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. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I do find it ironic that "The Guy" would need another season to observe Tannehill and utterly fail to use the seasons that followed 2014 and 2015 to evaluate that OL personnel...... maybe "ironic" is the right word...
     
  2. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    First of all, I have opinions on a lot of things. I just make it clear when something can and cannot be justified statistically, so there's no "going outside stats" issue here. I "go outside stats" all the time.

    As far as why I think Henry influenced Tannehill more than the other way around, it's because I think the great majority of observers of Tennessee's offense would agree that Henry was the centerpiece of the offense. Yes, a few may think differently, but ask around the NFL and few people think Tannehill is the kind of QB that can put up numbers like he did in 2019 without Henry, while far more will agree with you that Henry can do that without Tannehill.

    So while it's true that there's one comparison you can't make with Tannehill that you can make with Henry – Tannehill without Henry in Tennessee – you can't ignore the entire past history of those two, and when you look at that history statistically (now it's using statistics on each individual datapoint), you find far more statistical significance with Tannehill than with Henry. So I'm more inclined to think Henry's influence on Tannehill was larger than the other way around.
     
  3. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Multiple reasons.

    1. For 2 of the seasons he was very inexperienced.
    2. Terrible play calling, "go", Go-go"
    3. Terrible coaching
    4. Terrible receivers
    5. Often in max protect with only 2 receivers going against 6 or 7 defenders.

    Now, why from 2014 to 2016 did Tannehill average a passer rating well above 100 when he had is starting OL?
     
    resnor likes this.
  4. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And the fact that Henry was the centerpiece of the offense wouldn't necessarily be a knock on Tannehill's ability if it wasn't accompanied by such large decrements in Tannehill's performance when Henry wasn't the centerpiece of the offense -- 1) in high-volume passing games, and 2) when opposing defenses weren't stacking the box.

    In other words, we can use within-season variation to get an idea of what was going on there. Next season will likely make it definitive, i.e., between-season variation, but there is some highly relevant within-season variation from 2019 to go on here.
     
  5. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    CBrad

    Henry is a great player and Tannehill does benefit from him being part of the offense.. We all agree on that. Henry also had the best numbers of his life with Tannehill as his QB...

    Not only was this his best season... 5.1 yards per carry and 16 touchdowns. Henry was averaging 3.8 yards per carry for Mariotta and 6.3 yards per carry for Tannehill.

    It is an interesting debate as to which player benefitted more from the other... But there is no denying that Tannehill had a huge impact on Henry and his success in Tennessee last year also.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  6. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Tannehill put up numbers like 2019 in 2019 without Henry...... check the NO game.

    Having said that, IMO, very very very very very very very few QBs in the history of the game consistently put up efficient numbers without the threat of a running game. Also, even with a great running game, only a handful of QBs in the history of the league have ever put up as efficient a season as Tannehill did in 2019.

    In summary, I can find many more seasons that match or exceed Henry's stats than I can find that match or exceed Tannehill's stats.

    Henry's 2019 season is the 64th highest yards per game in league history.
    Tannehill's passer rating is 4th.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  7. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Who can forget...

    Go, Go-Go

    Jesus.. The level of coaching was bad... even for high school level football... It was bad.
     
    Irishman, GARDENHEAD and resnor like this.
  8. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    But then you get into the whole problem...Tannehill is viewed as her is largely because of the results in Miami. So, the only way to compare is to compare Henry pre-tannehill and post-tannehill. In that comparison, you cannot make the case that Henry was:

    1. More used with Tannehill than without Tannehill

    and

    2. That Henry was more effective without Tannehill.

    Fact is, Henry's usage remained almost exactly the same, but his production soared. The Tennessee offense went from anemic to best in the league. The only thing that changed was Tannehill.

    So I don't think your opinion is able to be verified in any way.
     
  9. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Let's make sure it's clear that's your opinion only and not statistical analysis because you're using words like "within-season variation" and "between-season variation" which are technical concepts. Remember, for a statistical argument you need confidence intervals based on league-wide distribution of those stats.

    And it is worth pointing out there is at least ONE game with Tannehill without Henry where Tannehill had a 133.6 rating. It's just that with one game you don't get any estimate of the variance.
     
    Irishman, The Guy and FinFaninBuffalo like this.
  10. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    What about when Henry was not playing? Oh, 133.6 passer rating.... next.
     
  11. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Keep him honest, cbrad!
     
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Tannehill had three games in Miami that were better than that one, in terms of passer rating (adjusted to 2019), and without Henry as well.
     
  13. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yes but you get no estimate of the variance which is necessary for estimating statistical significance. And the variance would be massive with just a few games anyway even if he had more than 1 such game.

    This actually argues for Tannehill being influenced more by Henry than the other way around.
     
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That's why it's an opinion. Same is true for the opposing argument.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  15. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yes I'm willing to make that clear for the people who don't know any better, thank you.

    It's also worth pointing out that Tannehill had three games in Miami in which his passer rating (adjusted to 2019) was better than it was in that game, again with no Henry and without whatever surroundings in Tennessee some people are attributing his 2019 performance to.
     
  16. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Actually, I think it just argues who had the more exceptional season. I don't think it speaks to who influenced who more. I can argue that many RBs have had more exceptional seasons than Henry and none of them helped their QB put up numbers like Tannehill, so why should we give that credit to Henry?
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  17. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No it actually would, assuming the comparisons were truly comparable. Ignore for the moment that the comparisons aren't symmetric (e.g., because of what you pointed out about having 5 games of Henry without Tannehill in the same year).

    If they were symmetric however, then the larger improvement in standard deviations away from the mean (z-scores) of the two players (so relative to their own performance) would signify a bigger effect, meaning that it's evidence the causal relationship is stronger in that direction. And the advantage of z-scores is you can put any stat on the same z-score scale so there are no issues about comparing passer rating to rushing Y/A for example.
     
  18. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    But Henry is not the only change in the supporting cast from Tannehil 2012-2018 and Tannehill 2019. Literally everything is different.
     
    resnor likes this.
  19. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Right.. which is one reason why I can't make a purely statistical argument – the comparisons aren't symmetric. The other reason is because it's not a priori clear which stats to compare. It's possible even with a symmetric comparison that you get different results depending on which set of stats you compare.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  20. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    WeLl that's simply not correct. If one has an opinion with no facts to back it up, and someone else has an opinion with facts to back it up, would seem one is more believable.

    I'm not someone who thinks that all opinions are correct. One can hold an opinion that is also wrong.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  21. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I'm going with the idea that an effective running game and passing game are symbiotic. In rare circumstances one can have long term effectiveness without the other but not often and usually not for long. Dan Marino is an obvious example of a QB that performed well without a running game and Barry Sanders is an example of a RB that managed to excel without an effective QB. Both were unanimous first ballot hall of famers.
     
  22. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Interesting stat for those predicting a regression for Tannehill. Of the top 10 single season passer ratings, only 2 players are in the top 10 twice and only one for consecutive seasons. Manning's two seasons are nine years apart. Brees has had a remarkable run the last two seasons.

    Brees is represented a remarkable nine times in the top 100. Interesting that Brees is the closest QB I see to Tannehill in having limited early career success before changing teams. Maybe Tannehill has the same success.

    upload_2020-3-31_13-12-15.png
     
    resnor likes this.
  23. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    What?? There's arguably more data supporting what I said. All the statistical significance data, the z-score argument showing differences in the magnitude of improvement, etc.. In fact, if you just presented that data to statisticians who had no idea what the context here was except that we're talking about sports, they'd tell you the statistical significance data I'm referring to is stronger.

    That 5 game data for 2019 would be acknowledged but it's not strong evidence of anything because statistical significance disappears when you add more data points from 2018 and because you can show the variance from 2018-2019 didn't change much pre-Tannehill – in other words there's evidence you can combine 2018 and 2019.

    And just to be clear about why statistical significance is so important, if you don't have it then any differences you observe are consistent with random variation. So sure you can point out that the only thing that changed for Henry was Tannehill while that wasn't true in the other direction, but if you don't have statistical significance, then the difference in performance can at least theoretically (whether that's intuitive or not) be explained by random variation alone.

    Either way, there's no question there's a lot of "facts" supporting what I'm saying so don't go around claiming I'm basing this on no data.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2020
  24. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    How about the number of 100 yard games in Henry's career prior to Tannehill and the number he had with Tannehill.

    Again, your position has always been that Tannehill was at best average. So of course your opinion is that Tannehill was propped up by Henry.
     
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yards per game is not a good measure of a RB's ability, at least for shorter periods of time like a season or two, because: 1) it depends on rushing attempts (which is important if you're looking at 2018), and 2) it depends on running out the clock (causal effect is reversed).

    For RB's you want to use rushing yards per attempt = efficiency stat.

    Now.. that changes when you look at longer careers because only the better running backs stay in the league or start games for longer periods, so if you're comparing entire careers you get far better estimates of how good that RB is (e.g., correlation to HoF induction) using total yards. But in a given season or over a few seasons you definitely use Y/A.
     
  26. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Not sure why you don't think there is a big change in Henry pre and post Tannehill if you include 2018.

    Pre-Tannehill:
    4.5 YPC. 67 yards per game, .73 TDs per game

    Post-Tannehill
    5.9 YPC, 125 yards per game, 1.33 TDs per game
     
    resnor likes this.
  27. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That's why I put in parenthesis "whether that's intuitive or not". You actually run a t-test for unequal sample sizes and it comes back negative. Thing is, the statistical significance for the 5 games in 2019 is just right on the borderline (which is fine), but that also shows why adding more data points can easily push it in the other direction, and it's not close either.

    So sure, intuitively I'd also make the argument Tannehill likely improved Henry. In fact I said so explicitly before. But from a purely statistical point of view you definitely will have the problem of including pre-2019 data.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  28. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Oh I get it. Tannehill improved Henry, but Henry was the reason for their success, not Tannehill.

