Ryan Tannehill 2013: QB Pressure, Completion %, Deep Passing, & YPA Statistics | Page 15 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Ryan Tannehill 2013: QB Pressure, Completion %, Deep Passing, & YPA Statistics

Nawledge said:
every thread he makes is a tannehill thread with stats. I agree he's not great, I never said he was but shouright puts too much stock into stats.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. But like I said, I don't get the feeling he is attacking Tannehill. I think he just likes "stats" and just presents what he is seeing to try and "quantify what is seen on the field." It is sometimes a futile effort, as there is no measure of a "playmaker"...someone can have really bad stats, but if they always seem to come through right when it counts, I would consider them great! I don't think stats are going to show that...

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------
Phinatic8u said:
I wish everybody would have this same mindset.

No 2nd year qb is great, but by year 3 they better start heading that way.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I haven't been too hard on Tannehill yet; due to the OL and all. But that will change next year if I don't see the next step...
 
Dr. Phin said:
Shouright (Gravity), how exactly are the terms "adjusted" and "net" used in the last few columns. The exactly meaning here is unclear. Thx...
Click to expand...
Adjusted YPA takes into account passing TDs and INTs. Net YPA takes into account sacks and sack yards. Adjusted net YPA takes into account all of that.

---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------
Dr. Phin said:
Yeah, I know. But like I said, I don't get the feeling he is attacking Tannehill. I think he just likes "stats" and just presents what he is seeing to try and "quantify what is seen on the field." It is sometimes a futile effort, as there is no measure of a "playmaker"...someone can have really bad stats, but if they always seem to come through right when it counts, I would consider them great! I don't think stats are going to show that...
Click to expand...
Actually they do:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/01/win-probability-added-wpa-explained.html
 
Dr. Phin said:
Yeah, I know. But like I said, I don't get the feeling he is attacking Tannehill. I think he just likes "stats" and just presents what he is seeing to try and "quantify what is seen on the field." It is sometimes a futile effort, as there is no measure of a "playmaker"...someone can have really bad stats, but if they always seem to come through right when it counts, I would consider them great! I don't think stats are going to show that...
Click to expand...

I know tannehill didn't play great I know he was average but stats don't show everything needed to be seen to make an actual assessment. do scouts and GMs look only at stats? I mean if you can tell everything from stats they're wasting their time watching film.
 
Shouright (Gravity), how exactly are the terms "adjusted" and "net" used in the last few columns. The exactly meaning here is unclear. Thx...
 
Gravity said:
The column headers refer to the following: 1) player, 2) completion percentage, 3) accuracy under pressure, 4) percentage of pressured pass dropbacks, 5) difference between overall completion percentage and completion percentage under pressure, 6) percentage of pass attempts of 20+ yards in the air, 7) completion percentage on passes of 20+ yards in the air, correcting for drops, 8) yards per attempt in the air (subtracting receiver yards after catch), 9) percentage of overall passing yards obtained on yards after the catch, 10) yards per pass attempt, 11) adjusted yards per pass attempt, 12) net yards per pass attempt, 13) adjusted net yards per pass attempt, 14) QB rating.


