Is Ryan Tannehill Going to Become a Franchise QB? | Part II | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

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

Hey I am concerned about RGIII and now with Russell Wilson (after today's game) , every year is a new year and strange things happen, injuries, weather, etc. There is always someone, something to blame.

The only thing I didn't like about Tannehill was his lack of TD's throwing, which translates to low scoring and losing to teams we should have beat.

Hopefully next season he will be a lot more comfortable and he will improve. With that being said, I felt we could have made the playoffs with Matt Moore and he earned the right to be the starter. I felt we may have sacrificed a season in an effort to prove Ryan Tannehill was the "one", the franchise QB. I knew it would take time and he would have been served best if he sat on the sideline for a season, but that's just me and my opinion.

If you don't make the playoffs, you have zero chance of making the Super Bowl.

Unfortunately the Patriots have been dominating our division on a consistent basis.

Can I run a retraction on Russell Wilson, I don't know what has happened, but they're back in the game.

d-1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm curious, you included Carson Palmer from the 2003 NFL draft. Why did you not include Kyle Boller and Byron Leftwich? Both took the majority of starts in their rookie year and are up to a solid prerequisite number of snaps for statistical significance.

I ask because I went back and did your correlation between rookie QB rating and career QB rating with Boller and Leftwich included and the correlation bumps from .58 (from your other post) to .65. Which is obviously somewhat significant. It puts it within 4% points of your .69 correlation on "good wins".

Why this seems important to me is because if we accept this higher correlation as acceptably close to "good wins", then we have to look at that with Tannehill as well. I read your former post and didn't see an explanation of how a QB was "franchise" or not with a metric, so I assume it was qualitative. Thus, in my opinion, I moved Ponder and Freeman to No in the franchise designation. Given that there are reports out there that say Schiano could want Freeman gone after his contract is up - I'm definitely not willing to call him franchise.

Running it all out with rookie QBR to career QBR and my conditions (Ponder, Freeman, Boller, Leftwich). The average rookie QBR for a "franchise" QB is 86.5 and the average rookie QBR for a non-franchise is 67.15. Finding Tannehill's z-score within the distribution, would put his rookie QBR at 23% of all "franchise QBs" and at 93% of all "non-franchise" QBs. To me, using this specific metric tells me that it's a toss-up as to whether Tannehill becomes a franchise QB. Either way he'll be an outlier. He'll be in the top percentile for rookie QBR for those who bust out or in the bottom percentile for quarterbacks who make it as a franchise guy.

Obviously it's a great thing that you're using multiple metrics, including this "good wins" and the WPA. I just found it interesting that in terms of rookie QBR, Tannehill will be a bit of an oddity no matter if he booms or busts.
 
NUGap said:
I'm curious, you included Carson Palmer from the 2003 NFL draft. Why did you not include Kyle Boller and Byron Leftwich? Both took the majority of starts in their rookie year and are up to a solid prerequisite number of snaps for statistical significance.

I ask because I went back and did your correlation between rookie QB rating and career QB rating with Boller and Leftwich included and the correlation bumps from .58 (from your other post) to .65. Which is obviously somewhat significant. It puts it within 4% points of your .69 correlation on "good wins".

Why this seems important to me is because if we accept this higher correlation as acceptably close to "good wins", then we have to look at that with Tannehill as well. I read your former post and didn't see an explanation of how a QB was "franchise" or not with a metric, so I assume it was qualitative. Thus, in my opinion, I moved Ponder and Freeman to No in the franchise designation. Given that there are reports out there that say Schiano could want Freeman gone after his contract is up - I'm definitely not willing to call him franchise.

Running it all out with rookie QBR to career QBR and my conditions (Ponder, Freeman, Boller, Leftwich). The average rookie QBR for a "franchise" QB is 86.5 and the average rookie QBR for a non-franchise is 67.15. Finding Tannehill's z-score within the distribution, would put his rookie QBR at 23% of all "franchise QBs" and at 93% of all "non-franchise" QBs. To me, using this specific metric tells me that it's a toss-up as to whether Tannehill becomes a franchise QB. Either way he'll be an outlier. He'll be in the top percentile for rookie QBR for those who bust out or in the bottom percentile for quarterbacks who make it as a franchise guy.

Obviously it's a great thing that you're using multiple metrics, including this "good wins" and the WPA. I just found it interesting that in terms of rookie QBR, Tannehill will be a bit of an oddity no matter if he booms or busts.
Click to expand...
The problem with rookie QB rating is that its correlation with career QB rating plummets from 0.58 to 0.19 when you partial out the variance in both associated with rookie WPA.

Other than confirmation bias, this is what helps "explain" why Andrew Luck looked so good to so many people who watched him this year, yet had a rookie QB rating in only the mid-70s. His play in the clutch (i.e., WPA) was much better than his play in general (i.e., QB rating), and much better than Tannehill's play in the clutch. It just so happens that one's play in the clutch (WPA) as a rookie is much more strongly predictive of later "franchise" status than one's play in general (QB rating) as a rookie.

Aside from that, I'm all for playing around with the criterion variable of "franchise" status and seeing what that does to the prediction for Ryan Tannehill. Obviously you can change the threshold for the criterion variable at will. Hell, you could play around with that to the point that you're predicting whether or not he'll be in the Pro Bowl.
 
The difference between Tannehill and Luck, RG3, and Wilson is weapons. Luck has guys like Wayne, Hilton, Allen. RG3 has an amazing O-Line and Morris. Wilson has a lot of options, and a beast RB in Lynch. Tannehill almost led us to the playoffs with a terrible offense and a defense that doesn't force turnovers. Just blew too many close games and lost to a scrub Titans team.
 
The difference between Tannehill and Luck, RG3, and Wilson is weapons. Luck had guys like Wayne, Hilton, Allen. RG3 had an amazing O-Line and RB in Morris, and he had some reliable WR's and TE's. Wilson had Sidney Rice, Marshawn Lynch, Golden Tate, and an aggressive defense that gave him various possessions. What did Tannehill have? Hartline was our #1 WR, Bush probably set a record for negative runs in a season, our O-line is nothing amazing, and the defense was good, but could not force turnovers. Regardless of all that, we blew about 3 games early on in the season, and we got blown out by a scrub Titans team. Tannehill also threw like 8 of 13 interceptions early on. If things go just a little bit different, Tannehill would have gotten us into the playoffs with a pathetic offense and a defense that does not do the offense any favors. There is doubt in my mind this guy can have a monster year with just 2 or 3 more reliable options on offense. To top it off, he showed that he can run the ball if needed towards the end of the season. There is a lot that Tannehill can do that we did not show off because we were too limited and conservative this season.
 
shouright said:
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 StartsFranchise QB?Career QB Rating
Tannehill4747
Luck3125
Wilson6919
RGIII677
Weeden2740
Newton4425Yes86.2
Dalton4438Yes87.4
Bradford2538Yes82.6
Palmer3846Yes86.2
Roethlisberger6223Yes92.7
Ryan5631Yes90.9
Flacco4431Yes86.3
Ponder3060Yes81.2
Stafford2060Yes82.8
Gabbert1414No70.2
Sanchez2733No71.7
Young1546No74.4
Leinart3636No70.2
Freeman
2256Yes79.8
Gradkowski2764No65.8
Orton767No79.7
Edwards2255No75.5
Clausen2060No58.4
Walter075No52.6
Smith1486No79.1
EManning2971Yes82.7

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.
Click to expand...


Great Post, but my answer is no. I hope I eat crow though and hope I'm wrong.
 
Those numbers may hold some value but like the other poster I was confused regarding names included and names missing. If you're going back to 2003 then Byron Leftwich has to be included. He started the vast majority of games for Jacksonville, certainly more than Andrew Walter later did for Oakland, yet he's in the sample. Kyle Boller started more frequently as a rookie than Walter did.

I've done tons of stuff like this, primarily team oriented and for betting purposes. The idea is to make sure it's not designed specifically toward a conclusion you already have in mind. For example, to always catch a team (or player) you know fell slightly on one side of a statistical barrier while rejecting another that you know fell slightly outside. I'm not saying you did that, far from it. But it's always a danger. In a breakdown like that a quarterback who consistently puts up 91 or 92 can look fantastic since every one of those games is embraced.
 
Interesting stats, I guess the only conclusion you can draw from them at this point is he's wildly inconsistent from game to game.
 
I think he is franchise caliber. I just use the eyeball test, if he looks comfortable in the pocket, and looks the part when throwing then we are doing good. I see him as being better than the other rookie class QBs when all is said and done. Call me crazy, and maybe I am, but give him some weapons and I bet we are in the playoffs no problem next season. The AFC is getting weaker, in a couple years we may be the class of the AFC if we can get a good draft this year.
 
roy_miami said:
Interesting stats, I guess the only conclusion you can draw from them at this point is he's wildly inconsistent from game to game, and thats not a good thing.
Click to expand...

well i would say he was a rookie with poor weapons so his numbers and performances are not exactly shocking. I think he is quite on pace to do well. I think the success of Wilson and Griffin make the bar seem way too high but as a rookie he looked fine
 
Great analysis with numbers to back up your point. I for one am very excited about the future of this team and that's something I haven't been in some time.
 
Great job shouright, thanks for all the work.
 
excellent post, the one thing i must disagree on is that cam newton is NOT a franchise quarterback
 
King Dingaling said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow, then I guess the Colts royally messed up allowing Peyton Manning to continue after that rookie year, Drew Brees in his 1st year starting did not look promising, Brett Favre 1st full year stating looked in consistant, Eli Manning in his 1st year starting looked almost as bad as big brother.... also lets not forget QBs like Elway, Aikman, or Theismann to name a few others that did not start with a bang. Finally according to what you expect of a franchise QB, Luck should also not be starting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom