Most here are arguing it's the nature of the pressure that changed, not Tannehill himself. I also agree that's the major reason, with less of the difference in pressure stats being due to improvement in Tannehill himself. And if it's mostly the environment, then it is absolutely necessary to include the Miami stats. Your argument would hold if it's NOT the environment but it's the player that changed. Again, ONLY if the player is 100% different (or close to it let's say) can you ignore the past. That's an assumption of yours with no evidence, and to apply that to statistical analysis the evidence would have to come from a source independent of the pressure stats themselves. There is no such evidence. So no you can't ignore the Miami data from a pure stats point of view.