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

[lurking]

PFFs rankings are as useless to me as your typical Tannehill homers QB rankings.

Of course... it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[<O>]

Hahahahahahaha

In other words you don't know?

You seem to be portraying those offensive line rankings as meaningful with regard to quarterback play. Surely you should know, then, what kind of improvement the Dolphins would experience in their quarterback play as a function of an improvement in their offensive line ranking.

 

[lurking]

In other words you don't know?

You seem to be portraying those offensive line rankings as meaningful with regard to quarterback play. Surely you should know, then, what kind of improvement the Dolphins would experience in their quarterback play as a function of an improvement in their offensive line ranking.

I'm just not going to go through this ridiculous line of obvious questioning.

 

[<O>]

The definitive information with regard to the recent discussion here is on this page in my opinion:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/quarterbacks-and-pressure-2016

I've correlated overall 2016 DVOA for the quarterbacks listed there with 1) pressure rate, 2) DVOA with pressure, and 3) DVOA without pressure.

As it turns out 85% of the variation in overall DVOA is associated with a combination of pressure rate and DVOA without pressure.

Tannehill differed from the league norm in neither of those areas (rate of pressure and DVOA without pressure) in 2016.

There is also a relatively meager correlation (-0.25), as one would expect, between pressure rate and DVOA without pressure.

Consequently the Dolphins could improve from mediocre to best in the league with regard to the rate of pressure they allow on the quarterback, and one should not expect a large improvement in Ryan Tannehill's overall DVOA as a function of that.

And again, the Dolphins didn't surrender a greater rate of pressure than the league average in that area, so his overall improvement would theoretically have to come from how he plays while under pressure, rather than from simply experiencing less frequent pressure.

In other words, this is a quarterback issue and not an offensive line issue. That's not to say it can't improve, however. One just needs to realize where the improvement needs to come from.

The take-home message here is that the people running the team would be better off working with Tannehill on how he plays under pressure than with allocating greater resources to the offensive line. The former would be far more fruitful than the latter.

And sure enough, here was Adam Gase's focus in this area when he took over the team:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports...ll-rises-for-dolphins/zq1TxX2DGs5MaMqPylfjaJ/

One of the first lessons Adam Gase taught his new quarterbacks when he took the job as Dolphins head coach was the concept of fast feet.

He came in with a handful of ideas for Ryan Tannehill, but this was one of the top items on his list. What he saw on film from previous years was a quarterback who needed to get in playmaking position more quickly and have a better feel for traffic in the pocket. Speeding up the amount of time Tannehill spends on his drop-back, for example, increases the time he has to make a decision and fire the ball out.

“Playing fast with my feet has been the biggest emphasis since we started this year,” Tannehill said. “Obviously there are times where I want to be faster. But that’s been a big emphasis for us, and I feel like I’m getting better.”

 

[Vaark]

Hard to say but there is a 10 to 20 point increase in Tannehill's QB rating simply by having his mediocre line in tact.

Shouright self-serving and convoluted statistical manipulations notwithstanding, isn't Tannehill something like 11and 1 or 2 when his starting OL was intact - and that would include swiss cheese scrubinos like Dallas Thomas?

Those kind of scoreboard metrics - to those extents cannot be rationalized away as "anomalies!". Since Melty Ice was previously mentioned, ditto the scoreboard related data that in almost every win or go home game played going back to BC and including the SB, he came up short, especially when taking a lead into the 2nd half's.

 

[<O>]

I'm just not going to go through this ridiculous line of obvious questioning.

The answer to the question I'm asking you is hardly obvious. It's a function of 1) the correlation between those rankings and QB play league-wide, 2) the level of play a QB is exhibiting currently, before any improvement in the offensive line would occur, 3) the degree of improvement an increase from a rank of 30 to a rank of 6 actually represents in terms of offensive line play, and 4) how a QB functions when his offensive line plays well, in comparison to how he functions when it doesn't play well.

You can't simply assume that an improvement from 30 to 6 in an offensive line ranking would vault a QB to a much higher level of performance, without knowing those other variables. It's far more complex than that.

 

[roy_miami]

Of course... it doesn't fit your narrative.

It does, because they have Matt Ryan ranked 2nd and Ryan Tannehill ranked 18th, but its still useless.

 

[Vaark]

"Useless" LOLOL

 

[lurking]

It does, because they have Matt Ryan ranked 2nd and Ryan Tannehill ranked 18th, but its still useless.

So with that, do you think Matt Ryan would be ranked 2nd with the 30th ranked offense of line.
If you do you definitely have an agenda.

 

[lurking]

The definitive information with regard to the recent discussion here is on this page in my opinion:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/quarterbacks-and-pressure-2016

I've correlated overall 2016 DVOA for the quarterbacks listed there with 1) pressure rate, 2) DVOA with pressure, and 3) DVOA without pressure.

As it turns out 85% of the variation in overall DVOA is associated with a combination of pressure rate and DVOA without pressure.

Tannehill differed from the league norm in neither of those areas (rate of pressure and DVOA without pressure) in 2016.

There is also a relatively meager correlation (-0.25), as one would expect, between pressure rate and DVOA without pressure.

Consequently the Dolphins could improve from mediocre to best in the league with regard to the rate of pressure they allow on the quarterback, and one should not expect a large improvement in Ryan Tannehill's overall DVOA as a function of that.

And again, the Dolphins didn't surrender a greater rate of pressure than the league average in that area, so his overall improvement would theoretically have to come from how he plays while under pressure, rather than from simply experiencing less frequent pressure.

In other words, this is a quarterback issue and not an offensive line issue. That's not to say it can't improve, however. One just needs to realize where the improvement needs to come from.

The take-home message here is that the people running the team would be better off working with Tannehill on how he plays under pressure than with allocating greater resources to the offensive line. The former would be far more fruitful than the latter.

And sure enough, here was Adam Gase's focus in this area when he took over the team:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports...ll-rises-for-dolphins/zq1TxX2DGs5MaMqPylfjaJ/

Did you miss this part on the page you're using for a reference.
It is important to note that the DVOA numbers listed below do not represent each individual quarterback's passing DVOA. Instead, this rating represents team offensive DVOA with this quarterback either passing (including sacks) or scrambling. Each quarterback listed had at least 200 pass plays, and they are listed in order by ascending pressure rate.

 

[<O>]

Did you miss this part on the page you're using for a reference.
It is important to note that the DVOA numbers listed below do not represent each individual quarterback's passing DVOA. Instead, this rating represents team offensive DVOA with this quarterback either passing (including sacks) or scrambling. Each quarterback listed had at least 200 pass plays, and they are listed in order by ascending pressure rate.

What is the significance of that for you?

 

[Sons Of Shula]

When did this become a psych evaluation session? LOL

 

[<O>]

So with that, do you think Matt Ryan would be ranked 2nd with the 30th ranked offense of line.
If you do you definitely have an agenda.

This pertains to what I was getting at in my response to you a few posts above. The correlation between those offensive line and quarterback rankings is a mere 0.26. That means there are a good number of QBs who were ranked high, who had offensive lines that were ranked low, and vice-versa.

Mathematically, one would say that the variation in those quarterback rankings is associated with only 7% of the variation in the offensive line rankings. 93% of the variation in quarterback rankings is associated with something other than the offensive line rankings.

That's a weak relationship, which means that good quarterback play in the absence of good offensive line play, and poor quarterback play even with good offensive line play, is common and expected within their rankings.

So given that, it would be expected for Matt Ryan, for example, to play at roughly the same level even if his offensive line became much worse, in terms of those rankings.

Now if those rankings are not considered valid (and I haven't even explored whether they are), that's another matter. But if you're considering them valid, then you also have to acknowledge the weak relationship between quarterbacks and offensive lines amidst those rankings, which means quarterbacks wouldn't move a great deal within the rankings, even with rather large movement in their offensive line's rankings.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

This pertains to what I was getting at in my response to you a few posts above. The correlation between those offensive line and quarterback rankings is a mere 0.26. That means there are a good number of QBs who were ranked high, who had offensive lines that were ranked low, and vice-versa.

Mathematically, one would say that the variation in those quarterback rankings is associated with only 7% of the variation in the offensive line rankings. 93% of the variation in quarterback rankings is associated with something other than the offensive line rankings.

That's a weak relationship, which means that good quarterback play in the absence of good offensive line play, and poor quarterback play even with good offensive line play, is common and expected within their rankings.

So given that, it would be expected for Matt Ryan, for example, to play at roughly the same level even if his offensive line became much worse, in terms of those rankings.

Now if those rankings are not considered valid (and I haven't even explored whether they are), that's another matter. But if you're considering them valid, then you also have to acknowledge the weak relationship between quarterbacks and offensive lines amidst those rankings, which means quarterbacks wouldn't move a great deal within the rankings, even with rather large movement in their offensive line's rankings.

And yet you ignored my post about Tannehill's huge swing in QB rating with and without the starting OL. Your argument would say there would be little difference.

When the numbers you ar throwing around fly in the face of real world behavior, you must question the numbers or your conclusions. The value that teams put on pass protectors and pass rushers in the draft and free agency would be illogical if pass pressure was insignificant.

All,of your posts come off as written by someone who doesn't watch the game. You rarely comment on what you see on the field.

 

[<O>]

And yet you ignored my post about Tannehill's huge swing in QB rating with and without the starting OL. Your argument would say there would be little difference.

When the numbers you ar throwing around fly in the face of real world behavior, you must question the numbers or your conclusions. The value that teams put on pass protectors and pass rushers in the draft and free agency would be illogical if pass pressure was insignificant.

All,of your posts come off as written by someone who doesn't watch the game. You rarely comment on what you see on the field.

Again I have no idea whether those rankings are valid. I was merely responding to the other person's point about what would happen with Matt Ryan if his line's ranking decreased.

Yes, Tannehill's passer rating since 2014 without the starting line is 87.5. With the starting line it's 101.7.

That's the single best argument I've seen for a strong relationship between Tannehill's play and his offensive line.