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 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

Ryan Tannehill is...

  1. A terrible QB

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. A below average QB

    2 vote(s)
    7.1%
  3. An average QB

    1 vote(s)
    3.6%
  4. An above average QB

    13 vote(s)
    46.4%
  5. An elite QB

    9 vote(s)
    32.1%
  6. The GOAT.

    3 vote(s)
    10.7%
  1. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,942
    9,414
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    We shouldn't be arguing. The problem is that you said this:
    "Doing it repeatedly is not ability, it's consistency."

    That's false, as you yourself admit in the post I quoted. You're admitting it takes "ability" to play consistently. That's all I'm pointing out.
     
  2. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,942
    9,414
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Problem is that's subjective and experts often come to different conclusions watching the same film. So an objective approach like what I outlined is preferable if possible, but as I said it's not possible with the stats we have.

    So you can use your approach to support an argument, but it's not really a solution to the problem you posted.
     
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,059
    7,978
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Your are really trying to play semantics, cbrad. I did not say it takes ability to play consistently.

    Now, if you want to get into processing and mental ability, go for it. I don't think you can find any way to reasonably rate those things. If you want to argue that Tannehill doesn't have the mental ability of others, I guess go ahead and try and prove that.

    He has the physical ability to be elite. He has shown that. Can he play at the top of his ability CONSISTENTLY enough to be considered elite? I don't know.
     
  4. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,942
    9,414
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well if you didn't say that then you're just flat out wrong. It literally takes ability to do something consistently.

    There are people who accidentally may get the right answer to a math question, but can't do it consistently because they lack the ABILITY to do so — ability that other people have. This is so obvious you really shouldn't be arguing against it.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  5. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    10,405
    9,967
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    :jt0323:
     
    The Guy likes this.
  6. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    It is the only solution to the problem I posted, just not an optimal one. It is the solution that coaches and GMs use every day. They can't just shrug their shoulders and say "sure would be nice if we had some advanced analytics to tell us whether we should cut Brady after that pitiful 87 passer rating or get some damned receivers".
     
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It's better to simply agree that the quality of Tannehill's surroundings 2012-2018 and 2019 are unknown and indeterminable, and let Tannehill's future performance adjudicate that issue. Again however, I feel like I have enough to go on personally not to bet much of my money on his replicating his 2019 performance to the degree that it's significantly different from his Miami years.
     
  8. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,942
    9,414
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I agree it’s the only thing you can do in practice, but I wouldn’t call it a solution even if the word is sometimes used that way. It just opens up a can of worms to call something a “solution” when two different such “solutions” are inconsistent with each other (that’s a property that should not be true with “solutions”).

    Anyway that’s just semantics but I care about stuff like that.
     
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    But that's a huge and important question, because the answer makes him either Andy Dalton or Drew Brees.

    That's an awfully big difference. One player is a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer, and the other will never even get consideration.
     
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Keep in mind that a passer rating of 87.9 in 2006 was three-quarters of a standard deviation above the league average (80.4). Brady wasn't "pitiful" in 2006, even though it was a down year in terms of his career.

    And that gets back to one of the main points here: the best QBs vary at a higher level than the lesser ones. Even their down years are typically better than the down years of the lesser ones. Plug Andy Dalton for example into the 2006 Patriots and you likely have a passer rating in the mid-70s, not 87.9.
     
  11. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,059
    7,978
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    So he wasn't a standard deviation.

    Which you usually claim isn't statistically significant.

    That was some serious weasel words there.
     
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I was arguing against the assertion by FinFaninBuffalo that he was "pitiful"?

    You guys are bordering on paranoia here. You're so hellbent on showing me as biased or inconsistent that you can't even follow the conversation accurately.
     
  13. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    We can agree that you don't know the quality of Tannehill's surrounding from 2012-2018. I'm fully aware of them.
     
  14. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    12,586
    5,230
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    C'mon. guys! 2 more pages for 200. I have faith in you all.
     
    Irishman and Fin-O like this.
  15. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,059
    7,978
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Are we really going to start playing the victim card here?

    When in the history of ever would you yourself not have corrected someone you were in a discussion with, if they had written what you wrote.

    You could have simply said that being "average" doesn't qualify as "pitiful.". But that would have thrown a massive monkeywrench into your theories, showing that even "elite" players can have very average seasons. So you chose to use weasel wording to over-represent what Brady did that season. R He wasn't significantly above average, so he was simply average that year.
     
  16. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    More speculation of your part. The 30 point swing happened and you have no explanation. Just last week you were surprised that those kinds of swings happen at all.
     
  17. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Fine, I’m okay with not using the term solution here. The only thing teams can do to understand what happened and plan a course of action is to use the film and stats that they do have. The only thing that analysts can do is the same.

    What makes no sense (and what I have seen certain posters do) is to observe the film, find supporting opinions from credible sources, observe the actions of the team (cutting players, firing coaches), and still pretend that there is no possible way to understand the surrounding environment.

    When (for example) blocks are repeatedly blown, independent film review assigns blame to linemen for missing blocks, schemes are changed to attempt to mitigate poor line play, and the linemen in question are cut and not signed by any other team, ever, I'm comfortable saying they sucked without a perfect model to back me up. Hell, the team in question felt like they had enough information to make a decision.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2020
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    My point is that he wasn't "pitiful." I simply assigned a precise number to it (+0.75 standard deviations). I never made the point that he was "great" and used the same number to support it.

    When I'm saying someone was "great" and I use the same number (+0.75 standard deviations) to support it, then come at me the way you have here.
     
  19. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I'm pretty sure it is you that is showing you are biased and inconsistent. We're just noticing it.
     
    resnor likes this.
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure I have an explanation. He got Randy Moss et al. in 2007.

    So when Tom Brady has Randy Moss et al., he throws up a passer rating 34.6 points above the league average, as he did in 2007. Without Randy Moss et al., he's subject to a passer rating just 7.5 points above the league average, as was the case in 2006.

    The question is, at what level does Tannehill vary. If you give him the equivalent of "Randy Moss" surroundings, what's he going to do, and if you give him what the Patriots had in 2006, what's he going to do?

    We won't know that until next year and perhaps the year after.
     
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm sure that's why every time you believe you've honed in on it, you've misspoken yourself and have to be corrected.
     
  22. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,059
    7,978
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Translation: I use stats to be precise, except when I use them to be imprecise, and you shouldn't question me.

    Got it.

    I like this new standard of deviation meaning we're using.
     
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,059
    7,978
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Uh, no. Everytime we hone in and start to push your conclusions, you switch arguments. Then the whole process starts again.
     
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    There is no problem with precision in using +0.75 SDs to support the point that someone wasn't pitiful.

    But keep trying. Trust me, you don't look paranoid or anything....
     
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah that'll happen when you believe you're following the argument and you really aren't....
     
  26. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    So, you would have just scratched your head, completely baffled in 2007? Okay. Fine.
     
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Surely you aren't comparing Tannehill's pre-2019 history to Tom Brady's pre-2007 history. If you are, go ahead and show why you believe they're equivalent.
     
  28. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Not possible to follow an argument that keeps changing.....

    You remember, it's about determining Tannehill's ability right up to the moment that it is not about determining Tannehill's ability? Of course, that was after you insisted that nobody was trying to do that.....
     
  29. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Where do you find all the straw?
     
    resnor likes this.
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    When you don't make the "man" clear (i.e., post #7906), who knows what he's made of?
     
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It's been about determining Tannehill's ability the whole time, and still is. Unfortunately you're unable to put yourself in someone else's shoes whose mind isn't made up in that regard, because yours is.
     
  32. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Yet you very clearly said it wasn't....... try to keep your arguments straight.....
     
  33. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Wait, just glanced at the run/pass ratios..... We may have to rethink this whole Brady thing...... Perhaps you should check it out.
     
    resnor likes this.
  34. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Well, when he was in Miami, you claimed he'd never be better than average.
    When he got traded to Tenn, you admitted you thought he would never start.
    When he got the start you claimed he wouldn't be any better than he was in Miami.
    When he was playing better than he was in Miami, you claimed it wouldn't last.
    When is was clearly lasting, you claimed he wouldn't make the playoffs.
    When they made the playoffs, you claimed they wouldn't beat a team in the playoffs.
    When they beat the Patriots, you claimed they wouldn't beat the Ravens.
    When they beat the Ravens, you claimed they wouldn't beat the Chiefs.

    You're, 1 out of 8 (and I am being really generous by not list a crap ton of other stuff). I'm going with my own opinions, thanks.
     
    resnor likes this.
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So again I'll ask -- what percentage of your belongings are you willing to bet on his replicating his 2019 season to the degree that it differs significantly from his performance in Miami?
     
  36. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,942
    9,414
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That's a stupid bet.. unless you think Tannehill will perform elite year in year out, because it takes a LOT to get statistical significance.

    No, the more interesting bet is this: would you bet that Tannehill's game-by-game ratings from BOTH the 2019 and 2020 seasons combined are statistically significant relative to all the Miami games (adjusted to a common year of course). That's an interesting bet because he's got a huge head start from 2019, yet you won't get statistical significance unless he performs relatively well (how well depends not just on average PR but also standard deviation so I can't just give you a single number).

    But that's the type of bet that has like a 50/50 chance of being won because of the huge head start. So maybe just go with that? It's fair IMO. It's testing Tennessee vs. Miami rather than whether 2019 can be replicated.
     
    resnor and The Guy like this.
  37. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    What would you have bet that his 2019 season wouldn't differ significantly from his time in Miami? LOL. Now comes the weasel worded answer.....

    Tell you what, I'll wager every penny I would have won from you if we had bet last season. Playing with house money baby!

    You show a staggering lack of self awareness with that question. Do you think it is another dude in your house when you walk by a mirror?
     
    resnor likes this.
  38. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,412
    1,986
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I'd bet that he finishes in the top 10 in passer rating. Something that he never did in Miami.

    6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were Stafford, Mahomes, Garoppolo, Carr, and Prescott.
    11, 12, 13, and 14 this year were Watson, Rodgers, and Wentz.

    It's not like he'd be in terrible company anywhere in that list.
     
    resnor likes this.
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yes I do. Tom Selleck circa 1983.
     
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    3,240
    1,011
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm just going to plop $500 down on his winning the league MVP, so I can walk away with $40K when he does.
     

Share This Page