Ryan Tannehill

"The Guy wrote:

The reason for that is its very high frequency of sacks.

For a "stats guy", you sure do make a lot of unsubstantiated claims.....

"The Guy wrote:

the Titans' record during Tannehill's historic level of play is an unexpectedly modest 6-3, despite that its pass defense plays at an average level. That doesn't compute, and it doesn't compute because sacks destroy the equation.

And you don't think that the level of competition has anything to do with it?

"The Guy wrote:

However, there is an area of his game that is no different (sensing and evading pressure),

This is another unsubstantiated claim.

It must have been an incredible "ah ha!" moment for you. After weeks of searching, you could finally blame Tannehill for something...... if you were any more transparent, you'd be invisible.

And you've continued to demonstrate your extremely poor understanding of statistics.

"Cashvillesent wrote:

Offensive dominace? What the hell are you talking about? Tennessee is averaging 30 ppg with Tammy under center, while their only averaging 16ppg with Mariota under center.

What is offense dominace to you? 40 ppg? Smh. Lol

He is the most passive aggressive poster ever. All the feigning of impartiality. Just looking at the stats..... LOL. He has spent the last 9 weeks trying to figure out how to deny giving credit to Tannehill for his resurgence. Now he has latched on to something that he thinks he can blame Tannehill for......

"Fin-O wrote:

No matter who the guy is, what has he said or done in this thread that is just so egregious that has 4-5 posters so triggered?

Looks to me like he is simply disagreeing on what he is seeing. Even I don’t agree with what he is saying in this case, and that’s okay. This forum would be boring if we all just agreed. He isn’t being disrespectful he is being disrespected. Not cool, and quite juvenile.

And I disagree with your opinion of what he is doing. That okay with you?

To put a finer point on it, he is a fraud. He understands very little about stats, is almost completely devoid of logic, and knows even less about football. On top of all that, he lies about his motives.

"The Guy wrote:

I've addressed this in several posts already. The point is that in terms of point production and wins and losses, the team isn't performing at the level expected of a team with its passer rating differential. The reason for that is its very high frequency of sacks.

I already debunked this. Only the 49ers and the Ravens have a higher per point per game average than the Titans. If you are trying to convince someone that having the 3rd highest point production per game isn't performing...or shows a lack of production, you're as nutty as a fruitcake.

I commend you for sticking to your guns and refusing to let go, but you've hitched your wagon on a losing argument. You've gone all in and its too late for you to fold. You've been called and you've lost to a better hand.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

I already debunked this. Only the 49ers and the Ravens have a higher per point per game average than the Titans. If you are trying to convince someone that having the 3rd highest point production per game isn't performing...or shows a lack of production, you're as nutty as a fruitcake.

I commend you for sticking to your guns and refusing to let go, but you've hitched your wagon on a losing argument. You've gone all in and its too late for you to fold. You've been called and you've lost to a better hand.

The argument isn't that the Titans' number of points scored is low or that their record is bad.

There is the expected number of points scored and win percentage associated with Tannehill's passing statistics, and there is the actual number of points scored and win percentage. The actual doesn't match the expected for Tannehill and the Titans, and that's because of sacks.

A hypothetical example may help make the point more understandable. Imagine that a quarterback posted a perfect passer rating in every game in a season, and his team's pass defense played at an average level. That team would be expected to lead the league in points scored by a fairly wide margin and have virtually a perfect record.

What would you think if instead that team was merely fifth in the league in points scored and had a record of 11-5? Something would have to explain that difference between what was expected and what actually occurred. In the case of the Titans this year, that explanation is sacks.

Again, this isn't likely to register as a problem for the team until they play against the stiffest competition in the league. Against New Orleans and Drew Brees last weekend for example, the four drive-killing sacks interfered with the scoring opportunities the team needed to beat a quarterback and a team of that caliber.

A 10-point loss certainly is nowhere near expected from Tannehill's passer rating of 133.6, his YPA over 10, and a passer rating differential of roughly 15 points, but of course drive-killing sacks aren't reflected in passer rating, YPA, and passer rating differential.

"The Guy wrote:

The argument isn't that the Titans' number of points scored is low or that their record is bad.

