Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.
43 pass attempts isn’t high volume now?
The average percentage of offensive plays as pass dropbacks in the league in 2019 was 58.8%.
Again, if you define a high volume of pass dropbacks as something above-average in the most recent season of NFL play, then Tannehill's percentage of pass dropbacks last night (56.4%) was not above-average.
Above-average for him in 2019? Yes. Above-average in the league in 2019? No.
It's a passing league, and 44 pass dropbacks out of 78 total plays (last night's figures) isn't above-average.
You move the bar around way too much. First he doesnt throw enough, now he throws enough in a game but his percentage of throws is off by one or two play calls and so its invalid.
I guess if a team in theory ran one play and it was a pass, then fumbled every special teams play, that would be a high volume game since it was 100% passing?
There is nothing invalid about it at all. When he passed the ball about this much last year, his performance was similarly worse than his average performance. Whether it fits the league-wide definition of high-volume or not is another matter.
I’m not moving the bar at all; you’re just not following the conversation.
I beg to differ with the last part. I understand exactly what you said, it's just entirely illogical and meaningless.
I notice you failed to actually address anything I said though, so I'll chalk it up as you admiting you dont have an answer.
Defining high volume by a percentage of passes is so idiotic that a mentally challenged 5 year old who had a lobotomy can see its flaws.
Chalk it up to he knows exactly what he's doing, and he's been doing it all along.
I'm usually pretty understanding but that ticked me off. Trying to pass off pass-rush ratio as volume.
Also think of this:
A team does not generally run 100 plays in a game. If they did, each play would be worth 1%.
I'm not looking at how many plays the Titans ran, but I'm guessing around 75 to 80 as a high ball to prove my point. That would make every play worth approximately 1.5% of the total value.
So because the Titans literally ran the ball one additional time Tannehill is under his arbitrary number.
I'm sorry dude but dont come at me with that weak *** s*** and not expect to be made to look like a fool. I dont play nice with people who insinuate I cant follow their conversation.
When the percentage of the Titans' offensive plays in 2019 involving pass dropbacks was at a level similar to what it was last night (56.4%), Tannehill's performance was far worse than when the percentage of offensive plays involving pass dropbacks was lower. That's point one, and it's indisputable. Again, here are the 2019 regular season data:
Passer Rating ; % Pass Dropbacks
130.8 ; 33.33
155.8 ; 36.54
140.4 ; 45.76
133.9 ; 46.94
131.2 ; 48.28
120.1 ; 51.67
133.6 ; 55.17
92.2 ; 56.72
109.8 ; 63.16
82.3 ; 67.19
78.1 ; 66.67
Point two (in response to someone else's assertion that 43 pass attempts is high-volume) is that the Titans' percentage of offensive plays involving pass dropbacks last night was nonetheless slightly below league average (58.8%) in 2019.
Now, what aren't you understanding?
And if a quarterback's share of the offensive workload shouldn't be defined by the percentage of his team's offensive plays involving pass dropbacks, then let's hear your definition of a quarterback's share of the offensive workload, and we can sit back and critique it.
As it stands now you've done nothing but demonstrate your inability to follow the conversation, accompanied by criticism with no contribution of your own. Anybody can sit back and critique somebody else's contribution without offering anything of their own, and that's what you've done here.
Sorry, but you aren't following the conversation and/or aren't understanding it. One or the other or both.
The Titans had 78 offensive plays last night. 44 of them involved pass dropbacks. Therefore 56.4% (44 divided by 78) of the offensive workload involved pass dropbacks by Tannehill.
That's slightly less than the league average of 58.8% in 2019, but also the level of workload at which Tannehill's performance declined in terms of passer rating (again look at the above data from 2019).
It ain't all that complicated.
It'll be pretty rare that you find me making an analytical error.
Look, high volume for a QB is not about what percent of snapped a QB throws on. High volume is the sheer number of times a QB throws. If a QB averaged 15 throws a game for a season, and he averaged pass dropbacks on 80% of them, literally NO ONE would classify him as a high volume passer.
You love to redefine terms to suit your needs.
Do you even know what a pass dropback is? A pass dropback occurs when the QB either throws the ball or is sacked.
What happens when the team has 50 offensive plays and 25 of them are pass dropbacks? The QB's share of the offensive workload is 50%.
Likewise if the team runs 100 offensive plays and 50 of them are pass dropbacks, the QB's share of the workload is 50%.
Last night the Titans had 78 offensive plays and 44 of them involved pass dropbacks. That's 56.4%.
Let's hear your definition of the QB's share of the offensive workload and we can sit back and critique it.
I know exactly what a pass dropback is. My example of a QB averaging 15 throws a game on the season, and dropping back on 80% of the teams offensive snaps would NEVER be considered a high volume QB. You are arguing he would be, since he was responsible for 80% of the workload.
In reality, that QB would be looked at as a QB on a terrible offense. No one would would argue that he was a high volume passer. Most people wouldn't say that a QB with 15 attempts in a game, accounting for greater than 50% of the offensive snaps had a heavy workload. Now if the QB the 40 times in a game, and accounted for a majority of the offensive snaps, everyone would say he was under a heavy workload. That's high volume. The actual number of throws the QB makes.
Sure it should, because it would mean that QB was getting sacked a great deal of the time. Should sacks not count in determining the QB's share of the workload? Were the plays on which he was sacked not intended to be passes? Were those plays not called with the intent of having the QB make a play? Should we consider those plays as part of the share of the offensive workload belonging to the running game instead?
Any team asking its QB to drop back to pass the ball on 80% of its plays -- while running the ball on only 20% of its plays -- is most certainly asking its QB to shoulder a tremendous amount of the offensive workload, regardless of how often the QB passes the ball or is sacked.
1. There is literally no way of knowing, just by seeing 15 throws a game constituting 80% of offensive snaps, that he was sacked a lot. It could be that he threw most of them as incompletions.
2. Throwing 15 times a game is not, under any circumstances, considered to be high volume. Volume, when referring to counting an amount of something, always refers to the sheer number of that thing occurring. I'd assume to properly define "high volume" you'd have to identify a certain amount over average, not comparing to offensive snaps being dropback percents. 15 throws at 80% of dropbacks is not even close to as equivalent to say 40 there's on 40% dropbacks. High volume means the QB is being asked to throw a lot.
Yeah this exact issue of your use of the words "workload" and "volume" came up 2 weeks ago where I suggested you stop using those words because your "low volume" argument for Tannehill doesn't work if you use passing attempts. We'll see if it ends up working with percent dropbacks after this season (could just be a small sample size issue, but maybe it's not), but you're conflating these concepts which leads to misunderstanding (see the exchange):
The concepts of "volume" and "workload" refer to absolute magnitudes, not a percent of something. The volume of an object is defined independent of its percent of total (i.e., the volume of an object does not change regardless of what percent of total volume it is). Same with workload, which is defined as the amount of work that is done by something. That amount is defined independent of any percent of total.
The only situations in which the two are equal is if 100% workload is a fixed amount. That actually happens in some cases, including in scientific research where you may specify workload in percentage to determine how much of your salary comes from different funding sources. But that's because it's implicitly assumed that 100% workload is a constant amount.
This isn't true in football where 100% workload could refer to very different numbers of passing attempts. So you need to make your argument specific to "percent dropbacks" and NOT suggest that's the same thing as "volume" or "workload". Otherwise, you're just going to get this kind of pushback due to nothing else than a misuse of words.
Or...... you... could.....just.....not.....open....the....thread........
just a thought....
He misuses words on purpose. He is not arguing in good faith. That much should be obvious by now.
You gave an unrealistic example. Teams average about 63 plays a game, and so in today's game it would be virtually impossible for 15 throws to represent 80% of the offensive plays. I filled in the blanks with sacks to simply make your example realistic.
"Volume" is shorthand. What we're talking about here is the percentage of the offensive workload as pass dropbacks, as opposed to run plays or punts. And I've applied the formula consistently across situations throughout this thread: ((pass attempts + sacks)/(pass attempts + sacks + rushing attempts + punts))*100.
Pan back to the big picture. What we're talking about conceptually is the portion of the offense that was put on Ryan Tannehill's shoulders in 2019. That portion was virtually two standard deviations below the league average in 2019. He was asked to shoulder very little of the offense in 2019, in comparison to the average QB in the league.
Don't you understand The Guy algorithmic quarterback equation as it pertains to Tannehill?
He sucks because he doesn't throw a lot of passes...he's a low volume quarterback
He sucks because even though he threw a high volume of passes, after passing the stats through the Flux Capacitor it still sucks
Let's see your analysis of the portion of the offensive workload shouldered by Tannehill in 2019, as compared to the average QB in the league. Sounds like you'd do a far better job in your opinion.
Best of luck. Again, real easy to sit back and critique others' contributions while providing nothing.
The formula has been applied consistently throughout the thread. The pushback is coming from the Tannehill advocates who think there's a "conspiracy" at hand. How can Tannehill have been measured to be inferior in some way in 2019 unless there's a conspiracy?
The question isn't the formula. It's the terminology. Just say "percent workload" instead of "workload" if you have to use that term. No need to fight a losing battle over the definition of a word.
If the same formula were demonstrating Tannehill to be superior, there would be no such battle, and a far greater attempt to understand the concept and the formula used to measure it. This is nothing other than message board dynamics.
That may be true, but it’s still no reason not to use proper terminology.
No, Guy, I gave an extreme hypothetical example to illustrate to you the problem with equating high percent of dropbacks as the same as high volume. They aren't the same thing.
I never equated them. Like I said, “volume” is simply shorthand for a concept I’ve done a fine job of defining and measuring in my opinion.
Now, do you want to talk about the fact that Tannehill was virtually two standard deviations below the league average with regard to the concept I’ve defined and measured consistently throughout the thread, or do you want to talk about terminology?
My guess is that you won’t have much at all to say about the former. Your focus on terminology serves only to obfuscate the finding.
I have nothing against the use of proper terminology. However, let’s not lose the forest for the trees.
You are constantly equating them. To the point that you're arguing that 40+ pass attempts isn't high volume.
All I have to say is, if Corey Davis the fifth pick WR for the Titans can play like he did last game, than Tannehill is going to have pretty good weapons.
AJ Brown/Corey Davis. You also have Humphries thats a chain mover.
Then at TE you have Jonnu Smith.
This offense could be scary.... even if Henry slacks off this year.
I’ve defined the concept and measured it consistently throughout the thread. With regard to that concept, 44 pass dropbacks of 78 offensive plays is indeed lower than league average passing “volume,” again if you can permit yourself the mental flexibility to consider that “volume” is merely a shorthand representation of the concept — i.e., percentage of total offensive plays as pass dropbacks.
It’s certainly easier to type “volume” than it is to type “percentage of total offensive plays as pass dropbacks.” I apologize however for whatever confusion that may have caused, and if it may have suggested a conspiracy was at hand. There is no conspiracy.
Remember that when you’re determining the effect of Tannehill’s surroundings on his individual performance in 2020.
Listen, I understand what you're doing. Re-explaining it doesn't change anything. 40+ attempts is high volume, it doesn't matter if there were 75 rushing plays run in the same game.
Just the same, trying to call 20 attempts high volume, if they accounted for 80% of the offensive snaps, would not qualify as high volume.
You have redefined things, and then try to argue off your new definitions.
That's the point though: one shouldn't be "mentally flexible" with this. They're different concepts. And it's very easy to type "percent workload". That's 2 words to type.
This actually changes the nature of the forest. An effect of "volume" gets me to think about situations where passing attempts is high, which I can easily do, while an effect of "percent workload" is harder to intuit.
Assuming percent workload is statistically significant when 2020 is over (we'll see of course), what does this mean? That Tannehill plays worse when he plays a higher percentage of total plays regardless of whether that translates to a higher number of passing attempts? This is actually a bit difficult to understand for me. The forest itself has changed.
There has been no re-definition of anything. This is the same definition I’ve used consistently throughout the thread: percentage of the total offensive plays that are pass dropbacks.
If you want to propose a new concept regarding pass attempts exclusively, without any regard for the percentage of the total offensive plays they represent, then go ahead and do that and do whatever research on that you’re interested in. I’m content with my concept and its measurement.
The underlying concept is the degree to which the team is having the passing game versus the running game carry the overall offensive load. 40 pass attempts of 80 total offensive plays is not the same as 40 pass attempts of 50 total offensive plays. Obviously the former example indicates far more balance than the latter.
Except that it's hard to intuit what greater balance does in general. Too many possible mechanisms.
I think percent workload is not a cause but is instead an effect. Specifically, percent workload might be the effect of Henry having high Y/C, which is highly correlated (at the moment 0.8342 for regular season 2019-2020) with Tannehill's passer rating. It's hard to say percent workload is a cause because that would suggest coaches could just change rushing Y/C and passer rating at will, by changing percent workload.
So I'd actually shift the hypothesis to saying that when Henry is showing he can get high Y/C (for whatever reason) that leads the coaching staff to use him more instead of Tannehill (that's the percent workload), regardless of total attempts. But the causal relation is really between Y/C and passer rating rather than percent workload per se.
Yes, I know it's the definition YOU have used. However, YOUR definition of high volume is different than what everyone else means when they say it.
I don't need to propose anything. High volume passing is the sheer number of throws, not the percentage of workload.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. We all do. However, when you say that Tannehill throwing 40 times isn't a high volume game, that isn't accurate.
Wonderful, so again, do whatever research on that you’re interested in.