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. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    His play in Tennessee supports the view you and others had that the OL was really important for him, so I conceded that long time ago. Doesn't change the fact the arguments I've made here so far are likely the most defensible positions you can take. As I said, it's that "perceived slight" even if there is none that's the reason this thread is so long.
     
  2. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Yet you cannot back my statement.

    Can you prove to me that Rodgers and Brees dealt with the same pressure consistently?
     
  3. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No need to prove that since it has nothing to do with what I said (and I wouldn't make such an argument anyway). Again, I said different QB's deal with pressure differently and that Tannehill is one of those that needs a good OL. I provided evidence for that. You can't understand why what I showed is evidence for what I said. No big deal, but it's not worth debating this with you any further for that reason.
     
  4. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Lmao. Youre argument is wrong though and this season proves it. Youre saying he needs a good OL to be successful, wich is a lazy argument to hold.... but lets just start anyways....
    So how good has Titans oline been? Tannehill is playing with a 3rd string LT that was out of football for years fighting cancer. Tannehill is also playing with a backup journeyman at RT.

    So, can you tell me how great has this Tennessee oline been this year?
     
    resnor likes this.
  5. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Completely understandable when teams DO NOT NEED TO BLITZ TO GET PRESSURE. Jesus man......

    https://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/dave-hyde/fl-sp-hyde-stats-tannehill-20170602-story.html

    upload_2020-12-21_13-3-52.png

    upload_2020-12-21_13-4-12.png

    This completely understandable if you know what you are talking about. It was perfectly described in the article about Brady.
     
    resnor likes this.
  6. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Uh, no you haven't...... unless, of course, you're putting him in a group with Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Manning, Matt Ryan, Stafford, Rivers, etc, etc, etc....

    Basically everyone other that Mahomes, Jackson, Murray, Watson, and Wilson. Tannehill is a better passer than any of those guys except Mahomes.
     
  7. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    And you missed the point that the chart does not distinguish types of pressure.
     
  8. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There's no good measure of OL so I can't give you a statistical argument. Pressure stats help but as resnor said they don't capture a lot. However, it's common for fans to think "their situation is the worst". Rarely is that accurate.

    Among subjective rankings, look around and see what people say about Tennessee's OL. Usually they put it around average or top 10. For example, this one came out and has Tennessee at #10:
    https://www.4for4.com/2020/w13/o-line-rankings-and-matchups-expoit-week-13

    Not saying one should believe any of them, but it does say something when most neutral observers put the Titans OL in the upper half of the NFL. Certainly better than Houston's or Washington's (those 2 I've seen enough games of to know there's a VAST difference to Tennessee).
     
  9. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No, dude, it's got nothing to do with "perceived slights." It has to do with actually understanding what was going on. If you insist on trotting out stats, that don't include the necessary data to actually do what you say they do, I'm going to point out where your stats fail.

    We've been over this so many times...

    QB A faces a four man front, with two blitzers coming, one through the A gap and one through the B gap. The Blitzer through the A gap comes through and gets pressure. QB B faces a four man front with no blitzers, and the left DE comes from the QBs left, and the DT shoves the center back into the QB.

    Both QBs now have a pressure stat, but the situation both faced, and the ability to deal with those situations, couldn't be farther apart. The QB facing the 4 man front with no blitzers is throwing against a defense that had coverage on all receivers, whereas the one facing the blitz is going to have an open man somewhere.
     
  10. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Didn't miss that. It's still evidence for what I said. Now.. if you can show me a different operational definition of pressure that distinguishes among those types and shows passer rating differences then we can talk. But all you have right now is to say the measure isn't perfect. Doesn't mean it's not evidence for what I said.
     
  11. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    But cbrad, if your measure is known to not account for things, then it shouldn't be used as evidence of anything.
     
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Even with an incomplete measure what I provided is still evidence for what I said. That's what you're missing. I'm not disagreeing with you about the measure being incomplete. But the default argument should be that QB's respond to pressure differently, and the evidence we have shows Tannehill needed a good OL more than many other QB's. If someone can provide a better measure I'll all ears, but what I showed is still evidence for what I said.

    And regarding perceived slights, in your case an example would be me saying Tannehill was NOT at fault for the loss and played "fine". Apparently for you that was an insult to Tannehill.

    It's evidence of the effect of "pressure" as they define it, which is sufficient to make my argument, even if that's not a complete measure of "pressure".
     
  13. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Never can be disproven pretty easily.....

    From 2016. 5 for 5, 53 yards and the game winning TD......

    upload_2020-12-21_13-36-25.png
     
  14. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    It shows nothing of the sort.
     
  15. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    This whole discussion is ludicrous. Obviously, individual humans react differently to pressure. I have no issue with saying that. However, if your goal is to somehow compare different QBs, and their pressure handling, than you have to have a couple things:

    1. You need your measure to include all the appropriate data

    2. You need to also compare the tools that each QB has at they're disposal to deal with pressure.

    So, giving me a stat that doesn't include either of those things, and defend that stat by saying that it shows what you say it does, is meaningless. Great. So we've established that incomplete data says something. Who cares.

    It's like taking two carpenters, and asking them to each build you a shed. One carpenter you give all the tools he'll need, and all the supplies he'll need. The other carpenter, you give him half rotten wood, not enough nails, a dull saw, and no hammer. The first carpenter builds you the shed you wanted, the second is unable to build you the shed you wanted.

    Then you use those shed stats to argue that the first carpenter is the better carpenter.
     
  16. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Fair enough, but "almost never" is still accurate.

    Sure it does. Look at the passer rating differential between "pressure" and "no pressure". It's the worst on that list.
     
  17. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That's the point though. You don't have the evidence on what those tools were. It's a supposition. The evidence we have so far suggests Tannehill needed a good OL more than other QB's. The uncertainty surrounding that evidence may be high because there's a lot missing in the pressure stat, but it's still where the evidence currently stands.
     
  18. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Who cares? It's a meaningless incomplete stat.
     
  19. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That's simply not true. We can look at what players and coaches did after leaving Miami. You can easily see what tools Tannehill had to work with. He wasn't allowed to audible, there was no commitment to the run game, etc.

    Nonetheless, it makes zero sense to draw conclusions off of incomplete data, ESPECIALLY when you know that the data is missing important information.
     
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's incomplete but not meaningless. Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers were best on that list. Even you have acknowledged Wilson as being a special case. The stat does tell you something, just not everything you want.

    For the effect of coaches and some key players yes. VERY hard to do that kind of comparison with individual players on the OL.
     
  21. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    And???
     
  22. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    1. It's pretty meaningless to compare how Barry Sanders with an arm deals with pressure.

    2. The Seahawks, especially in this first couple of seasons, provided Wilson with a bunch of tools to deal with pressure, other than his athleticism. One of three best defenses off all time, dominant run game, and a simplified offense.
     
  23. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Whatever image you linked to isn't showing for me (this site has some issues even with some images I post), but it really does matter if you're going to rely on black box stats or stats where we know what's in the stat. If you're going to reference black box stats I'll dismiss that from a stats point of view alone.
     
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    "Meaningless" would result in near zero correlation to what you think is meaningful, at least over large enough sample size. Clearly, if you agree with Wilson and Rodgers being the ones you'd expect at or near the top, at least that much the stat got "right". Go through that list. For many QB's it makes sense (have to think back to 2016 though).

    It's definitely meaningful, just not sufficient to answer other meaningful questions about the OL.
     
  25. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's meaningless because it's impossible to know whether or not they had better pressure stats because of individual ability, or because of other advantages their team gave them. In other words, you're essentially testing an pressure situations the same, and then drawing conclusions.

    It baffles me how someone who is so anal about stats is willing to draw conclusions off an obviously flawed stat.
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Every stat throws away information. It's a question of degree. That's why I said the uncertainty (i.e., the confidence intervals) surrounding those estimates may be high, but it's nevertheless evidence for what I said. Just don't think it's strong evidence. It's still evidence.

    btw.. this is what you deal with in all kinds of fields, from medicine to economics etc., when dealing with stats. Tons of relevant information not in there, yet you can still make meaningful inferences. Just think about all the individual differences with patients taking a drug. Almost none of that stuff makes its way into stats used in clinical trials, yet clearly there's been massive advances in our ability to treat diseases even with stats that are tremendously incomplete.

    This pressure stat is a start, and it's meaningful. It just needs a lot of improvement.
     
  27. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Yet you'll cling to stats (pressures) that are essentially black boxes because they don't break down any info about the pressures. Okay, sure.....
     
    Cashvillesent likes this.
  28. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL.... don't look now, your bias is showing.....

    [​IMG]

    You take a stat that you admit needs a lot of improvement (pressure), combine it with another stat (passer rating) that is also heavily influenced by coaching, play calling, OL play, receiver play, down and distance, etc, etc, etc..... and come to a very specific conclusion - "Tannehill needed a good OL more than other QB's"

    Might be the weakest argument you've ever tried to make and you're only doing it because it fits your preconceived notions about Tannehill. It just doesn't fit with reality.

    He hasn't had a "very good" pass blocking OL in Tennessee. They are 24th in pass block win rate as a team.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2020
    Hiruma78, resnor and Cashvillesent like this.
  29. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    upload_2020-12-21_17-5-9.png

    Tannehill is protected by the worst pass blocking OL (according the PBWR) out of the teams listed above.

    Last season the Titans were 4th. This year they are 24th. Tannehill's passer rating dropped from117.5 to 110.4..... LOL....

    GB, Buffalo, Seattle, KC, and NO are all in the top 7.

    Somehow cbrad clings to the idea that Tannehill is affected by the OL more than the other QBs listed...... All because he played on a crappy team in Miami.....
     
    Hiruma78, resnor and Cashvillesent like this.
  30. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    As i mentioned few times

    Tannehill left side is being guarded by a guy name Queseberry, a third string LT that was out of football for few years fighting leukemia. His right side is Dennis Kelly thats been a journeyman throughout his career.

    Saffold is the best lineman they have and his been banged up all year.

    Funny how he thinks Tannehill has a good line.
     
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Most (including pro-football-reference) use the same definition: sacks + hits + hurries, and the data are provided by a 3rd party source like SportRadar. Hurries is the most subjective component there because it's defined as the QB having to throw the ball earlier than intended or being chased out of the pocket, but that's the best you're going to get right now. Better than nothing, and no it's not "black box" like ESPN's QBR where you literally don't know what the 10k lines of code do.

    Still can't see the image you posted. If it's pass block win rate, first of all that is also a useful OL stat, but it's not telling you how much the QB was pressured as a result of OL play, just how good the blocker was relative to the 2.5 second threshold. A QB could be pressured even with a high pass block win rate, or not pressured with a low one (a lot depends on play design). So I can accept that as a measure of good pass blocking ability, but not as a measure of how much pressure the QB is receiving as a result of OL play. It's also not a good way of determining how well a QB plays in response to pressure.
     
  32. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    So, PBWR is a measure of pass blocking success. The Titans have the 24th ranked OL in that stat. Tannehill has the 4th best passer rating. Explain again how Tannehill is more dependent on good OL play than most other QBs......
     
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    What you want to look at is how often he's pressured, and how well he does under pressure. I agree that every measure people have come up with, from "pressure" itself to PBWR is incomplete, but of all the ones I know it's best to directly look at pressure rate and the decrement in passer rating as a result of it. It's directly asking the question you want answered.

    Also, the other issue you often find with such stats is small sample size. The graph I put forth for 2016 Tannehill had 133 attempts for the "under pressure" category. As you know I generally don't even take passer rating seriously below 150, but at least in Miami he was pretty consistently bad in that metric so sample size isn't an issue in that case.
     
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No, it isn't answering the question. It doesn't tell you if Tom Brady would or would not have had a similar breakdown if he played under the same conditions in Miami that Tannehill played in.

    Frankly, looking at these last two seasons from Tannehill, and seeing that his passer rating only dropped 7 points while the pass blocking dropped to places going from 4th to 24th, if bet Brady would have looked worse than Tannehill in Miami, as clearly Tannehill is a more talented QB than he appeared to bed in Miami.
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I never said it answered the question. All I claimed is that I provided evidence for what I said even if the evidence isn't strong. You're only speculating.
     
  36. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    It is NOT measuring anything with respect to other QBs. That is the conclusion you are drawing and it is completely invalid. It is only answering the question - How was the Dolphins passing offense efficiency impacted by the pressure that their offensive line gave up in 2016.

    So 133 attempts is too few to take passer rating seriously but you'll make an exception in the case where it reflects negatively on Tannehill..... LOL.....

    YOU made the claim that Tannehill is MORE dependent on OL play. Pressure doesn't measure OL play. PBWR does. He has shown THIS SEASON that he play great behind a below average pass blocking OL.

    There there is this from last season:

    upload_2020-12-21_19-12-15.png

    You really need to rethink what you think you know about Tannehill. It is all wrong.
     

    Attached Files:

    Hiruma78 and resnor like this.
  37. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Then there is this from earlier this season:

    upload_2020-12-21_19-15-55.png
     
  38. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Best passer rating under pressure last season and the best in the earlier part of this season.

    Give up?
     
    Hiruma78, resnor and Cashvillesent like this.
  39. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I'm not making any exception to that 150 rule. I just told you that he was generally bad across many years in Miami, meaning that sample size adds up. And yes I'm aware he did a lot better in Tennessee. That's also evidence the "pressure" stat isn't capturing all you want it to capture. It's also evidence Tannehill isn't consistently bad on that metric. But overall he's not been good on this measure.

    Also, when talking about QB play it's far more important to look at how things affect the QB. In almost all the discussions here about how bad the OL was in Miami, it was pressure and pressure from many sides that people were referencing, not PBWR. So if that wasn't clear it should be now: we're talking about how things affect QB performance.

    To your final sentence, as always if more evidence piles up against a view I hold I'll change my view, but as it stands right now the weight of the evidence (as I see it) is on the side of Tannehill needs good protection more than many other QB's.

    Can't ignore all the data from Miami. The weight of the evidence is still on the side of the argument I've been making.
     
  40. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL....... he has been the best in THE LEAGUE under pressure.......

    Only a person really dug in on their position can ignore what is happening.
     
    Irishman likes this.

Share This Page