ESPN's "Total QBR" is a more accurate measure than standard QBR. It's explained in the links below. Since one of us here is only interested in basing everything on a single isolated stat, I thought it'd behoove us to examine a more accurate version of that stat as well as expand the scope to more than just falsely looking at "rookie starting QBs" alone. I've included every quarterback's first year as a starter (at least 8 starts) b/c we can't accurately compare Tannehill to other recently drafted QBs when leaving out half the sample size, as it's ridiculous to pretend these other QBs don't exist just b/c they didn't start as rookies. "Total QBR" dates back to 2008, but there are a handful of QBs drafted before '08 who didn't get their first starting action until '08 or later.
(* Asterisks represent QBs who got their first 8+ start season after their rookie year)
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 200"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Every QB's first season w/
at least 8 starts (since 2008)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 200"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]ESPN
Total QBR[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Ryan[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]74.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]RG3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]71.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Wilson[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]70.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Luck[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]64.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Newton[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]55.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Tannehill[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]53.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Henne*[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]51.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Thigpen*[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]47.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Dalton[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]45.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]McCoy[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]45.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Flacco[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]43.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Bradford[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]41.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Ja Russell*[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]35.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Kolb*[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]34.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Ponder[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]33.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Quinn*[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]33.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Sanchez[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]31.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Stafford[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]30.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Tebow*[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]29.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Painter*[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]22.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Gabbert[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]20.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Clausen[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]11.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
- Average "Total QBR" (22 QBs): 43.0
- Tannehill's Total QBR is 23.3% higher than the average.
- Tannehill's 53.7 ranks 6th just behind Newton's 55.0.
**Tannehill's 2012 Total QBR is currently BETTER than Dalton, Freeman, Flacco, and Cutler's.... and is just shy of Newton's 54.8.
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 495"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Combined stats for each QB's
top 3 targets (WR & TE only)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]
TD[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Combined TDs from
each QB's WRs[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Freeman (Jackson, Williams, Clark)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2700[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]20[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]18[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Dalton (Green, Gresham, Hawkins)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2576[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]19[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]22[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Flacco (Boldin, Smith, Pitta)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2445[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]19[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Newton (Smith, Olsen, LaFell)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2516[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Cutler (Brandon Marshall alone)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1466[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Tannehill (Hart, Bess, Fasano)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2097[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]7[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
So, now what's the purported argument pertaining to Tannehill supposedly "holding back his surrounding cast" rather than it being the other way around?
http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6833215/explaining-statistics-total-quarterback-rating
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8379024/nfl-explaining-expected-points-metric
Page 1 of 3
-
GMJohnson, LBsFinest, oakelmpine and 4 others like this.
-
Kind of proves he wasn't held back.
Can't you both just agree that you both are wrong?smahtaz likes this. -
This is why ESPN's QB rating has been repeatedly shot down: it doesn't correlate with the general consensus of QBs' individual ability at anywhere near the level of the traditional QB rating.
Now, this is a thread I won't be participating in much, I can promise you that. -
Pretty much everyone below Tannehill on that list I think is garbage other than Dalton/Stafford... and both of those guys had an elite/excellent receiver to throw to as rookies IMO.
I'm not a Joe Flacco fan either... so I didn't forget about him. -
LOL. The problem with traditional QB rating is the reason Total QBR was created in the first place, as it looks more at the QB himself where as traditional QBR can be influenced by the function of the offense's passing game as a whole.
awwww.... you gonna go cwy in your wittle biased twaditional QBR thwead after mine just smacked yours with a rubber hose? -
Not sure how you come to that conclusion when the top 4 guys (with a much better surrounding cast) averaged a 16 point higher Total QBR. .....and apparently you skipped over the last chart.
ADDED: Tanny's surrounding cast didn't hold him back from playing better than average, which is more of a testament to Tannehill himself (evident by the 2nd chart), but they did hold him back from seeing a similar level of success to Ryan, RG3, Wilson, and Luck, and they did hold back the offense's overall level of success (evident by the 2nd chart). -
The problem is that statistics don't tell you the whole story. These numbers are put together with raw data ad don't isolate throws, such as interceptions that absolutely needed isolation. Moreover, they do not tell you what's asked of the quarterback, which is why I don't like them. Bruce Arians was on a podcast most recently and stated that there was literally nothing left to throw at Luck. The notebook was empty. We knew this already but the point is, how do you statistically compare that to what Tannehill or Newton did? You simply cannot.
-
"Stats are for losers"
Bill Belicheck
Tend to agree, that and when I see "ESPN" I tend to discount it, they tend to destroy whatever they touch. -
I agree. I'm not using this to really prove anything conclusive, Alen. It's more of a grain of salt type of deal.
I was more concerned with using a better QB stat comparison & more appropriate sample size to show Shouright how flawed his argument is, which was already flawed to begin with considering it revolves around an isolated, not-always-conclusive stat. -
That is what the league thought about Hartline.
My metrics for a Qb are simple:
-Completion percentage
-Td to int ratio
I suppose 3rd down conversions and fumbles are in the mix as well, QBR is something of a joke to me phinsational.
This completion is not as important as that one, a short Td pass is worth less than a long one blah blah blah
No thanks. -
I'm a huge fan of Tannehill and am a believer in the premise of the thread that the surrounding talent is not good. However, Total-QBR is just as flawed as QBR.
A single stat can be used as an indicator in regards to QB play... but can't be used as "proof" for anything. -
both of which are influenced by the guys catching the balls..... as Aqua4Ever already highlighted one aspect in detailed fashion.
A long TD should be worth more b/c the drive ends with 6 pts as soon as that TD happens.
Otherwise, had the TD not occurred, the probability of scoring a TD or even a FG immediately drops on the subsequent play.
If a TD is missed near the endzone, the probability of scoring on a subsequent play (provided it's not 4th down) remains significantly higher than if you're on the 40 yard line for instance. So yes, longer TDs should be worth more. -
I agree 100%.... and that's been my argument against Shou's nonsense stuff all along.
My only goal was to use a similar stat-based argument to completely disqualify his singular stat based argument. So essentially Shou now has to start over from scratch to prove his theory b/c his old one don't fly. Hey, plus it's interesting reading despite not being proof of anything. -
Nope, what Aqua attempted to do was highlight "wr's making the Qb look good" in point of fact our guys are well above average at catching the catchable.
A TD is a TD is a TD, you score them or you do not whether from 50 yds away, or 5 yds away
As shou also showed, our Wr corps has as many 45 yds and in TD's as Atlanta's Wr corps when he did the study, the problem came inside the 20 where windows are tighter and it's more incumbent on the QB to place the ball well.
But nah, you won't hear it.
Benedictus. -
I like the Total QBR stat because I think there is more to playing QB in the NFL than the current passer rating measures. If I'm not mistaken a score of 50 is considered middle of the road. Tannehill has had a nice season for a guy who wasn't supposed to be NFL ready.
Not bad for a rookie regime. Not great either.ToddPhin likes this. -
.... and terrible at catching balls that aren't perfectly catchable..... which is a lot of passes.
Glad you understand nothing about the probabilities involved.
Yeah ok. Go back and look at the last chart. I find it quite amusing that you make excuses for a receiver with 3 TDs in 3 years. :lol:
If Hartline needs as many damn EXCUSES made for his lack of touchdowns as you're offering up, then he's obviously NOT very good b/c great receivers don't need all these damn excuses. The receivers in chart 2 don't need a ****load of excuses despite their QBs statistically playing worse than Tannehill.
How about this, Pods: rather than inconclusively running your mouth scapegoating Tannehill's lack of redzone accuracy blah blah, how 'bout you actually go back and WATCH all our redzone pass plays and let us know what REALLY happened. Tell us how many times Bess & Hart couldn't get open to begin with, couldn't make a play, had a defender in front of them where their LACK of jump ball ability prevented a throw, how many times Tannehill missed an open Bess & Hartline, and simply why there are so many "small windows" when Bess & Hart are involved. Then, following suit with your Atlanta comparison, examine EVERY Falcons redzone passing snap for a means of comparison. Otherwise, shush the heck up b/c you can't state something as if it's fact when you haven't done the work to support it.Aqua4Ever04 likes this. -
No way, Aqua. NFL receivers need to have their hands held all the way down the field, and they're paid millions to catch passes that are only thrown to the chin and in perfect stride if they happen to be running. The country's best of the best of the best shouldn't be expected to do any more than that, silly man. The fact that some of these receivers are paid millions more than others is due to pure foolishness by the teams involved..... and all the examples you see on a weekly basis of receivers making plays on non-perfectly thrown balls is really a figment of your imagination. :shifty:Aqua4Ever04 likes this.
-
Would you feel comfortable running a lot of the vertical based & longer developing routes with this group (especially involving Bess at split end), and considering there's been little behind them for substitution in case we get 'em gassed on these plays? I personally wouldn't.
-
Guest
ESPN's QBR is the WORST metric for what you're trying to prove. With current passer rating, the average rating of all passers means something. With QBR, 50 is an average rating. The maximum Total QBR is 100 so the very definition of a rating in the 50's is average. Saying Tannehill is above the player average while he's at 53 with these stats means he's above poor and only 3 points above exact average play. It's a statistic that counts INT's differently depending on which side of the field it's thrown on and tries to quantify clutch. An INT that doesn't lead to opponent points is better than one that does even though the scoring is up to the other team. The reason why it isn't calculated live like traditional passer rating is because the stat must be calculated with situational factors in mind.
An example as to why it's a weird stat:
Ryan Tannehill had a 42.4 rating against Tennessee. He threw 59% for 217 yards at a YPA of 5.56 with 0 TD's and 3 INT's.
Matt Ryan had a 40.5 rating against Arizona. He threw 60.9% for 301 yards, YPA of 6.54 with 0 TD's and 5 INT's.
Ryan Tannehill's Total QBR for his game against Tennessee was 8.4. Matt Ryan's Total QBR with that line was 31.2. The main difference was Arizona stunk up the game and didn't capitalize on anything. -
I noted he's 23% above the rookie average of 43, King, as this is a comparison among QBs in their first year starting, not a comparison of Tannehill to every QB in the league. Shouright was attempting to say Tannehill is average compared to all other rookie starting QBs, and as such was the one holding back the offense, so I was merely showing that statistically speaking he's incorrect.
-
I know where you're trying to do and no, you cannot. On most NFL treams, you cannot, and you shouldn't because you're talking about low percentage throws. It's equivalent to constantly shooting from the three point line of a basketball court opposed to taking the open 15-footer.
Look, it's obvious Miami doesn't have the athletes to win vertically as often as they should but sometimes it really doesn't matter if they have Usain Bolt running go-routes or Brian Hartline because they're not always going to dictate what they're seeing in terms of coverage concepts. You can run 4-verticals or Post-Dig until you're blue in the face but if the coverage doesn't allow it, then you're wasting downs. People have this belief that if Miami adds Mike Wallace, all will work itself out because he can take the roof off of coverage, as the great Homer Smith used to say, but it's not that simple. There's more to it because sometimes you might have two shots deep in a game while at other times, five. If you play Rex Ryan and his Cover 0/1stuff, you probably take more deep shots than you'd take against Rod Marinelli's Cover 2 stuff. It's just how it works. -
Guest
Statistically speaking, I'd hardly call Total QBR a statistic. It's more accurate based on little actual statistical merit. It's a retroactive stat. It makes QB's who win games look better by retroactively assigning plays higher or lower grades based on it's impact on the game. A fourth quarter INT is emotionally more draining than a first, but they are statistically the same thing. Except in QBR. To further flesh out the inadequacy of Total QBR, we can look at the other QB in that same Falcons Cardinals game. Ryan Lindley played like trash, but ended up with a Passer Rating of 52.9 which was 12.9 points higher than Matt Ryan. Ryan's Total QBR was only 9.3 points lower while Lindley's plummeted to 4.7. Just so we all remember, Matt Ryan threw 5 interceptions in this game.
I would really like to observe the calculation of this 'stat' and see the formula again. As it stands, I don't accept it. It is stacking the deck to make itself a more accurate predictor of winning QB play, while simultaneously removing it's status as a statistic. Anyone can predict the past.Rhody Phins Fan and Dol-Fan Dupree like this. -
can i put a filter in somewhere, that i don't see anymore threads with the name tannehill in it ?
-
I wasn't talking about running verticals every play all game long. Let me ask you this, if the talent were here would you call more or the same amount of intermediate to deep level plays?
..... and how many times are we not calling them even when the coverage allows it just b/c our personnel isn't built to exploit coverages to the degree we're confident enough with?
... and wouldn't our personnel (its lack of coverage-beater ability) play into Marinelli's hand and make life more difficult for us offensively? Honestly, how much would you trust Bess to beat Chicago's corners on a flag route or running 3 & 4 verticals or "999"?
Page 1 of 3