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
    Whatever the reason(s), the result is that the load Tannehill was asked to carry within the offense was very light, and it wasn't because of his own performance or because the team had a lead.

    Again the question is, can that light a load (or that little a "degree of difficulty") be sustained. If it can't, then he's no different from the Jim Harbaughs of the world (i.e., average QBs) who also had 11-game stretches of elevated play that weren't sustained.

    In other words I'm not blaming Tannehill for the lightness of his load and saying he's the reason it wasn't more heavy. I'm simply questioning whether it can be sustained. If it can't, then his job will be by definition more difficult.
     
  2. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You continue to confuse passing frequency with degree of difficulty. It has already been shown to you that Tannehill was asked to make throws with an extremely high degree of difficulty. His YPA and CPOE are EVIDENCE of degree of difficulty.

    One 25 yard strike into tight coverage while under pressure is MORE DIFFICULT than 10 screen passes.....

    Regarding sustainability, why doesn't 4 consecutive seasons of similar run/pass ratios PROVE that it is?

    You also completely ignore other QBs in similar scenarios, e.g. Russell Wilson. Here are his last 4 years of pass % and Passer rating:

    2016- 59%, 92.6
    2017 - 59%, 95.4
    2018 - 48%, 110.9
    2019 - 54%, 106.3
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2020
    resnor likes this.
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Why not answer the question I asked?
     
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Also, side note, the reason teams try to stop the run, is not because of its correlation to winning, it's because running the ball runs the clock. If you don't have a lead, you want to prevent the other team from using up the clock, allowing their defense to rest, which in turn, makes it harder for your offense to function effectively. Passing the ball is inherently more difficult, so teams would prefer to run the ball as it's safer and runs the clock, preventing the opponent from having as many chances with the ball.
     
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That represents the difficulty of his throws, not the difficulty of his load within the offense. Analogously, a tight end can be thrown just 15 passes in a season and make tremendously difficult catches of all of them, yet the load he's asked to carry within the offense would be very light.

    It isn't just his passing load, but also the degree to which defenses focus on Derrick Henry. Like I said above, the Patriots provided a blueprint for how to defend the Titans -- focus on Tannehill and let Henry run rampant. As long as your own QB doesn't play as extremely poorly as Tom Brady did (59.4 passer rating), you stand quite a good chance of beating the Titans. The Titans won that game only 20-13, despite that Henry rushed for 182 yards on 34 carries. But for Tom Brady's horrendous day, we'd be sitting here talking about how the Titans made the playoffs due in large part to Tannehill's regular season performance, only to have him and the team fizzle out terribly in the playoffs, once a team decided to start defending him and not Derrick Henry.

    Obviously if teams mimic the Patriots and move to that defensive strategy, serious questions abound about how Tannehill will perform.

    Exactly. QBs' performance across the board diminishes (some less than others) as a function of increases in load. Tannehill was the beneficiary of an extremely light load in 2019. And it wasn't because of his own performance or because the team played with a lead.
     
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I've already covered that numerous times. The team had a cumulative scoring margin of -1 through three quarters during Tannehill's starts. During three-fourths of the game, when the team had no lead, it was nonetheless disproportionately featuring its run game extremely more than the average team in the league. Consequently Tannehill was asked to do extremely little.
     
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Everything you said above runs counter to modern-day NFL football. The entire league features the passing game, both on offense and defense. The Titans were an anomaly.
     
  8. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I asked why you didn't look at just the first two quarters. Were the Titans leading at halftime in those games?

    I'm just saying, if you're going to use stats to prove something, you should be looking at all options before you come to your conclusion.
     
  9. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    They use passing to score, sure. But you've been given the stats multiple times in this thread, including I think on this page, of other QBs and the run pass ratio they had. The Titans were not alone.
     
  10. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You have no idea how much teams focused on Henry and you keep ignoring the CPOE. He made tough throws. Period. Nothing about what Tannehill did in 2019 was easy.

    Tannehill was the cause of an extremely efficient offense. He had a historic combination of efficiency and throw difficulty. All the other talk is nonsense. His peformance does not differ significantly from other QBs as load changes. That has already been proven.
     
    KeyFin, The_Dark_Knight and resnor like this.
  11. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    No they weren't. Most of the playoff teams had run heavy offenses. That is a growing trend. Not all teams can do it because it requires a QB that can execute it. The majority of the teams that are pass heavy suck. You've got the relationship backwards. Most teams don't pass to succeed, they pass because they aren't succeeding.
     
    KeyFin, Pauly and resnor like this.
  12. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    I gave you just one of many examples earlier...

    Henry rushes on 1st down
    Henry rushes on 2nd down
    Tannehill throws a 50 yard TD pass in 3rd down.

    That and other similar examples happened frequently this pass season. Tannehill didn’t need to throw the ball 8, 9 or 10 times in a series because he was picking up massive chunks of yards each time he threw the ball. In simpler terms, his throws were more effective per attempt than many of his counterparts who needed double the amount of throws to get the same results. Think about it, 9.8 yards per attempt...that’s ridiculous!!!! When he threw the ball, the chains moved.

    If I must, I’ll literally breakdown every game, every series, every play to demonstrate your 1.98 deviation and show you that particular number is irrelevant.

    There are those here who get it. A bucket full of numbers are irrelevant unless you can also explain how those numbers got in the bucket to begin with.
     
    resnor likes this.
  13. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The Titans' cumulative scoring margin at the half during Tannehill's regular season starts was -17.

    They were passing the ball with a frequency well below the league norm in quarters 1 through 3, despite that they were losing on the scoreboard overall, both through the first half (-17) and through three quarters (-1).
     
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What you're saying is that Tannehill's passing efficiency caused his low passing volume. However, those variables weren't even correlated, and so it's impossible that one could cause the other.

    You're espousing a theory that's controverted by the data. The theory is certainly logical and makes good sense, but the data refute it. Tannehill's low passing volume wasn't caused by his own passing efficiency.

    If you do that, you'll find precisely that there was no correlation between Tannehill's passing volume and his passing efficiency. Just because his passing efficiency was high doesn't mean it had anything to do with his passing volume.

    As FinFaninBuffalo has pointed out, the Titans have operated in this manner for the past four seasons, despite that they had a QB with such high passing efficiency in only one of those seasons. It's not like they started passing the ball more efficiently and only then increased their emphasis on the run game.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2020
  15. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    They were 1.98 standard deviations below the league norm. There was but one team that passed the ball less frequently, and that was the Ravens, which had a QB whose running essentially substituted for a large portion of its passing game.

    Being "alone" or not isn't the measure of Tannehill's passing load. His passing load was extremely light, whether he was alone or not. If you make $12,000 a year, you're not alone, but you're damn poor.
     
  16. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Cumulative stats on points differential are fairly meaningless. It Is better to look at whether the team was behind or ahead, not the cumulative point margin. Blowouts one way or another can really mess with extrapolating cumulative data into W-L records especially in small samples.
     
    resnor likes this.
  17. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    We'll let @The_Dark_Knight take care of that. He's gonna find that correlation between passing volume and passing efficiency if it's the last thing he does, by God.

    I'll go ahead and chime in a bit, however. The Titans experienced exactly one blowout during Tannehill's 10 starts -- they led the Jaguars by 24 going into the fourth quarter. Every other start Tannehill had involved a lead of 7 or less, or a deficit, going into the fourth quarter. 7 of those 10 games involved ties or deficits going into the fourth quarter, ranging from -2 to -17. At the halves of those games, they were never ahead by more than 7.

    So, what is the likelihood that Tannehill's passing efficiency was generating a lead on the scoreboard that was in turn diminishing his passing volume?

    The team was riding Derrick Henry, come rain or shine. And again, consequently the degree of difficulty of Tannehill's load was very low.

    https://www.pro-football-reference....m_id=oti&c5val=1.0&order_by=score_diff_thru_3
     
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I just realized that this guy @FinFaninBuffalo is unblocking me just to respond to my posts, and then blocking me again so that I can't see what he says and respond to it.

    What a childish and insecure way to "get the last word." I won't be responding to him again in this thread whether he responds to me or not.
     
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So what say you about the data above, in post #9015? Nothing?

    Everybody keeps coming to the plate and taking a swing at this and missing, and then sheepishly saying nothing about their failed efforts, only to come back and take another swing and miss and say nothing again.

    Folks, wake up. Tannehill's degree of difficulty was low, and the number of games in which his play was elevated doesn't distinguish above-average from average QBs. It's time to simply acknowledge that his ability will be determined by future data, not by 2019.
     
  20. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Asked and answered...many times over already.
     
    resnor likes this.
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah well, we need for you to comb through the games like you said you would and find the correlation between Tannehill's passing efficiency and passing volume. In light of the data in post #9015, good luck with that.
     
  22. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    That’s taking time but I guess your feelings are this...a quarterback that needs 3 passes to throw for 30 yards in a better quarterback than one that needs only one.

    In the meantime, you can look up Tannehill’s Y/A, AY/A and Y/C. Those three stats alone debunk your entire “volume” argument but fear not, I am a man of my word. I’ll break down EVERY offensive play.
     
    FinFaninBuffalo, KeyFin and resnor like this.
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Remember, what you need to show is that Tannehill’s passing efficiency caused his passing volume. You can break down every play and comment about the passing efficiency involved, without necessarily establishing any cause-and-effect relationship between efficiency and volume.

    I suspect what you’ll do based on your comment above is break down the plays, remark about the efficiency involved, and then say something about passing volume, without establishing any relationship between the two. Of course that’s what you’re limited to when the two variables aren’t correlated.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2020
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    One more comment before you get started here: let's make sure you understand what the argument is.

    The argument acknowledges that Tannehill's efficiency statistics were high. There is no need to prove that.

    What the argument specifies, on the other hand, is that Tannehill's low passing volume wasn't caused by his high efficiency.

    Here are the game-by-game statistics for percentage of pass dropbacks and YPA for Tannehill in 2019, including the playoffs:

    % Pass Dropbacks ; YPA
    28.07 ; 4.8
    28.3 ; 6.3
    33.33 ; 9.9
    36.54 ; 14.39
    45.76 ; 14.48
    46.94 ; 9.53
    48.28 ; 8.27
    51.67 ; 10.76
    55.17 ; 10.07
    56.72 ; 7.75
    58.62 ; 6.74
    63.16 ; 5.85
    66.67 ; 9
    67.19 ; 8.49

    The correlation between percentage of pass dropbacks and YPA above is -0.06, meaning that there is virtually zero relationship between the two variables.

    If Tannehill's high passing efficiency was the cause of his low passing volume, then as passing efficiency increased, passing volume would've decreased, and the correlation between the two variables would've been something like -0.50 or stronger.

    The difference between a correlation of -0.50 and a correlation of -0.06 is astronomical. Again there is no relationship between these variables, and so it's impossible that Tannehill's low passing volume was caused by his high pass efficiency.

    Now, compare that with the correlation between Tannehill's passing volume and Derrick Henry's yards per rush, game-by-game. Here are those statistics from 2019:

    % Pass Dropbacks ; HENRY YPC
    28.07 ; 5.35
    28.3 ; 6.5
    33.33 ; 6.59
    36.54 ; 8.37
    45.76 ; 5.72
    46.94 ; 8.17
    48.28 ; 5.73
    51.67 ; 4.09
    55.17 ; 5.73
    56.72 ; 4.1
    58.62 ; 3.63
    63.16 ; 4.69
    66.67 ; 0.25
    67.19 ; 4.85

    The correlation between Tannehill's passing volume and Henry's yards per carry, game-by-game was -0.64. The higher Derrick Henry's efficiency, the lower Tannehill's passing volume.

    So what's the better explanation here, that Tannehill's low passing volume was caused by his own efficiency, or by Derrick Henry's efficiency?

    Come on folks. This is open and shut. Stop trying to jam a square peg in a round hole. It only makes you look biased in favor of Tannehill.
     
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    In addition to the above, here are the game-by-game statistics for Tannehill's passer rating and Derrick Henry's yards per rush (efficiency) in 2019, including the playoffs:

    Passer Rating ; HENRY YPC
    61 ; 5.35
    109.5 ; 6.5
    130.8 ; 6.59
    155.8 ; 8.37
    140.4 ; 5.72
    133.9 ; 8.17
    131.2 ; 5.73
    120.1 ; 4.09
    133.6 ; 5.73
    92.2 ; 4.1
    108.1 ; 3.63
    109.8 ; 4.69
    78.1 ; 0.25
    82.3 ; 4.85

    The correlation between those variables is 0.64 -- as Derrick Henry's efficiency increased, so did Tannehill's passer rating.

    Now, we've already established that Derrick Henry -- and not Ryan Tannehill -- was the workhorse of the offense, as evidenced by Tannehill's extremely low passing volume.

    We've also established that Tannehill's passing volume and his performance (passer rating) were a function of Henry's rushing efficiency (yards per carry). The better Derrick Henry ran, the less Tannehill passed the ball, and the better Derrick Henry ran, the better Tannehill performed.

    We've also established that Tannehill's passing volume was not a function of his own efficiency -- he wasn't passing the ball so little because of his own performance. He was passing the ball so little because of Henry's performance.

    So from the above findings a clear narrative emerges: Ryan Tannehill experienced an extremely low degree of difficulty in 2019 as a function of 1) shouldering very little of the offensive load due to Derrick Henry's performance, and 2) performing well as a function of the attention paid to Derrick Henry by opposing defenses, again due to Derrick Henry's performance.

    Imagine any quarterback in the league whose job amounts to something akin to the following statement: "We're going to ride our stud running back game in game out, defenses are going to focus predominantly on him, he's going to perform extremely well despite that focus on him, and you're going to be able to sit back and pick apart defenses that are paying far more attention to him than you, on an extremely small number of plays [i.e., extremely low passing volume] during which you have a decided advantage in your favor."

