Quick Way to Assess Ryan Tannehill Statistically

[Shouright]

...is at this link:

http://www.pro-football-reference.c...pos_is_db=Y&draft_pos_is_k=Y&draft_pos_is_p=Y

The columns to the far right under the heading "Advanced Passing" provide standardized measures of Tannehill's play with regard to many of the passing game variables most strongly correlated with winning. 100 is the average value for each of those variables, with a standard deviation of 15, and the columns can be sorted in ascending or descending order by clicking on the column header once or twice.

The explanation for the standardization of the values is on this page:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/about/glossary.htm

 

[Phindog]

More garbage....

I dont want the quick way,I'll take then long way like actually watching this season finish up then next season, then hopefully the years after.

 

[AFCMiamiEast]

shouright.

 

[mega-fin-love]

I would suggest if you want more people to give your threads a chance to stop using the words deviation, variables, correlated, and standardization. Many people will not understand those terms and thus won't even bother. If you would phrase your threads better I think you would get better conversation. People hate what they don't understand.

 

[Phindog]

Nah still wouldn't give a rats a$$ if he didn't use those words.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

Hard to believe we have posters afraid of numbers. And actually bragging about it, as if it makes them look anything other than pathetically weak.

The gap in adjusted yards per attempt is what jumps out to me, with Manning, Rodgers and Wilson more than 8/10 of a yard above everyone else in the league. Those guys are nearly 3 yards above Tannehill in that category.

You'd have to be sick if you had a futures bet on the Packers, or a wager on their season wins. That team was very dangerous until Rodgers got hurt early in that Bears game.

 

[MD]

I would think if they had a more balanced attack that YPA would raise to an acceptable level. Below 7 just isn't very good. I'd like to see it over 7.5 and even closer to 8.

What also stands out that in order of most attempts:

Stafford 500
Ryan 490
Manning 481
Brees 477
Brady 471
Roethlesberger 461
Tannehill 451

Far to many for RT at this stage in his career. Russell Wilson who everyone loves to compare RT to only has 305 attempts. I have to wonder if you switch Wilson and RT how Wilson would fare in this offense with these players.

 

[Shouright]

I would think if they had a more balanced attack that YPA would raise to an acceptable level. Below 7 just isn't very good. I'd like to see it over 7.5 and even closer to 8.

What also stands out that in order of most attempts:

Stafford 500
Ryan 490
Manning 481
Brees 477
Brady 471
Roethlesberger 461
Tannehill 451

Far to many for RT at this stage in his career. Russell Wilson who everyone loves to compare RT to only has 305 attempts. I have to wonder if you switch Wilson and RT how Wilson would fare in this offense with these players.

One would think, but so far this season there is no significant correlation week-to-week between Ryan Tannehill's YPA and the percentage of the Dolphins' offensive plays that are runs.

 

[Shouright]

I would suggest if you want more people to give your threads a chance to stop using the words deviation, variables, correlated, and standardization. Many people will not understand those terms and thus won't even bother. If you would phrase your threads better I think you would get better conversation. People hate what they don't understand.

And if I catered to that sort of person (bolded above), as you're suggesting, what kind of "conversation" do you think I'd end up with?

 

[Shouright]

Hard to believe we have posters afraid of numbers. And actually bragging about it, as if it makes them look anything other than pathetically weak.

When all it takes to join is a few keystrokes, you're going to get all kinds, even the people way out there in the tail of the bell curve.

The gap in adjusted yards per attempt is what jumps out to me, with Manning, Rodgers and Wilson more than 8/10 of a yard above everyone else in the league. Those guys are nearly 3 yards above Tannehill in that category.

You'd have to be sick if you had a futures bet on the Packers, or a wager on their season wins. That team was very dangerous until Rodgers got hurt early in that Bears game.

The one that bothers me right now is net yards per attempt, given the following article:

http://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/

That’s why when looking at which quarterback will perform the best in the future, NY/A is my favorite statistic.

 

[FSU Truth]

Isn't one of these threads a week enough?

Every week Sho brings up yards per attempt, it is not a new concept and is becoming redundant at this point as are the Tannehill is great threads. It would be fantastic if there was a stickied thread that covered all Tannehill talk.

I will add that while it is fun to give Sho a hard time about his stats (and Tannehill) obsession, I do like the fact that he offers a different perspective on topics....while I rarely agree with sho I do think he adds to the discussions even if he's playing devil advocate.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

People are right to say that Seattle has handled Russell Wilson - and their team in general - much better than Miami has handled Tannehill and their team. But Russell Wilson is playing at an elite level. There aren't many QB's in the NFL who can play at an elite level - regardless of circumstance. Seattle is grooming him similar to the way New England groomed Brady and Pittsburgh groomed Big Ben. It's interesting - to me - that as these QB's received more liberties as passers, their teams stopped winning SB's. Seattle is 1st in the league in rushing attempts, 1st in yards per pass attempt, 2nd in TO margin, 1st in yards allowed, 2nd in points allowed, and 2nd in yards per play allowed. Before Monday night, people were way underselling how dominate this team is.

On a semi-related note, last week in the NFL, teams with more rushing attempts than their opponent went 11-5, but in three of those five losses, the differential in rushing attempts was only 1.

 

[hoops]

if you can't see that russell wilson has it much better than ryan tannehill does and cant account for that in your flat line statistical analysis you're just not credible...i don't care what mr vegas says

 

[Shouright]

if you can't see that russell wilson has it much better than ryan tannehill does and cant account for that in your flat line statistical analysis you're just not credible...i don't care what mr vegas says

This has been the definitive research on that to date, if I don't say so myself.

Wilson is asked to carry his offense less than any quarterback in the league, as the Seahawks run the ball a greater percentage of the time (roughly 53%) than any other team.

However, Wilson attempts the fifth-most passes in the league of at least 20 yards in the air, and he completes the greatest percentage of passes in the league (a whopping 60%) of that kind.

Tannehill, by contrast, is asked to pass the ball on a greater percentage of his team's offensive plays, but his downfield throws are less frequent (10% to Wilson's 14.8%), and he completes only 35.6% of them.

Seattle's line surrenders the second-greatest percentage of pressured dropbacks in the league (45.2%), to the Dolphins' 32.9%, which ranks 23rd in the league. Moreover, Tannehill is sacked on a league-leading 26.9% of his pressured dropbacks, whereas Wilson is 17th in the league in that regard, at 17.6%. The Dolphins' line is ranked 17th in the league in pass blocking efficiency by PFF, whereas Seattle's line is ranked 20th.

When you consider within the above context the quarterback related variables that are most strongly correlated with winning -- QB rating, YPA, net YPA, and adjusted net YPA -- and consider that Wilson is head and shoulders above Tannehill with regard to them, I think it's fairly easy to conclude that Wilson is playing the quarterback position in its entirety far better than Tannehill right now.

Now, I'll turn that back on you (and others), and say that if you're going to discount all of that in favor of something you believe you're seeing with "your eyes" alone, especially when you (and others) likely have an inherent bias that favors Ryan Tannehill, then you're hardly credible. :)

 

[hoops]

This has been the definitive post on that to date, if I don't say so myself.

Now, I'll turn that back on you (and others), and say that if you're going to discount all of that in favor of something you believe you're seeing with "your eyes" alone, especially when you (and others) likely have an inherent bias that favors Ryan Tannehill, then you're hardly credible. :)

i don't care if i'm credible to you...all you do is pick and choose statistics that fit your freaking agenda...and this correlated with winning thing since when is that the end all be all of a good qb in the making??? plenty of qbs have started out not winning ealry in their careers...and tannehills 1 game under .500 now as a starter after a complete rebuild the year he was drafted pretty much

so seriously you may fool others with all this nonsense but you don't fool me...