Is Ryan Tannehill Going to Become a Franchise QB? | Part II | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Is Ryan Tannehill Going to Become a Franchise QB? | Part II

Shouright

☠️ Banned ☠️
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
15,051
Reaction score
18
Age
51
This is a "sequel" to this thread:

http://www.finheaven.com/forums/sho...Ryan-Tannehill-Going-to-Become-a-Franchise-QB

I gathered some more data on this, focusing specifically on the percentage of "very good" starts rookie QBs have made since 2004, in comparison to their percentages of "poor" starts.

I defined a "very good" start as a start with a QB rating of 90 or higher, and a "poor" start as one with a QB rating of 69 or lower. Starts with QB ratings between 70 and 89 were not used in any of these analyses.

Here are the data:

QB
%age of Very Good Starts
%age of Poor Starts
Franchise QB?
Career QB Rating
Tannehill
47
47
Luck
31
25
Wilson
69
19
RGIII
67
7
Weeden
27
40
Newton
44
25
Yes
86.2
Dalton
44
38
Yes
87.4
Bradford
25
38
Yes
82.6
Palmer
38
46
Yes
86.2
Roethlisberger
62
23
Yes
92.7
Ryan
56
31
Yes
90.9
Flacco
44
31
Yes
86.3
Ponder
30
60
Yes
81.2
Stafford
20
60
Yes
82.8
Gabbert
14
14
No
70.2
Sanchez
27
33
No
71.7
Young
15
46
No
74.4
Leinart
36
36
No
70.2
Freeman
22
56
Yes
79.8
Gradkowski
27
64
No
65.8
Orton
7
67
No
79.7
Edwards
22
55
No
75.5
Clausen
20
60
No
58.4
Walter
0
75
No
52.6
Smith
14
86
No
79.1
EManning
29
71
Yes
82.7

The thinking here is that a QB's future "ceiling" may be revealed in how often he's able to perform at a very high level during his rookie season, whereas his future quality of play overall may be revealed in how he minimizes poor play as a rookie while maximizing very good play.

As it turns out, the correlation between the percentage of very good starts as a rookie and career QB rating is 0.70, which is strong.

The correlation between the percentage of poor starts as a rookie and career QB rating is -0.37 and is comparatively weak, and that variable will therefore not be used as a basis for any analyses in this thread.

What the data also reveal is that the average percentage of very good starts among the future "franchise QBs" is 37.6, with a standard deviation of 13.78.

The average percentage of very good starts among the future "non-franchise QBs" is 19.7, with a standard deviation of 9.63.

Ryan Tannehill's percentage of very good starts (47%) places him within a standard deviation above the average of the future "franchise QBs," while also placing him nearly three (!) standard deviations above the mean of the "non-franchise QBs."

So, the take-home message is that Ryan Tannehill, in terms of his percentage of very good starts (QB rating of 90 or higher), which was 47%, played much more like a future franchise QB as a rookie than a future non-franchise QB.

I think this lends support to people's perceptions that Ryan Tannehill appears to have the makings of a franchise QB based on how often he was able to play at a high level this year. :up:

For the sake of further comparison, Chad Henne in 2009, in his second season in the NFL (first as a starter), following far more college starts at QB, had a 90 QB rating or higher in ony 23% of his starts, which puts him less than a standard deviation above the mean of the non-franchise QBs, and more than a standard deviation below the mean of the "franchise" QBs.

In other words, with regard to this particular stat, Tannehill played like a future franchise QB this year, whereas Chad Henne in 2009 played like a future non-franchise QB. I think you could also argue that Ryan Tannehill played even better as a rookie than Chad Henne did this year for Jacksonville, as a fifth-year player.
 
I agree that he is our franchise QB. The flip flopping on this board is ridiculous. People are so quick to jump the gun on this kid its mind boggling. He has all the tools of a franchise QB. He has a cannon for an arm, throws a tight spiral, has good touch, can read a defense, is somewhat accurate, can run, is physical...I mean...Come one people... The kid can make any throw, and he has less QB experience then some Seniors/Juniors in college.

And i feel like his stats are very misleading. He has had a TON of dropped balls this season, and quite a few dropped touch down passes as well. Not only that, but at least 4 of his INT's were off of the reciever's hands first. He had a lot of games this season where he threw 0 interceptions. Also, he has no play makers at WR. He doesnt have a Brandon Marshall (who i think if we had, we could have been a playoff team this year) who can get YAC and get himself a touch down. He essential had 2 slot recievers as the #1 and 2 option... And then a bunch of 5th stringers to work with. He wasnt even supposed to play this season, but did and still played well and showed enough to prove this kid has potential.

Get the man a true #1 and 2 reciever. A TE who can catch over the middle and resign reggie and he is going to look like a completely different player. Id like to see some 5 wr packages with reggie as the 5th reciever.
 
Just wait! Excellent logical coherent post that will still draw some "thumbs downs" from the usual OCD-level Tanny-hating suspects. (as likely they will present themselves similarly in this one).
 
Just wait! Excellent logical coherent post that will still draw some "thumbs downs" from the usual OCD-level Tanny-hating suspects. (as likely they will present themselves similarly in this one).
And that's how you determine whom to put on your ignore list. :up:
 
If he is, it should be obvious. We shouldn't have to dig up states to prove or disprove his potential. All of the other QB's picked before and after have shown that. If he gets wr's to the same caliber as the others, and still does not make the playoffs, then the answer is simple. We shall see next year. Stats wont tell us anything.
 
How did you pick your QBR thresholds? Was there significant change in the analysis using different thresholds?
 
The only thing I disagree with is the label of some guys as a franchise QB. Sam Bradford? Not yet. Christian Ponder? Still work to be done.
 
How did you pick your QBR thresholds? Was there significant change in the analysis using different thresholds?
If you click on the link at the top of the original post, it'll bring you to the thread where all that was explained. :up:
 
If he is, it should be obvious. We shouldn't have to dig up states to prove or disprove his potential. All of the other QB's picked before and after have shown that. If he gets wr's to the same caliber as the others, and still does not make the playoffs, then the answer is simple. We shall see next year. Stats wont tell us anything.
I think if it were so obvious, there wouldn't be much if any disagreement about it among people who have presumably watched all of his NFL games, yet that doesn't seem to be the case here.
 
To be a franchise QB, you have to lead your team to more victories than losses. You need atleast a 2:1 TD to Int ratio and a QB rating consistently in the high 80s or 90s. He has a ton of work to do but surrounding him with elite talent is the first step. I've seen some good and I've seen some very bad from him this year, which is expected from a rookie. I'm still waiting for that come from behind 2min drive to win the game. Luck, RG3, Wilson, and even Cousins have done that this year. I want to see a huge jump from last year and then maybe we can say he is the Franchise QB. Until then, he's just another guy with potential.
 
He performed a game winning drive at the end of the game against a very tough Seattle defense. He also did it against Arizon and NYJ but the kicker missed the field goal.
 
Back
Top Bottom