Ryan Tannehill

"The Guy wrote:

We don't agree about that. My position is that the team won in spite of Tannehill's performance.

A passer rating of 61 loses a good number more games than it wins, so Tannehill's performance actually helped the team lose, and other parts of the team compensated for that to the degree that a loss didn't occur.

this dude. Seriously. We all know what he’s about. Pats are now 20 and 4 at home in the postseason in the Brady era.

tannehill ices it on a 3rd down conversion as clutch as you will ever find no credit. After what looked to me like a bad illegal formation call the play prior romo blamed the qb for. What?

"The Guy wrote:

Again, if the point is that Tannehill can perform in a way that's associated with losing and be compensated for by his teammates to such a degree that he wins a game in the playoffs, then yes, "he" can win in the playoffs.

Folks, we're talking about a guy here who just went out and completed 8 of 15 passes for 72 yards, 4.8 yards per attempt, and a passer rating of 61. This isn't rocket science. He didn't have a good game.

See, I knew you were capable of saying that Tannehill helped the Titans' win, hence making him a winner. And in FOXBORO. You must be soooo thrilled, like the thousands of other AFC fans who hate the Patriots.

As for this other stuff, that's not a Tannehill thing. It's true of all QBs... and all players regardless of positon. Hence the importance of Catfish Hunter's quote.

And again, not a single person has said he had a good game. BUT he still made more plays than Brady when it mattered. Hence the better passer rating. :up:

"Hoops wrote:

this dude. Seriously. We all know what he’s about. Pats are now 20 and 4 at home in the postseason in the Brady era.

tannehill ices it on a 3rd down conversion as clutch as you will ever find no credit. After what looked to me like a bad illegal formation call the play prior romo blamed the qb for. What?

Hell...the team's game plan was icing him on its own, but he hit a few that they really needed. Besides that INT, his throws were pretty spot-on as usual. With temps in the 30s, you gotta get into a flow and keep the arm warmed up. Wasn't able to. That fumbled snap was ugly too...bad juju. Gotta do better.

"cuchulainn wrote:

See, I knew you were capable of saying that Tannehill helped the Titans' win...

Once again, I don't think he helped them win.

We can be done with this now, however. Our positions are clear.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

Hell...the team's game plan was icing him on its own, but he hit a few that they really needed. Besides that INT, his throws were pretty spot-on as usual. With temps in the 30s, you gotta get into a flow and keep the arm warmed up. Wasn't able to. That fumbled snap was ugly too...bad juju. Gotta do better.

hey boss you win in that building in the postseason I don’t care how you did it you accomplished something.

it’s rarefied air.

"cbrad wrote:

Your link in the very first sentence says this:

There would be no selling point to QBR if they couldn't say they're better at isolating a QB's contribution to a play. Same selling point for DVOA. According to wiki, the formula was modified in 2012 and 2013 but no mention of any modifications after that, and links in 2016 explicitly say they're apportioning credit:
https://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/123701/how-is-total-qbr-calculated-we-explain-our-quarterback-rating

Regardless, no one can reconstruct the formula from any description provided. So again.. best to dismiss due to lack of transparency.

Just a follow-up here. Apparently the QBR statistics for tonight's game are already posted, just a couple hours after the game ended. So either they have their crew of people fast at work during or immediately after games, apportioning credit to the various players involved in an entire game, or QBR is determined numerically without any subjectively determined input on a game-by-game basis.

"Hoops wrote:

hey boss you win in that building in the postseason I don’t care how you did it you accomplished something.

it’s rarefied air.

And Tennesee's long snapper now has that same accomplishment.

"The Guy wrote:

Once again, I don't think he helped them win.

We can be done with this now, however. Our positions are clear.

So he didn't make any important plays? He didn't throw a TD? He didn't twice run for 1st downs? He didn't have a clutch and very crucial 3rd down conversion on 3rd and 8 late in the 4th?

You're saying none of that happened nor mattered? Surely not.

For someone to think that they may need to seek medical attention for cognitive failures.

So you see, you simply agree that Tannehill directly contributed to helping the team win the game.

"The Guy wrote:

And Tennesee's long snapper now has that same accomplishment.

Again, welcome to TEAM sports.

"cuchulainn wrote:

Again, welcome to TEAM sports.

In his eyes it’s on the same level. Qb and long snapper. Why cause somewhere along the line he’s probably cherry picked some number that supports it.

"cuchulainn wrote:

So he didn't any important plays? He didn't throw a TD? He didn't twice run for 1st downs? He didn't have a clutch and very crucial 3rd down conversion on 3rd and 8 late in the 4th?

You're saying none of that happened nor mattered? Surely not.

For someone to think that they may need to seek medical attention for cognitive failures.

So you see, you simply agree that Tannehill directly contributed to helping the team win the game.

I'm saying his performance overall was associated more with losing than with winning in the playoffs in the NFL.

"The Guy wrote:

Just a follow-up here. Apparently the QBR statistics for tonight's game are already posted, just a couple hours after the game ended. So either they have their crew of people fast at work during or immediately after games, apportioning credit to the various players involved in an entire game, or QBR is determined numerically without any subjectively determined input on a game-by-game basis.

QBR is a formula, and the 10,000 lines of code means it's deterministic: you input the data and out comes the QBR. The subjective assumptions are hardcoded in those 10,000 lines of code. In other words, the specific values of each parameter (for example, how much of a passing play in a specific situation is "due" to the QB) were subjectively determined the last time they modified the formula (according to wiki that's 2013) but once those values were hardcoded no additional human judgment is necessary.

The problem with QBR is that they HAVE such subjectively determined parameter values in the first place.

"cbrad wrote:

QBR is a formula, and the 10,000 lines of code means it's deterministic: you input the data and out comes the QBR. The subjective assumptions are hardcoded in those 10,000 lines of code. In other words, the specific values of each parameter (for example, how much of a passing play in a specific situation is "due" to the QB) were subjectively determined the last time they modified the formula (according to wiki that's 2013) but once those values were hardcoded no additional human judgment is necessary.

The problem with QBR is that they HAVE subjectively determined parameters in their formula the first place.

Right, but I have trouble believing for example that in that amount of time they could even determine what happened in that game in such a way as to map the "prewired" data accurately onto it. Like for example, how many air yards and yards after the catch were associated with every play, by both quarterbacks? On which plays were the quarterbacks under pressure?

"Hoops wrote:

In his eyes it’s on the same level. Qb and long snapper. Why cause somewhere along the line he’s probably cherry picked some number that supports it.

It's why I suggested he take up following single person sports and not TEAM sports.

Bottom line is that Tannehill and Brady BOTH had bad games. Between the two, which performance does both desire to have? Tannehill's. He WON. Passer Rating says he was the better as well. He also put points on the board, converted 1st downs, and made clutch throws. It's that simple.

"The Guy wrote:

I'm saying his performance overall was associated more with losing than with winning in the playoffs in the NFL.

Not in this particular game it wasn't. And that's all that matters in this instance.

"The Guy wrote:

Right, but I have trouble believing for example that in that amount of time they could even determine what happened in that game in such a way as to map the "prewired" data accurately onto it. Like for example, how many air yards and yards after the catch were associated with every play, by both quarterbacks? On which plays were the quarterbacks under pressure?

There aren't many input parameters. Obviously more than the 4 you have with passer rating. Maybe they have 10? 20? Not sure. But we're talking about a large organization in ESPN. All you need is a small number of individuals (I'd estimate no more than 10) looking at the game tape and figuring out "air yards" or "under pressure" etc.. That's not at all hard to imagine doing within a few hours.

"cuchulainn wrote:

Not in this particular game it wasn't. And that's all that matters in this instance.

No, in this particular game it was. His performance overall was associated more with losing than with winning in the playoffs in the NFL. That it was, regardless of the outcome of the game.

"The Guy wrote:

No, in this particular game it was. His performance overall was associated more with losing than with winning in the playoffs in the NFL. That it was, regardless of the outcome of the game.

And Brady's was what?

"cuchulainn wrote:

And Brady's was what?

His was also associated more with losing than with winning in the playoffs in the NFL.

"The Guy wrote:

His was also associated more with losing than with winning in the playoffs in the NFL.

Moreso than Tannehill.

"cuchulainn wrote:

It's why I suggested he take up following single person sports and not TEAM sports.

Bottom line is that Tannehill and Brady BOTH had bad games. Between the two, which performance does both desire to have? Tannehill's. He WON. Passer Rating says he was the better as well. He also put points on the board, converted 1st downs, and made clutch throws. It's that simple.

he’d have been better off referencing the punter cause that guy was one of the game mvps.

"Hoops wrote:

he’d have been better off referencing the punter cause that guy was one of the game mvps.

It was the Derrick Henry show, but I loved watching Vrabel out fox Bill with the clock mgt... and Tannehill make clutch plays running and passing. Even if he did have an otherwise bad game.

"cuchulainn wrote:

It was the Derrick Henry show, but I loved watching Vrabel out fox Bill with the clock mgt... and Tannehill make clutch plays running and passing. Even if he did have an otherwise bad game.

that Henry show was a product of the safety depth (lots of 2 deep) and the front. Which tannehill checked off of or to at the los.

"Hoops wrote:

that Henry show was a product of the safety depth (lots of 2 deep) and the front. Which tannehill checked off of or to at the los.

Defense held them to 13 points, including a goal line stand. I give the game mostly to the defense, then to Henrey, and then to other players.

Though you have a point. Bellicheck creates gameplans to eliminate the other teams best player and he looked to eliminate Tannehill.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Defense held them to 13 points, including a goal line stand. I give the game mostly to the defense, then to Henrey, and then to other players.

Though you have a point. Bellicheck creates gameplans to eliminate the other teams best player and he looked to eliminate Tannehill.

I’m not sure that’s what he was doing. It was odd to see so much 2 deep safeties though although if I had to guess I think it had a lot to do with no mccourty and Chung leaving early witb what I believe is a likely torn Achilles so beli played it more conservative with the safeties

goalline stand was massive though no doubt