I just went through all of Tannehill’s game logs from years 1 through 4 to see whether he’s contributing positively or negatively in relation to what we would expect. I started by collecting all 64 individual passer rating values for Tannehill’s games between 2012 and 2015. To get a sense of how “good” or “bad” each performance was I compared it to what the opposing defense was allowing that year. For the sake of accuracy, I took account of whether the opposing defense was at home or on the road and excluded their game against Miami to remove redundancy/bias.
I’ll provide an example just so we’re clear. In week 14 of the 2013 season the Dolphins faced the Ravens in Miami. Tannehill logged a 98.9 passer rating against a Baltimore away defense that was allowing an average of 96.9 to opposing QBs not named Ryan Tannehill. So in that game, Tannehill notched a +2.0 score. While he played well, the data suggests he was only marginally above we we’d expect to have seen.
Breaking down Tannehill’s first four seasons this way gives us a fairer representation of how he’s performed in relation to what might be considered “expectation.” Remember, I did this for all 64 games so everything from here on is an average of what I found.
I’m going to list 3 numbers. The first number shown is the year. The second number is an average showing whether Tannehill was above (+) or below (-) the “expectation” as determined by the opposition. The third number is the standard deviation in Tannehill’s passer ratings that year. I took note of that variation just to see how erratic he was.
2012 / -9.3 / 28.1 – (Rookie Year)
2013 / -3.3 / 23.7 – (Slight Improvement)
2014 / 4.2 / 21.9 – (More Improvement, first time being “above average”)
2015 / 0.1 / 27.5 – (Slight Regression, almost perfectly average)
There are several obvious conclusions we can draw. First, Tannehill was by and large a below average QB during his rookie year (2012). During that first season he was more than 9 points below expectation. So for example if he was facing a defense that allowed an 85 rating, he’d (on average) show up and giving you a 75.7.
It’s clear that Tannehill was on an upward trajectory through his next two seasons though. While Tannehill’s passer ratings were climbing, we also see improvement in the variation which gives evidence to the idea he was becoming more stable and reliable QB week-to-week. It makes sense that 2014 was seen as his “break-out” year because it was the first time he actually contributed positively (i.e. Tannehill > Opp Def). So if he was facing that same defense that allowed an 85 rating, he’s provide a 89.2 on average. That’s not great, but it’s solid and most important a positive effect.
As I recall, much of the argument the following year (2015) centered on Tannehill being a middle-of-the-road QB. The data actually perfectly supports that as his performances happen to average out to an almost inexplicably neutral value (0.1). I don’t hold the increased variation against him because that’s actually reflecting a positive outlier (that 158.3 rating vs HOU). In fact, if we were to remove the best and worst games in each year we see the same pattern – continuous progression and in fact he was less erratic in 2015.
2012 / -8.6 / 24.7
2013 / -1.4 / 15.0
2014 / 3.0 / 18.1
2015 / -3.6 / 16.6
The last 3 years are fairly stable which suggests that the QB may have improved marginally from his rookie year while having plateaued since. Looking at the last 3 years, I see no obvious reason to believe that he “got better” between 2013 and 2014 or that he “got worse” between 2014 and 2015. I think we can all agree that +/- 3 points around the average is probably insignificant. To know more we’d have to look at other QBs and that’s a lot of grunt work. ;)
Moving forward, the data from this year is inconclusive because we have only 6 data points and we can’t determine what opposing defenses are allowing with only 2 or 3 home/away games having been played to this point. But through 6 games, Tannehill’s passer ratings are mostly below what opponents are allowing. So far, the data is not good. :(
2016 / -9.0 / 13.0
As a last bit, I tried to investigate how Tannehill performed in the games in which he wasn’t under a ton of pressure. The obvious argument is that Tannehill faces a lot of pressure. It’s tough to quantify that so I just isolated the games in which he was sacked no more than 1 time. This gave me a list of 17 games (out of 64).
My initial thought was that sacks would represent pressure fairly well (over 64 games), and that in those games without many sacks, we’d see Tannehill at his best (i.e. lots of games where Tannehill > Expectation). Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
In those 17 games, he’s exceeded expectation 9 times and failed to do so 8 times. We can’t be sure but that surely suggests that Tannehill’s rating can easily go south even when he’s not under pressure. That’s worrisome. In totality, he averaged 2.6 points below expectation in these 17 games with a standard deviation of 30.7, which to me signals that (if sacks are any indication of pressure) a clean Tannehill is still a markedly average QB. :(
It will be very interesting to monitor this through 2016 to see if Tannehill starts to out-perform expectation. So far in 2016, we’ve seen the opposite. In 6 games, he’s measurably below expectation in 3 and just about average in 3.
Not great. :(
-
Finster, Thunderkyss, Brasfin and 2 others like this.
-
Once again there are no statistics you can use to isolate tannehill'sperformance from the rest of the offense. Specifically the oline. Last week he had the first string oline for the first time all year. What happens? We move the ball up and down the field effortlessly. What kind of oline did we have the previous three weeks. Injured shell. What happens? We lose to the titans and bengals and squeek out a browns victory. The oline sucks the first three years of his career. There is no way in football to isolate individual performance in any meaningful way by using statistics as much as you may want to believe it not so. The exception is kickers
-
Love the thoroughness Greg...
Although all you had to do is go back and read my posts on Tannehill and you would've found thee exact same results.
I've also said he has a very limited impact on the result of the games be it a W or a L. In short, he will rarely lose you a game but will also rarely win you a game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Haha...bored on a Friday! ;)
-
Idk...maybe you're right, but narratives are f'ing boring at this point. Nobody really gives to shirts unless there's something concrete to a person's post.
Maybe you'd like to do this with another so we can compare? :)
I will say this however. Your opinion conflicts with my final few paragraphs. For a QB that is often sacked mutiple times a game (as many as 6 or 7 sometimes) it's hard to argue that pressure and sacks aren't correlated with Tannehill, as he tends to "give up" and "take the sack" as often as any QB I've seen.
Therefore, his best games should be those where he's clean, but we see a mix, including several where he's dozens of points below the expected, despite a lack of sacks.
I would like see your response to that, a serious response. -
I like the first part of your work, however the fatal mistake in the second half is how you decided the parameters for what constitutes pressure. Sacks are not the the end all be all of pressure. Tannehill could be under serious pressure and still be getting rid of the ball, thereby avoiding the sack, but the time was so short from pressure that the play was short of the sticks.resnor likes this.
-
-
I've posted elsewhere how Ryan's rating doesn't drastically change when under pressure as opposed to not.
In fact he is better vs pressure than most (top 6-7) but when facing a clean pocket he is about average.
This kind of shows that pressure is NOT what makes or breaks Ryan's performance as many would love to keep claiming.
We have a flawed QB in a flawed situation, not a flawed situation making a flawed QB. It's really as simple as that.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkFinster and DolphinGreg like this. -
I'm sorry, but please illustrate where you said that:
Because all I see is you saying that's how you did it and you hoped it would show Thill positively, abut it didn't. Then you proceeded to use that faulty process to come to conclusions.
Honestly, what am i missing? -
A Redskins fan, an Eagles fan, a Bills fan, and a Dolphins fan are climbing a mountain and arguing about who loves his team more. The Redskins fan insists he is the most loyal. 'This is for the Redskins! ' he yells, and jumps off the side of the mountain. Not to be outdone, the Eagles fan shouts, 'This is for the Eagles!' and throws himself off the mountain. The Dolphins fan is next to profess his love for his team. He yells, 'This is for everyone!' and pushes the Bills fan off the mountain.adamprez2003, Finster, MikeHoncho and 3 others like this. -
I've only ever heard the race version of that joke, LOL. I have to say, the PG-rated version isn't bad though! :)danmarino likes this.
-
Not bad,
I think it's safe to say that Tannehill has been about an average quarterback in the NFL. Keep in mind that these guys do have a long shelf life. We've seen guys in the past at the position all of a sudden start having pro bowl seasons 8,9,10 years into their career.
I'm all for keeping him until a better option comes along.smahtaz likes this. -
Please breakdown 3-4 man pressure vs blitz pressure. You'll probably find the answer to why he doesn't seem to do better with no pressure vs with with.
smahtaz likes this. -
Basic stunts with base personnel was blowing the OLs mind. Last week, not so much.resnor likes this.
-
He's our QB. We can either whine about it or root for him. That's it.
-
People around here certainly have not, for the most part, been honest about his flaws or performances.
Fin D likes this. -
People is a loose term.
I have been very honest about how I feel about both. Doesn't mean I'm always right, but I describe my feelings on a said performance, flaw or strength for that matter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkresnor likes this. -
lol, where are all these "people"? I just don't see an awful lot of "people" on this site being unfair with RT, what do I hear;
bad pocket presence) probably the most common criticism, and completely justified, "people" say he has bad pocket presence, and "people" are right, although I argued to my brother the other day that he doesn't have bad PP, because that implies he has some abilities in that regard, it is my stance that he has no PP, but that is semantics.
lack of leadership) another common complaint, "people" say he has a LoL(lol), and at this point it's really hard to refute that.
inconsistent) another very common complaint from "people", whether it's inconsistent performances or inconsistent accuracy, inconsistent is always cropping up.
What Res and those guys are doing to try and strengthen their narrative is, is to compile a conglomerate of bad answers over the years and pile that into "what people say", and then everybody says "who is saying that?" and the answer is always vague, because these "people" they speak of are very few and far in between.
What's really funny to me, is that HE is calling others out for "not being honest about QB17's flaws or performances", when it's been him and his guys that are probably the most guilty of that, remember that this is a guy who refused to admit that ice cools water, so as to fit his narrative...Fin-O likes this. -
Yes, you've been honest in how you feel, but that is much, much different than being honest in how you're evaluating Tannehill.
Fin D likes this. -
Couldn't agree more with this post.
All too often any criticism of Ryan's game is called "blaming ALL on him" when infact it is simply an honest evaluation of how a poster feels about his play.
You will find very few posters who are regulars EVER not acknowledge Ryan has had some unideal circumstances, but its almost like you have to leave it at that or you become a "hater" or some other childish label.Finster likes this. -
The thing is none of you bashers have been honest about his flaws. You made up flaws about his game and ran with them until they were proven so obviously wrong you had to move on to your next bs. he couldn't throw deep, he was inaccurate, he was too dumb to audible, he couldn't read defenses, he locks on receivers, he couldnt win the 4th quarter, leadership, having the "it" factor. even on his few flaws you guys exaggerate the degree to which they hinder his effectiveness. the so called magical pocket presence. His two flaws in the pocket is he has average escapability and can't feel a blind side rush. this doesnt kill your effictiveness. These are nice traits to have when your oline sucks but you dont draft a QB to run a putrid offense. With an average to good offensive line you dont need escapabilty. see peyton, eli, brady. as for feeling blind side pressure terry bradshaw used to take the most hellacious hits ever seen over and over because he couldnt feel it either. he has four rings. these are traits that are nice to have but arent negatives if you dont possess them.
Bottom line you guys have been disastrously wrong about the guy for his entire career and now that he has decent receivers and a decent oline you guys are trying to rewrite history the way children do rather than admit you were terribly wrong in your assessments.
-
to begin with, you should discard the first two years of his career. Why, because he didnt really come into his own until year three. Every QB is better his third year then his first even if there are anamolies where the stats dont show it. tom brady, peyton were both infinitely better year three then year one. you want to start tracking them when the game clicks for them. IMO that was year 3. Now if you look at the stats from those years, correlate it to the injuries on the oline. remember anytime that pouncey, albert or james were hurt the last two years the oline became swiss cheese. take those games out and tell me what the numbers were. thats where i would begin
-
Id give Ryan a B-...had a stretch in the game where I hated his guts...the pass to Stills brought back many bad memories. Then later in the game he was maneuvering very well in the pocket and making some fantastic throws.
If we keep running the ball well, he is good enough in this secondary role to keep around.