Ryan Tannehill

"The Guy wrote:

Let me state my argument and I'll respectfully ask you to restate it the way you understand it so we can determine whether you're hearing it accurately.

The correlation between win percentage and adjusted (to 2019) passer rating differential in the 256 team seasons since 2012 (the timeframe you mentioned) is 0.815. The correlation between point differential and passer rating differential is 0.867.

That means 66% of the variance in win percentage and 75% of the variance in point differential since 2012 in the NFL has been associated with passer rating differential. Obviously that means a great deal of the goal of the game (i.e., winning) revolves around how well teams pass the ball and how well they defend the pass.

One way teams can improve how they perform in that regard is by having one of the league's best quarterbacks, because the league's best quarterbacks vary in their passer ratings from year to year at a level significantly higher than that of the league's poorer quarterbacks. Obviously if your quarterback's passer rating varies from year to year at a higher level, then your team stands a better chance of having a greater passer rating differential.

Teams can also improve their offensive passer ratings by assembling greater talent around the quarterback, but given the finding above with regard to quarterbacks, that approach is unlikely to yield the same degree of improvement in passer rating as would having a better quarterback. This is obviously why teams clamor for quarterbacks more so than for any other offensive or defensive player on the field. The quarterback can increase a team's probability of winning more so than any other player on the field.

Another way teams can improve how they perform with regard to passer rating differential is by better defending against the pass. But like with assembling offensive talent around the quarterback in the effort to increase passer rating differential, that likely requires a conglomeration of defensive players. Acquiring just a single stellar player on defense (an edge rusher for example) is highly unlikely to have as much an effect on passer rating differential as is acquiring a stellar quarterback.

I hope this helps with understanding of why the game revolves around the pass, and why teams stand to help themselves in that area most by acquiring one of the league's best quarterbacks.

None of the above is at all inconsistent with how teams approach the acquisition of personnel in today's game in terms of resources allotted. So either the entire league is doing it wrong, or what I've written above is correct. I'm afraid you'll have to pick one.

:sidelol:

I want to laugh too, but apparently I'm blocked again. Lol

"resnor wrote:

I want to laugh too, but apparently I'm blocked again. Lol

I am too and I am barely part of this conversation.

He blocked me too.

Good read.

"The Guy wrote:

Certainly we can find exceptions to the rule. But the rule still applies and should inform teams' personnel strategies much more so than the exceptions to it.

Here's the rule:

Since 2004 there have been 15 Super Bowl winners and 330 playoff games (including Super Bowls) that involved a passer rating differential (165 games X two teams per game). The teams that won Super Bowls during that period had an average passer rating differential of +23.4 (standard deviation = 29.9) in their 46 playoff games. The teams that did not win Super Bowls during that period had an average passer rating differential of -3.8 (standard deviation = 38.8) in their 284 playoff games.

Now, what's the best way to obtain a highly positive passer rating differential in the playoffs consistent with that of the Super Bowl winners above? Of course that's by 1) having one of the league's best QBs, and/or 2) having one of the league's best pass defenses.

If you don't have #1, you'd better have #2 (and vice-versa), or you're left praying to be an exception to the rule.

And that's essentially the upshot from the game Sunday between Tennessee and Kansas City. Tannehill isn't #1 (one of the league's best QBs), and so Tennessee needs #2 (one of the league's best pass defenses).

Of course they can pray they become an exception to the rule, but again that shouldn't be what teams base their personnel strategies on. They should go with what's probable, not improbable.

(As always I invite @7089 to critique the work above and point us in a different direction statistically speaking, if he's willing and has the time, if I've erred in my approach.)

high QB rating and generational talent are not interchangeable. And your are presenting a different rule then you were previously stating.

OF the last 5 Superbowl winners 3 of them don't fit your criteria. That isn't an exception to the rule, that's a legitimate segment.

Tom Brady's last win, Manning's last win, and Foles were not generational talents the year they won, and of course none of them were on their rookie contracts.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. You seem convinced that you have the right box to fit Tannehill in, and you seem to be convinced your stats make you 100% correct. What I would ask you is before this year, what was your predictions of Tannehill? And be honest did he not blow all of those predictions away? I'm assuming you were using the same statistical analytics that you are propping up your opinion with now?

My guess is you were horribly wrong before, so now, you are actually making an argument to REDEFINE the terms you used before. Nobody ever until you started to try to make the argument has stated that if you aren't a "Generational talent" then you are by all reasonable measures average. I give you kudos for creative ways to save your original argument, but it causes a general distrust by the people you are arguing with.

"Phins_to_Win wrote:

high QB rating and generational talent are not interchangeable. And your are presenting a different rule then you were previously stating.

OF the last 5 Superbowl winners 3 of them don't fit your criteria. That isn't an exception to the rule, that's a legitimate segment.

Tom Brady's last win, Manning's last win, and Foles were not generational talents the year they won, and of course none of them were on their rookie contracts.

Foles was on his rookie contract. If we agree to set Brady and Manning aside on the basis that they were included in the "generational talent" group on the basis of "name" alone (which is a good point, though debatable), then we're left with three of the past 15 Super Bowl winners that featured QBs who weren't performing among the best in the league and who were not on rookie contracts. Those still aren't good odds. We can even set Roethlisberger in 2008 aside (he had a passer rating of 80.1 that year), and we're still left with not good odds (4 of 15).

We are going to have to agree to disagree. You seem convinced that you have the right box to fit Tannehill in, and you seem to be convinced your stats make you 100% correct. What I would ask you is before this year, what was your predictions of Tannehill? And be honest did he not blow all of those predictions away? I'm assuming you were using the same statistical analytics that you are propping up your opinion with now?

My guess is you were horribly wrong before, so now, you are actually making an argument to REDEFINE the terms you used before. Nobody ever until you started to try to make the argument has stated that if you aren't a "Generational talent" then you are by all reasonable measures average. I give you kudos for creative ways to save your original argument, but it causes a general distrust by the people you are arguing with.

My point about Tannehill's performance this year is no different from this person's:

Think about the identity of the Tennessee Titans. They’re physical up front, they punch you in the mouth, they hammer you with Derrick Henry and they implement a lot of play action passing and selective deep shots to keep the defense on their heels. They’re not lining up in four wide sets and asking Tannehill to throw the football 40 times a game. They’ve acknowledged, internally, that Tannehill is a complimentary quarterback — but he’s not an elite one. Three times this season has Tannehill attempted 30+ pass attempts: the Titans are 1-2 in those contests. In Ryan Tannehill’s first 52 games in the NFL (the Joe Philbin era), Tannehill attempted 30+ pass attempts 41 times. And another 6 times he was asked to throw at least 28 attempts.

Let those numbers sink in. 47 of Ryan Tannehill’s 52 games played with Joe Philbin as his head coach tasked him with throwing the ball at least 28 times. The Titans have asked him to attempt less passes and be selective with the shots he has. And the end result is the Titans are playing complimentary football and are doing so with a supporting cast that is better than anything Tannehill experienced in South Florida.

The lone exception, perhaps? 2016 — when Miami’s offensive line featured Branden Albert, Laremy Tunsil, Mike Pouncey and Ja’Wuan James. That year, Jay Ajayi rushed for 1,200 yards. And guess what? Tannehill was 8-5 as a starter that year.

Tannehill didn’t escape Miami and magically become a better quarterback. No. Instead, Tannehill left Miami and went to a place that was capable of providing him the supporting cast and coaching confidence to stay true to the team’s DNA — and not try to ask him to be something he’s not.

https://dolphinswire.usatoday.com/2020/01/12/what-lessons-can-dolphins-learn-from-tannehills-postseason-push/

The issue, however, is that to create the game conditions noted in the article above (i.e., low-volume passing games) against the league's best QBs, the ones he's likely to face enroute to a Super Bowl, he needs to be accompanied by one of the league's best pass defenses. Otherwise those opposing QBs are going to put lots of points on the board, which will force Tannehill into a high-volume passing game, where historically he doesn't play nearly as well. We just saw this last weekend. Notice Tannehill didn't pump out one of his 2019 stellar 130+ passer ratings in that game.

Compare Tannehill along these lines with Jimmy Garoppolo, for example, whose overall passer rating in 2019 was more than 15 points lower than Tannehill's (117.5 to 102), but who had passer ratings of 136.9 and 131.7 in two of his high-volume games this year. Tannehill has never performed that well in any the 35 high-volume games he's played in his seven-year career (even if we adjust his passer ratings in those games to 2019). In 2019 Tannehill's passer ratings in high-volume games were 78.1, 82.3, 92.2, 109.8, and 108.1, the most recent of which (108.1) got him beaten handily by Patrick Mahomes, whose passer rating in his own high-volume game was 120.4.

So now consider that Garoppolo is about to play Patrick Mahomes as well, in a Super Bowl. Garoppolo's recent history at least provides some likelihood of outdueling Mahomes in a high-volume passing game, whereas Tannehill's seven-year history provides that likelihood only if his own defense stifles Mahomes and makes Mahomes play uncharacteristically poorly. Again that likely requires a great pass defense alongside Tannehill, which again makes Tannehill's needs no different from those of the average QB, who also need great pass defenses to keep pace with the best QBs in the league.

So, this is a nuanced understanding of Tannehill and his needs, and it goes beyond mere overall passer rating. The question is, what does Tannehill need to play the way he did in 2019 and make it past the Patrick Mahomeses of the league in the playoffs and win a Super Bowl. The answer to that question is, one of the league's best pass defenses, and again that need makes him no different from the average QB.

"The Guy wrote:

The answer to that question is, one of the league's best pass defenses, and again that need makes him no different from the average QB.

:headwall:

Since Tannehill didn't play like an average QB, another approach is needed......

"The Guy wrote:

Foles was on his rookie contract. If we agree to set Brady and Manning aside on the basis that they were included in the "generational talent" group on the basis of "name" alone (which is a good point, though debatable), then we're left with three of the past 15 Super Bowl winners that featured QBs who weren't performing among the best in the league and who were not on rookie contracts. Those still aren't good odds. We can even set Roethlisberger in 2008 aside (he had a passer rating of 80.1 that year), and we're still left with not good odds (4 of 15).

My point about Tannehill's performance this year is no different from this person's:

https://dolphinswire.usatoday.com/2020/01/12/what-lessons-can-dolphins-learn-from-tannehills-postseason-push/

The issue, however, is that to create the game conditions noted in the article above (i.e., low-volume passing games) against the league's best QBs, the ones he's likely to face enroute to a Super Bowl, he needs to be accompanied by one of the league's best pass defenses. Otherwise those opposing QBs are going to put lots of points on the board, which will force Tannehill into a high-volume passing game, where historically he doesn't play nearly as well. We just saw this last weekend. Notice Tannehill didn't pump out one of his 2019 stellar 130+ passer ratings in that game.

Compare Tannehill along these lines with Jimmy Garoppolo, for example, whose overall passer rating in 2019 was more than 15 points lower than Tannehill's (117.5 to 102), but who had passer ratings of 136.9 and 131.7 in two of his high-volume games this year. Tannehill has never performed that well in any the 35 high-volume games he's played in his seven-year career (even if we adjust his passer ratings in those games to 2019). In 2019 Tannehill's passer ratings in high-volume games were 78.1, 82.3, 92.2, 109.8, and 108.1, the most recent of which (108.1) got him beaten handily by Patrick Mahomes, whose passer rating in his own high-volume game was 120.4.

So now consider that Garoppolo is about to play Patrick Mahomes as well, in a Super Bowl. Garoppolo's recent history at least provides some likelihood of outdueling Mahomes in a high-volume passing game, whereas Tannehill's seven-year history provides that likelihood only if his own defense stifles Mahomes and makes Mahomes play uncharacteristically poorly. Again that likely requires a great pass defense alongside Tannehill, which again makes Tannehill's needs no different from those of the average QB, who also need great pass defenses to keep pace with the best QBs in the league.

So, this is a nuanced understanding of Tannehill and his needs, and it goes beyond mere overall passer rating. The question is, what does Tannehill need to play the way he did in 2019 and make it past the Patrick Mahomeses of the league in the playoffs and win a Super Bowl. The answer to that question is, one of the league's best pass defenses, and again that need makes him no different from the average QB.

I might be missing something but where do you get Foles was on his rookie contract? He came out in 2012 and had already gone to 2 different teams, before he came back to Eagles?

"Phins_to_Win wrote:

I might be missing something but where do you get Foles was on his rookie contract? He came out in 2012 and had already gone to 2 different teams, before he came back to Eagles?

I meant Carson Wentz, who was the starter that year (2017). Foles's cap hit that year was $1.6M, which was 1% of the team's cap, and Wentz's was $6.1M, which was 3.6% of the team's cap. Either way the percentage of the Eagles' cap accounted for by both players combined (4.6%) was relatively small. Compare that for example to Tannehill in 2017, who accounted for 12.2% of the Dolphins' cap. If Tannehill gets franchise tagged in 2020, then based on 2019 numbers he would make nearly $25M and absorb over 13% of Tennessee's cap. Compare that also to Patrick Mahomes, who accounts for a mere 2.6% of the Chiefs' cap this year.

Let me guess...is the argument now comparing Tannehill's salary, if Tennessee signs him, to Mahomes' rookie numbers? As if rookie QB money is somehow the recipe for success in the NFL?

So all we have to do is get a purely-elite, MVP, generational QB this draft, put the perfect HC and system around him, load out the elite offensive weaponry to 100% compliment his abilities, and throw together a decent defense, and highly coveted DC, and get in the 2023 Super Bowl.

It's so easy, even a caveman (and 31 other NFL teams) can do it!!

Of course EVERYBODY would be elated if their team could pull this off...KC fans are riding high (as were we in 1985...some of us remember). How many times this happen between then and now? Let's make the outlier the standard...makes sense.

"Come back to Miami, Tannehill we miss you!"

Lol. Cant hear what he said in respond to that fan.

I will always hate Calais Campbell for his dirty hit on Tannehill’s knee. Screw that guy.

"Mcduffie81 wrote:

I will always hate Calais Campbell for his dirty hit on Tannehill’s knee. Screw that guy.

Kind of the sameway that Dolphin DL few years back aiming at Marifloatas knee.

"Cashvillesent wrote:

Kind of the sameway that Dolphin DL few years back aiming at Marifloatas knee.

Ok. Who was it? Is this is some kind of retort?

"The Guy wrote:

I meant Carson Wentz, who was the starter that year (2017). Foles's cap hit that year was $1.6M, which was 1% of the team's cap, and Wentz's was $6.1M, which was 3.6% of the team's cap. Either way the percentage of the Eagles' cap accounted for by both players combined (4.6%) was relatively small. Compare that for example to Tannehill in 2017, who accounted for 12.2% of the Dolphins' cap. If Tannehill gets franchise tagged in 2020, then based on 2019 numbers he would make nearly $25M and absorb over 13% of Tennessee's cap. Compare that also to Patrick Mahomes, who accounts for a mere 2.6% of the Chiefs' cap this year.

The other problem with your statistical diagnosis is you are creating subsets within the population. Once you do that you HAVE to know what representation is before you can figure out anything from your numbers.

QBs that were starters for the team at the beginning of the year that were not on rookie contracts and are not considered "generational talent" (we probably should call it the elite, generational talent feels like it is being used to loosely here) from the 2019 season only are represented in 13 teams(give or take 1 or 2 this is not as readily available as one would think). So that's about 41% so of 15 Superbowls expectations should be right around 6 wins. Of course this year might not be an equal representation of the previous years, but that's too much work for a calculation that I don't agree with from the start. So moving forward with the assumption this year was a fair representation of the past 15 years, 4 or even 3 wins isn't horribly out of the ball park from expectation. Especially since I don't think 15 is a high enough number to balance out common deviations due to random chance.

And that is only if you balance it out equally. I agree that having an elite talent gives you an advantage to win a superbowl but to what degree would that effect the expected number? If its even 1 game difference that puts us right in the ball park for what is expected.

"Mcduffie81 wrote:

Ok. Who was it? Is this is some kind of retort?

Cant remember his name.... but it was a dirty hit, it was the game before the last we faced you guys when Mularkey was our HC.

"Cashvillesent wrote:

Kind of the sameway that Dolphin DL few years back aiming at Marifloatas knee.

I remember that hit...put him out of the game. Didn't like it. Wasn't that when Dan Campbell was interim HC?

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

I remember that hit...put him out of the game. Didn't like it. Wasn't that when Dan Campbell was interim HC?

I think so.

It was under Campbell, and the player was Olivier Vernon. I think he was flagged for a late hit on the play.

"resnor wrote:

It was under Campbell, and the player was Olivier Vernon. I think he was flagged for a late hit on the play.

Yeah screw OV too. Overpaid scrub.

"Phins_to_Win wrote:

The other problem with your statistical diagnosis is you are creating subsets within the population. Once you do that you HAVE to know what representation is before you can figure out anything from your numbers.

QBs that were starters for the team at the beginning of the year that were not on rookie contracts and are not considered "generational talent" (we probably should call it the elite, generational talent feels like it is being used to loosely here) from the 2019 season only are represented in 13 teams(give or take 1 or 2 this is not as readily available as one would think). So that's about 41% so of 15 Superbowls expectations should be right around 6 wins. Of course this year might not be an equal representation of the previous years, but that's too much work for a calculation that I don't agree with from the start. So moving forward with the assumption this year was a fair representation of the past 15 years, 4 or even 3 wins isn't horribly out of the ball park from expectation. Especially since I don't think 15 is a high enough number to balance out common deviations due to random chance.

And that is only if you balance it out equally. I agree that having an elite talent gives you an advantage to win a superbowl but to what degree would that effect the expected number? If its even 1 game difference that puts us right in the ball park for what is expected.

I invite @7089 to critique the following if he has the time and is willing.

Here is the plot for Super Bowl wins as a function of adjusted (to 2019) regular season passer rating differential in the NFL since 2004 ("PRD" on the X-axis indicates passer rating differential):

The noteworthy thing there in my opinion is that teams have almost no chance of winning a Super Bowl if their regular season offensive passer ratings and defensive passer ratings surrendered are equivalent or nearly equivalent.

For example, let's say Patrick Mahomes pumps out a regular season passer rating of 115 and leads the league in that regard. Well if his pass defense happens to be exceptionally poor and it surrenders a passer rating around 115 (which is highly unlikely but used here just to make the point), the Chiefs' have almost no chance of winning a Super Bowl. Likewise, if Andy Dalton pumps out a 2019 league average passer rating of 90.4, the Bengals stand almost no chance of winning a Super Bowl if their defense surrenders a passer rating around 90.4.

In other words, passer rating differential (offense minus defense) is what wins.

Now, let's add the context of Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks' salary cap hits since 2004.

Since 2004 the correlation between the percentage of the salary cap absorbed by the regular season starting quarterback on Super Bowl-winning teams and those teams' defensive passer ratings surrendered is 0.52. Here is that plot:

So what that means is that the more of his team's salary cap the regular season starting QB on a Super Bowl-winning team absorbs, the higher his team's passer rating surrendered will likely be.

This is exactly what I'm getting at with regard to Tannehill, his need for a strong pass defense to help him keep pace with the league's best QBs in the effort to win a Super Bowl, and the likelihood that his future salary cap hit will interfere with his team's ability to surround him with what he needs to win (a very strong pass defense).

Tannehill's passer rating in 2019 was 117.5, and Tennessee's passer rating surrendered was 90.4, which was precisely the league average. Notice Tennessee didn't win the Super Bowl despite having a very good passer rating differential of 27.1.

Now, the important questions are the following in my opinion: 1) what is the likelihood that Tannehill in 2020 will come close to replicating his 2019 passer rating? and 2) what is the jump in his salary cap hit likely to do to Tennessee's ability to add defensive talent and improve the passer rating it surrendered in 2019?

Since this a thread on Tannehill...and I haven’t seen it mentioned (although it may have been), did anyone else see that the NFL replaced the ELITE Patrick Mahomes in the Pro Bowl with that AVERAGE Ryan Tannehill? :wink2:

Yes, I’m stirring the pot!

"The Guy wrote:

I invite @7089 to critique the following if he has the time and is willing.

Here is the plot for Super Bowl wins as a function of adjusted (to 2019) regular season passer rating differential in the NFL since 2004 ("PRD" on the X-axis indicates passer rating differential):

The noteworthy thing there in my opinion is that teams have almost no chance of winning a Super Bowl if their regular season offensive passer ratings and defensive passer ratings surrendered are equivalent or nearly equivalent.

For example, let's say Patrick Mahomes pumps out a regular season passer rating of 115 and leads the league in that regard. Well if his pass defense happens to be exceptionally poor and it surrenders a passer rating around 115 (which is highly unlikely but used here just to make the point), the Chiefs' have almost no chance of winning a Super Bowl. Likewise, if Andy Dalton pumps out a 2019 league average passer rating of 90.4, the Bengals stand almost no chance of winning a Super Bowl if their defense surrenders a passer rating around 90.4.

In other words, passer rating differential (offense minus defense) is what wins.

Now, let's add the context of Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks' salary cap hits since 2004.

Since 2004 the correlation between the percentage of the salary cap absorbed by the regular season starting quarterback on Super Bowl-winning teams and those teams' defensive passer ratings surrendered is 0.52. Here is that plot:

So what that means is that the more of his team's salary cap the regular season starting QB on a Super Bowl-winning team absorbs, the higher his team's passer rating surrendered will likely be.

This is exactly what I'm getting at with regard to Tannehill, his need for a strong pass defense to help him keep pace with the league's best QBs in the effort to win a Super Bowl, and the likelihood that his future salary cap hit will interfere with his team's ability to surround him with what he needs to win (a very strong pass defense).

Tannehill's passer rating in 2019 was 117.5, and Tennessee's passer rating surrendered was 90.4, which was precisely the league average. Notice Tennessee didn't win the Super Bowl despite having a very good passer rating differential of 27.1.

Now, the important questions are the following in my opinion: 1) what is the likelihood that Tannehill in 2020 will come close to replicating his 2019 passer rating? and 2) what is the jump in his salary cap hit likely to do to Tennessee's ability to add defensive talent and improve the passer rating it surrendered in 2019?

Since you asked.. lol

Regarding the 1st graph:

1) What kind of function are you fitting to that first plot? You should be fitting a logistic regression model, not some kind of polynomial-type function, because logistic regression actually has a meaning: it's the (log of the) "odds of winning". In other words the mathematics has a meaning for dichotomous data (0's or 1's).

2) Also, if you have lots more 0's than 1's, or vice versa, then that alone will bias the fit because the fitting procedure is trying to minimize cumulative error, which is dominated by whichever is more numerous (in this case 0's). So it's better to do this for regular season wins (1's) and losses (0's), not SB winners vs. everyone else.

3) The result is obvious. If you have 0 passer rating differential in the regular season, then that probably means you didn't even make the playoffs (most likely you're an 8-8 team)!! I think it's better to plot win% against PRD. That's more informative.

Regarding the 2nd graph:

1) Technicality: you say you're plotting a correlation, but a correlation equals the slope of the best-fitting line ONLY when both axes are equal, which they're not here. So what is being plotted? The best-fitting line, or did you just take the correlation and assume it's the slope of the best-fitting line? If it's the best-fitting line, then you should tell us the slope.

2) What does a hypothesis test on that correlation say. What's the p-value? For only 14 data points, even with a correlation of 0.52 I'd bet the p-value is greater than 0.05 and you can't reject random variation around a true correlation of zero being responsible for the result.

3) Point #2 brings up the key point: we need larger sample size because correlations can vary tremendously over seasons. I know it requires some work, but since you seem to be interested in this, I'd suggest looking at the regular season because win% is more fine grained than looking at just the SB winner. Should be minimum 5 seasons. Maybe you can plot that data for 2014-2018.

4) You say you're interested in whether Tannehill will replicate his 2020 passer rating. That's offensive passer rating, and if your theory about salary cap% is correct, then the result should also be seen for offensive passer rating. So I'd extend #3 to offensive passer rating.

Anyway, good job getting the data, but I'm not yet convinced salary cap% for QB's is that important for a winning team. It sounds good in theory, but: 1) the resources saved through a rookie QB contract aren't THAT huge and I doubt most GM's would increase win% by a huge amount, and 2) too many SB's are won by QB's that weren't on their rookie contract. But yes, it's good you're gathering data here.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

Since this a thread on Tannehill...and I haven’t seen it mentioned (although it may have been), did anyone else see that the NFL replaced the ELITE Patrick Mahomes in the Pro Bowl with that AVERAGE Ryan Tannehill? :wink2:

Yes, I’m stirring the pot!

And did you see in the QB skills competition, Jarvis Landry beat Lamar Jackson?!?!?!

Umm.....