Real question is whether or not THill was limited by scheme or by talent.

 

I don't know off the top of my head how many games the rest of the rookies started off the top of my head. But I think it's fairly impressive that Tanny was asked to do that much with as little experience as he had at the college level compared to the others. Granted, I'm sure knowing the offense helped. But he still had to adjust to the speed of the game, which is something even the likes of Peyton Manning talked about. And he seemed to do that as I said, with less experience at the college level.

 

In terms of pass attempts per game, I don't see the difference between Luck, Tannehill & Weeden as significant. Between those guys and Wilson & RGIII, yes very significant.

But really between Tannehill & Luck is about 7 passes a game. That isn't it a significant enough difference to determine anything.

As for the deep pass numbers, I suspect it has something (not all, so don't start) to do with the talent surrounding the QB. There are receivers considered to be deep threats, and they aren't on our team. Also, that depends on the OC as well.

 

Hard to really go downfield with not much speed. You could see this year teams really keyed on the info of our shots of 20 yards or more.

With only 2 shots a game why not risk it and really drive the short routes? Even if we connect on 1 of 2 shots they were only risking giving up 7 points.

This is why it was like us playing in the redzone all the way down the field all year.

 

What was most frustrating about Tannehill's deep throws is how often the WR was off by 1 or 2 steps, with a defender draped all over them.. Some of those throws seemed so perfect.. But the WR's had no burst of speed at the end to catch up and make the play. Or simply dropped the ball.

 

Unless you are privy to coaching information, you can't claim to know who was asked to pass deep more. And you certainly can't claim to know why they would have been asked to throw deep more. The most you can do is look at the numbers and speculate the reason. Personal biases will lead to different conclusions. Some, like me, will speculate from the angle that when you have guys like Marlon Moore diving to catch a perfectly in stride pass, and a receiving corps that only gets open for 1-3 deep passes per game, the QB will have less functional opportunities to throw deep. That's not necessarily a schematic thing.

Others who feel Tannehill was disappointing will speculate that the throwing opportunities were more schematic in nature in the first place. Then, there will even be a divide among them as to if the scheme protected the receivers or the QB. Some may say that on a team with exactly one player (Brian Hartline) who has gone deep more than twice this season, it's on the receivers. Brian Hartline caught 10 passes that were thrown 21+ yards in the air, none 40+. Marlon Moore had two, Davone Bess had 1. The other part of this divide will put the inability of us to 'go deep' on the QB and implicate a lack of trust in the QB as to why they weren't called.

Again, we'd need a lot more coaching information, to re-watch game tape, and study a few other variables in order to grasp this fully. Other variables include offensive line play (time to throw), running game ability (are defenses in passing sets with more DB's or running sets with 7 or 8 players defending the run?).

 

Again I'm not seeing that it was only Luck that was asked that. It was Weeden and Tannehill too. The difference between Luck & Tanny's attempts are not significantly different. Most of the vets threw less than Luck, that means the difference in attempts between Tanny and those 3 is even less significant than the difference between Luck & Tanny.

Your numbers tell us that Luck, Tannehill & Weeden were asked to throw as much as the vets. RGIII & Wilson were not.

Because the whole offense was tailored to match their experience level, as evidenced by the significantly lower attempts.

 

I dont think this makes any sense, simply because you are making the assumption based on those numbers that Tannehill was ASKED to throw the ball shorter than 20 yards, moreso than 20+ yards. There's no way of knowing that, unless you're in the huddle, and on the pratice field, or the OC in Tannehills helmet and you heard them say, OK, don't go deep here, keep it short.

What I think this indicates by lookin at this set of numbers is that our offence, simply isnt built well enough to allow for a deep passing game, based on our lack of talent, and playmaking ability at WR.

Most pass plays have routes that take WR's beyond 20 yards, doesnt mean the WR gets open, or that the QB has time to get the ball downfield.

All you're showing us here is that Tannehill had a high percentage of passes fewer than 20 yards in the air, moreso than others. Stats don't tell the story here, as in many cases. You have to look at, and understand the reasons WHY the stats show what they show. Was there time to throw the ball deep, was there time for the WR to get deep, If there was, did the WR get open deeper than 20 yards down field, Do our WR's have the speed to get deep, etc. etc. etc.

Ill wait to see where part 2 takes us here, but... to me this doesnt show us much so far.

 

That doesn't make sense. I can eyeball the difference between 32 and 36 attempts a game and understand that to not be enough of a difference that it dictates one offensive philosophy was used over another. 4 passes more a game tells us nothing. At best you can say they relied on Luck's arm slightly more than Tannehills, but then oyu'd also have to say they relied on Luck's arm slightly more than Peyton's or Rodgers. What does that really tell us? Nothing significant.

Why would it? The numbers only have meaning in this discussion when compared to each other. When compared to each other I see most of the QBs in the 30 range. Lower than that is indicative of a tailored down offense, (not guaranteed).

 

No, I'm debating the significance in the numbers you specifically posted. Explain why 7 more passes a game is significant and what specifically it tells us. You tell us it is significant but you don't explain why, you just give us your conclusion.

The variation in the data is not significant in the comparison of Tannehill vs. Luck vs. Weeden in terms of attempts. In terms of deep passes it is, but it doesn't tell us why. You're the one imposing your own views by concluding its because of Luck's ability vs. Tannehill's ability, when it can be plenty of things, from surrounding talent, oline, running game effectiveness, OC's personal tendencies, opponents, etc.

 

I would say RTH's lack of downfield passing had more to do with lack of speed and a legit downfield threat than anything else.

Also, interesting was that he had the 7th highest dropped passes in the NFL according to PFF.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/11/21/s ig-stat-snapshot-dropped-passes-per-qb/2/

Another compelling stats was that Fasano was ranked in the bottom 10 of TE's as a receiving threat. He ranks very highly in catching balls but doesn't get open enough to be effective.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/12/06/s ig-stat-snapshot-receiving-production-tight-end

 

Thanks for the hard work.

But I'm not sure you can really compare gross pass attempts per game unless you know how many offensive plays per game each guy is getting.

For example, if Tannehill is getting 64 offensive plays per game, but Luck is getting 78 offensive plays per game, they are passing the same amount.....

 

I agree with your thought, but at the same time successful offensive plays lead to more offensive plays. Maybe possessions is a better number to compare against?

 

Sorry but this is yet another smoke and mirrors thread. What does this really tell us? Very little IMO. What is the importance of one QB throwing a few more passes per game than other?

The only significant thing here is that it tells us what we already knew from simply watching RG3 and Wilson play. That they run a simpler offense dictated by a stout running game. Apart from that, everything else is meaningless.

 

All this ^ means is that its significant because its significant. There's nothing in that explanation that explains why 7 passes a game more is significant. That doesn't appear to be a large variance. Try it from another angle, if it is a large variance and indicates something, then what does the variance between Rodgers and Tannehill indicate?

Its certainly implied. I mean the title of the thread and study you're doing doesn't mention the QB's offenses. Its about a comparison of the QBs, right?

And earlier you said:

But in the Op you said:

 

Actually, a lot of what Washington did with RGIII wasn't simple. RGIII still had decisions that he had to make. Washington runs a lot of packaged plays with RGIII. These short passes and screen passes that you have seen RGIII throw this season aren't necessarily designed to help him ease into the NFL. They were designed with his ability in mind. They were packaged along with the zone read off the inside zone. RGIII ran a lot of plays where he made the decision to give the ball on the inside zone, keep the ball on the zone read, or throw the ball on the bubble screen based on what look the defense gives him.

The Shanahan's also did a great job of effectively play actioning off that inside zone/zone read action.

It is very possible that a great reason why RGIII didn't have more pass attempts longer than 20 yards could be because defenses tried to keep him from doing it based on how effective he was at doing it. RGIII only had 33 pass attempts longer than 20 yards. However, he completed 15 of them for 7 TDs, 0 INTs, and averaged 16.7 yards per attempt on those throws. By comparison, Andrew Luck averaged 10.3 yards per attempt on throws of 20+ yards and had 8 TDs to 6 INTs. Ryan Tannehill averaged 13.0 yards per attempt on those throws and threw 3 TDs to 2 INTs.

Ryan was actually 2nd among the top 4 rookie quarterbacks in yards per attempt on passes longer than 20 yards. The lack of touchdowns on those throws can likely be related to the inability of Miami's wide receivers to pull away from the defense after Ryan hits them with the pass.

 

Well I did not say it was simple, I only said it was simpler.

 

I'm saying if the difference between Luck & Tannehill is significant and tells us things, then the non difference between Rodgers and Tannehill is significant and tells us things.

Further more, Luck had a high number of passing attempts, but he wasn't the only one that had pro like attempts either, since Weeden matched Peyton and Tanny matched Rodgers.

What you're doing is similar to saying if we had a room with 10 boys and 10 girls, then 20 people have an average of one testicle and the boys have a high number of testicles based on the average.

Ok then why?

Or, you tried to say I was wrong for eyeballing something that you said could be eyeballed.

 

Wilson and RG III running abilities were utilized quite a bit this season and for much success. I can see their passing numbers being lower then the rest. If you did a chart on the QBs running abilities and how many points were scored RGIII and Russell Wilson would be on top of the list and the rest would all be also rans.

Comparing passing numbers put up by RGIII and Wilson compared to most other NFL QBs makes that whole thing kinda skewed. Tannehill had a couple of decent runs for good yardage no doubt but in my mind there is no way I could consider Tannehill even on the same planet as RGIII or Russel Wilson in scrambling abilities.

Russel Wilson has to be the find of finds in this draft as far as lower round QBs go.

 

Tannehill's running ability was something that was very underutilized this season. He did averaged 4.3 yards per rush on his 49 rush attempts this season.

 

I said he had a few good runs but in no way shape or form is Tannehill even in the same class as RGIII and Wilson in regards to his movement. Not even close.

 

But you haven't determined statistical significance. You only declared it was significant, you didn't really explain why.

Right, but you think this will overall tell you things about their talent when your done with your study and all its parts. I suspect you already have an interest into where those players will end up and because fo that you see the correlations that point towards those results.

Just stop trying to confuse the issue. You said these stats can be eyeballed, then tried to give me grief for doing exactly that.

 

It's kind of funny how adamant you are about getting an answer to this given how committed you were to not answering quesitons or addressing issues in your previous threads that didn't jive with your views- time after time. Case in point: given their college statistics (close to the QBR statistical analysis) who would you have drafted first last year, Ryan Tannehill or Kellen Moore)?

It would be a breath of fresh air to see you answer this question instead of hiding from it as you have been, especially considering your dogged determination to have your question about RGIII and his lack of downfield throwing explained. Which, btw, is a pretty good question. My guess is that's what defenses tried to take away, given RGIII's downfield accuracy/success in college. Make him grind it out, don't give him the quick score.

 

It was low frequency because he was so good at it.

I think if you looked at the efficiency on these type of throws, you'd get more insight into why the number of attempts varied.

 

I am trying to see the pressures per snap statistic. I think that RT's 2.8 PAT per game beyond 20 yards also has to do with the protection he got, or didn't get, along with the lack of team speed. I may be wrong, but that is something that crossed my mind.

I tried Advanced NFL Stats and Football Outsiders but can't seem to find that data yet.

 

RGIII I will agree with. Wilson is not more athletic than Tannehill is though. There was more of a will on Seattle's coaching staff to let him run some of the zone read stuff than there was between Miami and Tannehill. Tannehill was a wide receiver that averaged 16 yards per reception during his first two years after all.