Why there is no question about Ryan Tannehill and his $17.5 million | Page 14 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Why there is no question about Ryan Tannehill and his $17.5 million

Sons Of Shula said:
Thanks. It's a compilation of many resources, books, and bits and pieces of great insight I've gathered over recent years concerning QB evals.

The removal of bias is the most difficult factor to rid yourself of when viewing tape, especially if it involves a team or player you have a - for lack of a better word- soft spot for. If you're familiar with Matt Waldman's work he has some excellent articles on "loosing your football innocence", "integration, projection, and evaluation" among other great write ups on player and tape breakdowns.

Kollman is a very amateurish in both his evals and x&o knowledge. Very unimpressive.
Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with Matt Waldman, his approach in his evaluation of players is very impressive, especially on RBs and WRs.
 
Not sure why we're discussing tannehill pre-acl injury. He certainly exhibited enough quality play last season to warrant a chance to comeback from his injury next season.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both the talent of the QB AND the surroundings?

You've also made a lot of assumptions without providing any more that a single example. Can you substantiate your claim that better QBs vary from year to year much more than worse QBs?
Click to expand...


It is both. The surroundings account for the year-to-year variation, and the talent of the QB accounts for why they vary from year-to-year at different levels of play.

Just to make it clear, consider the following hypothetical passer rating numbers:

QB X
2010: 100
2011: 95
2012: 103
2013: 98
2014: 105
2015: 97
2016: 99

QB Y
2010: 85
2011: 89
2012: 95
2013: 90
2014: 87
2015: 84
2016: 88

Both QBs vary from year-to-year, presumably as a function of what's going on around them, but one of course is varying at a much higher level than the other, which presumably is based on his superior individual talent.

QB Y has a single season in which he eclipses one of the seasons of QB X's performance (both have passer ratings of 95 in that instance), but the aggregate of their performance over the relatively large number of seasons makes one of them significantly better than the other on an individual basis.

If you take many QBs and split them into two groups, better QBs and worse ones, you find that the variation between the two groups is significantly greater than the variation within them.

What this means again is that with a sufficient sample size of seasons, there are no surroundings that can make worse QBs play as well as better ones on a long-term basis. When the better QBs have terrible surroundings and the worse QBs have terrific surroundings, they may play similarly for a season or two during their careers, but over the long haul the better QBs again are varying at a higher level than the level at which the worse QBs are varying.

This is in effect why I'm okay with Tannehill as the long-term QB of the Dolphins -- he gives them a legitimate shot, but he needs lots of talent around him. And that's especially on defense, where the performance of opposing QBs needs to be contained so as to make Tannehill more competitive against them.
 
<O> said:
It is both. The surroundings account for the year-to-year variation, and the talent of the QB accounts for why they vary from year-to-year at different levels of play.

Just to make it clear, consider the following hypothetical passer rating numbers:

QB X
2010: 100
2011: 95
2012: 103
2013: 98
2014: 105
2015: 97
2016: 99

QB Y
2010: 85
2011: 89
2012: 95
2013: 90
2014: 87
2015: 84
2016: 88

Both QBs vary from year-to-year, presumably as a function of what's going on around them, but one of course is varying at a much higher level than the other, which presumably is based on his superior individual talent.

QB Y has a single season in which he eclipses one of the seasons of QB X's performance (both have passer ratings of 95 in that instance), but the aggregate of their performance over the relatively large number of seasons makes one of them significantly better than the other on an individual basis.

If you take many QBs and split them into two groups, better QBs and worse ones, you find that the variation between the two groups is significantly greater than the variation within them.

What this means again is that with a sufficient sample size of seasons, there are no surroundings that can make worse QBs play as well as better ones on a long-term basis. When the better QBs have terrible surroundings and the worse QBs have terrific surroundings, they may play similarly for a season or two during their careers, but over the long haul the better QBs again are varying at a higher level than the level at which the worse QBs are varying.

This is in effect why I'm okay with Tannehill as the long-term QB of the Dolphins -- he gives them a legitimate shot, but he needs lots of talent around him. And that's especially on defense, where the performance of opposing QBs needs to be contained so as to make Tannehill more competitive against them.
Click to expand...

Hypothetically, it's entirely possible for one QB to have worse surrounding conditions than most other QBs for an extended period, especially if that one QB is hypothetically coached by Joe Philbin.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
Hypothetically, it's entirely possible for one QB to have worse surrounding conditions than most other QBs for an extended period, especially if that one QB is hypothetically coached by Joe Philbin.
Click to expand...

And placed in rudimentary offensive schemes his first 4 years run by Mike Sherman (now a HS football coach) and BIll Lazor (demoted back to QB coach)
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
Hypothetically, it's entirely possible for one QB to have worse surrounding conditions than most other QBs for an extended period, especially if that one QB is hypothetically coached by Joe Philbin.
Click to expand...


Sure. My point was only that, league-wide, QBs' individual talent, and not their surroundings, tends to drive the bus on their performance. An exception to the rule is always a possibility.
 
If he was viewed as above average with Philbin then that must mean you think he would be viewed as elite with a good coach right?
 
Notso said:
Gase loves Ryan, therefore he's here next year.
Click to expand...

I know little about the workings of our FO (the business side of the NFL) so because of my surface understanding I can't determine exactly if Ryan could be traded or simply waived. The details of his contract have not been publicized - that's what I know...enlighten me.

Replacing Cutler? This will happen (IMHO) if Cutler busts. The chances of that switch unfolding is cloudy; if Gase fails to replace Cutler after a handful of bad (fumbles) plays, the press and fans will become critical of our coach's choices on the sidelines. I will pray that Cutler has a golden arm this season, and I feel he'll be steller! I pray even though I am an unbeliever (Agnostic/Darwinist). That's how badly I want a victory...with or without Cutler on the helm. Just win baby!

GO DOLPHINS!!
 
RT has never been behind an average offensive line.
We have ignored the one thing that makes a qb great.or at least gives them a shot at being great.
 
That is the problem. He needs a good OL because when a play breaksdown he is a deer in the headlights. Does he throw the ball well on the run on a plannes roll out or run the ball well on a planned run... yes. But he offers very little on a pass play that breaks down.
 
dolphintodd said:
That is the problem. He needs a good OL because when a play breaksdown he is a deer in the headlights. Does he throw the ball well on the run on a plannes roll out or run the ball well on a planned run... yes. But he offers very little on a pass play that breaks down.
Click to expand...

Most QB's do not perform well or consistency with pressure - almost regularly from an inept OL.

People make it seem like its ok - not to have an adequate OL. Also, Jay's stats prove it was mostly him doing the work - not this OL.
 
dolphintodd said:
That is the problem. He needs a good OL because when a play breaksdown he is a deer in the headlights. Does he throw the ball well on the run on a plannes roll out or run the ball well on a planned run... yes. But he offers very little on a pass play that breaks down.
Click to expand...

You invest way too much time making posts like this trying to convince fellow fans that a key player sucks ( or is average or below average or whatever your claim is). How about posting on something, anything else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom