With 1:36 remaining in the fourth quarter, Kansas City was 96% likely to win that game. Beyond that point Tannehill's EPA on the five plays he was involved in (one run, three passes, and a two-point conversion) was an extremely high 1.29, so he indeed won the game in the end. Prior to that point in the game, however, his EPA per play was -0.19. So for the previous 58+ minutes of the game, he was playing in a way that was scoring expected points for Kansas City. Every fifth play of the game for him was on average associated with one expected point scored for the other team. His overall EPA per play for the game was a lowly 0.09.
I disagree slightly, I wouldn't even say disagree as much as question. Even with an elite run game and unquestionably the best OL of his career his sack% was still 9.8% which is 2nd highest of his career for reference only Dwayne Haskins had a higher sack% in 2019. Had he played 16 games he woulda been on pace for 45 sacks which is on par with his 1st 4 years in Miami in which averaged 46 sacks a season the through those 4 year. Decent protection is not enough I think you need the run game for Tannehill to reach his full potential. Tannehill still isn't very good in the pocket and at this point probably never will be so you absolutely need an effective run game to take the ball out of his hands and minimize his drop backs and those drive killing sacks. Edit: I don't know if this made sense.
The only change I would make to your list is the position of the center. I would place him right after the QB, because he is responsible for setting up the OL before he snaps the ball.
IMO, this was due to the team's depth of routes. IMO, they were trading sacks for big plays and to minimize INTs. Russell Wilson has had similarly high sack percentages throughout his career. The Titan OL was far better at run blocking than pass blocking. I think a play action passing game should be a consistent part of Tannehill's offense. History shows that play action passing is effective even without a very good running game. Some QBs are better at it than others and Tannehill is one of the best. I think you want to avoid playing from far behind where passing becomes very predictable. This can be done in more ways than just having a great running game. You can do it with a great defense or with big plays in the passing game and a willingness to stick to the running game even when it isn't working. I think you also want to avoid the dink and dunk offense. Tannehill is accurate throwing deeper down the field. It makes sense to offset some of his tendencies to take sacks with his ability to attack down the field.
I suspect that wasn't the case, because the correlation between sack rate and yards per attempt, game-by-game for Tannehill in 2019, was -0.41. So the higher the sack rate, the lower the YPA. If in fact they were trying to do that, it probably wouldn't have been wise: http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2008/11/value-of-sack.html
I see no correlation between a teams depth of routes and having a higher sack%. Judging from the information below it just looks like Tannehill is a liability in terms of sacks. Sure his OL in Miami was terrible but he is not without blame. Even with a better OL and ground game and fewer of his throws being deep passes compared to most of the QB's below he still has a higher sack%. I think after putting this together it makes me double down on my belief that an effective run game is vital for Tannehill. Stafford was #1 in adot (average depth of target) -his OL was 21st in pass blocking-his sack% was 5.8% (13th)--19.6% of his passes were deep (#1) Winston was #2 in adot-his OL was 10th in pass blocking-his sack% was 7.0% (22nd)--15.8% of his passes were deep (#4) Tannehill was #3 in adot-his OL was 11th in pass blocking-his sack% was 9.8% (32nd)--12.9% of his passes were deep (#16) Wilson was #4 in adot-his OL was 30th in pass blocking-his sack% was 8.5% (29th)--16.5% of his passes were deep (#2) Prescott was #5 in adot-his OL was 8th in pass blocking-his sack% was 3.7% (4th)--12.8% of his passes were deep (#18) Allen was #6 in adot-his OL was 18th in pass blocking-his sack% was 7.6% (26th)--14.8% of his passes were deep (#6) Fitzpatrick was #7 in adot-his OL was 32nd in pass blocking-his sack% was 7.4% (24th)--12.9% of his passes were deep (T#16)
You didn't look at a single QB with lower adot...... Other than Stafford and Prescott, I don't seem much difference in the sack rates. Are you trying to make the case that Tannehill is responsible for 4 or 5 more sacks per year than the bulk of those guys? Okay. I'll take that for the YPA, Passer rating, CPOE, etc, etc, etc that Tannehill produced this year. If Tannehill was 16th in % of deep throws but 3rd in average depth of target, he must be throwing FAR more intermediate depth throws and FAR fewer short throws than these guys. That leaves more chances for sacks.
If my theory was that "they were trading sacks for big plays," and I found out the correlation between sack rate and YPA game-by-game was negative, my next statement wouldn't be an authoritative "I know football."
It is worth noting that with Reid Smith turned in the best year of his career in that KC offense. Qb rating of 104! 4000+ yards Five touchdowns for every pick... 8 yards per pass... He sat the last game of the season to rest for the playoffs. By any and all accounts those are fantastic numbers. completed over 67% of his passes. To Sum up his 2017 season Completion %... 3rd in the NFL QB rating 1st in the NFL Yds/game 7th in the NFL TD to Int Ratio 5:1 Best in the NFL Yd/pass 2nd in the NFL
I suppose I should have known that I would have to explain it more slowly to you. Nobody is literally trading sacks for big plays. They were running a style of offense where the potential for sack are a consequence of trying to throw the ball farther down the field because of the time it takes for those plays to develop. That potential for sacks increases when the QB is conscious of limiting INTs as well. Tannehill was tied for the 2nd longest time in the pocket. Tannehill had the 3rd longest average intended air yards. Tannehill had, on average, 2.6 seconds in the pocket. Of the 31 sacks, 23 took 2.5 seconds or longer. It is entirely understandable (to someone who knows football) why on a game by game basis sack % and YPA could be negatively correlated. There are games where the defense is winning the battles and the offense must make adjustments. One of the adjustments you can make is to shorten the routes. You have this notion that the games use a static model in a simulation. The game is far more complex than you seem willing to admit. I also noticed that you purposely ignored INTs and TDs when picking your stats. Could it be because sack % and INT % are negatively correlated (the more sacks he took, the fewer INTs he threw)? How about AY/A (which includes TDs and INTs) instead of the more simplistic Y/A that you selected? We see a stronger correlation between sack and INTs (actually the avoidance of INTs) of 0.39 than the correlation between sacks and AY/A of -0.21. BTW, I only included the games he started. You are pretty consistently baffled by simple football concepts.
I actually think he likes to get into these advanced stats because most people struggle to explain their actual importance, as they don't really understand them. So it's like a cheap way to try to convince people he's right.
I think it is because he doesn't understand the game well enough to talk about football. Unfortunately for him, cbrad had shown that he doesn't understand statistics either.
The correlation between sack rate and INT rate, game-by-game, for all of Tannehill's regular season games in 2019 is -0.01. There is no relationship there. The two variables are indeed negatively correlated as you mentioned, but at a magnitude so small that the relationship between them is meaningless. The correlation between sack rate and AY/A, game-by-game, for all of Tannehill's regular season games in 2019 is -0.38. That relationship is the opposite of what would be expected on the basis of your theory ("trading sacks for big plays"). The higher the sack rate, the lower the AY/A, game-by-game.
Like I've always said, if the perceived credibility of a nobody on a message board matters to the point that it's being discussed, the case you're making can't possibly be very strong. Notice I've not said one thing about the credibility of anyone else here during this entire discussion.
Man...your credibility is all that matters. If you want people to listen to what you're saying, you can't be twisting stats, like cbrad has shown over and over. I don't mind opposing views, but you've got to be open to the possibility that you're not correct. That's the only way to find truth. I do appreciate you not blocking me, I try not to be rude to you.
You have been caught manipulating statistics in this thread and in every other thread I have participated in with you. You were banned from another message board for fabricating stats.
Are you cheating by including the Denver game? A game where he entered with a 14-0 deficit? I only included the games he started. It is the correct thing to do. This is so typical for you.
I was banned from the message board because I sent several members personal messages (backchannel) inviting them to join a Dolphins message board I started. It had nothing to do with statistics and everything to do with my identification of select members who had an open mind about Tannehill, as opposed to a cult-like allegiance to him, and wanting to create a message board centered around that kind of open-minded analysis of the team. You won't find any occurrence in the history of my posting on any message board in which the statistics I'm using can't be obtained from the public domain. Statistics are impossible to fabricate, unchecked, in that scenario. As for the "manipulation of statistics" in this thread, there was an instance in which cbrad and I discussed at length the correlation between Tannehill's volume of pass dropbacks and his passer rating. That was resolved in post #6197.
LOL. Do the words "cherry picking" ring a bell? Search this thread. You were caught faking statistics on Finheaven.
Yes, in fact they do: At this point we've identified your typical approach as the following: Step 1: Propose a theory of Tannehill's functioning. Step 2: Have the theory refuted by simple statistical analysis. Step 3: Talk about "The Guy's" (perceived) history and credibility.
Given your understanding of the game, I'd expect you to consider that cherry picking. I wouldn't expect you to understand that they had been practicing and game planning for 6 weeks with a QB that had a bottom ranked average IAY while still giving up a lot of sacks. I wouldn't expect that football situations would play into your thinking at all. Insert a QB who can attack deeper routes and for the LOWER sack % you get nearly DOUBLE TD %, more than 2 yards HIGHER YPA, much better on target %, much lower bad throw %, all with an increase in average IAY from 7.0 to 9.5. Only someone who doesn't understand the game or wants to obscure the truth would include the Denver game.
At this point we've identified your typical approach as the following: Step 1: Propose a theory of Tannehill's functioning that is devoid of an understanding of the game. Step 2: Attempt to support the theory by simplistic misguided statistical analysis. Step 3: Change to something else when it is throughly refuted.
Even if we exclude the Denver game (just for the sake of argument), the game-by-game correlations don't support your theory that they were "trading sacks for big plays." The correlation between sack rate and YPA for those games was -0.41. The correlation between sack rate and AY/A for those games was -0.23. So whether you exclude the Denver game or not, the statistics don't support your theory. The higher the sack rate, the lower the statistics indicative of big plays.
BTW, you lost whatever tiny bit of credibility you had when you dropped passer rating differential as your holy grail to rail against Tannehill the moment he excelled at passer rating........ You doggedly held that position for years.
The theory I've proposed -- that Tannehill benefited from Derrick Henry's performance because it permitted him to experience a significantly lower percentage of pass dropbacks than the average QB, as well as opposing defenses that were focused on stopping the Titans' run game, thus boosting his passer rating -- has hardly been refuted. In fact the theory is supported by: 1) The astronomical (in comparison to the league average) correlation between Tannehill's passer rating and Henry's yards per rush, game-by-game. 2) Tannehill's percentage of pass dropbacks on the season, which was significantly less than that of the average QB (z-score -2.14). 3) Tannehill's performance when experiencing an above-average number of pass dropbacks. Now that's not to say the theory is correct -- again I think it'll take another season to adjudicate it because there are possible alternative explanations for the above findings. But the theory certainly hasn't been refuted by the relevant statistics.
And that position still has merit, but there may be more precise ways of measuring the same phenomenon (i.e., a team's degree of advantage in the passing game).
Showing that Henry benefits from Tannehill's passing. Further supported by his huge increase in production after Tannehill took over. Showing how much more efficient his is at playing the position. Already been refuted by cbrad, yet........ you keep rolling it out there....... LOL
Like I said, there are possible alternative explanations for the findings. No, the discrepancy between Tannehill's performance in high- versus low-volume games in 2019 (and throughout his career) hasn't been refuted by anyone.
What does it matter, when the dependent variable I've used to explore my theory (outlined in post #6827) for Tannehill's 2019 performance is his passer rating? It's not like I'm saying "forget his passer rating -- let's focus on this other measure of his performance and explain why it was so low." No, I'm focusing on his passer rating and trying to explain why it was so high. Christ, the centerpiece of the statistical support for the theory is the correlation between Henry's yards per rush and Tannehill's passer rating, not some other measure.
from cbrad: I never said the graph is showing "throwing more" is a good thing. In fact the graph shows that on average it's better for the better QB's in the league to not have to throw more. No, what that graph shows is that YOUR argument is unsubstantiated: namely that there's no statistical evidence Tannehill's decrement is worse than would be expected for a QB playing at his level.
BECAUSE THE PLAYED LIKE A BOSS THIS SEASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Find me one time where you theorized that it was Henry that was benefitting from Tannehill rather than the other way around. That theory is supported by the difference in Henry's performance after Tannehill joined the lineup.
So again, you have your hypothesis but it's not supported statistically To which the STATS GUY responded with this: I'm satisfied with the intuitive approach here So, when the stats don't work, you just make it up...... WTF.....
I argued for a long time that Wilson benefited from not having to throw 25+ times a game. I believe I argued that s page or two ago in this thread. But now it only matters when applied to Tannehill?