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

[SCLSU Mud Dogs]

Dynamite post.

 

[CANDolphan]

I love this thread and the thought process behind it, but it concluding that Christian Ponder is a franchise QB is... troubling

 

[Mcganiel]

Great post.

 

[sirvmac]

Very insightful post!
The more I look at Tannehill, I feel there is a lot to like.
I'm more worried about our system/Sherman than Tannehill to be quite honest.
I know I'm in the minority but imo Tannehill is being held back.
Sherman isn't doing anything to help him or to make it easier on him.

 

[dolphinsbshaw72]

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.

Um hello!!!! Thought he did that in the Seahawks game!!!

 

[Shouright]

I love this thread and the thought process behind it, but it concluding that Christian Ponder is a franchise QB is... troubling

Moving him to the "non-franchise QB" group changes the findings regarding Tannehill non-signifcantly.

 

[CANDolphan]

Moving him to the "non-franchise QB" group changes the findings regarding Tannehill non-signifcantly.

This is said in a rather confusing way, so apologies if I misunderstood you, but I think it calls into question the metrics you are using to measure and ultimately crown "franchise quarterback"

Simply put, Christian Ponder might be one of the 3 worst QBs in the NFL. I'm not even kidding. He lacks the arm, he lacks the progression in his reads, and his footwork is pretty questionable. He's carried by Percy Harvin and AdP. It's not even close.

 

[KingNick88]

Bravo, man! Bravo!

 

[Shouright]

This is said in a rather confusing way, so apologies if I misunderstood you, but I think it calls into question the metrics you are using to measure and ultimately crown "franchise quarterback"

Simply put, Christian Ponder might be one of the 3 worst QBs in the NFL. I'm not even kidding. He lacks the arm, he lacks the progression in his reads, and his footwork is pretty questionable. He's carried by Percy Harvin and AdP. It's not even close.

There are ways of going about determining who is and is not a franchise QB other than by using QB rating. However, QB rating has what we call construct validity and predictive validity, insofar as it 1) strongly correlates with the consensus perceptions of QB quality (despite possible exceptions to the rule, such as Ponder, perhaps; i.e., no correlation is perfect), and 2) is strongly correlated with winning.

In other words, the QBs who are widely thought to have the best ability typically have the best QB ratings (though there are exceptions to the rule), and QB rating is also strongly correlated with winning. There may be other ways of determining who is and is not a franchise QB, but I'm not sure those ways will have both of those important characteristics.

 

[Charlie Rivers]

Tanne needs at least two years behind center in order to verify if he will be given the franchise tag. It's too early now.

 

[PBay Fin Fan]

Good read, thanks. RT is the best shot we have had since you know who.

 

[NUGap]

This is said in a rather confusing way, so apologies if I misunderstood you, but I think it calls into question the metrics you are using to measure and ultimately crown "franchise quarterback"

Simply put, Christian Ponder might be one of the 3 worst QBs in the NFL. I'm not even kidding. He lacks the arm, he lacks the progression in his reads, and his footwork is pretty questionable. He's carried by Percy Harvin and AdP. It's not even close.

I know Shouright answered you, but you have to remember this is why you have sample sizes that are significant when you look at these things. The point, regardless of if you use WPA, QBR or best looking wife, is that there is a great enough sample size to negate one or a few faulty pieces of data. Having played with Shouright's numbers, I can confirm that even though I changed Ponder and Freeman to non-franchise and added Leftwich and Boller - the correlation simply between career QBR and "good games" moves from .7 to .68. Hence the non-significance of it. You could take those numbers and make Ponder worse than Jamarcus Russell and if the sample size is right - it shouldn't have a significant effect. That's the joy of stats. If you've done them right, it (hopefully) eliminates overreactions and incorrect opinions.

 

[King Dingaling]

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.

First of all, I never said he would never be a franchise QB. I said he has a lot of work to do, just like all the Hall of Fame QBs you listed as having rough first years. Comparing him to the Mannings, Aikman, Favre, Elway, and Brees is absolutely ridiculous!!! 10 Super bowl victories between those 6 QBs. I want Tannehill to become a great QB as much as anyone. Just saying he needs to work really hard because he didn't look that good from week to week. I realize he's a rookie but don't say that to RG3, Luck, or Wilson. They all lead their teams into the playoffs while we're debating whether Tannehill is any good.

 

[CANDolphan]

There are ways of going about determining who is and is not a franchise QB other than by using QB rating. However, QB rating has what we call construct validity and predictive validity, insofar as it 1) strongly correlates with the consensus perceptions of QB quality (despite possible exceptions to the rule, such as Ponder, perhaps; i.e., no correlation is perfect), and 2) is strongly correlated with winning.

In other words, the QBs who are widely thought to have the best ability typically have the best QB ratings (though there are exceptions to the rule), and QB rating is also strongly correlated with winning. There may be other ways of determining who is and is not a franchise QB, but I'm not sure those ways will have both of those important characteristics.

QBR or QB Rating? They are different things, remember.

Both are somewhat misleading metrics because they do not take into account dummy statistics and ignore other variables.

Case in point - a 5 yard dump off to Percy Harvin taken 35 yards for a touchdown is the same rating as a 35 yard bullet by Andrew Luck down the beam just over a TE's shoulder, squeezing between two CBs.

You want crazy... look at Football Outsiders ratings of the QBs before the draft this year. They had RG3 as the best, then Luck, then Tanne, then Weeden

Their big outlier was Russel Wilson, who they had as one of the best QB prospects in a long time based on his production increases year to year. It's rather fascinating how they pretty much nailed them all.

 

[Shouright]

QBR or QB Rating? They are different things, remember.

Both are somewhat misleading metrics because they do not take into account dummy statistics and ignore other variables.

Case in point - a 5 yard dump off to Percy Harvin taken 35 yards for a touchdown is the same rating as a 35 yard bullet by Andrew Luck down the beam just over a TE's shoulder, squeezing between two CBs.

You want crazy... look at Football Outsiders ratings of the QBs before the draft this year. They had RG3 as the best, then Luck, then Tanne, then Weeden

Their big outlier was Russel Wilson, who they had as one of the best QB prospects in a long time based on his production increases year to year. It's rather fascinating how they pretty much nailed them all.

Regardless, the traditional QB rating (not ESPN's newfangled version) has both construct and predictive validity. It's strongly correlated with the consensus perceptions of QBs' individual ability (despite some exceptions to the rule; no correlation is perfect), as well as with winning. Those particular strengths relegate its weaknesses to a level of unimportance and irrelevance IMO.