Clearly you are confused because the statements:
"Moderately strong correlation" and "largely independent" imply opposite things.
"Weak correlation" and "largely independent" would be the same.
Interesting Tannehill Stat Comparison
- Thread starter So Be
- Start date
Clearly you are confused because the statements:
"Moderately strong correlation" and "largely independent" imply opposite things.
"Weak correlation" and "largely independent" would be the same.
Wrong.
Canadi-Phin
I hate everyone else in the AFC East
Who's knocking the stat? I'm certainly not. I feel it is a defining stat of a good offense. But I don't believe it's only a QB stat.
See what you think of the correlation between YPA and the consensus perceptions of QBs' individual ability, during the salary cap era, on the following page:
http://www.pro-football-reference.c...pos_is_db=Y&draft_pos_is_k=Y&draft_pos_is_p=Y
Remember, of course, that no correlation is perfect, and there are exceptions to every rule.
Canadi-Phin
I hate everyone else in the AFC East
Yes lots of great QBs there but in the top 20(edit) alone you have 25% of them to be very aveerage Qbs. Simple guy to look at is Culpepper. With Randy Moss his YPA are almost a full yard more and his best year was 8.6 but the team record was 8-8. SO yes YPA is a great indicator of a good offense but not always a great team because it is a team. Culpepper on crappy teams, Dophins, and guys not able to break tackles or get YAC and his YAC is 6.1. We all know on here that our offense was far from great. All I'm trying to say is great offensive teams have great YPA. Look at the Rams teams, do you believe Bulger was that great? Warner?? I don't because when Warner went out the year they won, Trent Green came in and had better stats. The team itself was great. Great offenses usually have great QBs but YPA is usually a great offense. If YPA was only for good QBs, then it should read Marino, , Elway, Manning, Kelly, Moon but it doesn't. Chris Chandler is in the top 20. Exceptions to the rule but there are alot of them here.
maralieus
Lets get those balls deep!!
That was a great gif! "****ing Quintana! That creep can roll man." "yeah but he's a pervert dude"
Okay sure....
---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------
And in this case, even using correlation is dubious at best:
"Correlation is only appropriate for examining the relationship between meaningful quantifiable data (e.g. air pressure, temperature) rather than categorical data such as gender, favorite color etc."
And what percentage of the QBs thought to have great individual ability have YPAs down where Ryan Tannehill's is right now? What kinds of QBs do you find down there and below?
The following QB's have higher YPA than Tannehill:
Geno Smith
RG3
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Jake Locker
Terrell Pryor
Eli Manning
Carson Palmer
Colin Kaepernick
Christian Ponder
Does this mean that each of these QB's are playing at a higher level than, and helping their teams win more so, than Tannehill?
Also, to note, Tannehill has a better YPA than Andrew Luck and Alex Smith has the worst YPA of qualifying QB's (but his team has had a great season).
I understand it's an important metric, but I don't know how you can explain the above without taking other factors into account.
Geno Smith
RG3
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Jake Locker
Terrell Pryor
Eli Manning
Carson Palmer
Colin Kaepernick
Christian Ponder
Does this mean that each of these QB's are playing at a higher level than, and helping their teams win more so, than Tannehill?
Also, to note, Tannehill has a better YPA than Andrew Luck and Alex Smith has the worst YPA of qualifying QB's (but his team has had a great season).
I understand it's an important metric, but I don't know how you can explain the above without taking other factors into account.
thefranchisedef
Active Roster
Ypa will get better with experience. tannehill passes usually travel further than tommy boy but most of that is a product of miami running a vertical pass attack.
thefranchisedef
Active Roster
I think every one should look at espns qbr with understanding. Notice the company tannehill puts himself in in pass epa. http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr/_/sort/cwepaPassesCondensed
Good question. The YPAs for the QBs I bolded are not significantly different, statistically, from Tannehill's. Although they may be slightly higher numerically, they're in the same "company" (or category) so to speak, with regard to YPA.
With regard to the three QBs not bolded, I think it's debatable that they aren't simply better than Tannehill right now.
You would certainly take other factors into account, which is why, for example, quarterbacks like Trent Dilfer can win a Super Bowl every once in a blue moon.
However, let's come back to what we're trying to do here. We're trying to appraise the development of an unproven QB. Would you rather hold him to the standard of accomplishment with regard to the variable that best predicts whether he's going to demonstrate the kind of ability that gives the team best chance to compete at a very high level, or would you rather view him as a possible exception to the rule, and start thinking about how you're going to need to compensate for his performance in that regard by pumping up other areas of the team?
Agreed; however, our QB is only in his second year of starting and had less than 2 seasons of college experience. Super Bowl winning QBs in their second year with YPA comparable to RT are:
Brees 6.2
Brady 6.9
Eli 6.8
Flacco 7.2
Obviously you have guys that play at a high level quickly but they are the excpetion not the rule:
Roethlisberger 8.9
Rogers 8.2
Peyton 7.8
I'd love for RT to be in the exception but he isn't nor is it certain he will elevate his play to Super Bowl level. Some guys take longer to develop and it's obvious he has a high ceiling but needs time to attempt to reach it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong again. Keep trying!
You really are a fraud. That info is from here:
http://explorable.com/statistical-correlation
Interesting that this quote is on the front page:
Immunizing Against Nonsense
Here at Explorable, we think that a good understanding of science should dominate public discussions to immunize them against nonsense, and thus, to make "better brains for science".
Last edited by a moderator: