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
    Disagree.
     
  2. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Well then you're wrong. If the criterion you're using to determine whether a QB is above-average results in pulling an average QB out of a hat one of every five times you reach into it, that criterion is too fallible to be reliable in that regard.
     
  3. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Disagree with me?
     
  4. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There are 4,320 11-game stretches that program found since 1978. It's 41 years (42 years minus the 1982 strike-shortened season), the league went from 28 teams to 32 teams over that time span, starting QB's tend not to play all 16 games, and you also have backups which rarely play an 11-game stretch. So it's like what you'd expect if on average each starting QB plays ~13.5 games per season.

    There were 154 QB's in that list, and 60th percentile (for that 0.25 z-score) means estimated 154*0.6 = 92.4 QB's, out of which 9 made it. So if you're conditioning on QB's since 1978 that had 11-game stretches, then about 10% of average or below average QB's had at least one 11-game stretch in the top 95th percentile (the "at least one" is generally due to two overlapping 11-game stretches making it).

    So even before I write that program to answer your question about the probability of all "average" or below average QB's having at least one 11-game stretch in the top 95th percentile, it's likely the answer is less than the 10% estimated from that calculation since that's only looking at QB's that had 11-game stretches (I say "likely" only because your question asks about a single instance of a top 95th percentile 11-game stretch while this calculation includes the possibility of overlapping 11-game stretches).
     
    The Guy likes this.
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What people need to understand here is that it's rare for both average and above-average QBs to have 11-game stretches like Tannehill's in 2019. The issue is that one 11-game stretch is hardly a reliable criterion for determining whether a QB is above-average when you can put all the QBs who've accomplished such stretches in a hat and pull an average one out of the hat one of every five times you reach into it.

    Here's an analogy.

    Here's a list of the 77 QBs who've posted perfect passer ratings in a single game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFL_quarterbacks_who_have_posted_a_perfect_passer_rating

    Now, would you consider a perfect passer rating in a single game a reliable criterion for determining whether a QB is elite? No, because although it's rare for a QB to achieve a perfect passer rating in a single game, doing so doesn't reliably distinguish elite QBs from average ones.

    The point here is that neither do 11-game stretches of the kind Tannehill had.

    So while Tannehill's 2019 was distinctive with regard to his own history, it wasn't sufficiently distinctive in terms of establishing him as anything more than an average QB when comparing him to other QBs.
     
  6. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    The fact that you're arguing with Raf about this seems a little ridiculous...
     
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Basically the whole premise of the thread was just shot down, so think whatever you want. I can't blame you for focusing on me at this point when your whole thing just crumbled here.
     
  8. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Would you rather take a chance on what you perceive as an average QB who has had that type of season or one who hasn't?

    Because the Titans were faced with that decision and obviously thought Tannehill was worth keeping over other potential options at a high salary.

    Is your stance that the Titans FO is incompetent? If it is, that is fine. Some teams ARE incompetent. I'm just curious why you think they made the decision they did. Obviously on some level they felt it was more than blind luck.
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  9. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    No
     
  10. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Disagree
     
    resnor likes this.
  11. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    ex-NFL QB TJ McCarron’s view on it.
     
    The_Dark_Knight likes this.
  12. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I'm pretty sure it was because they look quite a bit deeper than the simplistic approach that The Guy's lack of game knowledge forces him to take. I'm pretty sure they look at game film and have a good understanding of how exceptional the play of the field was. That is the part that The Guy misses. Teams don't use numbers in spreadsheets to make decisions. They understand that the numbers don't tell the whole story. The play on the field tells the whole story and the numbers are simply a reflection. As my signature says:

    Film first, numbers second. If the numbers don’t match what is seen on film, something is likely wrong with the numbers.
     
    resnor likes this.
  13. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    That is JT O'Sullivan. His channel is excellent

    But don't bring film into it.......
     
    Pauly and resnor like this.
  14. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Likely less than a 10% chance...... Somehow The Guy will try to twist that into being a big deal against Tannehill. LOL
     
    resnor likes this.
  15. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The question for me is Tannehill's ability level. There isn't anything that reliably establishes that other than the level at which his performance varies from season to season. Certainly a contract doesn't establish it. Notice what I'm focused on here is the meaning of his performance in 2019 as measured statistically. Right now that meaning is uncertain in terms of determining his ability level.
     
  16. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL. Watch the film.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  17. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Lemme get some of what you're smoking.
     
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I actually understand that completely, but what you're arguing there perhaps without knowing it is that Tannehill is dependent on such a system. That means if the system breaks down for whatever reason, Tannehill doesn't possess the ability to play well in whatever modification of the system becomes necessary as a result of that breakdown. That means he has less ability than a QB who does possess that ability.

    There's nothing you're saying above that's inconsistent with the viewpoint that Tannehill's success in 2019 was perhaps a function of 1) Derrick Henry's performance, and 2) its effect of limiting Tannehill's passing volume. In essence it was those variables that allowed the system to function like it did and Tannehill to experience precisely what he needs to play well.
     
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You don't figure the film shows Derrick Henry playing extremely well and Tannehill's passing volume being limited to an exceptionally low level?

    Or do you mean just watch the film of Tannehill, and ignore what's going on around him and the share of the offensive load he's being asked to carry?
     
  20. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Disagree.
     
  21. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Watch the film. It shows Tannehill playing extremely well. It also shows Henry playing extremely well. It makes no sense to credit the running back for plays that the QB makes. The share of the load is irrelevant on the individual plays.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  22. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    How does the highlighted portion above jibe with the following?
    https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/slow-down-derrick-henry-titans-stacked-box/
     
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, Henry WAS NOT running like you're saying before playing with Tannehill. Henry with Tannehill was completely different. Also, you completely ignore what Fin showed you on the last page with what, 3 of Tannehill's great games coming when Henry didn't do awesome. You also ignored Pauly (I think was him) showing that in at least one game Tannehill put all they points up early, then they rode Henry to eat up clock the rest of the game.

    But you ignore facts, and trot out run/pass splits as if that means anything.

    Complete joke.
     
    Irishman and Pauly like this.
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The impetus for the change in Henry's performance is far less important than the fact that Henry simply possesses the ability to perform in the manner he did.

    What do you suppose would've happened had Tannehill been inserted as the starter midway through the season with Patrick Laird as the starting running back? You think he would've ignited him to exceptional heights as well? You think Patrick Laird would've inspired opposing teams to stack the boxes that Tannehill exploited? You think Patrick Laird would've run in such a way that it limited Tannehill's passing volume to 1.98 standard deviations below the league norm in quarters 1 through 3?
     
  25. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't care. That has nothing to do with anything. We can make up all the hypothetical situations we want, they have no bearing on what actually happened.

    Fact is, having decent blocking is more important to Tannehill's success than the running back. That's been pointed out to you by Rafael. You know, a guy who actually made a living scouting.

    But you go ahead and base your opinion off manipulative stats.
     
    Irishman and Etrius24 like this.
  26. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Also, you aren't actually looking at what Tannehill's load is. If he's being asked to score early and lead three team to points early, so that they can utilize their running back to eat clock the second half, your little stats aren't going to show that.

    You keep acting like you're looking at a more complete picture than anytime else, but you're not.
     
    Irishman and Etrius24 like this.
  27. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    Stop just lying

    The post you replied was honest... The previous poster is not saying that Henry did not carry the ball 30 times or whatever the number is. The poster broke down specific plays and the score of the game as it went on... And if you watched the game you would see what they were talking about. When they wanted to change the game and build a lead they trusted tannehill to throw the ball down the field. Once they had that lead they changed their approach and then used Henry to chew clock to keep the ball away from the Ravens.

    What you are lying about... Is you purposely fail to mention that without that lead... Henry's athletic ability is nowhere near as relevant. Henry cannot help the team by chewing clock and controlling the ball if they are down 2+ scores.

    It is dishonest to present the argument that the Titans plan was to give the ball to Henry and let him win the game... That was simply not true... The initial plan was to give the ball to Tannehill and when he did his job and built a lead then they decided to feed the ball to Henry and control the clock

    You could watch 100 playoff games over the next decade and not see a more perfectly thrown football at a key moment in the clutch to win a game. Did Henry make the throw that broke the Ravens and deflated their tires? Did Henry make the perfect read and have the guts to air it out?

    You are lying because you just want us to take the numbers you present and accept that you have an argument. You do not. We watched the football game. We saw what happened.

    Henry is a great football player and he is very important to the Titans. But he got a lot of garbage carries to seal the victory they could get the Titans offense off the field so Henry kept getting fed the rock.

    If a team is down by 40 points and the losing QB throws for 400 yards and has a ton of completions due to a couple of late scores in garbage time when the game is decided... Are those stats against backups during the last few minutes carry the same weight as other pressure situations? Of course not!

    So just start being honest.. If you did not watch the game and you do not know what happened just admit it... Do not present us with numbers with no understanding or perspective as to what happened and why they are important.
     
    Irishman, Pauly and resnor like this.
  28. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Uh, yes they do show that. The cumulative scoring margin the Titans entered the fourth quarter with during Tannehill's starts was -1, as I've mentioned repeatedly here. Get with the program man.
     
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So when the data indicate that Tannehill was exploiting stacked boxes at an exceptional level, Derrick Henry's ability has nothing to do with anything.

    You're making yourself look silly.
     
  30. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    Again you move the goal posts.

    Tannehill kills it in the regular season

    Guy: what about numbers in playoffs.

    A conversation breaks out about Tannehill's brilliant plays in a playoff game to build a lead...

    Guy: What about the regular season

    Stop doing this. It fools nobody.

    stay linear man.

    Apples to Apples.

    Moving goalposts and using strawman arguments makes you look bad on here.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And again, that was Derrick Henry doing that. You suppose the game would've gone the same way with Patrick Laird out there?
     
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You're not even following the conversation well enough to comment. You bop in here and try to follow and fail miserably every time.
     
  33. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Ask everyone else if I am following along well enough to understand? Go on I can wait. LOL
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  34. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Jibes with it just fine. Especially when one considers he still had the 6th most difficult throws to make.

    You seem to think stacked boxes before the snap is some guarantee of easy throws. Clearly that is not the case. The presence of 8 defenders near the LOS is only an advantage or disadvantage depending on the offensive formation. You really need to understand the game better.
     
    Irishman, Etrius24 and resnor like this.
  35. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    And everyone here has given Henry credit for that. You have not given Tannehill credit for taking control of the game and allowing the Titans to change strategy and use Henry heavily late. He stepped up... He took control of the game... He was a leader in the biggest game the Titans have played in what 15 years?
     
    Irishman, Pauly and resnor like this.
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    See, again, you go to cumulative stats.

    Watch the effing games.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  37. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You have yet to ever address that Henry wasn't running like he was at the end of the season, without Tannehill. Fact. End of story.
     
    Irishman and Etrius24 like this.
  38. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Henry was going that BECAUSE Tannehill got them a lead.

    This is pathetic.

    Start watching the games.
     
    Irishman, Pauly and Etrius24 like this.
  39. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Henry's numbers increased by 50% when Tannehill became the starter...

    But Guy only talks about how Tannehill benefitted from Henry
     
    Irishman, Pauly and resnor like this.
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And how does that explain the discrepancy between performance against stacked boxes and performance against non-stacked boxes?
     

Share This Page