1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Titans to start Ryan Tannehill

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

  1. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,202
    1,714
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    This is exactly what he has been trying to do ever since it became clear that Tannehill was going to continue his torrid pace. For the first few games he kept predicting that he wouldn't keep it up. Going back farther and he made the case for years that even with a good supporting cast, Tannehill would do no better than average. And before that, he kept harping on not performing yet.

    So, in summary:

    1. He isn't doing it.
    2. He'll never do it.
    3. He won't keep doing it.
    4. He won't do it again.
    5. Everybody else is responsible, so he didn't really do it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2020
  2. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    447
    495
    63
    Mar 4, 2020
    And if by some chance Tannehill keeps shining and playing at a high level in Tennessee... We will see.

    7.....
    8.....
    9.....
    10...

    etc.
     
    Hiruma78 and resnor like this.
  3. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,722
    9,173
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Hard to say really. It's possible that it was easier to sign Tannehill to a longer term contract because he didn't have as much bargaining power through interest from other teams as Henry would. The franchise tag with Henry gives both sides more time to negotiate.

    So it's possible that this shows the higher priority is Henry. Again, depends on what's happening with negotiations.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  4. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,202
    1,714
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I prefer the simpler answer. Who did they sign first and who did they lock up longer.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  5. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,722
    9,173
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    For that data point alone I'd agree, but keep in mind that the talk coming from Vrabel and Robinson always seemed to suggest Henry was the bigger priority. So if you go by what the coach and GM actually said or hinted at (which might have been a smokescreen of course) Henry seemed to be the bigger priority:
    https://titanswire.usatoday.com/2020/02/25/titans-jon-robinson-tannehill-brady-henry/
    https://titanswire.usatoday.com/202...annehill-henry-the-plan-is-still-in-progress/
    Just saying.. there's reason to think Henry is the bigger priority for the Titans.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  6. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,202
    1,714
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Of course that could all be attributed to negotiations. Try not to play into Tannehill’s hands while placating Henry because you are going to tag him.
     
    resnor likes this.
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,590
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    This article demonstrates exactly why, as I've said earlier here, Patrick Mahomes will likely be regarded as the "Michael Jordan" of the NFL before long:
    You can win with Ryan Tannehill and Derrick Henry, but you'd better be able to stop this guy if you want to win a Super Bowl.

    https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2020...ahomes-is-nfls-best-quarterback-when-trailing
     
  8. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,722
    9,173
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Just want to point out that the article is a case study in why you need confidence intervals. Let me just repost one graph:

    [​IMG]

    You think it's a coincidence that Mahomes and Jackson have those wild swings that the other QB's don't? That's small sample size right there, and I bet if they estimated confidence intervals most of them would include the league average.

    Remember, win probability at any point (e.g., 15% win probability) does not occur that often, so it's sample size at each location we're talking about and it's pretty obvious just looking at the graph that the results aren't reliable for Mahomes and Jackson.

    So yeah Mahomes is starting off fantastic, but let's not act like that data is a reliable indicator of Mahomes' and Jackson's performance.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,590
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    In this graph they compare him to the average QB:

    [​IMG]

    Do you feel like the effect size might overcome the sample size problem there, in terms of significance?
     
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,590
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The issue with franchising Tannehill is that his cap hit in 2020 would've been about $32M. If they would've franchised him again in 2021, his cap hit would've been roughly $38.4M. As it is they get him for the same two years with cap hits of $22.5M and $29.5M. The third year involves only $10M of dead money against the cap and $24M in cap savings if they cut him, and so parting with him then wouldn't be all that damaging, assuming they've gotten their cheap (at first) QB of the future in the draft.

    Henry on the other hand plays at a far cheaper position, so they were able to franchise him for a much more meager cap hit of about $10.3M in 2020. If they franchise him again in 2021 that figure goes up to only about $12.4M.

    Remember that a franchised player gets paid the average of the five largest salaries at the player's position.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2020
  11. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,722
    9,173
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No because I don't think most of those data points are statistically significant, and statistical significance is a necessary condition for any difference to be "meaningful" (in science). So the effect size question wouldn't even be asked here.

    As to why effect size measures exist, it's because statistical significance is necessary but not sufficient in many contexts and that's not because of small sample size but because of too large sample size (equally bad actually). You can make anything statistically significant with large enough sample size so people started to come up with effect size measures to try and deal with that. The problem is that most proposed effect size measures either themselves depend on sample size or use arbitrary cutoffs. No easy solution.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,590
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Help me understand why you don't think the data point at 10% win probability for example wouldn't be significant. Mahomes is up around 0.58 EPA per dropback, whereas the average QB is down around 0.03, meaning that about half of them are even worse than that. Is it that you think the variation among QBs is that large?
     
  13. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,722
    9,173
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well consider what the sample size there is. Even if win probability at all locations occurred equally often (which is clearly not true.. it's relatively rare to get 10% win probability compared to 50%), how many data points would you have? That's for 2 seasons, so 32 games times about 35 passes per game so 1120 total data points, divided by 80?

    That's at the most optimistic 14 data points at a location (that's probably the average or so), and 14 data points is going to have a massive standard deviation. And it's probably more like 5-10 data points outside of the 40-60% range or so. I don't have the data, but my intuition for that is that few if any points will be statistically significant relative to average.

    EDIT: btw.. there's one other possibility given that he only goes from 10-90%. Maybe he's using a sliding window so that each data point is really an average over an interval (if the window size is 20 that explains the 10-90%). That would solve the sample size issue and helps explain how smooth the curve is, but the drawback is you don't know anymore how much things vary at any location. The variance even for the league average data could actually be huge but not look that way if a sliding window is used. Who knows.. he doesn't tell you.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2020
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  14. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,202
    1,714
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    6. He is not Patrick Mahomes.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2020
    resnor likes this.
  15. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,590
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The focus is about what the league rules encourage in terms of athleticism at the most important position, and the consequent difficulty in beating a team that may have a prototype player of that nature. Consequently players like Ryan Tannehill may have had a much better shot of winning a Super Bowl years ago than they do now.

    This is no different than the difficulty somebody like Isaiah Thomas had in winning an NBA championship when Michael Jordan was in the league, being repeatedly knocked back in conference playoff rounds.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2020
  16. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,722
    9,173
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    If the production is there the style doesn't matter because it's production that correlates with win%, and 1st in passer rating = production.

    And the Titans proved in 2019 that their style worked, with Tannehill as QB, at least for one year. The only question remaining is sustainability, but that's a separate question from whether the style works in this new environment favoring dual threat QB's.

    It's just harder to make that style work as the league changes, but it worked for the Titans.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  17. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,653
    7,812
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    The reason it worked with Tannehill is due to his ability to throw pinpoint passes with velocity intermediate and deep. Why wasn't Fiedler (orc whoever the QB was) dominant with Ricky?
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  18. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    447
    495
    63
    Mar 4, 2020
    Fiedler threw too many interceptions... His arm was average at best... and he floated passes occasionally and they got feasted on.
     
    resnor likes this.
  19. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito. Club Member

    35,091
    25,573
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    That weak arm hurt the running game. Cornerbacks could cheat to stop the run because Fiedler could not take advantage of it.
     
  20. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    447
    495
    63
    Mar 4, 2020
    It always seemed to me ( I was still pretty young then ) That the interceptions happened at the worst possible time and killed us almost always... ( Though it has been years and I may remember it differently )
     
  21. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,653
    7,812
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Exactly. Having a running back going crazy doesn't mean anything unless you can torch them through the air also.
     
  22. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    447
    495
    63
    Mar 4, 2020
    Nah Tannehill is still overrated... clearly a product of just luck:001_rolleyes:
     
    resnor likes this.
  23. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,202
    1,714
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims.
     
    resnor likes this.
  24. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,202
    1,714
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    The league still favors balanced attacks. Fun facts, in the last 20 years:

    1. No QB has ever led the league in passing yards and won the SB in the same year.
    2. No QB has ever won the regular season MVP and the SB in the same year.
    3. Only two QBs have led the league in passer rating and won the SB in the same year.

    It is still a team game. Being lopsided (especially in volume passing stats) is a sign of some amount of offensive or defensive disfunction.

    Interestingly, during the same span:

    1. 5 QBs that led the league in passing yards lost the SB that year.
    2. 8 QBs that won the regular season MVP lost the SB that year.
    3. 3 QBs that led the league in passer rating lost the SB that year.

    And, most amazingly:
    4. 2 QBs that won all three lost the SB that year.
     
    resnor likes this.
  25. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,722
    9,173
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It’s much less balanced than it used to be. Not at my computer right now but if you plot percentage of plays that are passes for each year since 1966 you see a dramatic decline in run% and a corresponding increase in pass% that’s actually still continuing. I can post a nice graph of that when I get back if you want.

    Otherwise, it’s definitely the case that the trend now is towards dual threat QB’s. Just look at who’s been coming out in the last few years. We’re gradually seeing the end of the pocket passer era.

    So the trend is definitely towards less balanced offenses and more dual threat QB’s. Tennessee and SF were simply teams that bucked that trend last year.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  26. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,156
    1,881
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I'll say it again.

    Mahomes is incredibly overrated. Take Andy Reid away and he isnt a top 6 QB like you want us to have. Hes the new Donovan McNabb who happens to be playing with better offensive talent and in a passing oriented league.
     
  27. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    447
    495
    63
    Mar 4, 2020
    Oh I think Mahomes is incredibly talented...

    He does benefit from a top coach and incredible talent around him.... But he is still a special player.
     
    Hiruma78 and resnor like this.
  28. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,202
    1,714
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Tannehill is a dual threat QB.
     
    Irishman and Dol-Fan Dupree like this.
  29. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,202
    1,714
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    7 of the top 10 rushing teams (total yards rushing) made the playoffs in 2019. 3 of the top 10 passing teams (total yards passing) made the playoffs. 8 of the top 10 most efficient passing teams (passer rating) make the playoffs.

    You should be able to run the ball and be efficient passing the ball. This pretty much describes the Titans, Ravens, 49ers, Seahawks, Vikings, and Texans.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,590
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    There have been only three instances since and including 2017 in which a QB finished the season at least two z-scores above the league average in EPA per play during that period, and those have been generated by Mahomes, Brees, and Jackson. Jackson's EPA per play is largely attributable to his rushing performance in 2019, and the z-scores for Brees's other two seasons during that period were 1.43 and 0.38.

    In contrast to Brees during that period, in Mahomes's other year as a starter, he was 1.92 z-scores above the league average. The next-highest z-score in the league for those three seasons is 1.70, and the next-highest one after that is 1.49. So things drop quickly from that elevated level.

    So Mahomes during his first two years as a starter is essentially outperforming the league by a wide margin. If that's attributable to Andy Reid and the surrounding offensive talent, they're doing an incredible job. They're essentially getting Mahomes to be the best QB in the league over his two years as a starter.

    By the way, Ryan Tannehill's EPA per play in 2019 was 0.64 z-scores above the league average from 2017 to 2019. Not even a standard deviation above it. So, certainly nothing special. His EPA per play in 2018 was 1.84 z-scores below the league average.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2020
  31. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,722
    9,173
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Rushing yards per game shouldn't be used to measure how well a team rushes the ball because almost the entire difference in rushing yards per game between winning and losing teams is due to differences in the 4th quarter when the team with the lead tries to run out the clock (statistically speaking of course, not every game or every team). In other words the causal relation is reversed.

    Try the same thing with rushing Y/A and you'll see how little rushing matters relative to passing. And also for passing you want to look at efficiency not volume as the correlation to points scored and to win% is far higher for passing efficiency than passing yards.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,590
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Again, if what we're talking about here, with regard to any topic, rests on the credibility of a nobody on a message board, then the issue is probably so ambiguous and open to interpretation that nobody's credibility really matters anyway.

    On the Kansas City Chiefs' message board they can simply call people who think Patrick Mahomes is no good delusional. The issue is so open-and-shut that any one person's credibility hardly matters.

    Not so with this topic, apparently.
     
  33. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    447
    495
    63
    Mar 4, 2020
    Guy

    Stop doing this man.... It says there is a new post... I come to check it out and you post this blank crap...

    Just post if you want to post... You are coming here reading and taking the time to make blank posts... Why?
     
  34. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,722
    9,173
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    He might have blocked you. Try logging out and coming back to the site without logging in and see if you see his posts. I see them.
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  35. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    447
    495
    63
    Mar 4, 2020
    Brad

    If he did that is fine... His loss. I guess he did not like the fact that I was not accepting him changing his arguments every time a previous set of numbers were debunked.
     
    resnor likes this.
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,590
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Actually I got irritated with the fact that you repeatedly displayed trouble following along, but we'll give it another shot.
     
    Etrius24 likes this.
  37. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,202
    1,714
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Who said Mahomes was no good? I was talking about your "jordanesque" domination prediction in and era where Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees have won one SB each.
     
  38. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,590
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You didn't say that -- I raised that point only to show that the more ambiguous something is, the more people's opinions about it matter, and by extension the more that people's credibility comes into play. If something is open-and-shut -- like Mahomes's ability -- then anybody with a highly deviant opinion in the obviously wrong direction can just be called delusional, and their credibility (or the lack thereof) has no real effect on the discussion.
     
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,653
    7,812
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    He absolutely blocked Etrius. He pretty much blocks anyone who disputes his ridiculous theories. He wants to post in an echo chamber.
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  40. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,722
    9,173
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Maybe it's worth asking The Guy the question: why the tremendous fixation on Tannehill?

    There's clearly more to this than just QB evaluation per se because you (The Guy) don't focus on any other QB where you might have similar arguments (you said Jackson for example) like you do Tannehill. And this doesn't feel to me like someone just "trying to be right" either. I've seen that before and it looks (feels) different. There's something else going on here that's causing the tremendous focus on Tannehill and I would really be interested in knowing what that is.
     
    Hiruma78, resnor and FinFaninBuffalo like this.

Share This Page