Ryan Tannehill

"Bumrush wrote:

Who?

Malcom Butler, and Adoore Jackson.

They've had legit secondary until the two went out. Adoore was back last week but Butlers has been out since week 5.

The idea that it everything is on a QB is easily proven wrong with basic logic.

Imagine lining up 11 on 2. Only a center and QB on offense. Can the QB put up the same rating he would with 9 more players?

Now make those 9 players into Toddlers so its 11 on 11 again. Do you expect the QB to have good numbers?

Now take out the toddlers and add in the best freshman and sophomore players in college. Success may increase but the QB isnt reaching his full potential.

Okay, now let's make the 9 college players into a standard NFL player. They are all adequate but none are considered a star player. Now the QB will probably be able to hit some sort of baseline for his play. He will most likely have some great games (if he has the skill) and some bad games.

Now let's make those 9 players the top at their position. Now the QB will most likely exceed his normal play. Why? Now his unit is winning more individual battles where they couldnt before.

None of this even includes coaching and play calling.

The only way to put everything on a QB is if you want to argue there is almost equal parity in team talent around the league EXCEPT at QB. I find this idea illogical.

Obviously the QB needs talent, but basing the talent to succeed solely on performance CAN BE misleading. It may not always be, and usually may be accurate, but again it can be misleading.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

The idea that it everything is on a QB is easily proven wrong with basic logic.

Imagine lining up 11 on 2. Only a center and QB on offense. Can the QB put up the same rating he would with 9 more players?

Now make those 9 players into Toddlers so its 11 on 11 again. Do you expect the QB to have good numbers?

Now take out the toddlers and add in the best freshman and sophomore players in college. Success may increase but the QB isnt reaching his full potential.

Okay, now let's make the 9 college players into a standard NFL player. They are all adequate but none are considered a star player. Now the QB will probably be able to hit some sort of baseline for his play. He will most likely have some great games (if he has the skill) and some bad games.

Now let's make those 9 players the top at their position. Now the QB will most likely exceed his normal play. Why? Now his unit is winning more individual battles where they couldnt before.

None of this even includes coaching and play calling.

The only way to put everything on a QB is if you want to argue there is almost equal parity in team talent around the league EXCEPT at QB. I find this idea illogical.

Obviously the QB needs talent, but basing the talent to succeed solely on performance CAN BE misleading. It may not always be, and usually may be accurate, but again it can be misleading.

You could also argue that QB is the only position that impacts the game the most. They have the ball in their hands majority of the time.

But I do agree with you. Stats are pretty much worthless especially for a game like football

"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.

Jags fans are furious.. they've signed Foles to huge contract hoping that his their savior, to a guy that was outplayed by a 6th rd QB, Minshew, and we basically got Tanny for a 4th rd pick, also half the salary.

Oh man, Jaguars are absolutely trash. I have no idea why their even in Florida

"Cashvillesent wrote:

Jags fans are furious.. they've signed Foles to huge contract hoping that his their savior, to a guy that was outplayed by a 6th rd QB, Minshew, and we basically got Tanny for a 4th rd pick, also half the salary.

Oh man, Jaguars are absolutely trash. I have no idea why their even in Florida

They got an excellent package for Jalen Ramsey though. They can stack picks and trade up for anyone they want.

it wouldnt shock me at all if they end up with Tua even though I dont see Tua being a successful quarterback in the NFL.

as of right now theyre picking 6th.. they may take the Tua gamble. And it wont be a successful gamble, Mariota 2.0..

"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.

You see, this is where your argument again falls apart. You're equating Tennessee's defense's inability to stop New Orleans' offense with Tannehill's performance.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

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.

That's a very clear explanation supporting your point. I think it is a valid position to take.

Shows what type of person you’re dealing with when they cannot accept that Tannehill is crushing it on another team. Instead they try to make excuses and bring out the negatives.

"Mcduffie81 wrote:

Shows what type of person you’re dealing with when they cannot accept that Tannehill is crushing it on another team. Instead they try to make excuses and bring out the negatives.

I'm blocked now. I just see the rebuttals. :D

[ATTACH:full]

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

You see, this is where your argument again falls apart. You're equating Tennessee's defense's inability to stop New Orleans' offense with Tannehill's performance.

Whether Tennessee is scoring the number of points that are expected as a function of Tannehill’s performance has nothing to do with Tennessee’s defense.

[ATTACH:full]

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

The idea that it everything is on a QB is easily proven wrong with basic logic.

Imagine lining up 11 on 2. Only a center and QB on offense. Can the QB put up the same rating he would with 9 more players?

Now make those 9 players into Toddlers so its 11 on 11 again. Do you expect the QB to have good numbers?

Now take out the toddlers and add in the best freshman and sophomore players in college. Success may increase but the QB isnt reaching his full potential.

Okay, now let's make the 9 college players into a standard NFL player. They are all adequate but none are considered a star player. Now the QB will probably be able to hit some sort of baseline for his play. He will most likely have some great games (if he has the skill) and some bad games.

Now let's make those 9 players the top at their position. Now the QB will most likely exceed his normal play. Why? Now his unit is winning more individual battles where they couldnt before.

None of this even includes coaching and play calling.

The only way to put everything on a QB is if you want to argue there is almost equal parity in team talent around the league EXCEPT at QB. I find this idea illogical.

Obviously the QB needs talent, but basing the talent to succeed solely on performance CAN BE misleading. It may not always be, and usually may be accurate, but again it can be misleading.

Where exactly do you see it being said that everything is on the QB?

What we do know is that quarterbacks are by far the most sought after players in the league in terms of draft and salary resources, and so unless the league as a whole is mistaken, they are by far the most important players on the field.

Find this in your stats.....

Tannehill doing his Patrick Mahomes impression

[ATTACH:full]

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Tannehill doing his Patrick Mahomes impression

https://x.com/i/web/status/1208997878758301696

Freaking Corey Davis smh. Dude was drafted with the #5th overall pick and hasnt came closely to living up to the hype

"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.

Winner winner chicken dinner

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Tannehill doing his Patrick Mahomes impression

https://x.com/i/web/status/1208997878758301696

He did catch that ball but his hand came down out of bounds just a nick before his knee came down in bounds.

Unlucky really

"Cashvillesent wrote:

Malcom Butler, and Adoore Jackson.

They've had legit secondary until the two went out. Adoore was back last week but Butlers has been out since week 5.

corner level is ripe for the exploiting due to attrition. Jackson I don’t think even played this last game.

not a good mix for a road playoff game vs kc should the titans get there

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Find this in your stats.....

Best Ryan Tannehill throws so far this season: pic.twitter.com/6u2pBEhN4f

— Titans Tape (@TitansTape) December 14, 2019

backup they say. Lmao

"Hoops wrote:

backup they say. Lmao

Absolutely elite arm talent. Top 2 or 3 in the league.

"The Guy wrote:

Whether Tennessee is scoring the number of points that are expected as a function of Tannehill’s performance has nothing to do with Tennessee’s defense.

Ok I see...if Tannehill isn't throwing 17 touchdowns per game and 1256 yards per game, he isn't producing...because that's what his passer rating says he's supposed to be doing.

You're too much.

"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.

Brad, call me a simpleton, but your charts that you post look nothing more than an impact zone after an artillery barrage. I have no flipping idea what all of those dots are supposed to represent.

"Hoops wrote:

corner level is ripe for the exploiting due to attrition. Jackson I don’t think even played this last game.

not a good mix for a road playoff game vs kc should the titans get there

I agree. Their really hurting at the CB position.

Logan Ryan is the only starter left.