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. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    But I will gladly eat crow as to the fact that I worded that wrong.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  2. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    This I can believe. The only reason this is so important is because these sites can take any and all stats they want but ultimately they just form a subjective opinion based on them (same thing with nfl.com's "QB Index" which comes out weekly during the season. It references all kinds of stats but it's just a subjective opinion of the writers).

    And there's a world of difference between a subjective opinion based on stats and what the stats themselves say, especially since so much of the discussion above was based on the stats themselves.
     
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And what does that designation mean?

    We'd have to add meaning to that designation by correlating it with winning and determining the number of wins expected on the basis of being the 8th-ranked QB in the league in that regard.

    We could discover for example that only the top four QBs in the league on the basis of those statistics perform in such a manner that their teams are likely to make the playoffs.

    Here's the deal: there are but two elite QBs in the league right now. Mahomes and Brees. Those QBs are likely to finish within the critical top six in passer rating every year, and so they make their teams likely to make the playoffs -- based on their own performance at least -- every year. That's obviously a tremendous contribution to their teams, and so they deserve the biggest QB contracts in the league by far.

    Because QBs vary in their performance from year to year, other QBs can finish in the top six at times. When you give one of those QBs a big contract, you may diminish their ability to finish in the top six because you're less able to have the team surroundings they need to perform in that manner.

    The question for Tannehill right now is whether the evolution of the Titans as a team can continue to support his performance at that top-six level, and how his own salary increase affects that.

    I don't think there is a person here who believes he's established himself as being in the company of Mahomes and Brees, despite that his passer rating was higher than theirs in 2019.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2020
    Etrius24 likes this.
  4. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    Guy,

    Nobody is saying Tannehill is elite... I am his biggest fan and I am not saying that. I am saying he is a legit top ten QB the way he played last season. Next point... You mentioned the playoffs and I am glad you did. When Tannehill took over as starter the Titans were 2-4. Tannehill as the Starter was 7-3! And as starter they had the #2 scoring offense in football next to Baltimore. All the time Tannehill was killing it in Yards per pass, completion percentage, and QB rating... Nobody on the planet except Tannehill's wife and mom thought they were going to go to New England and Spank the Patriots in the playoffs... Because tom brady... blah blah blah... Ditto for going into Baltimore and beating the team all the experts said was the best in the NFL

    Detractors will keep saying... But they had Henry to make it easy... He did not have to throw 40 times a game. So what? Brees is surrounded by amazing talent and nobody diminishes what he does on the field because of it. Brees has a top 3 running back and maybe the best wideout in the NFL on his team.

    As for throwing... How many times has Bellicheat gotten a lead and in the past turned the ball over to Blount to put the nails in the coffin by doing nothing but running to chew clock and seal the win? When that happened nobody said Brady sucked or did not lead the team to victory. No they called it good coaching. Because Tannehill completes more than 70 percent of his passes... and because he throws for more yards per pass than any other QB in the league with very few interceptions... The Titans are in the lead a lot in the second half... and they can absolutely let Henry bring it home on the ground. Other Qb's like Prescott and Winston are amassing all of these passing yards.. but their teams were not winning and they were airing it out because they were behind all of the time and had to push the ball up the field.

    In the Superbowl... The chiefs got outstanding play from D. Williams at running back... He was brilliant. Nobody is saying that Mahomes is a bum because Williams played fantastic in the Superbowl.

    There is just a lot of hate and resentment built up.... It is time for Dolphin fans to let it go.
     
    KeyFin, Pauly, Irishman and 2 others like this.
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The issue is that passer rating differential is a strong predictor of winning both individual games and won-loss percentage on the season. That means that in individual games, winning is largely a product of one quarterback's outdueling the other (with the help of their own pass defense). In individual seasons, a team's likelihood of making the playoffs (and getting first-round byes, home-field advantage, etc.) is largely a function of quarterback play and pass defense (i.e., stopping opposing QBs). These are the main ingredients of winning in today's NFL.

    As you point out, the Titans were 7-3 with Tannehill in the regular season, due in large part to his great performance in those games. But of course no team can win a Super Bowl without making it through the playoffs, so let's look at what Tannehill and the Titans did in the playoffs in 2019, in terms of the main ingredients of winning noted above.

    In the Wildcard round against New England, Tannehill threw 15 passes for 72 yards and a passer rating of 61. Tom Brady threw 37 passes for 209 yards and a passer rating of 59. Under normal conditions, that would be a tight game that could go either way, and it was in this game as well. The difference in the game for the Titans was Derrick Henry's 34 rushes for 182 yards.

    In the Divisional round against Baltimore, Tannehill threw 14 passes for 88 yards and a passer rating of 109.5. Lamar Jackson threw 59 passes for 365 yards, two INTs, and a passer rating of 63. Tannehill's meager yardage output in comparison to Jackson's would've normally made that a close game, but again we had Derrick Henry, who ran the ball 30 times for 195 yards, helping the Titans win fairly easily under those conditions.

    But now let's take a look at the AFC Championship game. Here we had the derailment of Derrick Henry, who ran the ball 19 times for just 69 yards. Tannehill was then forced to pass the ball a great deal more than he had in the previous two games. Tannehill threw the ball 31 times for 209 yards and a passer rating of 108. Patrick Mahomes on the other hand threw the ball 35 times for 294 yards and a passer rating of 120. The final score (35-24) is fairly well predicted by the difference in passer rating in the game.

    So, what we see here in the playoffs is that the Titans were successful to the degree that 1) their offense could be carried by Derrick Henry, and 2) their defense could be associated with a poor performance by the opposing QB. When neither of those ingredients was present, they were beaten handily.

    So, what does that mean in terms of Tannehill and the Titans' future? It essentially means they have to either 1) count on a superhuman performance from Derrick Henry in every game, or 2) be able to diminish the performance of QBs like Patrick Mahomes. The first of those is unrealistic of course, and the second requires a stronger pass defense than they had in 2019, which was merely average.

    Notice that neither of those things entails simply Tannehill's outdueling the likes of Patrick Mahomes when Tannehill has to carry his offense. That isn't an option. Tannehill doesn't have that kind of ability.

    So regardless of where Tannehill is "ranked" in the league in terms of his performance, it means little in terms of his ability to help his team outduel the league's best QBs in a game that features the pass. He's going to need help for that, and the question then becomes, as I've reiterated here, can the Titans accomplish that alongside a huge salary increase for Tannehill? Can they put together one of the league's best pass defenses, so that when they get an expected off game from Henry and Tannehill has to carry the offense, he won't be simply outdueled by the likes of Patrick Mahomes?

    We shall see of course. But such is the nature of not having one of the league's best QBs. Despite Tannehill's leading the league in passer rating in 2019, he's nonetheless saddled with the same needs for a supporting cast of an average QB.
     
  6. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    Except that Tannehill did outduel Mahomes last year in the regular season. 2 touchdowns no picks and a QB rating in that game of 133! Yeah it was only once and it was not the playoffs... But the fact is that Tannehill beat Mahomes in a important game for both teams with playoff implications on the line.

    And you can argue it was luck or a fluke... But when you look at the whole season and then the wins in the playoffs... It is not luck. He was just playing really well on a team that was well coached. ( To use the running game properly with a QB that thrives in the play action. )

    It is no coincidence that Tannehill when he had to dropped dimes for 30 and 40 yards down the field to score touchdowns... Sure they ran the ball and used Henry a lot. But all season long when they needed Tannehill to throw he was able to do it.

    In the playoffs in the game against the Pats and again against the Ravens... Tannehill quickly set the tone with deep strikes creating scoring drives... It changed the tone of those games. Tannehill did not have to throw 40 times to be the star or to change the game. Scoring early and establishing a lead allowed them to rely on Henry and the defense.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, he didn't. Tannehill threw the ball 19 times for 181 yards and a passer rating of 133.9 in that game, Mahomes threw the ball 50 times for 446 yards and a passer rating of 119, and Derrick Henry ran the ball 23 times for 188 yards. The Titans won the game by three points.

    Where do you think the difference in the game came from? Tannehill, who threw 31 fewer passes and for 265 fewer yards than Mahomes? Or Henry, who outrushed the Chiefs' entire team by 91 yards?

    Sure, and that works -- if Henry responds with his typical game.

    If he doesn't, then it forces Tannehill to carry the offense, and that isn't going to be successful against the likes of Mahomes, unless as I've said the Titans have one of the best pass defenses in the league and can make Mahomes play atypically poorly.

    And this is where they sit at present -- needing one of the best pass defenses in the league to win a Super Bowl, alongside a QB whose new salary cap hit may preclude that.
     
  8. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    spin it any way you like...

    The fact of the matter is that when you do not turn the football over... You are insanely accurate... You are able to make deep strikes when you get the chance... You are going to win football games. Even against top QB's like Mahomes. When your starting QB does not turn the ball over... throws for 2 touchdowns and has a QB rating over 133... Go ahead and try to keep up with the argument that he is not a major reason why you won the football game.

    Twenty five NFL teams wish their QB was playing at that level
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    "Spinning" something implies it's ambiguous. This isn't ambiguous.

    That kind of low-volume, efficient, mistake-free performance by a QB is a major reason teams can win football games -- when it occurs alongside someone who runs the ball like Derrick Henry did in 2019, or a defense that can shut other teams down.

    Notice that during Tannehill's 10-game run as the league's leader in passer rating, the Titans' record with him as the starter was 7-3. What happened in the three losses? Derrick Henry had two games in which he rushed for 63 yards and 86 yards, and in the third of those games he didn't play. Henry rushed for 103 yards per game in 2019, so obviously those were off games for him.

    Why couldn't the Titans win those three games nonetheless? They had the league's leader in passer rating....

    And then of course in the playoffs, they were 2-1, with Henry's rushing for 182 and 195 yards in the two wins, and only 69 yards in the loss. Why couldn't they win the third game? They had the league's leader in passer rating....

    This isn't ambiguous. The Titans need either superhuman output from Henry to win, or they need one of the league's best pass defenses. Tannehill is simply the low-volume passing QB in that equation.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2020
  10. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    There is more than one way to win a game with a dependable high accuracy passing game. For years the Patriots have done it with a tight end that could not be covered and small quick receivers that could get open on 5 yard routes to move chains. Nothing fancy... Dink and Dunk

    Tannehill did not have a true #1 receiver and his expected #1 tight end was 35 years old. ( and ran out of gas ) That being said Humphries is a solid possession receiver in the slot and I think Brown could grow into a very good #2 receiver... But let's be honest... There is no way that Tannehill had weapons to throw the ball to like Kelce or Hill. Both of whom are elite. Yet nobody says sh*t like Mahomes is overrated because of Hill and Kelce. But all we hear is that Tannehill is overrated because of Henry.

    Newsflash... If the Titans had Kelce instead of Walker... They would throw the ball more than they did last season. Ditto Tyreek Hill instead of Corey Coleman. This draft is loaded with Wide Receiver talent... It will be interesting to see if the Titans grab another receiver for Tannehill and the offense. ( I hope they do for his sake )
     
    resnor likes this.
  11. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    Man, the endlrss circles and loops people will go through in an attempt to knock on Tannehill is truly amazing. It's been years. Even if he did, eventually, win a Superbowl, people will still give excuses for why he did, like coaching, surrounding cast, opponent, etc, etc, etc. In the end, the truth will most likely lay somewhere in the middle. It doesn't matter anyway. It's probably wise to wish him the best and put this dung to bed.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2020
    Etrius24 and Irishman like this.
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What you're saying in essence here is that Tannehill can be competitive in a high-volume passing game against the league's best QBs if he's surrounded by better offensive talent. While that's certainly logical and plausible, two things argue against it: 1) the fact that Tannehill has struggled in high-volume games throughout his eight-year career (including last year), spanning many combinations of surrounding offensive talent, and 2) the fact that Tannehill will be accounting for upwards of 13% of the Titans' salary cap in future years, which will prohibit some degree of the acquisition of surrounding talent. The Chiefs have players like Kelce and Hill in large part because Patrick Mahomes's cap hit has been below a mere three percent for his first four years (including 2020).

    What the Titans need is a pass defense that can stifle the likes of Mahomes, in conjunction with riding Henry and replicating Tannehill's efficient, low-volume, low-mistake performance. If their GM is focusing on allocating resources predominantly to surround Tannehill with greater offensive talent, they'll be beaten more easily in the playoffs this year.
     
  13. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Umm.. I thought we already went through this. Tannehill doesn't struggle in high volume games any more than expected for a starting QB given his (adjusted) rating. Remember this graph from earlier (Jan 17th) in this thread where I plotted the correlation of game by game 2019-adjusted ratings to passing attempts for all QB seasons since 1978 with 150+ passing attempts:
    [​IMG]

    Last year (that's the green point at far right: 117.5 rating), Tannehill performed slightly better than expected in high volume games, given his overall rating, and in general he's around the trend line. The only two years where he did quite a bit worse than league average were 2015 and 2018 (2019-adjusted ratings are 88.9 and 90.2 in that graph).

    Point is.. it's expected for any QB with above average passer rating to play worse in high attempt games and Tannehill is no different in that regard. Over his entire career, yes, he's done slightly worse than expected, but last year he was better than expected.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2020
    Pauly, resnor and Irishman like this.
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Two problems with that analysis in my view: 1) it's a season-by-season analysis, which isn't what I was getting at above, i.e., Tannehill's performance against Mahomes when Henry was ineffective and Tannehill had to pass the ball considerably more -- that kind of dynamic happens in a single game, and 2) Tannehill has a fairly unique penchant for sacks that likely becomes more paramount as the percentage of pass dropbacks in a single game increases, and of course sacks aren't considered in passer rating.

    What we'd need to do is look at the correlation between performance -- in a way that includes sacks -- and the percentage of plays that are pass dropbacks in single games. That would be a measure of how much the offense was put on the QB's shoulders in a game, and its relationship with his performance.

    Here's a look at some of what happened in 2019 in that regard:

    % Plays ; PR ; Sacks
    67.19 ; 82.3 ; 4
    66.67 ; 78.1 ; 4
    63.16 ; 109.8 ; 3
    58.62 ; 108.1 ; 3
    56.72 ; 92.2 ; 2
    55.17 ; 133.6 ; 5
    51.67 ; 120.1 ; 2
    48.28 ; 131.3 ; 6
    46.94 ; 133.9 ; 4
    45.76 ; 140.4 ; 0
    36.54 ; 155.8 ; 1
    33.33 ; 130.8 ; 0
    28.30 ; 109.5 ; 1
    28.07 ; 61 ; 1

    Those are the 14 games in which Tannehill played in 2019, including the playoffs. In the left column (before the first semicolon) we have the percentage of plays in which he was on the field that were pass dropbacks (including sacks). In the middle column (after the first semicolon) we have his passer rating. In the right column (after the second semicolon) we have his number of sacks.
     
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's a game by game analysis (said so in the post), but plotted for each season separately. Try it yourself. Take all the games Tannehill played in a given year and correlate game by game attempts to passer rating and you'll get what I plotted above. So yes this is what you want.

    Including sacks doesn't increase correlation of passer rating to points scored or win% much. I don't remember in which post I did that but I did a maximum likelihood estimation including sacks to find the optimal weights on such a modified passer rating and the correlation went up by only 0.04 or something like that. So passer rating is capturing almost all of the effect even if you include sacks.
     
    Irishman, The Guy and Pauly like this.
  16. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Guy

    You keep moving the goal posts.

    Someone breaks down Tannehill's whole career and shows charts and graphs to prove he does not struggle when throwing the ball more... And you dismiss that and want to talk about a specific game only. ( As if 8 years in the NFL suddenly do not matter. )

    It is almost as if nobody here remembers the hard lessons we had to learn with Marino as our QB... Sure he was the best player in the NFL when he played in his prime. But the team sucked and we were behind all of the time... Marino would often have to abandon the run and do nothing but throw the ball all of the second half... and he played brilliant maybe we come back and win.... ugh

    Fook that.

    I will take 20-30 passing attempts a game... few turnovers... control the football... Play solid defense.. Chew clock and win games Late in the second half let the running backs grind it out on the ground and seal the win.

    Even if the Titans add a tight end playmaker like a Kelce.... They would be stupid not to run the ball over and over once they get a lead and are in the second half.... They could have Aaron Rodgers as their QB... When you have the lead... and a RB like Henry you use him...

    This is not rocket science.

    There were games last year where Tannehill had to do more than complete 15 passes to win. Like the game where he scored 4 touchdowns against the Panthers.... In the victory over the chiefs... Tannehill not only threw for 2 touchdowns with no picks... But he ran for crucial first downs as well.

    As for the tired and misleading stat line you hear in games.... "Phillip Rivers has 37 4th quarter come back victories." Yeah and if he did not throw as many turnovers and played better football they would not be behind in half of those games late in the 4th quarter.

    So yeah Tannehill did not Beat Mahomes to get to the Superbowl... He came up a couple plays shy. Mahomes might be the best Young QB in all of football... I mean he did just win the freaking MVP and he plays on a team with the best tight end in football and the fastest player in the NFL is his #1 wideout.

    If you are basing that as your argument as to a specific QB is not good enough then about 27 NFL starting Qb's are not good enough...
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  17. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Any time the starting QB has to throw the ball 50 times to have a chance to win the game... Something has gone really wrong.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Are you considering the Denver game from 2019 a low-volume or a high-volume game?
     
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And yes that's true. They aren't good enough.

    The folks here who are old enough can of course remember when Michael Jordan dominated the league in the NBA and won many championships. Mahomes is that player in the NFL, in part because of his ability, and in part because the present-day league rules make it so that someone with his ability can be the Michael Jordan of the league.

    This is of course why every NFL draft features a desperate attempt by many teams to find the next guy like him. They don't feature a desperate attempt to find a guy like Tannehill and surround him with a great tight end and a great wide receiver. The league knows better.
     
  20. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I applaud your efforts, but no matter what you say, The Guy will always ALWAYS try to portray Tannehill as a bad QB. He actually blocked me because he got sick of me responding to his posts. He's a bad faith poster, always moving the goalposts, and almost always making assertions without any proof, and almost always will not answer your questions with facts, but will instead answer with only more questions.
     
    KeyFin and Irishman like this.
  21. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL..... I need to start a pool for people to predict the number of posts after joining the board it will take before getting into a Tannehill discussion with "The Guy" and how many additional posts it will take before they realize the pointlessness of it.....
     
    Irishman, resnor and Dolphin Dundee like this.
  22. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There's no categorization per se – it's just a correlation – but with 16 attempts it's definitely on the lower end.

    I see what you're getting at though with that one game: Mariota started and Tannehill came in later. Won't change any overall conclusions if you leave out the Denver game however: the correlation is -0.244 which is almost exactly on the trend line.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It's all understandable. You have people here who are making sort of a gross (or overarching) appraisal of a player and his ability to help a team win, without drilling down and getting into the particulars of his performance. When you get into the particulars of Tannehill's performance, you realize he needs to be in a low-volume passing role, accompanied by a very dominant running back, to perform like he did in 2019.

    Lamar Jackson was the league MVP in 2019 and was third in the league in passer rating, only 4.2 points behind Tannehill, and if we were talking about his ability to win a Super Bowl, everything I'd be saying about him would be virtually identical. He's going to need one of the best pass defenses in the league to win a Super Bowl as well, despite the league MVP and the very high passer rating in 2019. Jackson likewise needs to be in a low-volume passing role.

    Note that Jackson had the fewest pass attempts per game in the league in 2019, and Tannehill had the second-fewest. Neither of them made it through the playoffs despite how well they played in the regular season, because the playoffs forced them out of their comfort zones, and they didn't have the other facets of a team (i.e., defense) necessary to compensate for that.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2020
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm not arguing for leaving out the Denver game; I'm arguing for shifting the analysis from pass attempts to the percentage of plays that are pass dropbacks. In the Denver game the percentage of plays that were pass dropbacks when Tannehill was on the field was 66.7 -- that's a very high-volume game. And his passer rating, as expected, was a meager 78.1, accompanied by four sacks.

    What that does to 2019 as a whole (including the playoffs) is create a correlation of -0.65 between percentage of plays that were pass dropbacks and passer rating, if we exclude the playoff game against New England, where Tannehill had a passer rating of 61 despite only 28% of the plays being pass dropbacks.

    Why exclude the New England game? Because the argument isn't that he can't play poorly in a low-volume game; it's that he can't play well in a high-volume one.
     
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    OK, well a few things.

    1) Shifting arguments is fine, but it has to acknowledged that the attempts argument doesn't hold: Tannehill is not performing significantly worse than expected in high passing attempt games.

    2) Regardless of the stat used, you can't remove data points. That Denver game can't be removed for the attempts argument and the NE game can't be removed for a percentage of plays argument. All games must be included that fit whatever definition you use.

    3) If you want to shift the argument to percentage of plays, then you have to do the same thing I did by finding the league trend line as a function of season passer rating (still a game-by-game correlation). Only then do you know whether the -0.23 correlation for Tannehill using percentage of plays in 2019 (I'm just using the data you posted) is at, above or below expected.

    So as long as you're willing to do all that, then sure shift the argument. Oh, and I wouldn't assume to know the answer to #3 until you actually do the analysis.
     
    Pauly and resnor like this.
  26. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, and that's a lot of work. However, the argument I'm making is high-volume games, not high passing attempt games. The former is obviously a more precise way of measuring the percentage of the offensive effort that was placed upon the QB, how much he was made to be the centerpiece of the offense if you will.

    I disagree about the New England game. Imagine the following hypothetical QB's performance over 10 individual games.

    % Pass Dropbacks : Passer Rating
    25 : 145
    30 : 140
    35 : 135
    40 : 130
    45 : 125
    50 : 120
    55 : 115
    60 : 100
    65 : 90
    70 : 80

    The correlation between percentage of pass dropbacks and passer rating above is -0.98.

    Now let's add one game to the above data, with a pass dropback percentage of 28, accompanied by a passer rating of 61 (the same as Tannehill's playoff game in New England).

    The correlation then plummets from -0.98 to -0.45, despite that the game that was added did nothing to demonstrate the QB's ability to play well in a high-volume game. It demonstrated only his ability to play poorly in a low-volume game.
     
  27. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    "attempts" is a "volume" stat. That's in fact how you were using it the whole time (instead of efficiency). "percentage of plays" is also a "volume" stat. Both are volume stats. So "volume" is ambiguous with respect to the distinction you're trying to make.

    No, this is the distinction between doing proper statistical analysis and cherry picking. If you define some stat (e.g., "passing attempts" or "percentage of plays that are dropbacks") then under no circumstances do you remove a data point where that definition applies.

    Maybe "percentage of plays that are dropbacks" isn't what you want to use either because you'll have to include all games, low volume or not. So I guess what you're looking for is some definition for "high volume". Every such definition will be arbitrary, meaning that one would have to look at how the result changes as you change the threshold for "high volume".. all the way to including all games. Not saying it's impossible to do, but I'd need to see a valid statistical analysis (i.e., no cherry picking for starters) first.

    As it stands you don't have statistical evidence for what you're trying to claim yet. That doesn't mean your intuition is wrong (or right), so if you want to argue this without statistical analysis then go ahead, but the stats don't back you up yet.
     
    Irishman, Pauly and resnor like this.
  28. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Obviously what we're talking about would involve a tremendous amount of work. The only work I've done so far is the following:

    The average percentage of plays that were pass dropbacks in regular season games in the NFL in 2019 was 58.8.

    If we make that the cutoff for "high-volume," then we get the following data for the careers (2012 to 2018) of Ryan Tannehill and Russell Wilson -- I'm using Wilson here because he's often been cited as a guy whose running game and defense have permitted him to remain in a low-volume role (passer ratings are adjusted to 2019):

    Tannehill low-volume average passer rating: 93.2
    Tannehill high-volume average passer rating: 78.4

    Wilson low-volume average passer rating: 100.8
    Wilson high-volume average passer rating: 98.5

    For Tannehill in 2019, the average passer rating in high-volume games was 90.1. In low-volume games it was 119.7.

    The playoff game in Kansas City was on the borderline between the two, in that 58.6% of the offensive plays for Tennessee were pass dropbacks. That figure was 0.74 standard deviations above Tannehill's 2019 norm, however, whereas it would've been very slightly lower than the league norm in 2019.
     
  29. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL @ the endless search for the stat to prove his preconceived notion. While, of course, ignoring what actually happened on the field.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  30. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Wrong. This has been disproven MULTIPLE times.

    Unsupported assumptions.

    Speculation.

    BTW, 31 QBs were "forced out of their comfort zomes" and failed to win the SB......
     
    Irishman, resnor and PhinFan1968 like this.
  31. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    CBRAD,

    You have way more persistence and patience for this than me... Bully for you though. Without doing any leg work and plotting numbers on a chart...

    Being an elite QB assures you nothing in terms of winning the Superbowl... How many rings did Marino have?

    There are so many things needed to get to and win a Superbowl... Peyton Manning absolutely sucked when he won his last ring... He was no longer able to play close to the level that Tannehill played at in 2019 Remember Manning won a Superbowl with the Broncos and he did not complete 60% of his passes.. and had a QB rating of 67.9!!!!

    Before you try to say to me: "See that is my point you need an elite defense..." If that is the case any NFL backup would do and you could build your Superbowl winning team around Tyrod Taylor or Casey Keenum. Those QB's are not winning playoff games and playing for the AFC championship. ( And they will not be )

    The level Tannehill played at in 2019 is light years ahead of what Manning could do in the 2015 season when he could no longer throw the football.

    Tim Tebow won a playoff game for crying out loud... another guy who could not throw a football.

    Instead of trying to make the numbers back up an argument ( As has been pointed out ) Would it not be much simpler to just admit that Tannehill was much better than we thought? Would it not be easier to admit that he played at a level last season where he deserves to be called a top 10 NFL QB... ( And paid like one also? )

    What benefit is there in holding onto anger and hatred for Tannehill? Making excuses when he wins... and then finger-pointing and gloating when he does not?

    When you lead the NFL in yards per pass... When you lead the NFL in QB rating... When you are second in completion percentage and completing over 70% of your passes... You are a great QB... maybe not elite... Not top 3...

    Which brings me to my next point

    Two years ago it was a big QB draft... Rosen, Allen, Darnold, Jackson, As much as I like Jackson... He has a ways to go before he is as good as Wilson, mahomes, or Rodgers.

    And the criticism of Tannehill seems to be that you cannot win with him... you need an elite QB

    Okay despite having one of the two best wide receivers on the planet and a trio of other top targets to throw to... What has Desean Watson won in the NFL exactly? Jack ****. ( I am a big fan... using him as an example. )

    Brady has not been a top 10 NFL qb for a few years now... But He still won a ring despite no longer being a top NFL QB in 2018

    Production matters... We have a wave of extremely dynamic and athletic QB's coming into the league... Watson, Jackson, Mahomes...Athletically Tannehill is very gifted... He will never be mistaken for a running back like Jackson.... But Tannehill throws on the run as well as any QB in football. He is lethal in the play action... and he makes plays with his legs. He can go get you a first down or lower the shoulder and punch the football in.. He is big and he is strong.

    I think part of the problem we are going to start seeing is that people will discredit or write off any QB that cannot compare athletically with players like Watson, Jackson, Mahomes, Hurts, Love, Wilson... This is folly.

    And again do not discredit Tannehill for not throwing the ball 50 times a game... Even if you win the game if you have to throw the football 40-50 times then the team is doing something very wrong. Ask all of the coaches in the NFL and I am pretty sure all of them would rather see their QB throw less than 30 times a game... Where the split of running plays and passing plays is 50-50 And if they have a lead... You start running the ball more than you throw it. It is just smart football... Grind it out... Wear out a defense...Chew clock protect the ball and gain field position.

    As fans sure it is more fun to see explosive runs and deep passes for 40+ yards. We are fans not coaches.
     
    Patster1969, Irishman and resnor like this.
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I have no more anger toward Tannehill than I do toward Lamar Jackson. I'd say the same things about both players. Tannehill needs the 2019 Derrick Henry, an efficient low-volume passing offense, and a top pass defense to win a Super Bowl, and Jackson needs his own 2019 running ability, an efficient low-volume passing offense, and a top pass defense as well. Jackson won the league MVP last year. Neither player can carry his offense with the passing game.
     
  33. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020


    This is folly...

    It is a coaches job to use the best players. The Titans did not have a top 10 receiver... They did have a top 5 running back. There is no evidence ( as pointed out already ) to suggest that tannehill could not throw more and be successful. What we do have evidence of is that when asked to throw the ball Tannehill did it as well as any QB in the NFL... Completing more than 70% of his passes and throwing further down the field than any other QB in the NFL... So it was not like what we have seen from Brady and the pats... dink and dunk safe little passes all day long. The fact of the matter is that the Titans had the #2 scoring offense in the NFL with Tannehill as their QB. Sure Brown played a part in that. But look at their offense where it ranked in scoring with Mariotta. Enough said.

    If Tannehill had Travis Kelce instead of a Broken down 35 year old Delanie Walker He would throw more. If the Titans had Tyreek hill instead of Adam Humphries... They would throw more.

    Now the Titans drafted Brown and he showed signs that he will become a fine player ... The more he matures and the better he plays the more the Titans will throw the ball to Him.

    Tannehill in Miami showed he could complete 65% of his passes.. Throw for more than 4000 yards and throw twice as many touchdowns as interceptions. It was not in a low volume passing offense either...

