Tannehill's Play and How it Affects the Outcome of Games

That movie grew on me. Originally I found it really obnoxious. The first is still a gem.

 

This movie is one the ones that if I am channel surfing and it's on, I watch it every time.

I never get tired of it. Funny as hell!

 

That is a particular meaning for a specific purpose, that is not the basic meaning of correlation, which from latin means together-relation, iow, how things relate together.

What your speaking of didn't exist until the 1880s when Karl Pearson perfected the method which was started by some other guy, and it's not what is implied when the word correlation is used, especially when written in the context it was, as in, how it relates to.

Just look in any dictionary you like, correlation is how 2 or more things do or do not relate to each other.

 

What?

 

What?

 

No you're wrong about the usage of the word. First of all, whether in math or ANY area of academia, regardless of whether that area of academia is math heavy or not, correlation implies the Pearson correlation coefficient unless stated otherwise (when talking about stats).

You look up ANY usage of the word when people in sports say they calculated the correlation between some stat and some other stat and that's exactly what that means. I've also never seen newspapers use that word in print when actually talking about stats and mean anything else.

So no, when talking about stats there is no other valid use of that word that I've ever seen in the media, certainly not in sports.

 

I thought as much, it seemed that in both cases you were responding to someone else's posts.

No harm no foul.

 

qbr and qb rating measure different things. qbr measures, um, no one knows bc no one knows the measuring tools. and qb rating is just numbers void of effectiveness.

 

What you're talking about is a specific usage as it applies to applied mathematics, a "special" usage of the term and that is what should be stated when using, not the common, or basic definition, which would always be assumed.

The word was first used starting in the 1600s, but as it applies to applied mathematics, that wasn't in use until around 1900.

As I already pointed out, it is from latin, together-relation, how thing relate to each other, it was not derived for or about mathematics.

 

Show me one example of people using the non-mathematical "definition" when talking about stats, say in sports (try ESPN, or some other site like pro-football-reference, or football outsiders or whoever you want). There are no such examples. When talking about stats, the mathematical definition is implied.

Really.. there is no use debating this. It's obvious. I'll let you have the last word.

 

Everything is correlated. If there is no correlation between variables (dependent/independent), then they are not statistically significant and should be removed from an equation. The whole point of statistics is to find out the degree of correlation (i.e. how much does each variable matter).

 

Man, you guys are getting crazy with this and the stats, etc.. I appreciate the OP. Great points and great job, but all you really need is common sense. We can all agree that a QB is the most important position on the team and maybe in all of sports, so...derrr... there's obviously going to be a correlation. Just stop. The Pro Tanne crowd can continue to debate and argue or whatever. I'm not saying who's right or wrong, but drop that issue and do something else. That's ridiculous.

 

Can we just get a statistics forum already? Then you guys can go bang numbers and equations in there together, while the rest of us ignoramuses hang out here with our stupidity.

 

because all 32 qbs are under their same microscope.

I brought this topic up weeks ago, started two thread on it, it was dismissed because of its hidden formula..Rafs told me there is something in there that has to do with defense so I let it go..but last place is last place, and thats where ryan is according to them, there must be some validity somewhere in the formula..

it doesn't matter anymore to me, I know my plan this offseason.

 

Our QB is 9th in the nfl in yards, 11th in tds, and he's the 4th most sacked man in the league. Which is, unbelievably, an improvement from years past.

Our QB is, roughly, sitting in the 10-15 range. AND that's with a coaching change, poor oline, and bad playcalling.


Tannehill is just not the failure you all want him to be...It'd be easier if he was.

 

Yards is about as good of a measuring stick for a QB as what color his socks are. Watch the games....how and when are those yards accumulated?How many were impactful? How many attempts does he have by comparison? Those numbers mean absolutely nothing. This isn't baseball.

And define failure...we invested a high pick and a lot of money in him and for basically nothing. What do you call it.

 

and peyton manning leads the league in ints... and when brett farve played he lead the league in ints... but their TEAMS won despite of them. Because TEAM. If tannehill throws 1 int it's game over bc the TEAM sucks. tannehill has to be perfect or the TEAM loses.

 

There's alot of merit in this point, I'm not sure its presented the best way though. Sure, Ryan's was a pick 6 that cost us 7 points. Romo throws 2, they still win. Like it or not, Ryan wasn't special on Sunday, that's for sure, but he brought this team back, scored 14 to tie it up. They squandered many opportunities of good field position in the first half, no doubt about that either. It wasnt good enough from Ryan, or anyone on the offensive unit. We tied it up though. The defense collapsed and Dallas took the lead back, and we couldn't get out of our own way with penalties, and poor execution from there. As much as many want to sit and blame Sunday's loss on that pick 6 because that's the easy thing to do, we really should take a look at the rest of the game much more closely. The drive after Landry's ST blunder, ended by the Fox penalty IIRC, Tannehill easily has that first down and we keep driving without Fox's terrible play. Then we punt, Darr doesn't hit it well, then gets a 15 yarder setting up more easy points for Dallas. It was just a terrible team effort in the second half of this game, especially after we tied it.

Ryans play, for sure negatively effected the first half. I'm not so sure about the second "half" of this game though after we tied it up. It was damn near everybody on that side of the ball. The fox penalty. The Pouncey penalty. The TD where Hewitt is covering Bryant (huh?). The blundered kickoff pinning us at the 4. The personal foul on Darr setting up the easy FG. It was just a whole lot of bad. Not just one guy bad, a whole team bad.

 

QBR is determined after the game is played, so of course a near .500 record in reality will result in a QBR that is consistent with a projected near .500 record. Right?

 

I didn't run the numbers yet from last year to see where he stands in relation to the league but his sack % is .5 pts higher this year than last.

However, while he is the 4th most sacked QB, of the QBs who have 100+ attempts he is sacked 9th most from a percentage standpoint (sacks/(sacks+attempts)).

1. Tyrod Taylor
2. Russell Wilson
3. Kaepernick
4. Manziel
5. Bridgewater
6. Alex Smith
7. Mariota
8. Josh McCown
9. Tannehill
10. Bortles

 

Although he is 7th in total interceptions, his INT % is actually 14th (ignoring QBs with less than 100 att). He just has attempted a lot more passes than some other QBs.

With that said, I'd like to see his % lower, like it was last year. It may drop as the year goes on, but maybe not.

 

I think for Ryan to really take the next step he needs to get a jump in his TD%, from 4.7% up over 5% (ideally more like 5.5%, which would have him as a top QB) and get his INT% back closer to what it was last year (2.0%). His TD % has gone up each year (less so, so far this year), so I think it is certainly possible for him to get there. And our 3rd and longs may even be holding his % back (not saying he is or isn't part of the problem there).

That .3% might not seem like much, but that would have been 30 TDs each of the past two years (so 6 more two years ago, and 3 more last year). And getting 21 more total points over the course of the year would have made us the 8th best scoring team last year, and might have given us 3 more wins (3 games decided by less than 7).

This year, our scoring wouldn't have been affected as much as it is just one more TD. The problem to me is our number of plays run, and this goes back to our 3rd down conversion %, which is the result of less 3rd and shorts, and more 3rd and improbable (10+ yds to go). We've run 599 plays this year (essentially 60/game) vs last year we had 1040 plays (65/gm). Our yds/play are actually up across the board, as is our offensive tds/play (.0383 this year vs .0375 last year). Our FG attempts/gm (and per play) are way down (1/gm this yr vs 2.3/gm last year) which is another culprit in our scoring, and that's tied with our 3rd down rate I am sure.

I think it all (our success, and in turn the view of Tannehill) primarily comes down to our terrible 3rd down conversion rate on offense. Our defense doesn't have a good 3rd down conversion rate (on the year, it may have been awful early on), but it isn't abysmal compared to the rest of the league. Our lack of plays also puts them on the field for more plays which doesn't help when they are below average.

 

I'm sorry but there is a myriad of things wrong with point of this thread. To understand why, we must start at the beginning:

Two factions formed: the Tannehill Lovers (TL)* and the Tannehill Haters (TH)*.
*NOTE, both of these terms are over simplified generalities for the sake of time. not everyone on the TH hates Tannehill and not everyone on the TL loves Tannehill

The TH thought Tannehill was everything from average to below average. From "not the answer" to the problem. When confronted as to why the TH thought this way, they gave various versions of the following 3 main answers (there are more but they aren't really contested by the TL):

1. Sucks at the deep ball.
2. No pocket presence.
3. Our record is average/no playoffs.

So the TL have replied with various versions of:

1. That has more to do with Wallace's small catch radius, poor route running and below average ability to track the ball in the air, the oline and bad play calling (all of which were backed up with examples numbers and facts from nobodies like resnor and me to gurus like CK, Boomer, KB & rafael.

2. Not a lot of argument on this one, except to say that much of the pressure Tannehill gets is multiple rushers not penetrating the pocket but collapsing it, thereby not forcing him out to avoid a single rusher but to have his escape routes taken away by multiple rushers*.
*NOTE, that's not to say the sacks are NEVER his fault. Of course many are. No one is really arguing that Tannehill is above average in pocket presence.

3. You can't count W/L record against Tannehill because the team around him is not better than average.

So from those Big 3 things (well, 2 really since #2 isn't argued all that much) we've gotten about 99% of the arguments about Tannehill on this board (not counting Tannehill vs. Wilson/Luck/Dalton etc. because those are all just versions of the three arguments mentioned), which make up a good 75% of the discussion (probably higher now that Ireland & Philbin are gone).

Since the point of this thread is #3, we'll stick to that...FAQ style...

- Why is W/L not a QB stat?
Because football is a team sport where there are 22 positions on the field for both defense and offense. Anyone of those players could cost a win or a loss. Half the game is played without the QB. Hell, just this year, the Chargers were 2-7 with Rivers having the second highest qb rating while the Broncos were 7-2 with Manning in the 60's for qb rating. Last year Miami was 11th in points per game on offense, and were 20th in points allowed on defense. The offense did their job and the defense did not.

- What about lists that show QB wins?
Those are just lists. They are not saying wins and losses are on the QB. Its like a list showing the best selling cars doesn't mean those are the best cars made.

- Why does the TL think QB's don't effect wins?
Of course QBs are the single most important player on the field, but that doesn't mean the other guys can't and don't win or lose games. When another player besides the QB wins or loses a game, how do you mark that for the QB if W/L record is for the QB?

Look at a car. The car is the team. The most important part of the car is the engine which is the QB. If your car can't get to your destination (the team winning a game) is it always the engine's fault? No. The tires could be flat, the transmission could be shot, the battery could be dead, etc. In any of those cases do you bring your car to the shop and blame the engine? So, if the car only worked half the time but the majority of that was because of things other than the engine do you tell people your engine sucks? No.

- Why doesn't Tannehill ever elevate his team to a win?
What evidence do you have that he doesn't? Who is to say that without Tannehill the team wins less than 8 games the past 2 years and less than 7 his first year? What evidence do we have that the team would have been better without him? This view is based on extremes. The TH think that if a QB elevates his teams to wins, then that means the team should have a winning record. The problem with that is all teams are different. Some team's non-QB players are worse than another team's. Maybe the QB is good for elevating a team to 4 more wins a season (for argument's sake). How do we know that Packers win 8 games without Rodgers instead of 12 and the Dolphins win 4 without Tannehill instead of 8? Let's not forget that up until this year, Tannehill has played on a team with a grand total of 3 top end players in Wake, Grimes & Jones....all of which are never on the field when he is.

- Why do we accept QB rating but not W/L record when both stats rely on other players?
QB rating is not perfect. Its not even all that good. Its what we have though. There is no good QB stat. I have always argued that at minimum, it takes two people to complete a pass...one to throw and one to catch it and no matter how good one person is at their job, the other person can cause an incompletion. However, the main difference between QB rating being "better" than W/L record is that it doesn't really require the defense, STs to be a factor witch is half (or more) of the game.

- What about QBR from ESPN?
This stat is bogus and its bogus for a few legit reasons. Number one its subjective. It is VERY opinion based. Number two, many factors go into it outside of the QB's control, like opposing defense, same team defense, STs, running game, etc. all effect the perception of what play gets what grade. Number 3, and most importantly, no one outside of ESPN knows what the grading criteria is. For all anyone knows hair color could be a factor, we just don't know anything about it. Lastly, Tannehill is not the worst QB in the league. Say what you want but he's not even close to the worst in the league.

- What about PFF?
Many of the same reasons above. The people observing things at PFF to record the stats are generally not trained. Their grades also are proprietary and the formulas and criteria behind them are not know so they are dubious. However, when they are just listing stats (not grades) its the best we have, which isn't so much praise but more of a sigh.

- Why does the TL accuse the TH of saying W/L record is solely on the QB when they never explicitly said it was?
Because its the end result of their argument whether they understand that or not. If you use Tannehill's "record" as a starter against him you are effectively making him responsible for every win and every loss. You are not factoring in any other aspect of the game that might cause a loss and win.

It gets worse than that though. When a game is brought up where Tannehill played really well and helped the team put up a bunch of points, like the GB game, but the game was lost because the defense didn't stop their offense to close out the game.....the TH won't accept that and still places blame on Tannehill. So did they specifically say that W/L is only on the QB in that case? No. But they certainly are saying an obvious defensive loss is still Tannehill's fault. If the TH truly didn't think W/L record was solely on the QB they'd accept the games where we lost that were not his fault, but they don't. Hell, they often don't credit him with a win either. So the real picture is that they just don't like Tannehill and are willing to move the goalposts so the bad is always his fault and the good is never his fault.

- What is the TL's crap about wanting a percentage to accept W/L being used as a QB stat?
Well, since the implication that the TH is moving benchmarks around so that Tannehill always comes up in a bad light (as explained above) its important to define HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT a QB has on wins if a person is deadset on counting W/L. I mean its explained (and supposedly agreed upon) that W/L is not all on the QB, that means the next logical step is determining how much they effect wins and losses. Even though that's extremely rational and logical, the TH treats this as the stupidest thing they've ever heard. Judge for yourself which side is being ridiculous.

- Why does the TL think Tannehill is elite?
That's also never been said by the TL. NEVER. The crux of the TL's argument about Tannehill specifically (and not the W/L being a QB stat or not) is that he's been hampered by too many issues that are outside of his control to get an accurate assessment of his ability level. His entire career he's had to deal with:

1. A horrible oline. Everyone can agree the line has sucked hard his entire team here.
2. A horrible OC. Sherman and Lazor suck. Not sure that debatable at this point.
3. OC abandon't the running game too early. The offense is 100% on Tannehill's shoulders.
4. Not allowed to audible. Tannehill cannot change the play based on the look the defense is giving. That's absurd. Ok, so people say he can choose 1 of 6 variations of the same play based on the defense, but that is not effective. There is reason there are different formations and different plays within those formations and that's to counter the defense. Once you remove that ability, you're essentially giving excellent defensive minds an advantage, because there's less they need to account for on every play. Every other coach in our division are known to be excellent defensively. Its little wonder why we struggle against our division. The best we've done against a divisional opponent? 1st game last year when the Pats didn't know we'd use Moreno so much. Coincidence?

Now do you other QBs have to deal with some of those things and still thrive? Of course. Do any of them thrive and have to deal with all of them? None that I can think of.


Any FAQs I missed?

 

His QB rating he is 20th in the league. That is a better indicator. Stafford had 5,000 yards one year but I don't believe anyone would call him elite. Him and Tannehill throw a lot too. Lots of throws but less efficiency. Tannehill is also 20th in completion percentage. He will get some garbage time yards and dink and dunk down the field only to end up in a field goal or no points. This team again struggles in the red zone. He isn't garbage but he is average.

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/leaguelead...&statgroup=passing&category=quarterbackRating

Yards mean nothing if you can't score points. This team for the last 4 years has been one of the worst at getting TDs once in the red zone. So what if he dinks and dunks down the field only to end up in a field goal or no points? He struggles in the red zone. Can't put the ball in the end zone. Doesn't matter if you can't finish drives. 18 ppg. Again a struggling offense. But yeah keep looking at how Tannehill pads his stats. And how many of those yards are meaningless? In both Bills games he had some garbage time stats, Jets game, and Pats game too. Tannehills 2 TDs in that first Bills game to Matthews were in garbage time. Instead of getting garbage time stats this week against the Cowboys though he just took a couple sacks. Too bad I thought he could have gotten some yards and maybe another TD in garbage time this week again.

 

Last year Miami was 11th in points per game on offense, and were 20th in points allowed on defense.

The offense did their job and the defense did not.

 

And this year they are 26th. One of the worst in the league. And last year they got a lot of points against bad teams. 37 on Vikings (bad team last season), 38 on Oakland, 27 Chicago, 27 Jacksonville. Not as good against the division and the better teams. When it really counts. And don't use week 1 against Pats last year. Knowshon Moreno and defense heck of a game. Offense didn't do their job in the big games and he has been bad against the division.

buffalo 10
kansas City 15
detroit 13
Jets 16 (won because of defense)
Ravens 13
pats 13

Offense did their job last year my ***. When the games really counts he comes up short.

 

So all those years in the NFL their teams won despite of them not because of them? Peyton Manning is washed up dude. Pretty hilarious you keep trying to use him as an example. He is no longer elite. Lmao!

 

So you go from this:

To points don't actually matter....in one post. Bravo.

 

That's not entirely true. In 2012 we were 18th in pts/RZ trip and 14th in TDs/RZ trip. In 2013 we were 10th in both categories. In 2014 we were 22nd in pts/RZ trip, and 21st in TDs/RZ trip. This year we are 27th in pts/RZ trip and 20th in TDs/RZ trip (part of the reason we're 27th is going for it on 4th down in the red zone due to being so far behind in games).

Also, right now our TD/FG ratio is 2nd in the league (FGs/drive is worst in the league).

 

We also put up 37 on the 9-7 Chargers, and 36 on the 12-4 Broncos. I'm guessing we should throw those out with the Week 1 results though?

You know the Pats also had 6 games where they scored under 21 (and won two of them), just like us. That includes a week 16 showing vs NYJ for 17 pts, and a week 17 showing vs Buffalo for 9 pts. They're best is just that much better.

 

...and wins and loses.

 

I think one major point that keeps coming up (and I say this more as an observer of those endless debates than someone who wants to get into them) is how "clutch" Tannehill is. That is, how well he does on 3rd down, in the 4th quarter, in the 2-minute or 4-minute drill, etc.. I think "clutch" is best categorized as different than W/L because I bet if we had the same record but our wins were due to more 4th quarter comebacks you'd see fewer people criticizing Tannehill. So if you want to add that to your list you can.

(btw.. I know some grammar guy once pointed out "affects" vs. "effects" to you.. I'll do the same only because you get basically everything else right so you might as well fix this one problem. "affects" as a verb means "influences", while "effects" as a verb means "causes". Generally, as a verb you probably mean "affects".)

 

I don't know why we would still be having conversations about the deep ball after watching this year. Tannehill is 7th in the league in deep yardage.

The problem was forcing the ball to Mike Wallace. Who coincidentally is currently 5th on his team in production of deep yardage.

 

Maybe because he didn't have such an issue with accuracy on deep balls, in general?