    Makes complete sense.
     
    Etrius24 likes this.
  29. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Stop trying to turn a solid argument into a weak one.

    I never said Tannehill deserves no credit for the Titans success. Both Henry and Tannehill were important for the Titans success. That should be obvious to anyone. But I still think Henry influenced Tannehill more than the other way around, and yes I do think Henry was the more important of the two. There's nothing controversial in what I'm saying (in fact it's probably a majority opinion if you ask around the NFL), but you're so hell bent on creating a strawman you can't accept people taking a perfectly reasonable position.
     
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The issue is that 1) the Titans' success as a team, and 2) the difference in Tannehill's performance individually in 2019, are two different issues.

    The Titans could've had marvelous success as a team in 2019 with Tannehilll's playing at his 2016 level if they would've had one of the best pass defenses in the league and an exceptionally high turnover margin, for example, but Tannehill would've been playing at his customary level individually in that scenario.

    What we're trying to explain here is why he performed so much better individually in 2019.
     
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    If Tannehill wasn't playing at a higher level, then the Titans pre-Tannehill would have been predictive of Titans with-Tannehill. It's not. I don't see how you could ever argue Tannehill himself wasn't playing at a higher level.

    Yes, it could be due to interaction effects (that's probably true for every player) but I don't see how you can argue he was playing at the same level he was previously (and btw.. he didn't look the same on tape, just the confidence in his play was vastly different).
     
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No I'm definitely arguing he was playing at a higher level -- sorry if that wasn't clear. My point only was that the Titans could've had good success as a team with his playing at his 2016 level, for example, given other team factors such as pass defense and turnover margin.

    In other words, ascribing Tannehill's individual play to other factors takes nothing away from the Titans' success as a team, because those are two separate issues -- his individual performance, and the team's performance.
     
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Statistically Mariota was playing at Tannehill's level (or approximately at least). You're trying to ascribe the entire statistical significance of that offense's performance to some interaction effect we have no way of measuring?

    Occam's razor suggests Tannehill's individual performance improved. That is, the default assumption should be Tannehill himself improved with evidence required to reject it, not the other way around.
     
    FinFaninBuffalo likes this.
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No what I'm saying is that it doesn't take Tannehill's 2019 performance to be successful as a team. You can accomplish that with Tannehill's 2016 level of play for example, given other team factors such as pass defense and turnover margin, if they're strong enough.

    He definitely played statistically significantly better in 2019 individually. When we simply question why he played better individually and whether that's attributable to other factors, we aren't necessarily taking anything away from the team's accomplishments in doing that.

    In other words, determining where the variation in Tannehill's performance has come from over the years doesn't necessarily mean anything about the 2019 Titans' accomplishments. We're simply focusing on the individual play of one player and determining why it varies.
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    But you've been beating the drum of how important it is for a QB to perform at a high level individually. Why try and point out the Titans could have had similar success without a high level of QB performance (which is much less likely)?

    I'm not following this. What exactly are you trying to argue here? If you admit Tannehill played better then what's the issue?
     
    resnor likes this.
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The issue comes from people's inference that the attribution of cause to other factors for Tannehill's individual performance necessarily diminishes the accomplishments of the 2019 Titans' team. That isn't the case, because those are two separate issues.

    What we're doing, rather (or at least what I've been doing), is examining the cause of the variation in Tannehill's individual performance over the years.

    Hell the 2016 Dolphins for example could've won a Super Bowl with Tannehill's playing like he did that year if 1) their pass defense would've been roughly the best in the league, and 2) they had an exceptionally high turnover margin that was sustained throughout the season and the playoffs.
     
  37. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I haven't read every post here, but I don't recall posters suggesting that saying Tannehill benefitted from Henry diminishes the accomplishments of the 2019 Titans as a team. Can you point to specific posts where that sentiment is shown?

    Regardless, the most defensible position is that you shouldn't ascribe all of the statistical improvement with Tannehill to everyone else. Like I said, Occam's razor. So the premise is not well justified anyway.
     
    FinFaninBuffalo likes this.
  38. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Your response to someone above implied it:

    In other words, it's possible to attribute the change in Tannehill's individual performance to situational or environmental factors without saying his contribution wasn't important.

    Here's an analogy: Tom Brady had by far the best year of his career in terms of passer rating in 2007, with Randy Moss and company. We can attribute the upward variation in his individual performance that year to those surrounding factors without saying at all that he wasn't important in the Patriots' success that year. Just because the difference in his performance was attributable to other factors (Moss, etc.) doesn't mean his individual contribution was meaningless.
     
  39. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Are you phrasing this correctly? resnor didn't want to see Tannehill get no credit (which I never implied). He wasn't suggesting that what I wrote was diminishing the accomplishments of the team (what you wrote).
     
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, in other words we can give Tannehill credit in the Titans' success just like we would Tom Brady in the success of the 2007 Patriots. But at the same time we can attribute at least some of the difference in Tannehill and Brady's performance those years to situational or environmental variables.
     

Share This Page