    And it is simple... Tannehill played behind the worst of offensive lines in Miami for the most part. For much of his time here he had nothing special at receiver to throw to and there was never a top running game to the point where the play action fooled anyone on the defense.

    Tannehill gets out of Miami and away from Gase... All of a sudden there is a legit running game... He is playing with an O line that does not s*ck balls and his completion percentage instantly goes up! Not a hard thing to grasp. On a team that runs more than 3 yard routes his yards per pass instantly increases also.

    With an actual running game the play action works... The Titans know how to run a screen play properly... Tannehill can roll.. bootleg and throw on the run.

    Tannehill has proven years ago he can throw the ball and play at a high level... Even on bad teams with terrible coaches.

    I am eager to hear the next excuse... This has been fun.
     
    Patster1969, Irishman, Pauly and 2 others like this.
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure there is. It's contained in post #6106, based on every year of his career, including 2019.

    If that isn't "evidence to suggest," then the phrase "evidence to suggest" really has no meaning for you, and there is simply no evidence of that nature that would suggest anything to you along these lines.
     
  35. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's refreshing to see a new face come in here and actually understand what was happening with Tannehill in Miami. It's unfortunate that you're wasting your knowledge on what I can only assume is The Guy. Honestly, I don't believe he is looking for the truth, he's been on a crusade to minimize Tannehill and show him to be a bad QB. He will conjuror to recycle through the arguments that you've already disproven (understand also, myself and several other posters have already presented the range things you're presenting, and you'll notice that it hasn't stopped him from bringing up the same tired, disproven, ridiculous arguments).

    Ask him to provide examples of QBs who had multiple HCs and multiple different OCs through their first several seasons, with terrible olines and zero commitment to the run game, who also were not allowed to audible, who put up top 10 numbers and lead their team to three playoffs.
     
    KeyFin and Irishman like this.
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    All you showed in post #6106 is that Tannehill is likely to do worse than Wilson, nothing else. Post #6106 doesn't suggest anything about Tannehill relative to expected for starting QB's in the NFL, which is really what's important here. And right now the only type of evidence of that sort is the graph in post #6091 which shows that Tannehill is not statistically different from expected for starting QB's.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  37. smahtaz

    smahtaz Pimpin Ain't Easy

    I wonder how likely it is that Tannehill has his bank manager's personal phone number?
     
  38. xphinfanx

    xphinfanx Stay strong my friends.

    10,823
    2,214
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The post you quoted was a response to the statement that "there's no evidence to suggest that Tannehill could not throw more and be successful."

    The information in post #6106 argues fairly strongly against that, when in high-volume games between 2012 and 2018, his average passer rating was 78.4, and in 2019, the best season of his career, one in which he led the league in passer rating, his average passer rating in high-volume games was 90.1. That suggests his ceiling in high-volume games is somewhere around 90. 90 isn't getting a team anywhere in the neighborhood of a Super Bowl unless that team has one of the best pass defenses of all time. So you don't want Tannehill "throwing more," as was stated in the post I responded to.

    There's a reason the Titans used Tannehill like they did in the playoffs, in a very low-volume manner, even after he posted the highest regular season passer rating in the league. They didn't go into the playoffs riding the arm of the league's leader in passer rating. They went into the playoffs riding Derrick Henry.
     
  40. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You need to put some disclaimers in there. That 90.1 rating for 2019 is based on THREE games with a combined total of 88 passing attempts. And you think there's any kind of reliability in that statistic?

    No, for 2019 you don't have any reliable estimate for "high volume" games (leaving aside the arbitrary nature of the cut-off for a moment). At absolute minimum you need 150+ attempts or statistical tests will almost never distinguish between "good" and "bad" QB's.

    Regardless.. the question is (as I said) how he compares to expected based on league-wide distribution of QB performance. If you're just looking at absolute ratings or absolute decrements, then you probably don't want any QB throwing more, including Wilson. QB's generally throw more when the team is behind so ideally you don't want any QB to have to do that.

    And yes it's clear that Henry, not Tannehill was the focal point of the Tennessee offense. But you don't have the statistical evidence to show that Tannehill in 2019 was unlikely to hurt the Titans in "high volume" games any more than would be expected from NFL QB's.
     
    Irishman, Pauly and Etrius24 like this.

Share This Page