PFF rates the Dolphins | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

PFF rates the Dolphins

Gravity said:
You strike me as plenty smart enough to realize that these data from PFF are based on the subjective perceptions of PFF's staff, rather than incontrovertible objective data such as YPA and the like.
Click to expand...

Why us it you that always needs to try to explain away what is obvious to so many others? I don't need to keep twisting things around because I'm not trying to make things fit my agenda. We argued for weeks about the cause of the sacks. You twisted and turned and spun your "objective data" every which way. When PFF did a review of the sacks one by one (which by the way is what I told you was the only way to determine the cause), what did they come up with? The OL was mostly responsible, just as I had been telling you for weeks.

I never tried to dispute the YPA figures being reported, only that they are not a measure of the QB alone. I provided numerous articles supporting that opinion. My opinion is that Tannehill played well in most games despite the poor support. When PFF does a review of the QB play based on what they do under their circumstances, what do the find? That Tannehill played pretty well, just as I have been telling you for weeks.

None of this is the least bit surprising to someone who watches football and understands what they are watching.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
Why us it you that always needs to try to explain away what is obvious to so many others? I don't need to keep twisting things around because I'm not trying to make things fit my agenda. We argued for weeks about the cause of the sacks. You twisted and turned and spun your "objective data" every which way. When PFF did a review of the sacks one by one (which by the way is what I told you was the only way to determine the cause), what did they come up with? The OL was mostly responsible, just as I had been telling you for weeks.

I never tried to dispute the YPA figures being reported, only that they are not a measure of the QB alone. I provided numerous articles supporting that opinion. My opinion is that Tannehill played well in most games despite the poor support. When PFF does a review of the QB play based on what they do under their circumstances, what do the find? That Tannehill played pretty well, just as I have been telling you for weeks.

None of this is the least bit surprising to someone who watches football and understands what they are watching.
Click to expand...
Among the QBs who took at least 75% of their teams' snaps in 2013, Tannehill's rating by PFF in this area is only 0.56 standard deviations above the mean. In other words, he wasn't significantly different from the league average. By contrast, Manning, Brees, Rivers, and Wilson are all at least a standard deviation above average.

As it turns out, this isn't at all inconsistent with the other data regarding his performance, which essentially point to the fact that he was no better than average in 2013.
 
Gravity said:
Among the QBs who took at least 75% of their teams' snaps in 2013, Tannehill's rating by PFF in this area is only 0.56 standard deviations above the mean. In other words, he wasn't significantly different from the league average. By contrast, Manning, Brees, Rivers, and Wilson are all at least a standard deviation above average.

As it turns out, this isn't at all inconsistent with the other data regarding his performance, which essentially point to the fact that he was no better than average in 2013.
Click to expand...

For someone who doesn't have an agenda, you sure seem desperate to "prove" that Tannehill is average.

You are also assuming a normal distribution when you claim he is not significantly above the mean. Another assumption that you must make to "fit" (force?) the data to your agenda. Not necessary for me. Placing him 7th is fine. He is also in good company on the list.

Are you dizzy yet?
 
PFF ratings are flawed. Don't know why anyone has strong feelings about them one way or the other. RT didn't have a bad year. We've got bigger problems to worry about.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
For someone who doesn't have an agenda, you sure seem desperate to "prove" that Tannehill is average.

You are also assuming a normal distribution when you claim he is not significantly above the mean. Another assumption that you must make to "fit" (force?) the data to your agenda. Not necessary for me. Placing him 7th is fine. He is also in good company on the list.

Are you dizzy yet?
Click to expand...
The skewness of the distribution is 0.03. It's normal.
 
Gravity said:
The skewness of the distribution is 0.03. It's normal.
Click to expand...

He still ranks above the vast majority of QBs and when you look at passing alone, he is even higher. Unless we can swap him for one of six QBs in the league, we are set with Tannehill. You haters should look else where for problems to fix.

I'm even okay with this list.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000304038/article/quarterback-index-yearend-rankings

This puts him 14th with this comment:

I have been leading Team Tannehill since day one and still see Pro Bowls in his future.
Click to expand...
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
He still ranks above the vast majority of QBs and when you look at passing alone, he is even higher. Unless we can swap him for one of six QBs in the league, we are set with Tannehill. You haters should look else where for problems to fix.

I'm even okay with this list.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000304038/article/quarterback-index-yearend-rankings

This puts him 14th with this comment:
Click to expand...
It's the familiar refrain. His current level of play isn't associated with high-level competitiveness, and there is no objective evidence that his current play is attributable to anyone but him.
 
Gravity said:
It's the familiar refrain. His current level of play isn't associated with high-level competitiveness, and there is no objective evidence that his current play is attributable to anyone but him.
Click to expand...

It is still false no matter how many times you type it. Just keep denying......

#7 with a bullet baby!
 
GRAVITY is JUNC on steroids...
 
Gravity said:
It's the familiar refrain. His current level of play isn't associated with high-level competitiveness, and there is no objective evidence that his current play is attributable to anyone but him.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should file a complaint with PFF. Clearly your beef is with them.
 
Gravity said:
It's the familiar refrain. His current level of play isn't associated with high-level competitiveness, and there is no objective evidence that his current play is attributable to anyone but him.
Click to expand...
As usual, it doesn't look like anyone can provide objective evidence to the contrary of the above, so of course, "if you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness."

Have a great evening folks. :up:
 
Gravity said:
You strike me as plenty smart enough to realize that these data from PFF are based on the subjective perceptions of PFF's staff, rather than incontrovertible objective data such as YPA and the like.

Then again, like I said, Tannehill may be no better than average in the league even in this regard, despite the 7th overall ranking.
Click to expand...

All data is subjective to how you decide to interpret it. . I still don't get how if he is just average which is not bad for a second year qb that all is lost forever lol.
So all your data shows that a qb's second year determines that's exactly what the qb will be in the end. I think people just have become spoiled with all the recent success of young qb's and don't realize there is no set timetable how all qb's develop. YPA takes into account a lot of factors beyond a qb's control and doesn't take into factors such as plays when you have an imcompletion because your line broke down.
 
This is my first venture into the thread. Tannehill at 7th is ridiculous, paramount to worthy of losing your job, if you were responsible for placing him 7th.

I worked in a stats office and I've stated several times that I'd like to see how PFF operates. They need a competitor. Even while compiling stats there is some subjectivity involved and I've witnessed countless disputes, when two guys in the same category have different interpretations. In PFF's case the subjectivity has to overwhelm everything else. I'll look at their ratings but have never touted them.

As always, the big picture numbers will destroy anything they come up with. Let's see, next playoff season instead of using YPPA Differential for my wagers I'll eagerly await PFF's version. :lol:

I should point out that lots of posters here have no trouble ripping Gravity and myself, when we look at numbers and refuse to wildly adjust Tannehill upward. TedSlimm doesn't post often. He has briefly provided his opinion of Tannehill a few times this season and it's hardly positive.

Look, I don't respect the posters who watch a handful of games and make wild pronouncements in either direction, often changing their mind during the course of a game. That goes against everything that I believe in and practice. I've seen hundreds of guys like that in Las Vegas and they invariably bust out. I let the numbers and situational trends walk the straight line to clarity and explanation.

Not one number with a fleck of weight places Ryan Tannehill 7th, or anything close to that. I suspect the same will hold true next season and beyond. But he's not a 6.67 YPA guy so there should be a natural bump next season, even if everything around him remained virtually the same. I think he can comfortably reach 7.0 to 7.2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom