The Talent Surrounding Ryan Tannehill: Part II

I don't get the whole ignore thing. Are we not mature enough to ignore a post, without having to hide it? Lol. If I want to ignore a poster I just gloss over their post. Problem solved.

 

How do you pick someone on the ignore list?

 

There's been multiple examples posted that refute your claims.

 

Answer me a simple question: does a wr have a significant impact on qb rating?

 

Very little valid evidence for either side.

 

Here it is per-reception:
[table="class: grid"]

[tr][td]Newton[/tr][th]6.382575758[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Weeden[/td][td]6.151515152[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Palmer[/td][td]5.930434783[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Fitzpatrick[/td][td]5.700680272[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Griffin[/td][td]5.536[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Rivers[/td][td]5.510769231[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ponder[/td][td]5.411971831[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Brady[/td][td]5.385224274[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Cassel[/td][td]5.298136646[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Smith[/td][td]5.296052632[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Vick[/td][td]5.291891892[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Roethlisberger[/td][td]5.253731343[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Flacco[/td][td]5.204472843[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Dalton[/td][td]5.194357367[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Freeman[/td][td]5.104529617[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skelton[/td][td]5.04587156[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Schaub[/td][td]5.036809816[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Rodgers[/td][td]4.99127907[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bradford[/td][td]4.726072607[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ryan[/td][td]4.710659898[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Luck[/td][td]4.707692308[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wilson[/td][td]4.679324895[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Locker[/td][td]4.666666667[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Kaepernick[/td][td]4.65[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]PManning[/td][td]4.636604775[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Brees[/td][td]4.615776081[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Kolb[/td][td]4.596330275[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Foles[/td][td]4.583850932[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Tannehill[/td][td]4.553435115[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Henne[/td][td]4.55[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Gabbert[/td][td]4.518518519[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stafford[/td][td]4.445255474[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Cutler[/td][td]4.438818565[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Hasselbeck[/td][td]4.427536232[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]EManning[/td][td]4.383116883[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Romo[/td][td]4.382716049[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sanchez[/td][td]4.104803493[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Quinn[/td][td]4.037735849[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lindley[/td][td]2.853932584[/td][/tr][/table]

 

Why does it matter though? His performance has been fine for a rookie....do we really need stats to prove this one way or the other.

 

Accuracy is definitely an issue with Tannehill, as it is with most rookie QB's. But I think the YAC disparity is telling. When you boil it all down, THIS is a prime example of a lack of talent at the WR position.

 

I think we are making very good progress here.

 

The YAC per reception tells us what exactly? Tannehill is getting essentially the same as Peyton Manning or Drew Brees per reception. Do you think there is a correlation between YAC and offensive efficiency or winning?

 

It's not as much that there are exceptions on the list as it is that the list you provided is, overall, somewhat pathetic. If you're hanging your hat on that piece of garbage list- good luck with that one.

Your 2nd paragraph is an adventure in poor writing- actually a piss poor sentence- can you not state your ideas more clearly? What is your point?

1. Rookie QB's tend to struggle.
2. Ryan Tannehill is a rookie QB.
3. Therefore, Tannehill struggled this year

Instead of this garbage, why not simply measure Tannehill as a QB this year with your stats? You like objectivity and loathe subjectivity, right? But here you'd rather state that rookie QBs tend to struggle, Tannehill is a rookie QB, therefore Tannehill struggled. Here you choose to state an opinion and subjectivity over fact, which is a bit odd given some other posts where you pretty much dismiss any notion of subjectivity. Instead of all that garbage that you write, compare Tannehill statistically to other QBs and then to other rookie QBs. The rest of your point is a waste of words.

 

When you provide one that proves that only a qb is responsible for qb rating independent of any other player...let me know. I mean a study that accounts for variables that qb rating doesn't. So if Hartline stats on his feet when there was one person between him and TE end zone, that would not have affected Tannehills qb rating?

 

I think we are on the verge of a breakthrough here.

 

Like I said, you can't use it on it's own. It, like ANY stat, should be used in combination with other stats. This is why Shou using QB rating and claiming it's the end-all-be-all isn't the best way to justify the point he's making. There could be a number of reasons Brees and Peyton's YAC's are lower. One reason could be red zone attempts. Another could be their use of backs and TE's in the passing game, since both positions traditionally have lower YAC numbers than WR's.

And yes, I do think there's a correlation between YAC and offensive efficiency, though again, there are other factors involved.

 

5 stats make up the QB rating. 3 of those require as much from the receiver as they do the QB.

So of your favorite stat, 60% of its make up depends on a receiver.

And since its two people doing their jobs that make up that 60%, it fair to say, 30% of the qb rating is due to receivers.

That being conservative too, considering, as we've seen this year, receivers & lineman can also help cause INTs.

 

It tells you a lot if you take into account the systems and tendencies.

 

The correlation between YAC/completion and Net YPA is 0.41, which means there is no relationship.

 

Huh?

That's actually pretty high as far as those correlations go.

 

and you havent cherry picked?

again dont ask for proof if you fail to give any yourself

 

I don't think anything below 0.50 is strong at all.

The correlation between Net YPA and Air Yards is 0.71. That is a pretty strong correlation.

 

But....Stringer.....how can we know that? What's to say below .5 is not strong?

 

It's a rate. Rates are always better then totals.

 

Except it's not the best way to gauge YAC, because it factors incompletions. Per attempt is better when trying to gauge someone's overall game, but not very good when trying to calculate something specific.

 

I kind of look at it probability wise. Anything less then 50% is not probable. Same with correlation.

 

you can try to find a rate without the incompletions. Total doesn't hold that answer for you though.

 

I'd say in this case .5 is pretty strong.

 

A rate without incompletions is just yards per reception. A guy either catches it or he doesn't. Unless you mean throwaways?

 

I don't really agree, especially when its 0.41, and the correlation with air yds is 0.71.

 

then you use both. Either way totals is not a good way to gauge that question. Rate is efficiency. How much bang for your buck. It's the same with say the stock market. I don't want to know just how much money the company made, I want to know how much it made per thing it sold. If its only 50 cents vs say a company that makes a dollar, then I want the dollar one.

 

But doesn't the air yards suggest Tannehill isn't getting much help from his receivers?

 

YAC per att. or completion isn't really a big deal here guys.

 

The point is that air yards correlate a lot more to offensive efficiency more than YAC. I'm not sure how air yards would indicate anything negative about the receivers. A lot YAC would indicate something negative about the receivers IMO.

 

I forgot, what are you saying YAC per att. or completion doesn't correlate with?

 

But I only want to know one thing, I don't want it diluted by those other things. I ONLY wanna know how much money my company made total. I can always go back and see how much profit I made but right now I'm strictly looking at volume. Same with YAC. I don't care how many passes my QB threw to to his WR's. I only want to know how many yards on average they gained after catching said passes. Get it?

 

YAC per completion has a 0.41 correlation with Net YPA.

I did post YAC per att. earlier, the correlation was about the same.

 

C'mon, you know what I'm saying. It's the discrepancy between the two, as DevilFin pointed out.