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. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Oh God. If this game is decided on a FG we are clearly losing. Titans kicking game sucked all year and they been signing and waiving kickers throughout the season.
     
  2. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Well since its an offensive passing happy league, QB vs QB has been throughout the roof talk. Apparently it is the offense that is more of a dominating factor than it is the defense in todays league. This is why this jibberish is shoved down by the fanbases now, and an "average QB" should be able to beat an average defense, or an "good QB" should be able to beat a "good defense", etc..
     
    The Guy likes this.
  3. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    No, he's still trying to use his weather model to describe how YESTERDAY'S weather was quite warm and sunny- despite the blizzard that dropped three feet of snow.
     
    Irishman, adamprez2003 and resnor like this.
  4. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    Right...most "fans" soak it up too.
     
  5. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,487
    2,973
    113
    Dec 13, 2007


    LOL
     
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    About the time I’ve said they’re on the field together, I will have resorted to sensationalism. Until then, I’m merely conveying the reality of the present-day game.
     
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So then put Tannehill up against any of the other QBs you mentioned — Rodgers, Wilson, Brady, or Watson, and likely a good number of others — and his team would be predicted to fare poorly in a high-volume game. We don’t have to restrict this analysis to a game against Mahomes.

    What we’re talking about is a weakness of Tannehill’s that makes his team need one of the best pass defenses in the league to make him competitive against the league’s best quarterbacks in the kind of game he is likely to experience on the way to a Super Bowl, which essentially renders his 2019 passer rating meaningless and makes him in effect no different from the average quarterback in the league, in terms of his team’s ability to win a Super Bowl.

    He’s in pretty decent company, however. We just found out the other day that Lamar Jackson’s 2019 passer rating was meaningless as well.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
  8. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    Except he is scoring more points with his low volume. What good does it do to go high volume if you are going to be outscored by low volume performances.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Do you think it’s his own talent that’s enabling to him to play a low-volume game?

    Now, notice I didn’t ask whether you think it’s his own talent that’s enabling him to play well in a low-volume game. I’m asking whether you think it’s his own talent that’s enabling him to play predominantly that kind of game at all.
     
  10. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    No I think its a lack of talent by the rest of the league. If they can't score enough points in high volume to force Tannehill out of low volume then Tannehill wins. Which makes him better then any of the other QBs except Mahomes.
     
  11. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,487
    2,973
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Sorry, false conclusion. Just complete nonsense. 13 of the last 19 Super bowls were won by non-elite QBs.
     
    Hiruma78 and resnor like this.
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    As we know, Tannehill's offense has to choose either a run or a pass on every offensive play, and the goal is to gain yardage that enables the scoring of points. And you think it's the rest of the league, and not his own running back who led the league in carries and yards and had over 5 yards a carry, that is enabling his team to choose run so often and pass so comparatively little?
     
  13. Finatik

    Finatik Season Ticket Holder Staff Member Club Member

    4,425
    4,095
    113
    May 2, 2014
    SO Cal
    Wait earlier you said that the defense didn't matter. That anyone would face better defenses as the enter the playoffs. So now they matter? You need to go into politics you flip flop so much.
     
    Hiruma78 and resnor like this.
  14. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    Completely wrong. the goal is to score points PERIOD! That garbage of yards is added on to try to make your side more believable.
     
  15. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    Unless of course you can site a game that the officiating gave a win to the other team cause they had more yardage and less points???
     
    The_Dark_Knight and resnor like this.
  16. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,487
    2,973
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    It is not an individual sport. He is on a team that has been built to RUN THE BALL. The running backs, offensive line, TEs, and WRs, were all selected with the team they were building in mind. Remember that the team was built around Mariota. It is Mariota's abilities that they were taking into account. Henry is a better runner than receiver, the OL is better at run blocking than pass blocking. The receivers and TEs are good blockers. The offense that they installed in the off season and practiced all year was geared around taking advantage of the team that they had assembled.

    Mariota was not playing well enough and the offense was sputtering. Then, in week 7, they replaced Mariota with Tannehill. And the rest, they say, is history. You've seen all the numbers. Every offensive category that matters (especially scoring) was near the top of the league. Why the hell would they mess with that? So, going into the AFC Championship, they are going to put in a game plan that gives them the best chance to win. It will be a balanced mix of run and pass. The percentages will be dictated by the score. Get a lead, they will run even more. Fall behind, they will pass more. Stay even, and they will stay balanced. Just like every other team in the league (including KC, as I already shown). Tennessee's dream would be for a repeat of the game earlier this season.

    KC's game plan will involve a greater percentage of passes to start. It is how they built their team. They pass better than they run.

    If it turns into a predominantly passing game, it will be in KC's favor. That is how they were built. It should be obvious. It is partially due to their QBs but not completely. It is also based on their head coach and the style of football that they want to play. Andy Reid has a long history in the league as an offensive mind. Arthur Smith, less so.

    Your attempt to reduce it to Tannehill vs Mahomes is sophomoric. Your attempts to then use your prediction about the game to downplay what Tannehill accomplished in 2019 is ridiculous and transparent. This is especially comical since your predictions about the Patriots and Ravens games were wrong.
     
    Irishman, resnor and PhinFan1968 like this.
  17. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The goal is certainly to score points, but certainly yards are nearly a fully mediating variable in that equation. There are only very rare instances of points being scored without yardage being gained along the way. Consequently gaining yardage and scoring points are typically viewed as part of the same goal.
     
  18. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,487
    2,973
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    By the way, the answer to this question is partially yes. It is partially Tannehill's talent that is enabling him to play in a low volume passing game. I'll leave it to you to figure out what, specifically, Tannehill does to enable that.
     
  19. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,487
    2,973
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Not surprising that you missed the flip side. It is not at all uncommon for yards being gained to not result in points. Oops, just gave you a clue to the question I asked you in the previous post.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  20. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    Right, so what Tannehill is doing is very rare... thats how you define elite play right? So we agree, awesome.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, we don't. Sorry.
     
  22. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    So you don't agree that what he is doing is rare... that's weird...
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, I just said we don't agree.
     
  24. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    I can't help you then. Cause I stated nothing but facts.

    points win games. A QB that can get more points off of 15 throws, is better then a QB that takes 40 throws to equal slightly less that number of points. yardage doesn't mean anything if you don't score points, nor does passing attempts.

    That pretty much sums it up.
     
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,662
    12,659
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I haven't followed this entire debate, but the statistics on passer rating and the probability of winning a SB are meaningful even for Tannehill because they're based on ALL the variations you actually see in the league in terms of how strong/weak a QB's surrounding cast is. In other words, they include cases like Tannehill, so there's no inference here from your hypothesis of what kind of QB Tannehill is to saying regular season passer rating is meaningless for predicting SB win probability.

    I'll post those probabilities again, both for making the playoffs and winning a SB given a QB's regular season z-score rating:

    [​IMG]

    Tannehill's z-score was a very impressive 2.5528 in 2019. Based on the graph on the right you can see that even with such a high z-score the probability of winning the SB is only 23.3%. In other words, the probability is still fairly low even with great QB performance. It's just WAY higher than with a QB that performed average that year (z-score of zero) = 2.719%.

    Of course, because very few QB's ever have z-scores in a given year at 2+, most QB's that win SB's have lower z-scores, and the average z-score for a SB winning QB is just about 1, which corresponds to about top 16th percentile.

    Regardless, regular season passer rating (in z-scores) has a clear relation to the probability of winning a SB (it's a simple exponential relationship, not some jagged curve or one of weird shape), so the stat is meaningful. You just have to understand that even with a very high z-score the probability of winning a SB is quite low.
     
  26. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I appreciate your work as always cbrad, but when you consider the information I posted earlier regarding how Tannehill plays in terms of passer rating in high-volume passing games, in comparison to the best QBs in the league, I think we need to explore for an interaction effect with regard to the data above.

    In the current era in which "it's a passing league" as they say, quarterbacks who show the decline in performance Tannehill does as a function of below- or above-average numbers of pass attempts in games can't possibly be just as likely to win Super Bowls as those who don't, even if they have comparable passer ratings overall. If I'm wrong I'll say I'm wrong.
     
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    We agree about that. The point is what the QB is likely to do when he has to throw the ball more than 15 times (just using your number), as will likely be the case on the way to a Super Bowl.

    Lamar Jackson did in 2019 what you're saying above, helping his team score a boatload of points despite a very low number of pass attempts. However, when he was forced to pass the ball a great deal last weekend, he was horrendous. That's the point.
     
  28. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,443
    9,985
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    And what is the reason the Lamar failed when asked to pass a ton?

    Because he's not a good passer when his legs aren't driving the offense. Not about high volume or low volume.

    THAT'S the point.
     
    M1NDCRlME and FinFaninBuffalo like this.
  29. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,487
    2,973
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL. So, since the stats don't support my preconceived notion, we must ignore them and find some new stats..... How many times are you going to try that?
     
  30. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,487
    2,973
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Well, it is a good thing that Lamar Jackson isn't playing this weekend.
     
  31. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,487
    2,973
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Funniest thing I have read all day. He just showed you that what you wrote is wrong......
     
  32. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,662
    12,659
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Calculate the correlation between Tannehill's passing attempts in 2019 and his passer rating, including playoff games. You get a correlation of -0.0893, so basically nothing. So in 2019 there isn't a decline in performance for Tannehill as a function of more passing attempts.
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TannRy00.htm

    It's true that over his career using adjusted ratings that correlation is -0.2823, but that just means that -0.2823^2 = 7.97% of variation in Tannehill's passer rating was due to his number of passing attempts. 8% of total variation being a confound is no argument for dismissing the relevance of the relation between passer rating and SB win%.

    So.. irrespective of your view on Tannehill's strengths and weaknesses, passer rating is equally meaningful for him as for anyone else. Doesn't mean every QB that failed to win the SB had the same weaknesses, but it does mean that the stats apply here.
     
  33. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure, but that correlation (as well as his career one) is diminished by his occasional poor play in low-volume games (e.g., against the Patriots in the playoffs this year), without necessarily saying anything about the nature of the decline he exhibits in high-volume games, in comparison to other QBs in the league.
     
  34. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,662
    12,659
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Dude.. if the correlation is zero, that means you have an equal probability of "occasional poor play" regardless of number of passing attempts! We're talking about Tannehill on the Titans here so the 2019 correlation of (basically) zero is what matters.

    In other words there's no statistical evidence that Tannehill in 2019 performs worse with greater number of passing attempts so that shouldn't be the premise of any hypothesis.. at least for 2019.
     
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You have a restricted range for your correlation when a quarterback's "greater number" of passing attempts eclipses the average number in the league on only two occasions in a season. If he's functioning predominantly within the below-average range of pass attempts almost all season, the correlation could be diminished by just a small number of instances of poor play in low-volume games.

    For example, remove the Denver and New England games (not because it's sound statistical practice, but just for the sake of argument) and you have a correlation between passer rating and pass attempts for Tannehill of -0.87 on a game-by-game basis in 2019.

    Now, should we really conclude he performs just fine when throwing an above-average number of passes in a game because including those two games -- in which he threw just 16 and 15 passes and nonetheless performed poorly -- diminishes the correlation to zero?
     
  36. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,487
    2,973
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Are you getting it now? Kudos for your efforts.
     
  37. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,487
    2,973
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL. Just delete those pesky games that counter your argument.....
     
    resnor likes this.
  38. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,662
    12,659
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You're right that he had a below average number of passing attempts. But based on the evidence we have Tannehill was no worse with greater or fewer passing attempts in 2019. And under no circumstances do you remove individual data points. That's cherry picking.

    So look.. if you want to argue Tannehill is unlikely to win in high-volume passing situations, go ahead. But there is NO statistical evidence in 2019 to back up that view. All you can say is we don't have sufficient statistics for high-volume passing situations to know what will happen, and that you have a particular hypothesis about that. And that's fine. But that hypothesis is NOT based on statistical analysis of 2019 data.
     
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure there is. He played two games in 2019 in which he threw an above-average number of passes, and his average passer rating in those games was 87.3, 30.2 points below his season passer rating of 117.5.

    Obviously that's a very small sample size; however, it's consistent with his career performance in which his average passer rating in low-volume games is 97.9, and in high-volume games 80.5.

    And again, on a career basis these are not the kinds of performance declines we see with the league's best QBs on a low- versus high-volume basis.

    Also, as I said in the post you quoted, the intent was not to cherry-pick, but to use the removal of a small number of cases to illustrate how a restriction in range can artificially diminish a correlation. And you and I both know that's a "Statistics 101" lesson.
     
  40. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,662
    12,659
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Nope, doesn't work that way. The whole purpose of correlations is to see the pattern in the entire dataset you have. You can't just cherry pick 2 games and say look what happened. Have to take the entire set of games into account, and the correlation between Tannehill's passing attempts and passer rating in 2019 is basically zero.

    So what I'd suggest you do is make whatever argument you want to make WITHOUT saying it's based on statistical analysis because statistical analysis actually argues against your premise, for 2019 at least.
     

Share This Page