Ryan Tannehill

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

There have already been the posts by the typical hater crowd blaming Tannehill for the last two losses.

Right, but they aren't using statistics to do so, at least from what I've seen. The post we're talking about here was a manifesto as to why eyesight is better than statistics to determine that Tannehill is playing well right now, yet there isn't anybody using statistics to say he isn't playing well right now.

"The Guy wrote:

The sacks issue (noted above) is something to explore in my opinion, because the outcome of that game was not consistent with what would be predicted by the passer ratings involved and the difference between them, Tannehill's 133.6 to Brees's 118.2.

In fact teams with passer ratings between 130 and 136 have won 73 of 78 such games (97%) since 2013, and the average point differential in the five losses is 5. The Titans yesterday lost by 10. It's quite an anomaly to have a passer rating around 133, outduel the opposing quarterback by roughly 15 passer rating points, and lose a game by 10 points. The issue to explore is whether the sacks, which of course are not reflected in passer rating, are stalling drives and preventing the Titans from having as many scoring opportunities as the opposing team.

Look no further than the fumble. Could have easily been called a personal foul. That would have setup the Titans with 1st and 10 at the Saints 25 yard line with 4:18 to go. Instead it is a TD the other way a few plays later. That is enough to account for the 10 points.

BTW, 73 of 78 is 93.6%.

That absolutely should have been a penalty. Leading with the head into the back of a receivers head. He fumbled it because he got knocked out. Such garbage.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Look no further than the fumble. Could have easily been called a personal foul. That would have setup the Titans with 1st and 10 at the Saints 25 yard line with 4:18 to go. Instead it is a TD the other way a few plays later. That is enough to account for the 10 points.

BTW, 73 of 78 is 93.6%.

I’ll explore it more later, but I suspect that isn’t anywhere near enough to account for the difference between what normally happens when passer ratings are that high and discrepant and what happened yesterday. I suspect the norm in such a situation is a comfortable win by the team with the passer rating around 130, not something where a single turnover had it not happened would’ve made the game close.

I just took a look at the sacks. The first shouldn't even been called a sack. Tannehill escaped the pocket and got caught from behind for no gain.

On the second sack, Tenn had SEVEN blockers against 4 pass rushers on a 3rd and 10. Pressure still got their pretty quick. The pocket is squeezed and you can see that Tannehill cannot throw it away without risking his arm getting hit and causing a fumble. Unbelievably, three linemen decided it would be a good idea to triple team a player... the left guard and TE completely screw this up. The guard passes off the pass rusher to the TE who is not looking because he is helping the LT.......

[ATTACH:full]

On the 3rd sack, the RT gets driven back into Tannehill and, again, cannot throw the ball. The RT is driven back 7 yards and across the field to the far hash mark. Again, Tannehill steps forward to minimize the lost yardage. Only 3 yards.

The 4th sack is an absolute joke. The LT gets RUN OVER and the RT whiffs on his block. The two ends have a foot race to the QB.

[ATTACH:full]
On the 5th sack, he maybe has a chance to dump it to the RB but the pocket is so collapsed, that he would be risking getting his arm hit so he pulls it down. As you can see, he is trying to throw from a phone booth. This is deep in his own territory. He tries (I think correctly) to escape the pocket and only takes a 2 yard sack.

[ATTACH:full]

I see a QB that sees the rush and good decisions to avoid turnovers and moved well when possible to avoid big losses (0, 3, and 2 yards). The two sacks with large losses were complete screw ups by the OL. In addition, NO did a very good job squeezing the pocket to prevent Tannehill from escaping.

"The Guy wrote:

I’ll explore it more later, but I suspect that isn’t anywhere near enough to account for the difference between what normally happens when passer ratings are that high and discrepant and what happened yesterday. I suspect the norm in such a situation is a comfortable win by the team with the passer rating around 130, not something where a single turnover had it not happened would’ve made the game close.