    What quarterback wouldn't succeed at a far higher level than normal (for him) under those circumstances?
     
  26. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Or as Tannehill's rating increased, Henry's ypc increased.

    I know you will argue until you're dead that it isn't the case, though.
     
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That’s certainly the case; however, the fact that Henry had the far bigger workload than Tannehill compared to the league norm suggests that Tannehill was benefiting from Henry, rather than vice-versa.

    Do you really think opposing teams were defending against Tannehill when Henry was the player more likely to be given the ball?
     
  28. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's interesting, you say that, although the run pass ratio wasn't out of the norm compared to other good teams.
     
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    During games 7 through 16 of the regular season in 2019 (Tannehill's starts), the correlation between won-loss percentage and percentage of passing plays in quarters 1 through 3 was a mere -0.16.

    So during the period of time in games (quarters 1 through 3) in which Tennessee was second in the league (behind only Baltimore) in its emphasis on the run game, there was very little relationship between being a "good team" and the frequency of running the ball.

    This of course fits with the finding that the relationship between running the ball and winning is due to teams' using the run game to run out the clock with a lead, which typically occurs in the fourth quarter.

    So Tennessee was running the ball as a philosophy, not because there is some sort of relationship between running the ball and winning throughout the league, and not because they themselves were winning (their cumulative scoring margin through three quarters in those games was -1).

    Tannehill was of course benefiting from that philosophy, as well as his running back's success, in that he was able to pick apart defenses that were focusing on a highly successful running back, on select (i.e., infrequent) passing plays.

    He was essentially living a quarterback's dream. Go out there and hand the ball off primarily, and every now and then we'll dial up a play for you in which you can exploit the opposing defense's focus on our stud running back.

    Case closed, folks.

    Now the question is, can they sustain it. Vegas certainly doesn't think so.
     
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
  31. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Also, a main reason for people thinking the Titans won't be as good this year, is not anything to do with offense. Their defense is the reason. Their pass defense was bottom 10 last season, and hasn't seemingly gotten better. Bleacher Report says that their pass defense was the reason they lost in the playoffs last season.
     
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah, so there you're incorporating the fourth quarter, as well as the games Tannehill didn't play.

    What we're looking at here are 1) the games Tannehill started, and 2) how the team compared to other teams in the league in quarters 1 through 3, when run-pass ratio reflects a team's offensive preferences and not its situation on the scoreboard.
     
  33. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It's not a question of whether the Titans will be good; it's a question of whether Tannehill can replicate his individual performance (or something in that neighborhood) when it appears that the stars aligned for him in 2019.
     
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Also, look how different that is than the league norm. Hell, 10 teams in the league are at 60% passing or higher, while the Titans are down at 50%. It's a passing league, but not for the Titans!
     
  35. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Ok so let me get this straight, you want me to prove to you is Tannehill’s “low passing volume” is a result of his high efficiency.

    THATS what you want me to prove, correct?
     
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    More data consistent with the above. When the Titans reached the playoffs and the stakes were higher, they dialed their passing game down even further. They passed the ball a mere 40% of the time in the playoffs, 1.8 standard deviations below the league average in the playoffs.

    Compare that with New Orleans and KC, for example, which passed the ball 65% and 64% of the time, respectively. So the league leader in passer rating was essentially shelved in the playoffs, while QBs traditionally understood to be the league's best (Brees and Mahomes) were featured.

    So, either the Titans' coaches were well aware that the recipe for success was the narrative I outlined above (having Tannehill pick apart defenses focusing on Derrick Henry, using a low frequency of select passes), or the Titans' coaches are stupid and they used Tannehill the way they did when they should've been using him like teams were using Brees and Mahomes.
     
  37. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    And how many of those pass happy teams had successful seasons?

    Oh wait, I already provided that much earlier in this thread. The answer was only a few.

    Teams that were BALANCED had much more successful seasons than those who threw the ball all of the time
     
    resnor likes this.
  38. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That's covered in post #9027. The correlation between win percentage and running frequency in quarters 1 through 3 in 2019 was a very weak -0.16.

    Teams that were balanced weren't more successful. There was very little relationship between the two variables.

    Teams are successful when they can generate a lead and then become imbalanced in favor of the run game, in the fourth quarter. That's the relationship you're seeing between the run game and winning in the NFL.

    @cbrad has gone over this with you many times and you don't seem to have digested it.
     
  39. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    And it was already shown that Henry’s efficiency INCREASED once Tannehill took over for Mariotta
     
    resnor likes this.
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The task is to show that Tannehill's low passing volume was caused by his high pass efficiency. It'll be impossible to show that, however, when the two variables aren't correlated.
     

Share This Page