1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Other NFL' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

Ryan Tannehill is...

  1. A terrible QB

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. A below average QB

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  3. An average QB

    7 vote(s)
    10.0%
  4. An above average QB

    39 vote(s)
    55.7%
  5. An elite QB

    16 vote(s)
    22.9%
  6. The GOAT.

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  1. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Once again, your conclusion comes first. Now begins the search for evidence to support it. This is why you'll never be taken seriously on this topic.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  2. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What's ironic about that statement is that I'm supporting the conclusion people here say they made years ago, that Tannehill would play better on a better team. I'm simply illustrating one important and highly significant way in which the team he was on was in fact better!

    And the "conclusion" was based on this:

    [​IMG]

    Why wasn't Tannehill up near the top of the league against stacked and non-stacked boxes? Why the decrement in performance?
     
  3. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You keep point this out like it means something negative. It doesn't. Tannehill had high passer ratings in the vast majority of his games and Henry had high yards per rush in the majority of his games. I would expect the correlation to be high. The Titans had a very efficient offense after Tannehill took over. One of the most consistently efficient and balanced in the league.
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  4. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Please break it down by offensive personnel and formation and defensive personnel, down and distance, and game situation.
     
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If they both have great performances together, all the time, the correlation is actually zero.
     
  6. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You are not supporting the conclusions people make years ago.

    We were making the point that Tannehill was talented enough in Miami and that a terrible team was holding him back. YOU ARGUED AGAINST THAT FOR YEARS! You even attempted to make the case that the talent and coaching in Miami was no worse than average. You tried to make the case that surrounding talent doesn't vary much and QB talent was the reason.

    We now look at 2019 and say "See, Tannehill was talented enough all along!"

    You now do a 180 and claim the supporting case is the REASON for Tannehill's performance in 2019, not his talent.

    So spare me the "I'm just agreeing with you" nonsense

    You were wrong then and you are wrong now. It is quite remarkable that you could completely change what you are arguing and be wrong both times. Congrats.
     
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah I think we're gonna need another year to make heads or tails of that. There needs to be significant variation from year to year in the new team, and we need to determine the effect of that on Tannehill. Right now we're looking at within-season variation to try to determine that, but between-season variation will be far more powerful in that regard.
     
  8. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    No we don't.
     
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Of course we can disagree about that, but when we have:

    1) a near superhuman performance by a running back,

    2) a large percentage of stacked boxes by opposing defenses primarily as a result of that,

    3) far better performance by the quarterback against stacked than against non-stacked boxes,

    4) a fairly strong (and likely extremely strong when compared to other QBs) correlation between the quarterback's and the running back's performance, and

    5) far better performance by the quarterback in low-volume passing games, when the running back is shouldering the load, as opposed to high-volume passing games, when the quarterback is shouldering the load,

    ...I think the relationship is fairly clear.

    Another year, assuming there is significant variation in those areas, will make it only more definitive and perhaps beyond debate.

    And I'm about done here until then, folks. I don't think there is a whole lot more to be made of the data from 2019, unless something noteworthy comes up.
     
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's simple: Tannehill is now on a decent team. He's not surrounded by superstars bailing him out. If anything, he made Henry, and I guarantee he made their receivers better just like how he turned Hartline into 1,000 yard receiver.

    So Guy is wrong, as he's now arguing that the team's performance drove Tannehill's performance, which he then concludes that Tannehill needed a team that already winning to make him win and be productive. In Miami Tannehill was on bad teams but because there was a lack of talent, but because there was largely a lack of offensive players actually doing their job. Tennessee has guys doing their job. Not superstars, but solid dependable players. That is what we argued he needed FOR YEARS.

    He just can't grasp, probably intentionally, that Tannehill was the guy driving that bus. Henry was different, and the entire offense was different, just by putting Tannehill in it. That means the difference was Tannehill.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  11. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    When you need to rely on exaggeration, and made up causation theories, you've lost the argument.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  12. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    If the difference in Henry between games 1 -6 and 7-19 can't convince him, he is intentionally ignoring reality to support a narrative he started years ago.

    He also ignores the 133 passer rating by Tannehill in the game Henry missed..... LOL.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  13. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Serious question - what do you think this means and why?
     
    Irishman likes this.
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Passing against stacked boxes is a situational advantage for any quarterback, obviously because it's easier to pass against stacked as opposed to non-stacked boxes.

    Here's the issue: when Tannehill experienced the situational advantage of passing against stacked boxes, he performed in a stellar manner. When the situational advantage was absent (passing against non-stacked boxes), his performance plummeted to the average level.

    That doesn't have to happen. His performance could've (theoretically) been stellar in both cases, against stacked and non-stacked boxes. But it wasn't.

    That suggests we're dealing with a quarterback whose performance was a function of situational advantages (and their absence) and not of his individual ability.
     
  15. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Why? When? Does it matter what personnel grouping that the offense is in? Does down and distance matter? Score?

    Aren't there any other factors that should be considered? Quality of offensive personnel in different packages?

    I'd love for you to find an example of this.... stellar (in this case likely a passer rating of 130+) in ALL situations. (Here's a hint, it has never happened because no QB has ever finished with a passer rating that high).

    That is not what it suggests to me. That is an assumption that is just not supported. Remember that one of the primary drivers of defensive alignment is offensive personnel grouping. Isn't it possible that the Titans 12 personnel gave them mismatches that were not present in 11 personnel? Maybe it was better play calling when in 12 personnel. Maybe it was simple random variation. You need a lot more information to come to the conclusions you have drawn. This is simply a reflection of your bias.
     
    Pauly and resnor like this.
  16. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    BTW, that chart is for the Titans NOT TANNEHILL. 37.5% of the games were started by Mariota. You simply cannot draw the conclusions that you are drawing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2020
    Pauly likes this.
  17. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Rodgers was working with a skeleton crew at the receiver position last year... They need to get him some targets. He threw a lot to the running backs because of it. Even with his top receiver missing 4 games he still threw for more than 4000 yards and his TD to INT ratio was, as per usual, outstanding. So not one of his best years... Still not a bad season.
     
    resnor likes this.
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Consider that the passing against stacked versus non-stacked boxes finding gets its meaning as one piece of a larger puzzle that points overall to situational advantage based on the run game. The extremity of the running back's stellar performance, the high percentage of stacked boxes primarily as a result of that, the fairly strong (and likely extremely strong when compared to other QBs) correlation between the run game and Tannehill's performance, the difference in Tannehill's performance as a function of low- versus high-volume games -- all of those findings point toward Tannehill's performance as a function of situational advantage centered on the run game.

    If some of those pieces of the puzzle pointed a different direction, then perhaps the meaning of the passing against stacked versus non-stacked boxes finding would be ambiguous or point a different direction. As it is, however, the most parsimonious explanation for that finding is that it's yet another reflection of Tannehill's having benefited from situational advantage revolving around the run game.

    As for whether the above interpretation of the data reflects a bias, consider that what we're talking about here is a quarterback who performed around the average level for six previous seasons, despite many combinations of surrounding personnel (players and coaches). When that player suddenly performs at a significantly higher level, it would be biased not to hypothesize that he's benefited from situational advantages.

    The much safer bet is that we're dealing with an average quarterback who had a perfect storm of circumstances when he performed significantly above that level for just one year (or the majority of one). The safer bet isn't that he has tremendous individual ability that was somehow stifled for six years, across many combinations of surrounding personnel.

    I suspect all of this will become far more clear this coming season, because I suspect the Titans won't be able to replicate significant portions of their performance in 2019, and then it'll be all too easy to determine how 2019 was an aberration for Tannehill. Right now some of us probably suspect that Tannehill's performance will continue somewhere around his 2019 level. If and when that doesn't happen (or if it does happen) it'll be far easier to make sense of all this.

    Let's put it this way -- if someone held a gun to your head and demanded that you bet everything you own on either 1) Tannehill's performing in 2020 more like he did in 2019, or 2) Tannehill's performing in 2020 more like he did from 2012 to 2018, which way would you go on that? In my opinion any of us would be foolish to choose the former.

    And if you were to choose the latter, then the explanation for 2019 in even your mind should center on situational advantages, and the meaning of the passing versus stacked versus non-stacked boxes finding should fall in line with that.
     
  19. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    No. I would stick with my prediction that was shown to be correct. You'd have to change your entire argument.

    2020 will be more like 2019 and the stretches in 2012 to 2018 when the OL didn't suck.

    Wrong.

    I will continue to stick with my instincts over yours since you have been proven wrong time and again.

    You have been called out repeatedly for misrepresenting statistics, posting false information, and cherry picking data. Your credibility is zero at this point.

    You have spent years trying to apply statistics to football and have been shown to know nothing about statistics (by cbrad) or football (by me and many others). A stunning display of failure.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2020
    resnor likes this.
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    When you need to try to discount the credibility of a nobody on a message board to make your case, it suggests your case isn’t all that strong.

    And this post will be my last interaction with you on this topic until the coming season.
     
  21. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Not when I shredded your arguments as well. You destroyed your own credibility with repeated misrepresentations.

    If you really want to teach me a lesson, make it your last post on the topic, period.

    LOL. He blocked me again.....
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  22. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I noticed "The Guy" ignored the fact that he was misrepresenting the TEAM EPA chart against stacked and non-stacked boxes as solely Tannehill. LOL.
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  23. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Irishman likes this.
  24. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    This is why you need to WATCH the games or review film if you are going to have any credibility when discussing QBs. Here are a few plays from Tannehill's first start with a new team after getting very little practice time. Remember, this was a team struggling offensively. They were making little use of their WRs and their running game had been contained for the first 6 weeks of the season.

    This first throw is insane. There are maybe 2 or 3 QBs in the league that make this throw. Tannehill has done it throughout his career.

    [​IMG]



    How about rolling to the right?
    [​IMG]

    Arm strength on display:
    [​IMG]

    Perfect ball placement:
    [​IMG]

    Tight windows with velocity:
    [​IMG]

    And another:
    [​IMG]

    Just insane accuracy:
    [​IMG]

    How about some touch for a touchdown?
    [​IMG]


    If "guys" are not willing to comment on ACTUAL PLAY, they should probably refrain.....
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  25. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007

    Not sure why the first one isn't displaying properly, but it is an unbelievable throw.
     
    resnor likes this.
  26. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Love how he just puts people on ignore that destroy his silly arguments.
     
    Irishman and FinFaninBuffalo like this.
  27. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    How about some stats to back it up?

    While there are lots of reasons for Tennessee’s 31.4 points per game since Week 7 — Derrick Henry, A.J. Brown, a rapidly improving offensive line, and a budding playcaller are among the biggest — there is still one that stands out above the rest... Ryan Tannehill. It’s easy to point to Tannehill as the difference because he’s the one ingredient that was added to mix at the pivotal moment when this offense jumped from a bottom five unit to a top five unit.

    The stats are pretty incredible:

    • Before Tannehill... the Titans had scored 38 points combined in four games between Week 3 and Week 6.
    • With Tannehill... the Titans have scored at least 20 points in every game and are on a current streak of four straight with 31 or more (the first time this franchise has accomplished a streak like that since 1962).
    • Before Tannehill... the Titans averaged 4.8 yards per offensive snap, 4th worst in the NFL during that time frame.
    • With Tannehill... the Titans are averaging 6.9 yards per offensive snap, best in the NFL since Week 7 by almost three-quarters of a yard per play.
    • Before Tannehill... the Titans averaged 5.5 net yards per pass attempt, 4th worst in the NFL during that time frame.
    • With Tannehill... the Titans are averaging 8.3 net yards per pass attempt, best in the NFL during that span.
    • Before Tannehill... the Titans ranked 20th in the NFL in explosive pass rate, converting a pass for 15 or more yards on 8% of their snaps per Sharp Football.
    • With Tannehill... the Titans are ranked 2nd in the league with an explosive pass rate of 15%.
    • Before Tannehill... the Titans averaged 16.4 points per game, 5th worst in the NFL.
    • With Tannehill... the Titans are averaging 31.4 points per game, 2nd best in the league.
    You get the picture.
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  28. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    This single stat should be enough to silence any doubters - Completion % above expected. Tannehill ranked first in the league. This shows that his efficiency WASN'T a result of situations making it easy.

    upload_2020-3-29_10-49-23.png
     
    resnor likes this.
  29. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Other things to consider...

    Brown averaged over 20 freaking yards per catch. Tannehill is not only incredibly accurate... He not only is able to read the defense and smell out when they sell out to rush the QB or stack against the run.... He is finding his receivers ... but he is throwing the ball in a way that let's them gain massive yards after the catch. A testament to his accuracy and understanding of the offense.

    It has been argued by Guy that the receivers are catching the ball in spite of Tannehill's bad throws. Clearly he did not watch any of the Titan's games this season. Tannehill looked like one the best QB's in football. Making great decisions, throwing the ball with velocity and accuracy. Game after game he was making throws that only a handful of QB's in this league make. You do not complete over 70% of your passes and have a QB rating of 117 because of "Luck"

    Let's look at a few of the numbers from Tannehill

    QB rating of 117.5 Tom Brady has never had a QB rating that high... ever... He came close the year he had welker and moss in their prime.
    Over 70% completion rate... again Brady has never done this. He got to 68% the year of Welker and Moss
    9.6 yards per pass... Brady's best is 8.3 I think again with Moss and Welker.

    So yeah we get it.... Henry is a top 10 NFL running back... Sure he helps the offense and allows Tannehill to do things he could not do in Miami

    But you have completely ignored the extremely high level of play by Tannehill ... His level of play in terms of completions, accuracy, yards per pass... QB rating are all levels that even someone like Tom Brady never quite achieved.

    Now this is not me saying that Tannehill is better than Brady in his prime.... So do not lose your mind... This is me saying that when you look at Hall of fame QB's and their career bests in these categories.

    Let Look at Aaron Rodgers.

    Rodgers has never completed more than 70% of his passes.
    Rodgers career best QB rating was 122... He has only bettered 117 once in his career
    Rodgers never threw for 9.6 yards per pass... His career best was 9.2

    Again this is not me saying Tannehill is better than Rodgers at his peak...

    But when a NFL QB elevates his play and has the same level of success in these regards as hall of fame QB's It is time to let go of the bullsh*t arguments and just admit that Tannehill played fantastic last year. It was not a fluke, it was not due to luck. It was not because of Henry.... Tannehill did things on the field that only a few players have done previously.

    What about the fact that Henry's level of play sky rocketed once Tannehill became the Starter? Maybe Henry greatly beneffited from having Tannehill out there to keep defenses honest.. Someone who could make the perfect throw and find the open receiver when teams went all in to try to stop the run?

    What about the fact that Henry rushed for less than 4 yards per carry with Mariotta as the starter and then with Tannehill He ran the ball 6.5 yards per carry


    You are on a crusade... You want the numbers to show Tannehill is just not a good QB... Sad that they do not.... And you keep trying to find ways to make it so. Changing gears splitting hairs. You are like that closer in baseball.... You come out in the 9th... Get blown up... but tomorrow you are ready to come out again like nothing happened the day before.

    How many times does someone have to come up with reasonable arguments to shoot your theories full of holes before you will relent? How many times do people have to break down the numbers to show that they do not mean what you want them to mean?
     
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Some other information to consider here.

    Here are the correlations between passer rating and yards per rush in the running game, game-by-game, for the 31 NFL teams other than the Titans in 2019:

    0.27
    0.27
    0.46 (Baltimore and Lamar Jackson)
    -0.31
    -0.07
    -0.01
    -0.40
    -0.18
    0.16
    0.17
    -0.19
    -0.42
    -0.23
    -0.15
    0.13
    -0.18
    0.18
    -0.02
    -0.07
    -0.36
    -0.05
    0.00
    0.13
    -0.17
    -0.20
    0.48
    -0.07
    -0.22
    0.41
    -0.46
    -0.45
    -0.30

    Now consider, again, that the correlation between Tannehill's passer rating and Derrick Henry's number of yards per rush, game-by-game, in 2019 was 0.65, which is by far the highest in the league.

    Additionally, if we exclude the Denver game because Tannehill didn't start the game and Henry had a mere four carries during Tannehill's time in the game, that correlation increases to a whopping 0.78.

    I'll encourage @cbrad to calculate the statistical significance of it if he wishes (and I'd certainly appreciate his efforts as always), but obviously correlations of 0.65 and 0.78 are well above the league norm.

    What that says, again, is that Tannehill and Henry's performance in 2019 was far more intertwined than the performance of any QB and his run game in the league.

    If that were the only finding that pointed toward a situational advantage on Tannehill's part, then we'd have to entertain the interpretation that Henry was perhaps benefiting from Tannehill. But there are several other pieces of the puzzle that suggest otherwise, as noted above.
     
  31. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Tannehill highlights from Next Gen Stats:

    1st in passer rating
    1st in YPA
    1st in completion % above expectation
    3rd in completion %
    3rd in average intended air yards
    3rd in air yards to the sticks
    4th in average completed air yards
    5th in aggressiveness %

    This paints a picture of a QB that managed to be the most efficient in the league while throwing farther down field than most, into tighter windows than most.

    He had the 8th LOWEST expected completion % and the 3rd HIGHEST actual completion %. In comparison, Brees had the highest expected completion % and the highest actual completion %. Derek Carr was 2nd in both categories.

    This directly refutes the idea that Tannehill's success was due to scheme. He still had to make the 8th most difficult throws in the league. His expected completion % was only 0.4% higher than Mariota's. This shows that both QBs were asked to make throws of the same difficulty. The difference is that Tannehill actually completed 70.3% while Mariota actually completed 59.4%.
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That came from the following article, which I've posted several times in this thread:
    As for this:
    It's hard to give the above any credence when several times now you've attributed something to me when it was supported by objective data obtained from elsewhere (like above in this post). Clearly you're not following along well enough to know exactly what's happening here.
     
  33. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    So again he ignores everything contrary to his crusade and tries to find an obscure number to back up his initial premise.

    Like others here have said... If you are a student of math, science, stats... You look at the data first and then make your conclusions. You are doing this backwards... You are desperately searching for numbers to try to back up your opinion.
     
    resnor, Irishman and FinFaninBuffalo like this.
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Everything "contrary to my crusade," in terms of your post I responded to above, consists of nothing but you and your personal perceptions.

    How much weight do you suggest we give those, in comparison to the objective data in the article I posted above?

    I could just as easily say I'm obtaining objective data, while you're desperately clinging to your personal perceptions to back up your opinion.

    And don't look now, but post #6348 consists of about an hour's worth of work to determine -- objectively -- what's going on in the league. How many hours of work have you put in here?

    I suspect you'll ignore the data in post #6348 and continue to believe that "all QBs benefit from their run games," as you've stated repeatedly here. And then on top of that you'll continue to believe that I -- and not you -- am the one who is ignoring everything "contrary to my crusade." The irony is laughable, really.
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You have 32 correlations listed there, not 31. I'm guessing the 0.27 was accidentally listed twice?

    Anyway, yes the 0.65 is statistically significant, both on its own (meaning it's significantly different from zero) and relative to the league (meaning the correlation is something you wouldn't normally expect from the rest of the league).

    Just keep in mind that there's evidence the causal relationships run both ways since Henry also improved with Tannehill.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yes the 0.27 was listed twice in error. Thank you for catching that, and for your work as always.

    Certainly, and as I've said above a significant correlation tells us nothing about the direction of causality between the variables involved, if there is any.

    However, the notion that smoking causes lung cancer for example is supported by nothing more than correlation, and we certainly know lung cancer doesn't cause smoking. Similarly, there are fairly strong (in my opinion) contextual clues in their performances in 2019 that suggest Tannehill was benefiting more strongly from Henry and not vice-versa.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2020
  37. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    This is why you need to look at other things, like the aggressiveness %. Tannehill threw into tight windows the 5th highest percentage of the time. That suggests the running game was not preventing defenders from covering receivers.
     
    Irishman, resnor and Etrius24 like this.
  38. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The general mechanisms by which smoking causes lung cancer are well understood so that's not analogous:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3479369/#S2title

    Also, you can get a high correlation without any actual improvement in Henry's performance. Those two things aren't linked per se. But you see an improvement in Henry's performance so this is a case where there actually is evidence the causal mechanisms go both ways.

    Teasing apart how much was in one or the other direction is harder, but I'd also agree Henry influenced Tannehill more than the other way around since Tannehill's performance on so many metrics is statistically significant whereas Henry's is sometimes statistically significant (depends on the stat you choose and the games pre-Tannehill you choose to compare with).
     
  39. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    Except your analogy does not work... The lung cancer and smoking analogy does not correlate to the QB and Relationship unless the team did not have a QB at all and just ran running plays full time.

    If you want more evidence of Tannehill's impact on the offense?

    Brown's last 8 games of the season
    Over 700 yards receiving
    23+ yards per catch
     
    resnor and FinFaninBuffalo like this.
  40. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    The difference is that the "pre-Henry" Tannehill included different players, coaching, scheme, etc. We can see pre-Tannehill Henry in games 1-6 and the stark difference in games 7-19. There is no comparison.
     
    resnor and Etrius24 like this.

Share This Page