Quick Way to Assess Ryan Tannehill Statistically

[Sarnics13]

There is nothing incredibly glaring in any of that. Yeah there's some numbers that we would like to see higher that affect performance.....but seriously do you think any GM or coach is paying this much attention to these stats? I submit that there is no one on here that is professionally involved in the NFL at that level to definitively state that these stats are this important...... so to me this is agenda ridden nonsense in an attempt to draw attention away from the positive things that Ryan has been doing. He isn't elite, he isn't Marino, he isn't Rodgers or Brady or Brees..... but He's been improving and he is the best QB we have. Every QB makes mistakes....but my friend the ones that are legit don't make them continually throughout a season and he has proven to me that he is legit and corrects those things over time. Let it go.

 

[Shouright]

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...

 

[MarinoEqualsGod]

So, what I took from those advanced passing stats is that this year, Tannehill is about average. Last year, he was slightly below average. That's weird...a 2nd year player has shown improvement. Hmm...I wonder if that will continue or if he is what he is at this point in his career /sarcasm

 

[Phindog]

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...

Some fans really really get it....:up:

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.

Some people are smart enough to get it...


.....................................................................

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.

While other walk around with their shoes on the wrong foot.

 

[nyashfan]

Two quick thoughts come to mind:

1) What others have mentioned regarding Russell Wilson's success being ahead of Tannehill's due to superior coaching. When Seattle has 3rd and 1 they roll Wilson out and give him run/pass options. Meanwhile Sherman either calls fade passes from empty-set backfield formations or delayed draws from the shotgun. I'm sick of all these plays which require precise timing rather than exploiting Tannehill's athleticism.

2) Sacks. Yes a few of them are on Tannehill, but I see the sack statistics as the driver of Tannehill's ranking.

Shouright,

What would be Tannehill's ranking if all of his sack statistics were set to the league average?

...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

 

[WVDolphan]

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 that is just sad.

 

[mega-fin-love]

And that is just sad.

In my best Metallica voice " You know it's sad but true "

 

[nyashfan]

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

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

Look carefully at the definition of NY/A and see how much it is determined by both number of sacks and sack yardage. Let's substitute league-wide averages for these two variables and learn where Tannehill would then rank.

 

[Phindog]

Look carefully at the definition of NY/A and see how much it is determined by both number of sacks and sack yardage. Let's substitute league-wide averages for these two variables and learn where Tannehill would then rank.

That might throw off the non-sense.I'm afraid we cant have the non-sense disrupted.

 

[nyashfan]

I double checked that NY/A definition. Sacks are the only statistic incorporated twice in that formula.

While some of the blame falls on Tannehill, a lot has to do with OL play as well as inferior play calling and coaching. Once Tannehill has an OC that calls plays catering to his strengths, that utilizes Tannehill's athleticism and mobility, I would expect dramatic improvement.

That might throw off the non-sense.I'm afraid we cant have the non-sense disrupted.

 

[mnphinfan]

I double checked that NY/A definition. Sacks are the only statistic incorporated twice in that formula.

While some of the blame falls on Tannehill, a lot has to do with OL play as well as inferior play calling and coaching. Once Tannehill has an OC that calls plays catering to his strengths, that utilizes Tannehill's athleticism and mobility, I would expect dramatic improvement.

Bringing in Big Mac to me showed what a detriment Martin was to this o-line. It also helps that Clabo is playing better and that the RB will have a better idea of where they will need to chip if needed on passing plays.

 

[Shouright]

Look carefully at the definition of NY/A and see how much it is determined by both number of sacks and sack yardage. Let's substitute league-wide averages for these two variables and learn where Tannehill would then rank.

I'm happy to let someone else do it and look at the results, since personally I believe there's no sound theoretical rationale for it. Transforming the statistic on the basis of the league average in sacks would remove roughly the percentage of Tannehill's sacks for which he himself is responsible in my opinion.

Once again, Tannehill is pressured no more often than the average QB, yet has been sacked far more often when pressured. I think the fact that his net YPA is so low is a testament to his input into his own number of sacks. If he were pressured far more often than the average QB, I'd be more willing to take the time to transform the statistic.

If anything, we should start looking at Russell Wilson's net YPA as something extra special, given the following:

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%.

There's something to be said for avoiding pressure. It's part of playing the quarterback position.

 

[slk018]

Shou,

I appreciate the info and analysis. While I am a fan of YPA myself a couple of things come to mind.
Yes, avoiding sacks are a large part of the position. But, you cannot quantify sacks that are on the QB, and those on the line or BB etc.
The problem I had with the chart was guys like Sam Bradfords high. I think RT is a top 12-14 QB right now, so the sack portion of that formula really throws it out of whack

It is funny how those who disagree with you come on here and bash you for your "agenda", especially since it is the same guys pretending they know everything and only view one side of argument(the one that fits their views)

 

[Shouright]

Shou,

I appreciate the info and analysis. While I am a fan of YPA myself a couple of things come to mind.
Yes, avoiding sacks are a large part of the position. But, you cannot quantify sacks that are on the QB, and those on the line or BB etc.
The problem I had with the chart was guys like Sam Bradfords high. I think RT is a top 12-14 QB right now, so the sack portion of that formula really throws it out of whack

You might not be able to quantify them precisely, but I think the pressure versus sacks dynamic I mentioned sheds some light on the relative fault that can be attributed to the line versus the QB for sacks.

It is funny how those who disagree with you come on here and bash you for your "agenda", especially since it is the same guys pretending they know everything and only view one side of argument(the one that fits their views)

"If you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness."

Here's a rule of thumb: when someone starts talking about someone else here, rather than about the Miami Dolphins, then you know they're having trouble asserting their point with any cogency. :)

 

[Locke]

I understand every word he says and still call it bull****. The thing about statistics is you can make them say whatever you want. It's up to the researcher to provide context to those statistics in a fair and objective way. Shouwrong doesn't do that. Add this to previous lies I've caught him in and the only conclusion I can come to is the dude is a joke...