game.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  13. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Slow down there guy. Wilson completed 70, 82.9 and 64% of his passes in the first 3 games of last season, comparable to what he's done thus far this season.

    And for someone who's such a stats guy, you really have a skewed way of looking at math! You give an average yards projected, I demonstrate how 25 teams threw for LESS yards than that projection, how 5 of the 7 teams that threw for that or more didn't even make the playoffs and yet, if they're below that projection, they suck.

    Numbers don't mean nearly as much as you seem to think they do.
     
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And again that was last year. It seems you can't stop placing this year's numbers in last year's context.
     
  15. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Appreciate your feedback on this. I'm still stuck wondering why we can't conclude that QBs' performance varies as a function of run probability, and therefore as a function of what opposing defenses are likely defending against. If quarterback X's performance varies significantly as a function of run probability, why does it matter what's causing the variation in run probability? The run probability still is what it is (at various levels), and the QB's performance is covarying with it.
     
  16. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    And again, you cant stop looking at numbers. Let these numbers sink in, will ya?

    There are still only 100 yards on a football field
    There are still 10 yards in a 4 down set
    There are still only 60 minutes in a game
    A touchdown is still only worth 6 points
    400 yards gained in 1985 is still 400 yards gained in 2020.

    If you quit looing at percentages and league averages and deviations and all of these other numbers in such an irrelevant manner, you might actually start to learn about the game itself.
     
  17. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    OK, so then tell that to the people who are concluding that Tannehill’s 2019 season was so special, because they are using the same numbers I am. Surely you don’t have any problem with those numbers, however.

    Can’t have it both ways. You either have to like the same numbers or not. Don’t cherry-pick the situations for which you like the same numbers.
     
  19. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Oh I'm sorry. Have I touted numbers...or have I touted the strategy and game played by the Titans and Tannehill's performance in said strategy?

    I thought so :wink2:
     
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Check out the companion graph to the one above: passing Y/A as a function of point differential by quarter. Note that you don't see the uptick in passing Y/A in the 4th quarter as you see with rush percentage.

    In other words, defenses aren't responding to rush percentage like you'd think. There is an effect of point differential that's independent of run percentage. So this is possibly another case of intuition not being consistent with the stats.

    [​IMG]
     
    The Guy likes this.
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    OK then I must’ve missed the meaning you made of Tannehill’s 2019 performance, and on what evidence you based it?
     
  22. Hoops

    Hoops Well-Known Member

    1,183
    1,484
    113
    Dec 11, 2016
    I pop in and sure enough this thread is still at the very top of the board.

    too funny

    I wonder if eagle message boards are having this years long discussion about their qb...who really sucks Carson wentz.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2020
    FinFaninBuffalo, Irishman and The Guy like this.
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, but that could be entirely a function of teams' not throwing downfield when they have leads in the fourth quarter. Why throw downfield and risk stopping the clock with a pass that's less likely to be completed when what I'm trying to do is run out the clock?

    To me the down and distance data is most robust. Why do we need to go beyond that and introduce point differential? We have five QBs who exhibit vastly different efficiency numbers as a function of run probability associated with down and distance, when their teams have a point differential between -8 and +8. If you put each of them in a typical game situation (point differential -8 to +8), their performance varies considerably as a function of run probability. Why should that be? Why aren't they all performing similarly in that regard?
     
  24. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I dont know, maybe some have better offensive lines and/or receiving weapons. Some are also better QB, if the top 2-3 or even 5 QB are the only comparisons you want to make and go back to noone is going to take it seriously because we all know Mahomes > Tannehill.

    That's not even the argument.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2020
    resnor likes this.
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The point isn't a comparison between Tannehill and Mahomes. The point is that Tannehill's performance in 2019 appears to have been a function of the threat of his team's run game, and his capitalizing on situations in which opposing teams were defending against the run. Mahomes (and Wilson, and Brees) serves only as a comparison regarding how that wasn't the case for all the QBs who played well in 2019. In fact Mahomes and Wilson played better than their norms when teams were presumably defending against the pass.

    Again this is all about whether Tannehill's performance is replicable. The idea here is that if Derrick Henry gets hit by a bus, or opposing teams simply choose to start defending against him less, the replicability of Tannehill's performance will likely suffer. We aren't just talking about a Tannehill/Mahomes comparison here -- it's more sophisticated than that.
     
  26. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Right, but the issue is your allegations are more or less baseless.

    Again, you have no idea how he functions or doesnt in a situation with any sort of offensive talent around him outside of HB. He hasnt really had that in his career, so I dont see how you can make any sort of comparison.

    Again, show me how his receiving weapons are equal to those QB or show me how receivers and tight ends literally make no difference to an offense.

    The problem is you think it's more sophisticated, but in reality you're kind of the one making baseless claims that cant be substantiated by the numbers you're using.

    IE: Those numbers all speak to the offense as a whole. How are you isolating the QB contribution from the other contributors on offense?
     
    resnor likes this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If that's the case then all the numbers we've used throughout the thread speak to the offense as a whole, and nobody here can attribute Tannehill's 2019 performance to him. Is that the conclusion we should make? If so, then start arguing with some of the people here who are attributing his performance to him, and tell them we can make no such determination.

    You can't have it both ways, folks. Either the numbers represent Tannehill, or they don't. You don't get numbers that favor Tannehill and claim they're all Tannehill, and then get very similar numbers (like YPA) that don't favor him and claim they're a product of something else.
     
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There are two parts: when run probability is very low and when it's very high, in the 4th quarter. You don't see the effect on either side of that graph. What's your explanation for when it's very low?

    Because your hypothesis about defenses adjusting to run probability making passing efficiency higher is being directly tested with that 4th quarter graph, and the data suggest that run probability isn't having that big of an effect.

    Some QB's are better at helping the team retake the lead. That you see a relation to run probability is more a correlation rather than causation, going by those 4th quarter stats.

    Don't forget, there are a ton of stats showing rushing attempts and rushing efficiency have little to no effect on passing efficiency. You yourself have argued that. To turn around and suddenly suggest we should still look at run probability to determine expected passing efficiency makes little sense in that regard.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    When run probability is high, the passes offenses are throwing are low-risk and therefore low YPA. When run probability is low, the opposing defense is successfully defending against the pass because they're expecting it and making defensive calls consistent with that expectation.

    Right, but that's analogous to the statistics regarding play-action. I have to wonder what play-action is like as a function of run probability, however. Imagine for example a team that's run the ball sparingly and played very poorly in the run game throughout a game, but has a 28-point lead with three minutes left in the fourth quarter. That team throws a play-action bomb on 1st and 10 (just for the hell of it). Imagine the likelihood of success of that play, compared to what it would be expected to be in a more typical game situation.
     
  30. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Nope that doesn't work. The run probability is WAY lower in the 4th quarter when trailing than in other quarters, yet hardly any effect on passing efficiency. So your hypothesis doesn't work.

    Hard to see how there's an effect of run probability when there's no effect based on "rushes in previous 5 plays", "rush success in previous 5 plays" or "rush percent". I mean.. how can run probability show an effect while none of those do?
     
    Irishman likes this.
  31. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL at the fact that he has spent almost a year searching for something to back up his beliefs.....
     
    resnor likes this.
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It looks like based on the run probability graph, there is hardly any variation in run probability as a function of point differential in quarters one through three? Wouldn’t you think then that the variation in run probability would be a function of down and distance in those quarters?
     
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That argument works only for quarter #1. Correlation between point differential and run probability is extremely high for all other quarters. Don't forget that it's not the magnitude of the increase that correlation looks at, it's the consistency of the increase. Let me post the actual numbers for you.

    Run probability as a function of point differential by quarter:
    Quarter 1: [0.4773 0.4793 0.4677 0.4797 0.4805 0.4706 0.4810]
    Quarter 2: [0.3530 0.3621 0.3964 0.4127 0.4116 0.4116 0.4249]
    Quarter 3: [0.3870 0.4265 0.4554 0.4661 0.4795 0.4969 0.5023]
    Quarter 4: [0.1796 0.2040 0.2840 0.4230 0.5811 0.6513 0.6922]

    The correlations to point differential (at -15, -10, -5, 0, +5, +10, +15) are:
    Quarter 1: 0.0949
    Quarter 2: 0.9193
    Quarter 3: 0.9636
    Quarter 4: 0.9824

    Those are MASSIVE correlations for quarter 2-4, which just goes to show you how point differential almost completely determines run probability for those quarters. For quarter 1 there's no effect. Interesting eh? And that's over 9 years.

    So the only quarter where your down and distance argument would work is quarter 1, nothing else.
     
    Irishman, The Guy and resnor like this.
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    OK so how would you interpret the data regarding YPA as a function of down and distance for Mahomes, Wilson, Brees, Jackson, and Tannehill in 2019? What I’m hearing you say if I’m not mistaken is that they’re inconclusive with regard to a definitive cause, but I’m wondering if you would say anything about those findings nonetheless, in terms of some meaningful difference among those QBs.
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    As I said before it's mostly (around 75% given the quarter by quarter correlations) telling you how well a QB can help a team retake a lead or preserve it — the more negative the correlation is to run probability the better they can help you retake a lead and preserve it — while at most 1/4 of that stat could be you were suggesting: dependence on the run game (not yet conclusive all of that 1/4 is dependence on the run game but that's a reasonable working hypothesis).
     
    Pauly and The Guy like this.
  36. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Felt this story has relevance to the topic at hand.

    https://www.nfl.com/news/jets-coach-adam-gase-s-job-status-not-hanging-in-balance-tonight

    Gase was an utter disaster in Miami and to Ryan Tannehill, just as he remains an utter disaster in New York and to Sam Darnold.

    Gase is the reason certain posters make argument against Tannehill's skills, not Tannehill himself. Gase is the reason the Dolphins utterly failed offensively and why the Jets continue to fail offensively.

    There are some of you who are ardently opposed to granting Tannehill great or elite status. Some of you look at nothing but numbers and draw your conclusions based on just that. Some of you refuse to consider the tremendous importance of the head coach.

    Tannehill executed the Wunderkind's flawed offense as well as any quarterback could. Darnold isn't doing it near as well as Tannehill did. Sadly, Gase is destroying Darnold and is most likely going to fail in the NFL due to transitional environment he's enduring under Gase.

    Tannehill moves to Tennessee. Marcus Mariotta, the starting quarterback wasn't able to execute the offense Mike Vrabel envisioned for his team. Tannehill replaces Mariotta; same offense, same players, same scheme and Tannehill executes the Titans offensive strategy almost flawlessly...and yet, Tannehill is just an average quarterback.

    Tannehill has demonstrated he is much, much more than just an average quarterback. It's nearly impossible to prove a negative (or a hypothetical) but I can confidently state, with every fiber in my being that had Tannehill gone to New England and took over for Tom brady...with Beiichick as HC and Josh McDaniel's offense, you all would be singing a different tune about him. He would executing their offense as well as he executed the Wunderkind's failed offense and the Titans' offense.

    Just can't prove it...but those who truly know ***FOOTBALL*** know I'm right.
     
  37. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    8,605
    6,743
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    This thread = Tuesdays "Presidential" debate
     
  38. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Very few in the NFL would grant Tannehill "great" or "elite" status right now, so you're in an extremely small minority there.

    I guess none of those GM's, HC's and scouts that ranked QB's into tiers "knows football" as well as you do. They consistently put Tannehill into the "average" category while in Miami. Obviously, they don't know enough about football to know Tannehill was actually "great" and all the problem was the HC.

    Regardless, the numbers will show who is right as the years pass because Tannehill has the right environment now according to you. So let's just wait and see. Almost no one here has an issue with saying Tannehill might actually be above average, but you're kidding yourself if you think "great" and "elite" is how he's going to be remembered after Tennessee.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  39. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Not even close. People can at least express their opinions here without being constantly interrupted.
     
    The_Dark_Knight and The Guy like this.
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Three points in response to the above.

    Number one, the problem with this perspective will always be that the people who "know football" deemed Tannehill as being valued at only the status of a lower-round draft pick swap and 1% of a team's salary cap after he left Miami. If it was so easy to parse his individual performance from his surroundings in Miami and determine that his surroundings were suppressing his performance, then how could 32 NFL teams' personnel people be blind to it?

    Number two, with regard to Gase specifically, Tannehill had best or second-best stretch of performance in Miami under Gase in 2016:

    https://www.pro-football-reference....comp=gte&c2val=0&c5val=1.0&order_by=game_date

    Number three, as of right now (although it may change in the future), Tannehill is performing like Jim Harbaugh circa 1995 et al. -- in other words, 11 games at an elite level, followed by a return to the career average level. This is the wrong time to make a case for Tannehill's greatness.

    In fact Tannehill performed better under Gase during the stretch of games noted above than he has this year in Tennessee, so it's certainly the wrong time to make this particular case.
     

Share This Page