There is the expected number of points scored and win percentage associated with Tannehill's passing statistics, and there is the actual number of points scored and win percentage. The actual doesn't match the expected for Tannehill and the Titans, and that's because of sacks.

A hypothetical example may help make the point more understandable. Imagine that a quarterback posted a perfect passer rating in every game in a season, and his team's pass defense played at an average level. That team would be expected to lead the league in points scored by a fairly wide margin and have virtually a perfect record.

What would you think if instead that team was merely fifth in the league in points scored and had a record of 11-5? Something would have to explain that difference between what was expected and what actually occurred. In the case of the Titans this year, that explanation is sacks.

Again, this isn't likely to register as a problem for the team until they play against the stiffest competition in the league. Against New Orleans and Drew Brees last weekend for example, the four drive-killing sacks interfered with the scoring opportunities the team needed to beat a quarterback and a team of that caliber.

A 10-point loss certainly is nowhere near expected from Tannehill's passer rating of 133.6, his YPA over 10, and a passer rating differential of roughly 15 points, but of course drive-killing sacks aren't reflected in passer rating, YPA, and passer rating differential.

Don't want to start a flame war but I tend to agree with you.. On on many of his stellar throws he had plenty of time to throw.. But the guy in the pocket hasn't changed much from his time here. I'm not taking anything away from him or downplaying his success one iota, but to my eyes he is still a bit slow to react when facing pressure. As pointed out in this thread it's not a fatal flaw, but it does occasionally kill a drive or two. And you are correct, against a team like NO you needed every drive.. Although you could also argue that Tannehill was marching them downfield for the go ahead TD and the drive got killed by a cheap head shot that wasn't called.

I'm also reminded of 2014 when Tannehill was on a roll and the defense collapsed against Denver in a shootout 39-36.. Brandon Albert got injured that game too.. And that season went down in flames.. He just hasn't had a lot of luck when things get tight, a lot of which has nothing to do with his play. Would love to see him win on Sunday and start a playoff game.

"Bumrush wrote:

Don't want to start a flame war but I tend to agree with you.. On on many of his stellar throws he had plenty of time to throw.. But the guy in the pocket hasn't changed much from his time here. I'm not taking anything away from him or downplaying his success one iota, but to my eyes he is still a bit slow to react when facing pressure. As pointed out in this thread it's not a fatal flaw, but it does occasionally kill a drive or two. And you are correct, against a team like NO you needed every drive.. Although you could also argue that Tannehill was marching them downfield for the go ahead TD and the drive got killed by a cheap head shot that wasn't called.

It's not a fatal flaw until it happens against the best QBs and teams in the league, when you need all your ducks in a row to win. That's when the stellar passer rating, YPA, and passer rating differential need to translate to as many points as possible, rather than being undermined by another variable (i.e., sacks) that isn't reflected in those statistics.

"The Guy wrote:

It's not a fatal flaw until it happens against the best QBs and teams in the league, when you need all your ducks in a row to win. That's when the stellar passer rating, YPA, and passer differential need to translate to as many points as possible, rather than being undermined by another variable (i.e., sacks) that isn't reflected in those statistics.

In defense of Tannehill, you have to counterbalance that by his accuracy downfield (points that most other QB's may not be able to execute on) and when he escapes the pocket and throws downfield.. The TD in the 4th quarter when they were down 10 is an example of 7 points that most other QB's couldn't execute on. (the play where he rolled to the right, threw across his body downfield the to the left for a TD).

"The Guy wrote:

The argument isn't that the Titans' number of points scored is low or that their record is bad.

There is the expected number of points scored and win percentage associated with Tannehill's passing statistics, and there is the actual number of points scored and win percentage. The actual doesn't match the expected for Tannehill and the Titans, and that's because of sacks.

A hypothetical example may help make the point more understandable. Imagine that a quarterback posted a perfect passer rating in every game in a season, and his team's pass defense played at an average level. That team would be expected to lead the league in points scored by a fairly wide margin and have virtually a perfect record.

What would you think if instead that team was merely fifth in the league in points scored and had a record of 11-5? Something would have to explain that difference between what was expected and what actually occurred. In the case of the Titans this year, that explanation is sacks.

Again, this isn't likely to register as a problem for the team until they play against the stiffest competition in the league. Against New Orleans and Drew Brees last weekend for example, the four drive-killing sacks interfered with the scoring opportunities the team needed to beat a quarterback and a team of that caliber.

A 10-point loss certainly is nowhere near expected from Tannehill's passer rating of 133.6, his YPA over 10, and a passer rating differential of roughly 15 points, but of course drive-killing sacks aren't reflected in passer rating, YPA, and passer rating differential.

Again, debunked...

Ive already painstakingly illustrated points per game for the Titans with Tannehill under center. In Tennessee’s loss to NO, they scored...wait for it...28 points, a mere 1 point less than their average with him as QB.

Tannehill is doing exactly what he is supposed to do. He is precisely producing what his overall stats are consummate to his overall rating.

What Tannehill is not doing, and never has been able to is convince others that he’s just as great a quarterback as any of the “elites” because when the Dolphins then, or the Titans now lose a game, it MUST be his fault. There’s no other explanation.

Those other 10 that go out on the field with Tannehill must just be lawn decorations...and the same goes for the defense when they’re on the field. Pure lawn decorations.

Football is nothing more than a quarterback exposition...which is why so many were singing praises for Kaepernick’s one on nothing expo. :pity:

I still hold to my guns everything I have EVER said about Tannehill, then as a Dolphin and now as a Titan. I have the facts to back up everything and facts are stubborn things...they just can’t be disputed.

Lol whats funny about this thread is that Titans fans arent having discussions about whether Tannehill is at fault for the losses or if he sucks.. theyre talking about extending him, and putting more talent on him, fixing the offensive line the upcoming offseason.

i was probably the most critical on Tannehill and even i have seen his turnaround.. you all gotta be real about Tannehill, hes a different player now.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

Again, debunked...

Ive already painstakingly illustrated points per game for the Titans with Tannehill under center. In Tennessee’s loss to NO, they scored...wait for it...28 points, a mere 1 point less than their average with him as QB.

Tannehill is doing exactly what he is supposed to do. He is precisely producing what his overall stats are consummate to his overall rating.

What Tannehill is not doing, and never has been able to is convince others that he’s just as great a quarterback as any of the “elites” because when the Dolphins then, or the Titans now lose a game, it MUST be his fault. There’s no other explanation.

Those other 10 that go out on the field with Tannehill must just be lawn decorations...and the same goes for the defense when they’re on the field. Pure lawn decorations.

Football is nothing more than a quarterback exposition...which is why so many were singing praises for Kaepernick’s one on nothing expo. :pity:

I still hold to my guns everything I have EVER said about Tannehill, then as a Dolphin and now as a Titan. I have the facts to back up everything and facts are stubborn things...they just can’t be disputed.

28 points is more than 5 fewer than what's expected for a passer rating of 133 and a YPA of 10.1. That's the point.

"Vertical Limit wrote:

Lol whats funny about this thread is that Titans fans arent having discussions about whether Tannehill is at fault for the losses or if he sucks.. theyre talking about extending him, and putting more talent on him, fixing the offensive line the upcoming offseason.

i was probably the most critical on Tannehill and even i have seen his turnaround.. you all gotta be real about Tannehill, hes a different player now.

Yep, and they're also talking about whether to re-sign Henry...I don't see why they wouldn't do whatever they can to bring both back. Could be a 4 or 5 year power combo.

OK.. let me weigh in on this.

So, using z-scores, which everyone here should be using since you can't calculate expected PPG from PR unless you adjust for era, this is the relationship you get across NFL history:

The intercept of that line is precisely at 0 so the only information necessary is the slope which is 0.7857. That tells you that whatever the z-score is for passer rating the expected z-score for PPG is 0.7857 times that.

Tannehill's current z-score rating (this keeps changing as more games by other teams are played btw) is 2.3806. The question is what is Tennessee's PPG z-score under Tannehill? The issue here is that Tannehill has played in 10 games but started 9. In that first game he had 16 passing attempts while Mariota (who started) had 18 passing attempts. So the weight for Tannehill on that first game where Tennessee scored 0 points is 16/(16+18) = 0.4706 while the weight on all other games is 1.

That means Tennessee's weighted average PPG under Tannehill is (total points)/(sum of weights) = 269/9.4706 = 28.4037, which corresponds to a z-score (using team PPG) of 1.3286.

So.. Tannehill's passer rating z-score is 2.3806 which means expected PPG z-score is 2.3806*0.7857 = 1.8704, while actual PPG z-score is 1.3286, so The Guy is right in pointing out that actual PPG is less than expected. However.. do NOT use ranks for the calculation!!!

That's not the end of the story though. If you look at that above graph, the vertical spread gives you a standard deviation of approximately 0.7, meaning that just through random variation alone you'd expect 2/3 of all cases to lie within 0.7 z-score of that line. And the difference between actual and expected is 1.8704-1.3286 = 0.5418 which is less than a standard deviation.

So in summary:
1) Tennessee's PPG under Tannehill is less than expected based on Tannehill's passer rating by 0.5418 z-scores.
2) That 0.5418 difference is more than consistent with random variation.

They

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

Yep, and they're also talking about whether to re-sign Henry...I don't see why they wouldn't do whatever they can to bring both back. Could be a 4 or 5 year power combo.

They got 49 million in cap space in 2020.. theyll be able to sign both and still add talent.. plus they got some tough decisions to make on some underperforming players.

taylor lewans contract has no guarantee money left after this season. He may be on his way out.

Maybe the best description of how sack rate, INTs, and big plays interact. Exactly my thoughts on the matter and something I have pointed out about Wilson in the past.

Tanny like majority of QBs take some hits they shouldnt take, but if thats the only flaw thats in his game Ill take that anyday of the week compared to a noodle arm Marcus Marifloata

Resign this guy. Unload the brinks truck. Titans have talent and Tanny can take us places if we continue to build on the OL

"Cashvillesent wrote:

Tanny like majority of QBs take some hits they shouldnt take, but if thats the only flaw thats in his game Ill take that anyday of the week compared to a noodle arm Marcus Marifloata

Resign this guy. Unload the brinks truck. Titans have talent and Tanny can take us places if we continue to build on the OL

I'm so happy for Tannehill. I can't imagine what it's like for you guys to go from dreading who you have at QB, with little hope of it improving, to what you've gotten over the past 9 weeks or so...overnight.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

I'm so happy for Tannehill. I can't imagine what it's like for you guys to go from dreading who you have at QB, with little hope of it improving, to what you've gotten over the past 9 weeks or so...overnight.

If the Titans make the playoffs they are the #1 team I am rooting for.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Maybe the best description of how sack rate, INTs, and big plays interact. Exactly my thoughts on the matter and something I have pointed out about Wilson in the past.

I asked @AdamHarstad about #SacksAreAQBStat -- something he's been ranting about since 2014. Here was part of his answer.

Not sure why I couldn't figure this out intuitively on my own. Not sure I can ever think about the QB position the same way. pic.twitter.com/NEWSawgnre

— Scott Barrett (@ScottBarrettDFB) August 18, 2019

Final thoughts on this. I totally agree with the point of view of @AdamHarstad. It is the reason why I never dinged Wilson for his high sack rate. IMO, it was by design. Tannehill, in Miami OTOH, did not have the big play numbers to justify the sack rate. The Dolphins were actively sacrificing big play opportunities in an effort to try to limit the number of sacks. Other than for short periods, the OL was never good enough to make that happen.

Fast forward to Tannehill in Tenn. Sack rate may very well be similar but, it is accompanied by top of the league number of big plays, a league leading YPA, and good INT numbers. THAT is the difference. They are trading sacks for big plays and TDs. Every single team in the NFL is trying to achieve a balance based on their system and their personnel. 0 sacks in a season is not a good thing if it is combined with a ton of INTs, little offensive production, and/or no big plays.

This is the thing that is so hard to explain to people who do not understand football.

"cbrad wrote:

OK.. let me weigh in on this.

So, using z-scores, which everyone here should be using since you can't calculate expected PPG from PR unless you adjust for era, this is the relationship you get across NFL history:

The intercept of that line is precisely at 0 so the only information necessary is the slope which is 0.7857. That tells you that whatever the z-score is for passer rating the expected z-score for PPG is 0.7857 times that.

Tannehill's current z-score rating (this keeps changing as more games by other teams are played btw) is 2.3806. The question is what is Tennessee's PPG z-score under Tannehill? The issue here is that Tannehill has played in 10 games but started 9. In that first game he had 16 passing attempts while Mariota (who started) had 18 passing attempts. So the weight for Tannehill on that first game where Tennessee scored 0 points is 16/(16+18) = 0.4706 while the weight on all other games is 1.

That means Tennessee's weighted average PPG under Tannehill is (total points)/(sum of weights) = 269/9.4706 = 28.4037, which corresponds to a z-score (using team PPG) of 1.3286.

So.. Tannehill's passer rating z-score is 2.3806 which means expected PPG z-score is 2.3806*0.7857 = 1.8704, while actual PPG z-score is 1.3286, so The Guy is right in pointing out that actual PPG is less than expected. However.. do NOT use ranks for the calculation!!!

That's not the end of the story though. If you look at that above graph, the vertical spread gives you a standard deviation of approximately 0.7, meaning that just through random variation alone you'd expect 2/3 of all cases to lie within 0.7 z-score of that line. And the difference between actual and expected is 1.8704-1.3286 = 0.5418 which is less than a standard deviation.

So in summary:
1) Tennessee's PPG under Tannehill is less than expected based on Tannehill's passer rating by 0.5418 z-scores.
2) That 0.5418 difference is more than consistent with random variation.

Is that ONLY PPG based on TDs by the offense? Does it take into account FGs?

Edit: Reason I ask, is Tennessee's kicking situation is horrible. 5 of 15 FGs on the year from their first 2 kickers...not to mention how that would impact a coach's decision based on confidence.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

Is that ONLY PPG based on TDs by the offense? Does it take into account FGs?

Edit: Reason I ask, is Tennessee's kicking situation is horrible. 5 of 15 FGs on the year from their first 2 kickers...not to mention how that would impact a coach's decision based on confidence.

For me, it doesn't even matter. With the numbers Tannehill is putting up, if the points are lower than expected, then you've got to look elsewhere for the culprit.

"cbrad wrote:

OK.. let me weigh in on this.

So, using z-scores, which everyone here should be using since you can't calculate expected PPG from PR unless you adjust for era, this is the relationship you get across NFL history:

The intercept of that line is precisely at 0 so the only information necessary is the slope which is 0.7857. That tells you that whatever the z-score is for passer rating the expected z-score for PPG is 0.7857 times that.

Tannehill's current z-score rating (this keeps changing as more games by other teams are played btw) is 2.3806. The question is what is Tennessee's PPG z-score under Tannehill? The issue here is that Tannehill has played in 10 games but started 9. In that first game he had 16 passing attempts while Mariota (who started) had 18 passing attempts. So the weight for Tannehill on that first game where Tennessee scored 0 points is 16/(16+18) = 0.4706 while the weight on all other games is 1.

That means Tennessee's weighted average PPG under Tannehill is (total points)/(sum of weights) = 269/9.4706 = 28.4037, which corresponds to a z-score (using team PPG) of 1.3286.

So.. Tannehill's passer rating z-score is 2.3806 which means expected PPG z-score is 2.3806*0.7857 = 1.8704, while actual PPG z-score is 1.3286, so The Guy is right in pointing out that actual PPG is less than expected. However.. do NOT use ranks for the calculation!!!

That's not the end of the story though. If you look at that above graph, the vertical spread gives you a standard deviation of approximately 0.7, meaning that just through random variation alone you'd expect 2/3 of all cases to lie within 0.7 z-score of that line. And the difference between actual and expected is 1.8704-1.3286 = 0.5418 which is less than a standard deviation.

So in summary:
1) Tennessee's PPG under Tannehill is less than expected based on Tannehill's passer rating by 0.5418 z-scores.
2) That 0.5418 difference is more than consistent with random variation.

I hate to ask you to do more work, but can you determine whether sack percentage is a significant covariate?

"resnor wrote:

For me, it doesn't even matter. With the numbers Tannehill is putting up, if the points are lower than expected, then you've got to look elsewhere for the culprit.

Well, the fact that its within one standard deviation takes away any real credence on its own, from the statistical perspective...but there are other glaring reasons too, is my point.

"resnor wrote:

For me, it doesn't even matter. With the numbers Tannehill is putting up, if the points are lower than expected, then you've got to look elsewhere for the culprit.

They already signed and released two Kickers. Succoop has been injured all year and they just signed a random off the street guy named Joseph.