Player
Comp %
Acc % Pressure
Pressure %
Comp % - Pressure %
Deep Passing %
Deep Acc. %
Air YPA
% YAC
YPA
Adj. YPA
Net YPA
Adj. Net YPA
QB Rating
Nick Foles
64.0
68.1
34.3
-4.1
17.4
45.5
4.4
51.3
9.12
10.54
7.88
9.18
119.2
Peyton Manning
68.3
69.0
22.7
-0.7
12.6
48.2
4.2
49
8.31
9.3
7.91
8.87
115.1
Aaron Rodgers
66.6
63.3
28.6
3.3
12.4
52.8
4.2
52.2
8.74
8.99
7.78
8
104.9
Philip Rivers
69.5
69.9
33.4
-0.4
10.5
43.9
4.1
50.8
8.23
8.5
7.54
7.79
105.5
Drew Brees
68.6
63.5
29.8
5.1
11.8
40.3
4
49.9
7.94
8.31
7.16
7.51
104.7
Russell Wilson
63.1
61.9
43.8
1.2
14.7
48.3
4.4
46.3
8.25
8.53
6.84
7.1
101.2
Colin Kaepernick
58.4
55.1
34.7
3.3
13.7
45.6
4.3
43.7
7.69
7.83
6.52
6.65
91.6
Tony Romo
63.9
60.7
35.1
3.2
10.5
42.9
3.7
48.1
7.16
7.47
6.24
6.54
96.7
Matthew Stafford
58.5
58.0
28.9
0.5
12.1
39.4
3.6
51.4
7.33
6.9
6.82
6.4
84.2
Andy Dalton
62.0
56.7
25.2
5.3
14.7
44.2
3.6
50.4
7.33
6.92
6.68
6.29
88.8
Player
Comp %
Acc % Pressure
Pressure %
Comp % - Pressure %
Deep Passing %
Deep Acc. %
Air YPA
% YAC
YPA
Adj. YPA
Net YPA
Adj. Net YPA
QB Rating
Jay Cutler
63.1
62.7
39.0
0.4
16.1
45.6
4.5
39.1
7.38
6.93
6.66
6.23
89.2
Ben Roethlisberger
64.2
62.6
32.4
1.6
13
35.5
3.5
51.7
7.3
7.18
6.36
6.24
92
Sam Bradford
60.7
53.4
36.3
7.3
8.4
40.9
2.9
55.5
6.44
6.82
5.74
6.1
90.9
Tom Brady
60.5
57.6
32.6
2.9
10.5
39.4
3.5
49.5
6.92
6.92
6.12
6.13
87.3
Andrew Luck
60.2
56.0
37.5
4.2
10.5
36.7
3.2
52.7
6.71
6.8
5.97
6.06
87
Alex Smith
60.6
60.0
34.1
0.6
8.1
46.3
2.9
55.4
6.52
6.81
5.67
5.94
89.1
Matt Ryan
67.4
68.2
41.3
-0.8
6.6
39.5
3.4
50.4
6.94
6.56
6.07
5.72
89.6
Matt Cassel
60.2
63.3
32.7
-3.1
15
47.4
3.8
46.7
7.11
6.39
6.38
5.69
81.6
Cam Newton
61.7
66.4
36.9
-4.7
13.5
31.3
3.5
51.4
7.14
6.92
5.90
5.69
88.8
Carson Palmer
63.3
60.1
40.3
3.2
12.9
31.1
4.2
43.4
7.47
6.58
6.50
5.67
83.9
Player
Comp %
Acc % Pressure
Pressure %
Comp % - Pressure %
Deep Passing %
Deep Acc. %
Air YPA
% YAC
YPA
Adj. YPA
Net YPA
Adj. Net YPA
QB Rating
Ryan Fitzpatrick
62.0
68.5
35.1
-6.5
11.4
45
3.7
47.8
7.01
6.27
6.32
5.62
82
Robert Griffin III
60.1
60.7
38.0
-0.6
10.1
30.4
3.6
48.7
7.02
6.54
5.93
5.48
82.2
Case Keenum
54.2
57.3
45.5
-3.2
12.6
53.1
4.2
40.2
6.96
6.6
5.73
5.4
78.2
Jason Campbell
56.8
62.4
37.6
-5.6
10.7
29.4
3
53.1
6.36
5.91
5.74
5.32
76.9
Mike Glennon
59.4
56.9
43.4
2.5
11.1
45.7
4
35.5
6.27
6.21
5.03
4.98
83.9
Ryan Tannehill
60.4
57.7
33.6
2.7
10.9
32.8
3.8
43.5
6.65
6.17
5.44
5
81.7
EJ Manuel
58.8
59.4
31.9
-0.6
13.4
34.1
3.3
48.3
6.44
5.84
5.43
4.87
77.7
Chad Henne
60.6
65.2
35.3
-4.6
7.8
30.8
2.7
57.5
6.44
5.71
5.54
4.86
76.5
Joe Flacco
59.0
59.0
35.6
0.0
14.3
26.1
3.3
48
6.37
5.38
5.42
4.5
73.1
Eli Manning
57.5
56.8
40.3
0.7
12.7
34.3
4.1
40.5
6.93
5.38
5.99
4.55
69.4
Matt Schaub
61.2
55.1
41.8
6.1
8.9
40.6
3.8
41.7
6.45
5.25
5.67
4.53
73
Brandon Weeden
52.8
50.8
38.2
2.0
12.4
39.4
4
38.7
6.48
5.64
5.28
4.51
70.3
Geno Smith
55.8
55.5
42.0
0.3
13.5
46.7
3.9
42.6
6.88
5.28
5.62
4.17
66.5
Player
Comp %
Acc % Pressure
Pressure %
Comp % - Pressure %
Deep Passing %
Deep Acc. %
Air YPA
% YAC
YPA
Adj. YPA
Net YPA
Adj. Net YPA
QB Rating
AVERAGE
61.32
60.66
35.69
0.65
11.96
40.40
3.74
47.73
7.16
6.89
6.24
5.99
87.35
STANDARD DEVIATION
3.94
4.88
5.22
3.42
2.43
7.04
0.47
5.34
0.73
1.24
0.76
1.23
12.61
TANNEHILL Z-SCORE
-0.24
-0.61
-0.40
0.59
-0.44
-1.08
0.13
-0.79
-0.70
-0.58
-1.05
-0.80
-0.45
TANNEHILL PERCENTILE RANK
40.6
34.3
31.2
68.7
34.3
18.7
50
25
28.1
25
12.5
25
31.2
Click to expand...

We know about his deep ball problems, but I would like his accuracy under pressure stats to be better. And you know, you would think they would be, because he should be comfortable with the receivers he has, except maybe Wallace, and he's familiar with Sherman's system from day one. So, I don't know why this is.

I remember when Cameron drafted John Beck, (which was obviously a mistake), but he made a comment then and said you can't teach accuracy, and Beck I guess was highly accurate in college. Well, they'd better find a way to teach accuracy because Ryan Tannehill needs to improve. He needs to be stronger in the pocket, he needs to make decisions faster, he needs to move more, and he needs to be on target with his passes.
 
Harry_Bagpipe said:
26 of 73 NFL champs since 1940 finished No. 1 in Passer Rating Differential (36%); 44 finished in the Top 3 in PRD (60%) and 69 finished in the Top 10 (95%).

Suffice it to say, it would probably be a good idea to be in the top ten.
Click to expand...

I think Philbin is a numbers junkie and every decision he makes as a coach is probably predicated on improving our passer rating differential. I would guess the base defense we run is probably proven to lower the opposing QBs passer rating and our offense is probably the most passer rating friendly.
 
Gravity said:
Like I've said before, I have no qualms with the idea that sacks on both sides of the ball (and not just one side of the ball or the other) are significant in terms of winning.

However, that's a long, long way from having objective support for the idea that Ryan Tannehill would play better, individually, if he were sacked less.
Click to expand...

What the hell difference does that make? Also you have no evidence that he wouldn't play better if he were sacked less.

The biggest problem with the offense was PPG. Sacks hurt that. End of story. Trying to twist it around as only a QB issue is pointless and flies in the face of:

1. Facts - #1 in sacks allowed, 26th in rushing offense
2. Team actions this year - Traded for McKinnie, changed LGs like underwear, benched Clabo
3. Actions the team is likely to take next year - 3 or 4 new OL
4. What you can see on film
5. What was reported by every professional media outlet that covered the Dolphins during the year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Phin said:
That is just "perception." I don't think he tries to attack Tannehill at all...the stats just present picture some do not like. In other words, "don't shoot the messenger." Tannehill isn't that great...but we don't expect him to be...YET. If he performs the same next year, I would be looking to draft someone the next year.
Click to expand...

Nobody disputes the numbers. The team's YPA is what it is. The issue is that he ignores those numbers that don't fit his agenda. Take YPA. It is a combination of the yards that the ball travels in the air (on average) and the yards after catch. Tannehill ranks higher in avg air yards than YPA because his receivers have Low YAC numbers. Those are facts, but they don't fit the agenda that Tannehill is the sole source of problems with the offense, so they are down played or ignored all together.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
You are 100% correct. I need to ignore these things. I've said my piece. He won't listen to simple logic or give any credence to the much more extensive analyses that I have posted links to.

I need to let the haters hate..... I'll route for the Fins and they can piss and moan.
Click to expand...

Once or twice this was fun. I'll give it that. But the numbers get re-hashed not once or twice a season but once or twice a month. This is too much of a microscope on any topic that is explicitly designed to be recreation ... IMHO
 
GreenMts said:
Once or twice this was fun. I'll give it that. But the numbers get re-hashed not once or twice a season but once or twice a month. This is too much of a microscope on any topic that is explicitly designed to be recreation ... IMHO
Click to expand...

That's good advice. Hope to hell I take it.....
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
What the hell difference does that make? Also you have no evidence that he wouldn't play better if he were sacked less.
Click to expand...
Well we have the closest thing to it there is, in that when he was sacked less, he didn't play any better than when he was sacked more.

Now of course you're going to say there "should be no correlation game-to-game" in that regard, which is an opinion you're entitled to. However, it isn't a logical opinion. It could certainly be the case, for any QB, that he plays better when he's sacked less. There's no reason why that sort of relationship between sacks and QB play game-to-game is inherently implausible.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
Nobody disputes the numbers. The team's YPA is what it is. The issue is that he ignores those numbers that don't fit his agenda. Take YPA. It is a combination of the yards that the ball travels in the air (on average) and the yards after catch. Tannehill ranks higher in avg air yards than YPA because his receivers have Low YAC numbers. Those are facts, but they don't fit the agenda that Tannehill is the sole source of problems with the offense, so they are down played or ignored all together.
Click to expand...
If they were significantly different (a standard deviation or more) from the league average, I wouldn't ignore them. But they are not.

I could easily turn that same thing back on you and say, "the fact that those numbers are non-significantly different from the league norm is ignored, and instead they're touted as something statistically meaningful by the Tannehill apologists."
 
Gravity said:
Well we have the closest thing to it there is, in that when he was sacked less, he didn't play any better than when he was sacked more.

Now of course you're going to say there "should be no correlation game-to-game" in that regard, which is an opinion you're entitled to. However, it isn't a logical opinion. It could certainly be the case, for any QB, that he plays better when he's sacked less. There's no reason why that sort of relationship between sacks and QB play game-to-game is inherently implausible.
Click to expand...

Of course it is a logical opinion. Do you have any evidence that there is game to game correlation between sacks and YPA?
 
Gravity said:
If they were significantly different (a standard deviation or more) from the league average, I wouldn't ignore them. But they are not.

I could easily turn that same thing back on you and say, "the fact that those numbers are non-significantly different from the league norm is ignored, and instead they're touted as something statistically meaningful by the Tannehill apologists."
Click to expand...

So Tannehill has to be a full standard deviation above the mean (or more) to be considered above the mean? And you don't have an agenda? :bobdole:
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
Of course it is a logical opinion. Do you have any evidence that there is game to game correlation between sacks and YPA?
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence that there shouldn't be one, other than your own opinion, of course?

---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------
FinfanInBuffalo said:
So Tannehill has to be a full standard deviation above the mean (or more) to be considered above the mean? And you don't have an agenda? :bobdole:
Click to expand...
What do you propose the cutoff should be for statistical significance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom