Luck, Griffin, & Wilson vs. Tannehill & Weeden: An Objective Analysis (Part I)

Yeah, but watching Wilson maneuver in the pocket and extend plays is a far different experience that watching Tannehill.

Tannehill may be more athletic than Wilson, but sometimes agility and pocket presence counts for more. Nobody will argue that Marino was a physical specimen with shot knees, but somehow he was always able to step away from pressure and make big plays. I would call it a combination of instinct and situational awareness.

 

Look, I'm not being cryptic. I don't need the definition of statically significant, I need you to explain why you think 7 more attempts is significant. I don't know why you refuse to answer that simple question, but I suspect there's something in your training in your chosen profession that would explain why a person refuses to answer a simple question.

Again, 10 boys and 10 girls. You are saying that the average person of these 20 has 1 testicle. Then you're saying the boys all have 2 testicles, so that's 50% above the average which would be statistically significant, and yet all of that is not an accurate portrayal of reality.

Stop.

You said stat X could be eyeballed, I eyeballed stat X, then you said I can't do that. That's horse****. Why the hell can't you just admit that was wrong of you?

 

I think FinD is requesting a chart

 

While I cannot assert this with 95% confidence, I believe Wilson to be more athletic

 

Many of you are correct that technically we don't know what the coaches were asking Tanny to do. But given the data we have (a significant enough number of pass attempts), I think after a full season we can look back and say fairly confidently that there was a concerted attempt to not throw downfield. I also think it's a fairly safe assumption to say the skills of our receivers had something to do with that, though not everything.

 

There is a difference between running a lot and making plays when the pocket breaks down.. I probably watched 4 or 5 Seattle games and Wilson had this uncanny ability to keep plays alive and make throws. Tannehill showed a few flashed of that, but nowhere near Wilson.

 

Can I eyeball it?

 

While I believe Wilson is much better at escapability, I do not believe that Wilson is more athletic.

 

Yet, you're taking the mean of the 5 best QBs and the mean of 5 rookies and telling me 7 attempts a game difference means Luck is a pro and Tannehill is less so. There's a middle ground you're neglecting along with a correlation with reality that is missing as well. 7 attempts a game is not telling us anything significant. You're basically saying its only important because 7 is more than 3.

 

I think what would be telling would be the efficiency of those downfield passes the team did make. It certainly is clear that they limited the attempts downfield. However, I'm not sure that limiting those attempts was actually a well-founded decision or not.

 

It certainly is greater than one standard deviation.

 

And that translates to what info? What does it tell us?

 

As I said before, this kind of statistic is meaningless. What does it matter than Tannehill had 7 less passes per game than the average top passing QBs? What does it mean that Rodgers had almost the same as Tannehill?

Those stats give you absolutely no insight or knowledge that pertains to how Tannehill played this season or will play from now on.

More smoke and mirrors. More fuel for endless futile arguments.

 

If that's your goal then be honest about it and do it right. Your earlier attempts, including a rather sorry manipulation of Aqua's data for your own purposes, were suspect.

 

You can just run a t-test.

If you run a t-test, you get the following results:

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0095
t = 2.7690
df = 30
standard error of difference = 3.225

These numbers, especially the P-value means that the two numbers are statistically significant. Usually anything less than 0.05 would warrant rejection of a null hypothesis.

*Also worth mentioning that I get 30.25 for Tannehill's average attempts, not 32. Not sure if I missed something, or if Shou did.

 

I wasn't clear, what does it tell us in the real world? How does this info tell us anything practical about tannehill, the way he was used, his talent level, etc.?

 

I think the sample size here is simply too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. All sorts of game varibles will influence these statistics including how often were they playing from behind, how many overtime games are included in the sampling, how good of a running game the teams have, how good/bad of a pass defense were they facing, what were the weather conditions etc.....

 

I'm with you to here ^....

...but here ^ is where the disconnect is.

Your data doesn't state that. 7 more attempts a game with 1 to 2 deep shots is not a big deal or indicative of anything tangible. I don't think it shows he was asked to do significantly more, nor does it show why he was asked do the little bit more he did.

I guess what I'm saying his this tells us nothing more than looking at their total attempts which doesn't tell us much of anything.

 

How?

 

What does that say about Matt Stafford? He passed more than anyone.

 

Again, just because 7 attempts more a game is "statistically significant" in a sample size that has only extremes, it doesn't mean it is in the real world. 2 more shots deep a game isn't significant either. When I'm talking about significant, I'm talking about real world info, like why & how?

 

For now I would say talent… Hard to be successful in the NFL (as a QB) with the receivers he had to throw to. Dont even want to get into the lack of running game and so on..

 

Do you know what THill's turn over ratio was compared to other QB's? I am particularly interested in his INT per attempts ratio

 

Odd:

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=232

Here we are ranked 22nd overall.

 

That would be important.

From what shouright is trying to say with pass attempts, it seems to me that a more accurate statistic would be, "pre-snap reads", audibles and "post-snap reads"

Pass attempts does not says much.

 

I don't think so, as I watched the games he simply never went down the field until later in the yr, for much of the yr it was all underneath stuff and outs, later in the yr he had more success with the same players, going down the field.

He also rarely rarely threw a ball into the EZ.

Shou's stats don't surprise as I've made that point, based on observation, for most of the past year

IMO, they protected Tannehill for much of the year.

 

How much of that is due to having 7 comeback wins in the 4th quarter though? I'd bet it's more of a situational thing than something actually game-planned for.

 

WE need a football version of the shot / spray chart.