This is a "sequel" to this thread:
http://www.finheaven.com/forums/sho...Ryan-Tannehill-Going-to-Become-a-Franchise-QB
I gathered some more data on this, focusing specifically on the percentage of "very good" starts rookie QBs have made since 2004, in comparison to their percentages of "poor" starts.
I defined a "very good" start as a start with a QB rating of 90 or higher, and a "poor" start as one with a QB rating of 69 or lower. Starts with QB ratings between 70 and 89 were not used in any of these analyses.
Here are the data:
The thinking here is that a QB's future "ceiling" may be revealed in how often he's able to perform at a very high level during his rookie season, whereas his future quality of play overall may be revealed in how he minimizes poor play as a rookie while maximizing very good play.
As it turns out, the correlation between the percentage of very good starts as a rookie and career QB rating is 0.70, which is strong.
The correlation between the percentage of poor starts as a rookie and career QB rating is -0.37 and is comparatively weak, and that variable will therefore not be used as a basis for any analyses in this thread.
What the data also reveal is that the average percentage of very good starts among the future "franchise QBs" is 37.6, with a standard deviation of 13.78.
The average percentage of very good starts among the future "non-franchise QBs" is 19.7, with a standard deviation of 9.63.
Ryan Tannehill's percentage of very good starts (47%) places him within a standard deviation above the average of the future "franchise QBs," while also placing him nearly three (!) standard deviations above the mean of the "non-franchise QBs."
So, the take-home message is that Ryan Tannehill, in terms of his percentage of very good starts (QB rating of 90 or higher), which was 47%, played much more like a future franchise QB as a rookie than a future non-franchise QB.
I think this lends support to people's perceptions that Ryan Tannehill appears to have the makings of a franchise QB based on how often he was able to play at a high level this year. :up:
For the sake of further comparison, Chad Henne in 2009, in his second season in the NFL (first as a starter), following far more college starts at QB, had a 90 QB rating or higher in ony 23% of his starts, which puts him less than a standard deviation above the mean of the non-franchise QBs, and more than a standard deviation below the mean of the "franchise" QBs.
In other words, with regard to this particular stat, Tannehill played like a future franchise QB this year, whereas Chad Henne in 2009 played like a future non-franchise QB. I think you could also argue that Ryan Tannehill played even better as a rookie than Chad Henne did this year for Jacksonville, as a fifth-year player.
http://www.finheaven.com/forums/sho...Ryan-Tannehill-Going-to-Become-a-Franchise-QB
I gathered some more data on this, focusing specifically on the percentage of "very good" starts rookie QBs have made since 2004, in comparison to their percentages of "poor" starts.
I defined a "very good" start as a start with a QB rating of 90 or higher, and a "poor" start as one with a QB rating of 69 or lower. Starts with QB ratings between 70 and 89 were not used in any of these analyses.
Here are the data:
QB | %age of Very Good Starts | %age of Poor Starts | Franchise QB? | Career QB Rating |
Tannehill | 47 | 47 | ||
Luck | 31 | 25 | ||
Wilson | 69 | 19 | ||
RGIII | 67 | 7 | ||
Weeden | 27 | 40 | ||
Newton | 44 | 25 | Yes | 86.2 |
Dalton | 44 | 38 | Yes | 87.4 |
Bradford | 25 | 38 | Yes | 82.6 |
Palmer | 38 | 46 | Yes | 86.2 |
Roethlisberger | 62 | 23 | Yes | 92.7 |
Ryan | 56 | 31 | Yes | 90.9 |
Flacco | 44 | 31 | Yes | 86.3 |
Ponder | 30 | 60 | Yes | 81.2 |
Stafford | 20 | 60 | Yes | 82.8 |
Gabbert | 14 | 14 | No | 70.2 |
Sanchez | 27 | 33 | No | 71.7 |
Young | 15 | 46 | No | 74.4 |
Leinart | 36 | 36 | No | 70.2 |
Freeman | 22 | 56 | Yes | 79.8 |
Gradkowski | 27 | 64 | No | 65.8 |
Orton | 7 | 67 | No | 79.7 |
Edwards | 22 | 55 | No | 75.5 |
Clausen | 20 | 60 | No | 58.4 |
Walter | 0 | 75 | No | 52.6 |
Smith | 14 | 86 | No | 79.1 |
EManning | 29 | 71 | Yes | 82.7 |
The thinking here is that a QB's future "ceiling" may be revealed in how often he's able to perform at a very high level during his rookie season, whereas his future quality of play overall may be revealed in how he minimizes poor play as a rookie while maximizing very good play.
As it turns out, the correlation between the percentage of very good starts as a rookie and career QB rating is 0.70, which is strong.
The correlation between the percentage of poor starts as a rookie and career QB rating is -0.37 and is comparatively weak, and that variable will therefore not be used as a basis for any analyses in this thread.
What the data also reveal is that the average percentage of very good starts among the future "franchise QBs" is 37.6, with a standard deviation of 13.78.
The average percentage of very good starts among the future "non-franchise QBs" is 19.7, with a standard deviation of 9.63.
Ryan Tannehill's percentage of very good starts (47%) places him within a standard deviation above the average of the future "franchise QBs," while also placing him nearly three (!) standard deviations above the mean of the "non-franchise QBs."
So, the take-home message is that Ryan Tannehill, in terms of his percentage of very good starts (QB rating of 90 or higher), which was 47%, played much more like a future franchise QB as a rookie than a future non-franchise QB.
I think this lends support to people's perceptions that Ryan Tannehill appears to have the makings of a franchise QB based on how often he was able to play at a high level this year. :up:
For the sake of further comparison, Chad Henne in 2009, in his second season in the NFL (first as a starter), following far more college starts at QB, had a 90 QB rating or higher in ony 23% of his starts, which puts him less than a standard deviation above the mean of the non-franchise QBs, and more than a standard deviation below the mean of the "franchise" QBs.
In other words, with regard to this particular stat, Tannehill played like a future franchise QB this year, whereas Chad Henne in 2009 played like a future non-franchise QB. I think you could also argue that Ryan Tannehill played even better as a rookie than Chad Henne did this year for Jacksonville, as a fifth-year player.