LOL. Spoken like a true statistician who doesn't watch the games........ I point out an ACTUAL PLAY late in the game in question that goes from FG position in one direction (3 points) to a TD in the other direction (7 points) and you claim that it isn't statistically big enough to account for the 10 point difference..... And you wonder why your use of stats is dismissed....... Jesus man.

Umm.. all these "should have" or "could have" happened arguments should be dismissed until you apply the same standards to everyone, at least if you're trying to argue against a stat. No point in applying it to one QB and not to anyone else.

"cbrad wrote:

Umm.. all these "should have" or "could have" happened arguments should be dismissed until you apply the same standards to everyone, at least if you're trying to argue against a stat. No point in applying it to one QB and not to anyone else.

Go ahead and do it then.

It doesn’t change the fact that Tannehill has done more than enough to win those last 2 losses. He’s been nearly perfect.

"Mcduffie81 wrote:

Go ahead and do it then.

No.. the onus lies on those introducing "should have" and "could have" scenarios to do that. The stats are the way they are based on as standardized a way of collecting them as we have right now, so it's best to use them without any "should have's" or "could have's".

"Mcduffie81 wrote:

It doesn’t change the fact that Tannehill has done more than enough to win those last 2 losses. He’s been nearly perfect.

And that's what the stats say (at least for the NO game.. less so for the Houston game).

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

LOL @ Tannehill losing the games. He was the best QB on the field in both games.

Who won, its late December and trying to get in playoffs. Tannehill has never lead a team to a winning season and guess what Titans are 8-7 and have the Texans as last game.

"bbqpitlover wrote:

Who won, its late December and trying to get in playoffs. Tannehill has never lead a team to a winning season and guess what Titans are 8-7 and have the Texans as last game.

Are you talking singles tennis or football? BTW, Tannehill led the Dolphins to a winning season in 2016. The Titans have won 6 of 9 with Tannehill starting or are you blaming Tannehill for the Mariota led losses? Tannehaters are looking more and more pathetic.

"bbqpitlover wrote:

Who won, its late December and trying to get in playoffs. Tannehill has never lead a team to a winning season and guess what Titans are 8-7 and have the Texans as last game.

Are we going to ignore that in 4 of those losses Tannehill wasn’t the starting QB?

During his tenure the losses he was a part of he is responsible for 8 TDs and 3 Ints.

"cbrad wrote:

Umm.. all these "should have" or "could have" happened arguments should be dismissed until you apply the same standards to everyone, at least if you're trying to argue against a stat. No point in applying it to one QB and not to anyone else.

Except nobody is using them to elevate one QB over another. Tannehill was statistically the better QB in both of the last two games.

"cbrad wrote:

No.. the onus lies on those introducing "should have" and "could have" scenarios to do that. The stats are the way they are based on as standardized a way of collecting them as we have right now, so it's best to use them without any "should have's" or "could have's".

And that's what the stats say (at least for the NO game.. less so for the Houston game).

No, it's on you to prove that your stats actually factor that stuff in...you know, the argument that has been reading for almost a decade here. You always say these things, but then want us to prove the opposite of your point.

"cbrad wrote:

No.. the onus lies on those introducing "should have" and "could have" scenarios to do that. The stats are the way they are based on as standardized a way of collecting them as we have right now, so it's best to use them without any "should have's" or "could have's".

And that's what the stats say (at least for the NO game.. less so for the Houston game).

No one but you is judging Tannehill purely by stats. The onus isn’t on anyone or anything other than you.

And using your eyes (not stats) you learn that Tannehills lone interception vs the Texans was not his fault. It should have been a TD.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Except nobody is using them to elevate one QB over another. Tannehill was statistically the better QB in both of the last two games.

Of course people are doing that. Suggesting a INT could be considered a fumble (I agree but you'd have to make the same adjustments for all QB's) or saying that "if X occurred that would explain a 10 point swing" (a LOT has to happen for that btw).

You're elevating Tannehill by only applying a "should have's" or "could have's" to him and not anyone else. Apply the same standards to everyone and you'll probably end up with a similar result statistically to what you have now.

"bbqpitlover wrote:

Who won, its late December and trying to get in playoffs. Tannehill has never lead a team to a winning season and guess what Titans are 8-7 and have the Texans as last game.

So what? Tannehill's play over this span correlates to no losses, if I'm not mistaken. Tannehill had losses on the record before he took the field, and his two losses are not on him.

Try actually watching the games.

"cbrad wrote:

Of course people are doing that. Suggesting a INT could be considered a fumble (I agree but you'd have to make the same adjustments for all QB's) or saying that "if X occurred that would explain a 10 point swing" (a LOT has to happen for that btw).

You're elevating Tannehill by only applying a "should have's" or "could have's" to him and not anyone else. Apply the same standards to everyone and you'll probably end up with a similar result statistically to what you have now.

No we don't have to do it for ALL QBs. We aren't comparing ALL QBs. We're talking about specific games, where bad calls have turned specific games into losses, and some people are trying to blame Tannehill for those losses.

"resnor wrote:

No, it's on you to prove that your stats actually factor that stuff in...you know, the argument that has been reading for almost a decade here. You always say these things, but then want us to prove the opposite of your point.

I already pointed out that there are very good arguments for "averaging out" occurring over large sample sizes for most of these things you want to "factor in". I admit that's not happening for coaching, but all this stuff about differences in surrounding cast or different "should have" and "could have's"? Yeah.. that's most likely averaging out over larger sample size.

Either way, you don't apply one standard to one QB and not to all others.

"Mcduffie81 wrote:

No one but you is judging Tannehill purely by stats. The onus isn’t on anyone or anything other than you.

And using your eyes (not stats) you learn that Tannehills lone interception vs the Texans was not his fault. It should have been a TD.

Where did I judge Tannehill "purely by stats"? Read my posts before making false statements like that. You're so determined to act like stats should be dismissed you have to resort to making false claims.

"resnor wrote:

No we don't have to do it for ALL QBs. We aren't comparing ALL QBs. We're talking about specific games, where bad calls have turned specific games into losses, and some people are trying to blame Tannehill for those losses.

The stats being talked about, like passer rating differential, are stats taken from ALL QB's. So when you say "X would have changed this or that conclusion based on such stats" then yes you need to do this for all QB's.

"cbrad wrote:

Where did I judge Tannehill "purely by stats"? Read my posts before making false statements like that. You're so determined to act like stats should be dismissed you have to resort to making false claims.

I should have said “primarily”. Wow you got me!

"cbrad wrote:

Of course people are doing that. Suggesting a INT could be considered a fumble (I agree but you'd have to make the same adjustments for all QB's) or saying that "if X occurred that would explain a 10 point swing" (a LOT has to happen for that btw).

You're elevating Tannehill by only applying a "should have's" or "could have's" to him and not anyone else. Apply the same standards to everyone and you'll probably end up with a similar result statistically to what you have now.

Tannehill was the higher rated passer in his last two games. Period. End of sentence.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Tannehill was the higher rated passer in his last two games. Period. End of sentence.

That was a period end of sentence BEFORE people started trying to apply a separate standard for Tannehill. Can't we just stick to the actual stats when arguing stats?

"cbrad wrote:

The stats being talked about, like passer rating differential, are stats taken from ALL QB's. So when you say "X would have changed this or that conclusion based on such stats" then yes you need to do this for all QB's.

Specifically, right now, we are taking about two losses, that people are ascribing to Tannehill, and we are pointing out that not only were the losses not on Tannehill, but bad calls really tried like turned two almost sure wins into losses. No, I don't need to look at every game. I'm not saying that Tannehill should be undefeated, while ignoring games for other QBs that perhaps turned on bad calls.