Interesting Tannehill Stat Comparison | Page 11 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Interesting Tannehill Stat Comparison

Any stat that ranks Tom Brady below Casey Keenum, Carson Palmer, Josh McKown and Philip Rivers is worthless.
 
HoneyB said:
It makes sense to me, because the overall number of TD's have not gone up. Swapping passes for runs doesn't matter, if you're not making more trips to the red zone, or once there, not scoring.

We have the RB the coaches wanted, we have more firepower and thus more play options (and playmakers), so what should have happened is both run and pass TD's should have increased.



---------- Post added at 08:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 AM ----------



Yes, and we had "three more games" last year too...so you'd have to add those stats in. Apples to Apples.
Click to expand...


Depends on how you look at things. If you believe the qb is the go to position on the field than it bodes well your franchise qb has improved. This means your team has improved. I absolutely love that RT is winning games for us as opposed to a RB. It means we may have a franchise QB. Now all we have to do, is get the running game straight. Don't you believe that's easier to do than find a QB? So, swapping passes for runs is a lot more important than you are giving it credit.
 
shouright said:
The determination that the blocking is worse based on sacks alone is too simplistic in my opinion. The blocking may in fact be worse, but it needs to be determined via a more sophisticated analysis.

Also, Tannehill's performance game-to-game this year is uncorrelated with the team's running game variables, so the contextual conclusion made above isn't warranted based on the data there alone in my opinion.

The concerning thing in the data, on the other hand, is that it could be that the difference in Tannehill's QB rating this year is largely a product of his having thrown touchdown passes that were instead touchdown runs last year. That could reflect a difference in play-calling in the red zone, it could simply be a random occurrence, or it could reflect an improvement in his ability. We can't know that for certain.

Although his touchdown passes are obviously not a bad thing in themselves, I'd prefer that an increase in his QB rating be attributable to an increase in his YPA, rather than to a "substitution" of touchdowns from runs to passes. I'd rather see him marching the team down the field efficiently with a stellar YPA, which would likely lead to an increase in both touchdown runs and passes.

His YPA needs to improve. Over the last six games it's 6.9, so hopefully he's getting there.
Click to expand...

I agree that saying the offensive line is worse only based on sacks isn't a very good analysis, but would you say that it hasn't been worse than last year? I don't even need to see stats of the offensive line to tell you that they have played much worse than last year, although they have played well since the Chargers game. The first half of the season, the offensive line couldn't run block OR pass protect. They've definitely picked up their slack, let's see em finish the season strong.
 
VA_Finfan said:
I agree that saying the offensive line is worse only based on sacks isn't a very good analysis, but would you say that it hasn't been worse than last year? I don't even need to see stats of the offensive line to tell you that they have played much worse than last year, although they have played well since the Chargers game. The first half of the season, the offensive line couldn't run block OR pass protect. They've definitely picked up their slack, let's see em finish the season strong.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that there is no significant difference, statistically, between Ryan Tannehill's average YPA this year prior to the Chargers game, and his average YPA for the Chargers game and beyond?
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
The stat isn't worthless. Ignoring the context is stupid. Treating it as a measure of the QB efficiency only is ignorant.
Click to expand...
This is why I'm ready and willing to analyze the effect of contextual variables, as in the post just above this one, and as I've done throughout the season.

Once again, there are no contextual variables that are significantly associated, objectively, with Ryan Tannehill's YPA this year. We can sure nominate such relationships in theory, but they haven't panned out when analyzed objectively.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
So ignore the rest of the post that blows up your argument and move on. Very typical.
Click to expand...
You and I very often disagree on when my argument has been, as you call it, "blown up." But of course you're entitled to your opinion. :)

What's far more often "blown up" in my opinion are the theoretical relationships you propose to exist among variables, that don't pan out when explored objectively. You then tend to cling to those theoretical propositions and beliefs, despite the absence of objective support for them, which is why we disagree so often.

In my opinion I'm far more ready and willing to discard my theoretical beliefs than you are, when they aren't supported by anything objective. But that's okay. There are lots of individual differences among the poeple here in the forum. I can certainly tolerate many of them. :up:
 
shouright said:
You and I very often disagree on when my argument has been, as you call it, "blown up." But of course you're entitled to your opinion. :)

What's far more often "blown up" in my opinion are the theoretical relationships you propose to exist among variables, that don't pan out when explored objectively. You then tend to cling to those theoretical propositions and beliefs, despite the absence of objective support for them, which is why we disagree so often.

In my opinion I'm far more ready and willing to discard my theoretical beliefs than you are, when they aren't supported by anything objective. But that's okay. There are lots of individual differences among the poeple here in the forum. I can certainly tolerate many of them. :up:
Click to expand...

You had two choices when told a post blows up your argument:

1. Directly refute the post, thereby saving your argument

2. Prattle on about some other nonsense to try to obfuscate the blowing up of the argument

No surprise, you chose the latter.

What is theoretical about:

avg YPA = (Avg yards in the air) + (avg yards after catch)?
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
You had two choices when told a post blows up your argument:

1. Directly refute the post, thereby saving your argument

2. Prattle on about some other nonsense to try to obfuscate the blowing up of the argument

No surprise, you chose the latter.
Click to expand...
Frankly I'm uninterested in defending myself with you, and don't really feel the need to. :)
 
shouright said:
Frankly I'm uninterested in defending myself with you, and don't really feel the need to. :)
Click to expand...

yet you tried..... and failed...... how odd

And you ignored this (again):

What is theoretical about:

avg YPA = (Avg yards in the air) + (avg yards after catch)?
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
What is theoretical about:

avg YPA = (Avg yards in the air) + (avg yards after catch)?
Click to expand...
What was theoretical about it were the two values that follow the equals sign. However, we now know the equation looks like this:

YPA = 74% (yards in the air) + 26% (yards after the catch)

...versus something else (theoretically), where YAC is thought to be weighted more heavily than a mere 26%.
 
shouright said:
Never mind these stats that are valid measures of individual play and are so strongly correlated with winning. Let's talk about the immeasurable and undefinable "it" that people who watch all the games can't even reach a consensus on. ;)
Click to expand...

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Mumble jumble numbers jargon that can be twisted in any fashion or form you choose and used to elevate weak conversations. They're useless, kid.
 
Sons of Shula said:
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Mumble jumble numbers jargon that can be twisted in any fashion or form you choose and used to elevate weak conversations. They're useless, kid.
Click to expand...
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. :up:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom