The Talent Surrounding Ryan Tannehill: Part II

Also I said better not much better. To say having let's say Calvin Johnson and Gronk, wouldn't help his development and make his numbers better is ....

 

OL has played better wo Long
Clay's knee injury means were even weaker there than most realize
Replaced Marshall with no one

Strategically we are in a position of losing all of leading producers and having no one behind them with any sort of track record.

IE: we really could digress further in 2013 if this is not handled correctly.

I've situations like this in the league were the GM simply strengthens the D (resign SS22 and Starks) and just rebuilds the offense with draft choices, which sounds fine but it also means Tannehill has even more on his plate.

 

I'm gonna have to go with Padre in this debate. Getting rid of the only playmakers we have and trying to upgrade is just not smart. Hartline and Bush are good players and I think a lack of continuity would be detrimental to Tannehill's development. A receiving corps of Hartline, Bess, a rookie, Binns, and Matthews is not that bad, especially if we can get a running game going next year and a defense that makes plays.

 

That has nothing to do with Titus Young acting like a kindergartner, Ryan Broyles tearing his ACL, and Nate Burleson breaking his leg? Do you know that they actually have resorted to putting Tony Scheffler out wide?

The run game is also being supported by guys like Joique Bell, who, under normal circumstances, wouldn't make it on the Tuskers.

It's amazing that a lesser supporting cast could impact Stafford and the Lions negatively....oh wait

 

I know he has me on ignore, but we don't need a systematic, objective study. All we need is the basic to understand concept that it takes 2 different people to make a completion. Person 1 (QB) can do everything correctly, and Person 2 (WR/TE/etc.) could not do his job and drop it or catch it and fall down or anything really. Since every stat dealing with a QB passing depends on another person, you cannot use the stats Shou does to disprove a QB improves with better talent around him.

 

Agreed. Matt Ryan has never been without a great TE or a very good wr.
Tom Brady had his best years with a great TE and a great wr.

 

Also, I am fine with where Tannehill is. He was raw and as long as he progress and gets more receiving talent, I feel good about the future.

 

Sure, but that concept doesn't really tell us anything. Whats important is determining how much each of those two people affects the outcome.

 

For some reason, my "stay logged in" thing isn't working, so I saw all of the ****listed peoples' posts every time I would refresh the page. Long story short, they all earned their way off of it with mind-numbingly sound logic against Shou. That's why I was convinced that he did this troll on purpose--to bring enemies together for the holidays. It worked. Embarrassingly, it wasn't his intent, and he's serious with this.

I love that he made the argument he did above (towards patssuck), and when I turned it around against him, he retreated to a "show me the stats" defense.

What stats? What systematic study? Like yours? Lol ok...

If you take the quarterback's passer rating and divide it by 3, then round down to the nearest whole number....correspond that number to the NASCAR driver from the 2002 Winston Cup series (link: http://www.teamterrier.com/DriverList/02DriverList.html), then go to their hometown, where every letter of the town name is equal to the numerical value of the letter (A = 1, B = 2, etc.). You can then find the mean value of the hometown name, and use that to determine the NASCAFICIENCY QBWAR. 1 = Pop Warner and 26 = HoF. As you can see, Tannehill would check in at 7.5 (76.9/3 ≈ 25 ---> Joe Nemecheck = Lakeland, FL = (60/8) = 7.5). Now the thing is, with NASCAFICIENCY QBWAR, it's static. It doesn't change. Ryan Tannehill is not the answer. I guess, maybe you are right, Shou. It's a shame that this world won't give Marlon Moore a chance.

 

you make it sound like we lose adrian peterson, calvin and graham....even if we lose bush , hartline and fasano, it would be no problem to replace the production with players we will obviously sign to replace them, reggie is close to a 1000 yards, hartline just over 1000 yards and fasano has 5 TD's, this is not really that much to replace, just over 60 yards in average to get there

 

I don't think its possible to have a sure fire stat that shows you that as there are too many variables. I mean look at the Big 3 Rookies this year (Luck, RGIII & Tanny). They all play differently. They all play on vastly different teams with vastly different talent levels and vastly different schemes. The closest you could come, is to look at all the YAC for each receiver set for each QB, because that stat has the least to do with the QB of all receiving stats, but the problem is, it still can be effected by other things like schemes and opponents.

I do, however, think its fairly obvious the OP is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay wrong about his approach and conclusion.

 

I think it is very possible to do what you feel is impossible. There are literally tens of thousands of data points available. The challenge is identifying which data is instructive. Different schemes and surrounding talent isn't really a roadblock in such an analysis.

I think ultimately though, the OP is slightly misguided. Passer rating isn't a very good measure of ability. Not just for the QB, but for an offense as a whole. I'd prefer Net YPA. Correlating passer rating to wins is flawed, because passer rating incorporates touchdowns, as does the final score. There is likely some overfitting.

 

Data points don't prove or disprove something, nor do they automatically equal up to show correlation. Nor is their enough comparable data...meaning "like opponents" with "like teammates" after "like events" with "like weather" and "like health". They may show a better probability towards or away from something, but not the definitive result the OP is trying to say.

I don't know how in your dictionary that you classify someone's stance as completely wrong or slightly misguided, but in my dictionary, if you gather a couple of unrelated stats, combine them incorrectly , and use the incorrect results to make an incorrect correlation to justify an already held belief that was incorrect based on the very basic dynamics of throwing & catching a pass, then that person is completely wrong.

 

This just isn't true.

The only flaw I see is that passer rating isn't 100% based on the QBs performance. The missing link here is determining how much is affected by the QBs performance.

 

Of course its true.

The premise of the OP is that surrounding talent has little to no bearing on a QB's performance. The only way to prove that, is to have multiple QBs play with the same team (personnel & coaching) against the same teams (personnel & coaching) under all the same variables, like weather, time and health. There are not enough of those data points to prove what he thinks he's proven.

Then your eyes are closed. He takes that stat and combines with another to get a result that he already held. There are numerous things wrong there.

 

No, this is flat out wrong. You don't need everything to be under the same variables to determine the affect a QB has on passer rating. A good starting point would be looking at exogenous exits.

 

Wait what?

We were discussing this:

Now you're talking about if a QB affects a quarterback rating. Of course he affects it, no one argues that. Shou is saying he's the only thing that affects it.

 

Yes, I understand. I'm saying that there is a way to determine how much passer rating is affected by QB and other positions. As I said, I would likely look at exogenous exits if I were going to try to determine that.

 

I simply do not see how.

Every QB, WR, TE, scheme, is different. Its how you can have a 1000yrd receiver in Hartline and 1000yrd receiver in Wayne, yet they are different players with different QBs throwing to them under different scenarios and their yards mean different things to their teams with different importance.

Like I said, you might be able to show a trend, but nothing definitive, like Shou says.

 

Exogenous exits would be a good start. There are a plenty of instances in NFL history where QBs, RBs, WRs, TEs, OL, etc. leave a team mid-season due to injury.

But the objective and rules of the game are the same.

Not 100% definitive, but certainly you could come to a conclusion with a very high degree of confidence (90%+).

 

And? What about the teams that have viable back ups or other players who help fill in the hole?

And? How teams achieve the goals and objective can be very, very different. Greatest Show on Turf vs. Baltimore Ravens for example.

Ok how do you come up with a 90% confidence?

 

You need to provide empirical data to support your postion if you want to be crediable. Otherwise you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of in this thread. You are offering up your opinion then backing it with cherry picked stats that conform to your personal bias.

I agree with you that QBs who have high QBRs correlate to QBs who play at a high level. A good QB can make average WRs look better then they are (Donte Stallworth comes to mind). Conversley poor WRs can hinder a QBs production, lower his numbers, and result in a lower QBR then is indicitive of his play. Your claiming that the QBR isnt effected by unproductive recievers but you have not provided any data to back that up. Without that data it voids your original concenus that a low QBR means that the main source of a lack of production is proved to be on the QB.

I agree with you on your conclussion but not how you got to it. I agree that RT has a lot to improve on before I would be comfortable saying he is going to be the QB for the next 10yrs or so. I would say the exact same thing about his recievers as well. The only thing any of them earned is the opprotunity to compete for being part of the starters.

Your fancy stastical analyses failed to prove what you are trying to prove because it incomplete.

You are just as guilty as the people your describing. You are giving your opinion and you are not backing it up with strong objective evidence.

 

They will be included, just like the teams with unviable backups?

Right, but we aren't talking about the effect on winning. Just the effect on passer rating. If this were solely about winning, it would be much easier to determine the QBs affect.

It was just a guess. You would have to run a z-score on whatever analysis is done. But with the amount of data available, it could be very reliable.

 

I hate math

But I'll say this, I haven't read all the debate throughout this thread. But ...

There are several passes Ryan & Brady have thrown this season that I believe, with max conviction, many other team's WRs would have been able to make a play on. When I compare that to what I have seen from our WRs, I do not see one player among them that can.

Case in point was the long pass to Hartline in the Bills game where the ball faded over the wrong shoulder and I don't think Bryan even got a hand on it. We've seen that in other games where we've lamented the existence of a player that can go after those kinds of passes and make a play. I have to ask myself how much of that was Hartline not making the proper read on the ball trajectory then it was Ryan's inaccuracy? What really sells me on this point is that the CB actually outran Bryan over the last several yards of the throw. That lack of speed and play making ability is what separates our receivers and other teams in my opinion.

So my conclusion would be that while an elite QB can make a less than stellar WR corp look good, the caveat is that a great WR corp can do a lot to make life easy for a QB. For me its a combination of both and I won't bash Tannehill's production until he shows what he can do with a legit batch of WRs

 

Agree with your conclusion.

 

But you're not going to be able to tell by a data point if the back up WR was viable or not. I still say there are too many variables. For example, BMarsh's numbers will show he is only an a really good receiver when Cutler is his QB.

You brought up the goals and objectives thing.

Data points don't mean there'll be a correlation though.

 

Remotely close to what?

 

He wants a chart with numbers saying he's wrong, otherwise its not true in his mind.

 

Its not that, its that's you refuse to answer about basic concepts like it takes two people for a completion and how that alone defeats your stance. Hell, you can't even explain how your chart means what you think it means. Why those numbers?

 

Im just asking you to prove your work. Why is the burden on me when you are the one offering your work as difinitive evidence. I and others have provided you with evidence that contradicts your data and have only asked for an explination of it from you.

You have been asked about Luck.
I will add in Matt Cassel, how do you explain him having a higher QBR in 2008 on the Pats but then it goes down in 2009 when he went to the chiefs if the surrounding talent does not influence the QBR?

 

You're missing what I'm trying to say. You aren't trying to quantify how good of a WR like Brandon Marshall is. You're quantifying the affect Brandon Marshall has on his team's passer rating.

So you use exogenous exits, i.e. every time a WR gets injured mid-season, you can measure passer rating before and after his absence. You can use different metrics to group WRs into #1s, #2s, etc. The best way to do this would likely use % of total team targets. You do the exact same thing for QBs. When a QB suffers a mid-season injury, how much does a team's passer rating drop or increase? Now certainly looking at it on an individual basis will lead to obvious conclusion that some backups are better than others. But because you're using exogenous exits, you know that the change at QB occurs not because of poor play. So if the sample size is large enough, the level of backup QB will average itself out.

I'm just spitballing here. I'm sure if I were to go through and actually do this type of analysis I would run into issues which would need to be addressed. But this is the general direction one would need to head down.

 

Shou...

Is it really that difficult?

I mean....

Heres how I see it.....

There have been plays that have been left out on the field.....due to lack of performance on Tannehills part.

There have been plays that have been left out on the field...due to lack of explosive talent around Tannehill.

Now...one thing I have heard..that makes some sense to me...is...we have a red zone offense. Meaning...teams only have to defense our team in 20 yard segments. Tannehill does not strike me as being someone who doesnt have the arm to make those throws that open up the field. So...why are we a red zone offense? Lack of stretch players. I really dont think its a mystery, and I think you agree to this point.

So...all the data in the world...isnt going to tell us whether or not Tannehill is our long term franchise back. There is enough to show...he will be our QB for the next few seasons...and there is enough to show that we dont need to draft a QB with one of our top picks next season.

Right now....Id say our QB position is in solid hands, with upside to franchise hands. I think most will agree to this point....