I don't think it's that simple, not to mention, you would need to be comparing 2 QBs anyway. If we have 2 QBs that both attempt 10 passes and one does what you say and one throws for 3 yards each time...which is better? I don't know, we can't say. Maybe it's more valuable to complete a single 30-yd pass than it is to complete a bunch of 3-yd passes? It might be the guy who managed a 30-yd TD pass as opposed to the guy who kept throwing 3-yd passes and punting, right? Yards-per-completion seems to speak more to what's actually happening when the QB has a clean pocket and the WR is open. Most of those passes are completed in games just as they are in the practice drills. Aren't those the situations we want to evaluate anyway? I'm not interested in those situations where there's a free rusher and the QB has to throw the ball at someone's feet or chuck it over someone's head and out of bounds. Yards per attempt seems to correlate a little better than yards per completion so I guess that reflects the fact that the QB and the WR can still screw things up even when there's a good chance to get a completed pass as well as the fact that the QB has some ability to minimize the number of times there's a free rusher with good adjustments.
You can't just look at total yards and then argue, great qb! A qb that takes 500 attempts but gets 3900 yards is better than the qb that takes 590 attempts and barely gets to 4000. Ryan is on the upper end of average all around. He's not top 10. He's not bottom 10. So what is he. He's ascending and on his way into the top 10 perhaps. The fact 11 qbs, more than 1/3 the league got to 4k says its Purdy good but not all that special. For example, when Marino hit 5k in 1984, only 3 players even reached 4k
Yards per attempt measures relative QB and WR ability better. Forget for a moment the easy throws. The more challenging throws are where you see the difference. Did the QB throw the WR open? Did the WR have good yards after catch? Did the QB throw to a better spot or did the WR have a differentially better ability against a DB? Yards per attempt is sensitive to that, while yards per completion isn't.
I think you're missing the point...or purposefully ignoring it. It has been said that hitting 4k is easy...average guys do it. Now, you look at the list, and you tell me that those guys are average. The only one on there anyone is calling average, is Tannehill. Now, I understand that total yards isn't all that telling, nor am I saying that it is. What it is, is another example of something where Tannehill was in pretty damn good company, and the usual suspects want to play it off as nothing. Frankly, if it was easy to just throw a **** ton of short passes and get 4k, wouldn't you expect too see more guys doing it? Lastly, I'm not comparing to Marino, nor am I arguing that it isn't easier to hit 4k than it was 30 years ago. I'm comparing Tannehill to his contemporaries, and the ones that hit 4k are also the QBs who have established as the best 10 or so in the game. This doesn't mean that Tannehill is equal to them, I was simply pointing out, scrub QBs aren't the ones throwing for 4k. I like how you said more than a third...lol. It's barely...could have simply said "one third of the league did it". Maybe you meant nothing by it, but I'm a words guy. To me, it comes off as you trying to color stuff more negatively than needed in regards to Tannehill. Realistically, if Tannehill's YPA is above a 7 for next season, and he keeps everything else relatively same, I'll be happy. Although, I expect he'll do better overall.
Average guys do, do it. Jon Kitna did it twice. Lol. And passing was less prolific then. Let me ask you this. At what point do you consider some average? 11th in total yards, 14th in rating, bottom in ypa, tops in accuracy. 25th in air yards traveled. Who is average? Does it start at 12 then? 13th? 14th? Is there only one average QB and everyone is above or below? Tell us. Andy Dalton had 4,300 last year. I'd say he's an average QB. Carson Palmer has done it twice his past two full seasons. This is not a Tannehill thing. This is a whole picture thing. Josh Druggie Freeman did it. Should I keep going through the stats? Matt Stafford has done it 4 seasons in a row, hitting 5,000 once, all with a 83 rating. He has NOT been good since 2011. Jay Cutler, where do you rank him?
Look, yes, you can find some average guys that do it once or twice. Stafford hasn't been good? If Tannehill never touched it again, then this season was an aberration. You can argue all you want, I guess, but 4k is still pretty impressive. I already said pages ago what I thought about Cutler. He was very promising...then hit his ceiling. Dalton had 3398 last season. Freeman looked awesome his first season or two. Maybe the drugs are what ruined him. Carson Palmer is a vet who has had good seasons. Tannehill is entering his fourth season. He's made strides in many areas, and needs to get his ypa up, and get chemistry with his receivers on the deep ball. Why everyone is so intent to prove that Tannehill is an average at best guy is beyond me.
This thread feels like an argument over the permanence of the word "average". Some people want to call him "average" and some want to call him "average, but".
I'm just trying to figure out if we got the right guy that will lead us to a dynasty, thats the goal for me..getting there isn't enough, winning one isn't enough, the only way you should be satisfied and stop looking is if you know you have the guy that can win multiple champ's.
Because he's so far, been about average. He's ascending which is a good thing. He's 14th in QBR. That's about average. 11th in yardage. Not top 10. 8-8 the past two years so his teams have also been average. Most have him pegged around 12-14 in the league, which is ... average. Not sure what your beef is with that characterization. And yes, Stafford has had one monster year and has been less than average since. Here are the guys most pundits would place ahead of Tanny. Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Manning, Big Ben, Romo, Rivers, Wilson, Luck, Matt Ryan, Flacco, Eli Manning. Other than a few outliers, those are the 12 QBs ranked ahead of Tanny last year. Some might take Stafford and Newton ahead of Tanny but that's pure nostalgia. But the 12 above are solidly in front of Tanny so far in his career. If you want to start a Fluffing Tannehill thread go ahead and call him slightly above average, average being the slot between #16 and #17. Whatevs. What's kind of weird is, looking through last year, Ryan Fitzpatrick quietly had himself an excellent half season or so.
Because its like the crane technique, "if done right, no can defense" its hard enough to play DB in this league, when you have to worry about that pass it makes everything else harder. Its a throw i think RT can be fantastic at, and Parker has the radius and the frame to make those plays.
I think we can run the ball effectively with the OL we have, the blocking was good last year but the depth at RB wasn't there. If Ajayi is legit we're in good shape. With the WRs it seems like Philbin, a stickler for precision reads and route running, is finally getting the kinds of guys he prefers. I know its waaaay too early but on paper I'm wondering how defenses other than the Bills/Jets are gonna match up.
16-17 would be average. Since almost everybody has him at least 12-14 then he's clearly been above that or above average. Stretching the range to claim him "average" seems disingenuous. And anybody who was genuinely trying to assess where Tannehill stood at the end of the season would admit that after those first three games his stats were solidly in the top 10 range (generally 5-8, although I recall that at one point PFF had him as the third best). Even those first three games were characterized by a higher number of drops that skewed his stats downward. Reality is that not only was Tannehill adjusting to a new offense, but everybody on offense was. Just considering the drops would have put Tannehill's stats in the same range as he had the rest of the season. I'm not saying that only Tannehill suffered drops, but when you have a huge stat anomaly during an offense install, including those anomalous stats in any forward looking projection just seems ignorant. It's the difference between stats produced in an individual sport and stats produced in a team sport. When evaluating a player in a team sport you have to look at the contributions of team mates to those stats. In some cases they inflate stats and in some they deflate them. This is not about making excuses. It's about evaluation of an individual in a team sport. As a scout my job was to try and evaluate and isolate just the QB's play. I look at guys like Matt Ryan and Dalton and see obvious examples of QBs whose stats were inflated by their supporting cast. I'm talking about great catches on poorly thrown balls or YAC produced by receivers where the QB added nothing. On the other hand, Tannehill's stats were clearly deflated by his supporting cast more often than not. How many more TDs would Tannehill have if Hartline didn't trip over air or if he had targets like Julio Jones, AJ Green or even Tony Gonzalez making great plays for him? Wallace made a few nice catches for Tannehill last season, but it seems a stretch to try and put him or any other target Tannehill has ever had in the same class as the probable HOF targets those other two had. To me it seems obvious that both objectively and subjectively Tannehill has been better than average and better than many of the other QBs people are trying to put above Tannehill.
That's your opinion. Others have different opinions. Eli Manning was installing a new offense as well, under our #1 target Ben Macadoo. And Joe Flacco 3986 yards, 91.0 rating, 27/12. VERY VERY Similar to Tanny, and they're 15 and 16. It's no great sin to say Tanny, last year, for the WHOLE YEAR, was average or very very barely slightly slimly above average. Flacco is going on his 4th offensive coordinator in 4 years. Every team can make excuses for their guys. Eli gets a beckham but loses a cruz. Wallace had the 4th highest QB to WR rating last year. Other teams are wishing they had that kind of production from a WR (well, except 3 obviously). To you it seems obvious, but look at it objectively (which you're not). Everyone's got excuses for why one player is higher than another seemingly similar player. And those are obviously two players who have proven they have the chops in crunch time situations. You might rather roll the dice on Tanny vs say, Matt Ryan, and you may end up being right. Tanny can and SHOULD take another leap into the high 90's ratings area if he can sustain the end of the year performance for the whole year. Tom Brady level with similar numbers except Brady threw more TDs and less INTs. Or Drew Brees with an insane 69% accuracy, and high ypa at 7.5 to cover up the high INTs he threw. But Matt Ryan's done more, shown more, and until RT actually does it, is ranked higher than Tanny. He has a whole new wide receiver corps essentially, save Landry. Parker should help Tanny's game. I like Stills. He should take the next step. Until he does, he's where he is. Right in the middle of the league so far.
The issue isn't really about where people have these guys ranked. The issue has always been this idea that people have that we should ditch Tannehill, and keep looking. Over the past couple years, people have gone to great lengths to make the case that Tannehill is nothing but average, and will always be average, despite Tannehill improving every season. My issue has always been with people's belief that they know what he well be, regardless of what he's doing now. This is why you see threads crop up comparing Tannehill to Brady's early years, or Rodgers' early years, or whoever. It's because people are trying to show that not every great QB comes into the league, and has massive success his first couple years.
You can justify saying Tannehill is "average" if you just look at passing stats alone. In many categories he's well within 1 std of the mean, in some he's well below (like YPA), and in some he's well above (completion %). But if you go by where most people rank him overall, you can justify saying Tannehill is "above average". Lots of people (samples) that consistently rank him in the 10-15 range will be statistically speaking significantly different than the distribution you'd get if they really thought he was "average" (centered around 16-17). So, it kind of depends on whether you want to focus on passing stats, or focus on where people rank him.
Nobody except a few fringe say we should ditch Tannehill. Iz youz crazy? Getting an average QB is already hard enough!!!! Imagine getting stuck with Weeden, Manziel and Hoyer!! You're effed. Almost everyone in the top 16 is someone worth keeping until you find better. #15 and #16 in ratings this past year won a Super Bowl, one of them twice over Tom Brady. Almost everyone in the top 16 of QB ratings last year has playoff experience. Put a strong enough team and a good coach around Dalton and you might even threaten. No, you don't ditch a Tanny, an ascending player hopefully.
I'll tell you, jdang, I'd have a lot fewer posts if there hadn't been people advocating for ditching Tannehill, and using his average stats as the reasoning.
Tanny is a promising, so far ascending player. Yeah you don't ditch him. You extend him. If Tom Brady comes along and plays out of his mind off the bench then yeah, you ditch him. For a couple #1s. As good as he is, I do remember in a draft thread I think it was CKP, who said if Bridgewater falls to you maybe it's not so crazy to take him. Not saying they should, but it's not out of the realm crazy. I'm keeping an eye on Bridgewater his rookie year was slightly better than Tanny's second year ratings wise. He might be a good'n. Let's hope Tanny continues to develop.
Hoyer is an interesting guy....if one believes that yards-per-attempt is a good indicator of QB skills, it's surprising that Hoyer, who played his first full year last year, ranked 7th amongst all NFL QBs in that category. Over his 13 or 14 games, Brian Hoyer essentially duplicated Ryan Tannehill's rookie year--same yardage, same TDs, same INTs, comparable completion percentage. The big difference seemed to be the YPA. Hoyer was about 7.6 while Tannehill's career high is 6.9. Hoyer is not a guy I would knock until we seem him play a bit more. There's obviously justification for believing he could resolve into something good, even on par with what Tannehill is now, particularly knowing he sat behind Brady and kept his cool despite having to tolerate the Johnny Manziel fiasco. I certainly wouldn't begin to put Hoyer in the category of Weeden or Manziel. To even imply that is not nearly fair to Hoyer.
That's kind of the point though. Two failed 1st rounders and Hoyer may, or may not be their best guy lol. I've seen the stats on Hoyer, and it's promising, but it's Cleveland. after spending two first, you're hoping it's Hoyer? You're effed. YPA is a very important metric but don't ignore the 55% accuracy either. That's not good.
You seemed to have a lot of issues with my posts and I am a guy who likes Tannehill. I think you might be a little sensitive to things you perceive to be criticism of him...just sayin'. The fact I like Stafford, Ryan, Flacco, Romo and other similar QBs and think they should be given the respect their resumes deserve is not a condemnation of Tannehill. I simply won't put a guy who hasn't done it yet above guy's who already have. It just doesn't seem reasonable as much as it does biased.
No, by passing stats alone Tannehill still ranked above average. QBs who threw at least 200 passes Tannehill ranked as follows: QB rating - 12th Completion % - 5th Yards - 11th TDs - 12th INTs - tied for 8th The only stat where he was below that average 16-17 slot (21) was YPA and even there he had a 7.34 average after those first three weeks where his YPA was a highly anomalous and stat skewing 5.03. Actually his passing stats after those three anomalous weeks were higher across the board placing him in the 5-10 range for the vast majority of the season. So no, I don't agree that looking at his passing stats alone you can justify saying he was average. He was clearly better than in the vast majority of passing stat categories.
You should go back a page or two because we discussed all this. It's simple. Tannehill ranks highest in the things that matter least and he's ranked 21st and 23rd in YPA and YPC, which are both proven to correlate with winning much more so than total anything. Let ESPN do the 30-second analysis based on season totals.
You have a funny way of showing like. Every time someone says something positive about Tannehill, you find a way to turn it into a negative. Further, you've supposedly only been on the site since December of last year, so you wouldn't have been around for the two plus years of people whining about Tannehill, and wanting everything from drafting to Matt Moore to replace the average QB we have. So yes, I've gotten sick and tired of the same old, tired, incorrect arguments being thrown around.
I understand the value of YPA. I argued it's value on this site for years particularly over totals, however I would never include the first three games in any objective evaluation since they were so clearly anomalous to the rest of the season (5.03 vs 7.34) and when the reason for the anomaly was so obvious (the offense was being installed and you had several huge stat affecting drops by receivers also getting acclimated). It's simply too lazy to refuse to consider the circumstances and pretend that the 7.34 he had over the vast majority of the season isn't indicative of where Tannehill was by the end of the season. It's also incredibly lazy to pretend that all the other stats have zero value. Objectively, Tannehill produced above average stats so calling him average is disingenuous.
When you ask people to rank QB's, the only information you're getting is rank order, so that's what you use. However, all those passing stats aren't on an ordinal scale (rank order only), they are on the real number line, meaning you can determine how close to each other those of different ranks are. For example, if I have three apples A, B and C, and I just tell you A>B>C, it tells you nothing about how large A is relative to B or C. But A=10, B=3, C=1 is vastly different when considering how big B is than A=10, B=9, and C=1. So, for passing stats it's really meaningless to look at rank order. You have to look at measures of how close to certain values (like the mean) they are. That's why I said "within 1 std" as an example, and when you look at QB rating, Yards, TD's, INT's, etc.. Tannehill is statistically speaking average.
I made a joke about that to Greg, that in some cases a statistician could look at the data he was talking about and say there was no QB above average. Keep in mind that it's usually the case in stats that you say "within 2 std" rather than "within 1 std" so the data are within ~95% of the mean. Thing is, the sample sizes with starting QB's are so small that you can get weird results, like you pointed out. And if you look at the distributions themselves, they often aren't what statisticians call "normal distributions" (Bell curve), so a bunch of typical stat tools won't work either. So, I just used "1 std" for argument's sake (which is really conservative btw..). Oh, just so it's clear what the "correct" approach is (though you can't do this in reality), what you really want is to know what the distribution of "average" QB's looks like and see if Tannehill's numbers are within 2 std of the mean of that distribution. The problem of course is that you don't a priori know what "average" is, and the sample sizes are too small.
I just don't agree with that description applying to Tannehill. Tannehill had three anomalous games to start the season where his stats would have him near the bottom 5 (77 rating) and then spent the rest of the season flopping around in the 3 to 10 range.
Not trying to dredge up yesterday's discussion, but I wanted to point something out. The running game aside, how often is the one completion QB making the completion from his own 40 for a td? He'd be just as likely to see his team punt it away or kick a field goal. Also, why aren't you interested in plays where it has to be thrown away, the down is still lost. Seems to indicate a bias.
Well, he kinda has to do it for the whole year before he's elevated. Potential is one thing, production another. I understand the optimism, for the very reasons you point out. What if he's sluggish to start the year with all new WRs and it takes him 6 games next year to get going and he's playing top 10 again? Nothing in the NFL is static and there's always gonna be a reason. What if our Oline crumbles again and he stagnates or regresses? You have to rank them for things they've done, not potentially will do the next year. I can sit here all day and scream that Tannehill outperformed Flacco and Eli Manning for 13 games, but so what. When he puts up a full season of goodness, he'll get the accolades. When he puts it up again, he'll get more. You don't subtract 10 TDs and 114 qb rating and just assume things will carry on the same. It may, it may be even better. Let's wait and then next offseason we'll crown him. Until then, I'm putting away the anointing oil.
If we're trying to evaluate the QB statistically, there's the implication that we're interested in situations that allow him to make a completion with either a clean pocket or with pressure that is avoidable. If Troy Polamolu flies across the line at the moment the ball is snapped and sacks the QB or the WR runs the wrong route then we're no longer really evaluating the QB by saying the pass was incomplete. There is noise of that nature in the data that we can only hope cancel out since it applies to everyone, however we know that's not entirely true. That said...the protections are something to do with the QB as well as how consistently the WR runs the route. Peyton's WRs don't run a lot of bad routes!
I'd get your point if we were talking about 13 poor games and 3 good games. Or if it was 8-8. But when the guy plays at a high level for 13 games straight after progressing every year, i think its safe to say he's a stud. Honestly, following your logic Brady, Wilson, Manning, Rodgers, etc. are no longer elite because they did not have 16 above average games.
A player could fail for a variety of reasons each year. What matters is whether it's something that is likely to repeat. If I'm projecting Vontae Davis, I would include a slow start b/c he has a pattern of coming in out of shape. In this case though it was so obviously an adjustment to a new system that it's ridiculous to include that in any projection going forward. That isn't optimism, that's logic. I get using an arbitrary time frame of one season or two seasons to record history, but that's not what I thought we were doing. I'm not trying to crown anyone. I thought we were trying to establish where Tannehill is right now? When I'm evaluating a player or a team during the season, I don't go back the whole season if the situation changed. That would be foolish. My goal is to figure out where Tannehill is now. Unless I'm just trying to be negative, it would make no sense to include his rookie numbers. They just wouldn't be reflective of where he's at now. If I'm trying to project where Freeman is now, I'm not going to include the numbers from before he became a drug addict. That's not where he most likely is now. In fact, what I said was, "he had great numbers before becoming an addict and horrible numbers after, but I have no idea if he's back at all". For him I wouldn't bother to use any time frame b/c it's all irrelevant to what he is now. Likewise, it would be irrelevant to include Tannehill's numbers during those first three games if I were trying to project where he is now. Including those irrelevant numbers would actually make my projection less accurate. Why would I want to include irrelevant data to make a projection less accurate?
If you follow my logic, actually follow my logic, then no. Seriously, follow it. All of those guys have put up whole seasons of goodness. Rodgers hasn't had less than 100 qbr since his 1st year starting. Brady, Manning, etc. Wilson's down year was last year. He put up two very good seasons already. Tannehill has never had an elite quality season. Each of those guys you mention have had a career of it. This isn't that hard.
