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. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    In a strict statistical sense, yes, but pan back and realize that we're still talking about just 10 games here.

    And that's yet another commonality among Tannehill in 2019, Dalton in 2015, and Foles in 2013 -- all of them played abbreviated regular seasons.
     
  2. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    How about we end this thread with this ****ing amazing prediction?:

    1. Yes
    2. Yes
    3. Yes, if you count me and The_Dark_Knight.
     
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Viable yes, but even for that we need more data, as you've acknowledged. Note that you're still calling it a hypothesis -- LOL.
     
  4. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    In fact, one interesting thing to do statistically would be to determine just how much variation there would need to have been in his 2019 performance to make it non-significantly different statistically from any previous 10-game (or 11-game if you count Denver) stretch in his career. I don't imagine it's a whole lot.
     
  5. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Definitely proven.
     
    resnor likes this.
  6. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Statistically significant.
     
    resnor likes this.
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure, but now the question is, how sustainable are the "right" surroundings for Tannehill in particular?

    If the "right" surroundings can be accomplished in only one season of the let's say 10 or so seasons he'll play in the league, then obviously that makes him fundamentally worse than the QBs for whom the "right" surroundings are far more easily assembled and sustained.

    We can start next year with this question for example: is the passing load put on him going to be nearly two standard deviations below the league average once again?
     
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    As it was for Andy Dalton in 2015 and Nick Foles in 2013. Next.
     
  9. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Wait, passer rating is highly meaningful? WTF? How can that be?
     
    resnor likes this.
  10. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    So doesn't having the top passer rating help with passer rating differential? LOL.
     
  11. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Boom. And, as we all know, it kept going from there.
     
    resnor likes this.
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Oh by all means, especially in this context, which is why Vegas has Tannehill's 2020 league MVP odds at +8000.
     
  13. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Boom!
     
    resnor likes this.
  14. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I can live with that. Bring on 2020.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  15. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    Are you guys going to argue about Tannehill until he retires? :lol: Haven't you all heard, we have a new QB to rip apart and over analyze. :lol:

    Some impressive dedication here. I applaud you all for finding new ways, to beat the dead decomposing corpse the same way.:deadhorse:
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2020
  16. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Please find a past post of yours that tried to minimize a different QB’s passer rating with their MVP odds.
     
  17. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You have to put this back into context. What we're trying to do here is determine the meaning of one season out of seven. That meaning is currently ambiguous. The Vegas league MVP odds are simply one indication that, when we go beyond message board banter and there are actually stakes involved (money), that one season hasn't firmly established Tannehill as an upper-echelon QB. If it had, the odds of his winning the league MVP in 2020 would be far better, as they are for Mahomes, Jackson, Brees, etc.

    In other words, I'm not using MVP odds as a measure of performance. I'm using them as an indicator of ambiguity and uncertainty. You all but indicated the same thing when you (semi-)agreed with cbrad's post above and said "I can live with that."
     
  18. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Sorry Brandon, but some of us just can’t let it go. I’m almost willing to bet that in a Patriots forum somewhere, Patriots fan are doing the same thing with Brady...like I’m sure Chargers fans are doing the same thing with Brees...like Colts fans are/were doing the same thing with Manning.

    Some of us just know what we know.
     
    resnor likes this.
  19. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Find me a post where you have ever caveated another QB's high passer rating for any reason. Find me a post where you decided to switch to a measure other than passer rating as a measure of passing efficiency.

    I wrote "I can live with that" because he didn't make any attempt to discredit his 2019 performance with some nonsensical argument. He merely stated he wanted to see if it happens again. His comments after the Raiders game were (paraphrasing here) - this season is real, he is playing at an elite level. Maybe the situation in Miami really sucked. Let's see what happens next year.

    He did not tout passer rating and passer rating differential for 7 years only to drop them the moment Tannehill achieved a high passer rating. That is the difference.
     
    resnor likes this.
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The better question is, find me a post where I've stated that a single season passer rating indicates the individual ability of a QB. You won't find that one anywhere, and everything I've done here is an outgrowth of that perspective. If I truly thought a single season passer rating was indicative of a quarterback's ability, then yes, what I've done here would constitute hypocrisy, but I don't think that.

    In fact, the position I've maintained for years is that the better QBs vary in their performances from year to year at a level significantly higher than the worse ones. That necessarily entails more than one season of play to determine ability.

    Let me ask you something -- if you were truly going to bet some percentage of your belongings that was highly valuable to you on Tannehill's 2020 performance, would you not first try to determine the degree to which his 2019 performance is replicable, and would that not consist for you of some similar systematic exploration of unusual situational advantages he may have been experiencing?
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2020
  21. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    The fact remains that you held the following positions for 7 years:

    1. Surrounding environment (teammate, coaching, scheme) does not matter. It is all about the QB.
    2. Passer rating (without qualification of any kind) is the most important offensive stat and passer rating differential is critical.

    You dropped those positions the instant it became clear that Tannehill's play was going to force you to reconsider.

    Wanting to see multiple seasons of elevated play is fine, but you want to claim that while simultaneously denying him credit for the season that he has already achieved. That is the difference between your position and cbrad's. He has never claimed that Tannehill's passer rating in 2019 was somehow tainted. He has acknowledged the idea that, despite what he thought before, maybe Miami's surrounding environment really was crap. Those are our disagreements.

    You have dropped your two positions without ever acknowledging they were wrong. I know you'll come up with some illogical reason as to why #1 wasn't wrong then but is wrong now. And you have some weird reason that passer rating now needs to be qualified, but that wasn't necessary from 2012 to 2018.

    The debate has come full circle and we can end it here. Or, you can continue if you like.....
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2020
    resnor and PhinFan1968 like this.
  22. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Not trying to continue the debate but I did just run across this:

    https://www.profootballnetwork.com/pfn-offensive-share-metric/

    There are many tools people use when evaluating a player. This includes film review, situational stats, overall stats, advanced analytics, and more. Here at Pro Football Network, we evaluate players through our proprietary model called the Offensive Share Metric (OSM).

    We created this model because it can often be difficult to tell how well a player is performing during an NFL game. Conventional statistics are helpful, but they almost never tell the full story.
    Fans often claim that a certain player is only good because of their teammates, or that they are being held back by the players around them.

    PFN OSM is a way to see if those claims are actually true. The OSM grades measure how much of a player’s statistical production they were actually responsible for. For example, a wide receiver that doesn’t drop passes and breaks a lot of tackles will have a higher grade than one who did the opposite. So, a player with a higher grade was more responsible for their own production than a player with a lower one.

    These facts make the OSM useful for gauging an individual player’s actual effectiveness in a game, separate from the performances of their teammates. For more on how the Offensive Share Metric is graded, please scroll to the bottom of the page below the player database.


    upload_2020-5-12_7-39-2.png

    Our stance has always been this – film first, numbers second. If the numbers don’t match what is seen on film, something is likely wrong with the numbers. That was taken into account when developing our proprietary formula for OSM. This is also why we have a dedicated film room section – to help all of the pieces of the puzzle come together.

    Check out the site if you want. I have no interest in debating whether you agree or disagree with their approach or their conclusions. Just sharing the info.
     
    resnor and PhinFan1968 like this.
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And when determining a QB's individual ability, that remains true. It's only over several years of variation in surroundings that we can determine that a QB's performance varies at a higher level than that of other QBs. Tannehill's 2019 does not provide "several years" in making that determination. It provides only one.

    That remains true as well. However, that says nothing about whether a QB's individual ability can be determined on the basis of a single season passer rating, and as I've maintained for many years, it cannot.

    Neither position has been "dropped."

    The issue here is that you're taking Tannehill's 2019 season as proof that he has a certain level of ability, whereas I am not. I am not sold on your (and others') characterization of the difference in his surroundings between 2012-2018 and 2019. And neither by the way is Vegas, which is obviously predicting that there was something about Tannehill's 2019 circumstances that won't be replicable. Whether that proves to be true remains to be seen.
     
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    All of these takes are interesting, but what would you say if these same folks had Andy Dalton ranked #1 in 2015 and Nick Foles ranked #1 in 2013?

    That's the issue. Nobody is claiming Tannehill played poorly in 2019. The issue is whether he was the beneficiary of uncommonly good circumstances, and, if he was, how sustainable those will be.

    If he plays well in the future, it'll suggest he wasn't the beneficiary of uncommonly good surroundings that weren't sustainable. If he reverts to mediocre -- as did Dalton and Foles after their one great season -- it'll suggest he was.
     
  25. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    That sound you heard was the point of their OSM metric going right over your head.......

    Your response was very telling. You immediately question a measure based on how well it fits your preconceived notion, not whether the measure is valid.

    If you don't believe their metric is a true representation of the individual's contribution separate from their surroundings, take it up with them.
     
    resnor likes this.
  26. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I think it's pretty amazing Henry is the reason Tannehill succeeded but the Vikings couldnt get competent QB play to save their lives to pair with AP fir most of his tenure, and I'll say it....AP was a better back than Henry.

    The only way you can really assign the play of Tannehill to Henry is if you admit that the HB position dictates winning games more than we are led to believe.

    After all if a great HB could elevate QB play THAT MUCH it would actually be more important than the QB himself.

    Bottom line is Tannehill had a great 2019. There is no way to deny that and appear sane. I have no idea what the future holds. My guess would be some regression but still a top 7 or so QB.
     
    resnor likes this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You're neglecting to consider the mediating variable between the run game and the performance of the QB in the case of Tannehill in 2019: passing load.

    When you consider the same variables with regard to other QBs, there are three things you need to know: 1) how well did their run game perform, 2) how much did that limit their passing loads, and 3) are they the kinds of QBs who, like Tannehill, have historically very poor performances when their passing loads are elevated (i.e., Tannehill's average adjusted passer rating in high volume games 2012 to 2018 was 78.4), and much better performances when they aren't?

    You're talking about the Vikings and Adrian Peterson without knowing any of those things.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2020
  28. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The validity of the measure is precisely what I was questioning -- its validity in distinguishing "one-year wonders" from QBs who display sustained ability. Obviously if the measure had Dalton in 2015 and Foles in 2013 ranked #1 as it did Tannehill in 2019, its validity in that regard would be questionable.

    The problem you're having here is that you're so focused on me and my inner workings (as you experience them in your own world) that you can't even follow what I'm saying from an objective perspective. "Must...show...The Guy...is...BIASED!"
     
  29. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    None of those things are relevant, that's why.

    Tannehill isnt some QB who's traits differ so greatly from everyone else that he has a very specific condition for playing well that noone else shares.

    The same rules of QB apply to him as they do for everyone else. If a back was able to boost QB production for Tannehill it would be going on elsewhere.
     
    resnor likes this.
  30. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    The metric doesn't claim to make multi-year measurements of anything. Let's use free throws in basketball as an example. If a guy averages 75% over the course of several years and then shoots 95% one year. The stats book would report 95% that year. It wouldn't asterisk the 95%. It is a measure of what percentage of free throws he made THAT YEAR. So, if OSM is a measure of the player's contribution to their performance in a given year, it says nothing about previous years.

    I did not create the metric. I never even heard of the metric before. It just happens to confirm what I saw this season and fits in with many other metrics from this year. You are only questioning the metric because it favored Tannehill. You have no other reason to question it.
     
    resnor likes this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The difference in performance on average between low- and high-volume passing games is common in the league among QBs who are not elite (and a minority who are). So when you limit the passing load of one of those QBs, you stand to improve his performance significantly on average.

    The question is, how willing are teams to let their running backs shoulder more of the load than is normal, and what kinds of results are they going to get from that, in a league in which winning revolves around passing?

    When you have a Derrick Henry-caliber back, obviously you stand a much better chance with that approach, and so you're much more likely to use it.
     
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You are not accounting for variables like down and distance, or the defense that the team is facing. There are many reasons why a team might run the ball more, that has nothing to do with confidence in the QB. You're essentially arguing that Tennessee shouldn't have confidence in Tannehill.

    Bottom line is, Tennessee showed confidence in Tannehill by giving a significant contract.
     
    FinFaninBuffalo likes this.
  33. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I've already said that no one is questioning that Tannehill played well in 2019, and so your point is?

    It's consistent with what I saw this season as well. However, like I said, it doesn't answer the question of Tannehill's ability in general, because ability in general is determined by more than one year of play.
     
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I would argue that if a player does it once, then they've shown they have the ability.

    You're arguing about consistency, which isn't ability.
     
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Whether Tennessee's intent was to maximize Tannehill's performance because they don't have confidence in him in a higher-volume passing role is immaterial, because Tennesee's intent in using Tannehill doesn't determine his ability. His ability is determined by the level at which his performance varies from year to year.
     
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So what ability do Andy Dalton and Nick Foles have? They both did it once as well. Are they just as good as Drew Brees?
     
  37. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Ability wise? Maybe. I've said it countless times, every starting QB in the NFL is an elite player. If they weren't, they wouldn't have made it to the NFL. Dalton throwing at targets and to spots on an empty field, or into trash cans, I would bet isn't too much different than Brees.

    So you're getting into more the processing/mental side, I believe, that differentiates most QBs.
     
  38. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, there are many reasons that a team would choose to run and not throw, that have nothing to do with the QB and his ability. Using percents of the load doesn't actually tell you anything about the QB.
     
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    But it doesn't matter what the the team's intent is. Tennessee's opinion about Tannehill doesn't determine his ability.
     
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Whatever ability it is that distinguishes QBs from each other, the fact remains that there are QBs who vary in performance from year to year at a level significantly higher than other QBs, and so you can't base appraisals of QBs' ability on just one year of performance.
     

Share This Page