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

[FinfanInBuffalo]

No, and I'm comfortable saying that such a relationship in theory isn't implausible, based on my own opinion. You on the other hand seem to believe it's some sort of fact that there shouldn't be one.

Still waiting for you to tell me where we should draw the line for statistical significance in terms of deviation from the norm. You may want to take a little time and scour the net so you don't look foolish.

One last time........ where did I use the term "statistical significance"? It looks bad for you when the only argument you can win is one I didn't make.....

---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 AM ----------

why are you so ****ing obsessed with statistics?

The proper question is why his he so bad at understanding statistics?

---------- Post added at 08:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 AM ----------

Where is the mike wallace is wide open but wasn't hit for a touchdown stat?

In the same place as the Mike Wallace was hit for a TD but didn't catch it stat.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Here is this years league leaders in passer rating differential. The top two are odds on favorite to be in the Super Bowl and the top 7 are in the playoffs. It's a pretty telling stat.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/stats/2013/Final/PRD/

(BTW, this post is not directed at you)

But it is not all about the QB. If it were, you wouldn't see huge drop offs year over year with elite QBs. A good QB is necessary but not sufficient for an efficient passing offense. NE was 15th in offensive passer rating. They are in the AFC championship game. Also, Brady is MUCH better than the 15th best passer, but his team was middle of the pack in passing efficiency. Why? Because the rest of the team (particularly the receivers) dragged him down for much of the year.

Why isn't it obvious to EVERYONE that the other players, and the coaching staff matter? I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of idiots having to explain this.

Why are these issues explained by personnel issues other than the QB:

Ravens: SB champ to 8-8
Steelers: Consecutive 8-8 seasons
Patriots: Brady's passer rating dropped 11.5 points from 2012 to 2013
Atlanta: 13-3 in 2012, 4-12 in 2013
Atlanta: Ryan's passer rating dropped 10 points
Ravens: Flacco's passer rating dropped 14 points and is TWENTY POINTS lower than his career high in 2010
Redskins: RGIIIs passer rating dropped 20 points from 2012 to 2013


I could go on, but you get the idea. Is ANYONE claiming that Flacco, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Brady, or RGIII were their team's biggest problem this season?

 

[HarryBagpipe]

(BTW, this post is not directed at you)

But it is not all about the QB. If it were, you wouldn't see huge drop offs year over year with elite QBs. A good QB is necessary but not sufficient for an efficient passing offense. NE was 15th in offensive passer rating. They are in the AFC championship game. Also, Brady is MUCH better than the 15th best passer, but his team was middle of the pack in passing efficiency. Why? Because the rest of the team (particularly the receivers) dragged him down for much of the year.

Why isn't it obvious to EVERYONE that the other players, and the coaching staff matter? I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of idiots having to explain this.

Why are these issues explained by personnel issues other than the QB:

Ravens: SB champ to 8-8
Steelers: Consecutive 8-8 seasons
Patriots: Brady's passer rating dropped 11.5 points from 2012 to 2013
Atlanta: 13-3 in 2012, 4-12 in 2013
Atlanta: Ryan's passer rating dropped 10 points
Ravens: Flacco's passer rating dropped 14 points and is TWENTY POINTS lower than his career high in 2010
Redskins: RGIIIs passer rating dropped 20 points from 2012 to 2013


I could go on, but you get the idea. Is ANYONE claiming that Flacco, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Brady, or RGIII were their team's biggest problem this season?

Never said it was all about the qb or that qb passer rating was solely the fault of the qb. I'm saying that the end number is usually very telling of a teams success. If you want to say in order to get tannys number to where it needs to be that we need to fix the oline, get a better running game and call better plays, than that's fine. I'm not arguing or disagreeing with that. I'm saying that we need to be a top ten team in prd if we want to be successful. I think that's indisputable since 96% of the teams to ever win an nfl championship were in the top ten of that stat.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Never said it was all about the qb or that qb passer rating was solely the fault of the qb. I'm saying that the end number is usually very telling of a teams success. If you want to say in order to get tannys number to where it needs to be that we need to fix the oline, get a better running game and call better plays, than that's fine. I'm not arguing or disagreeing with that. I'm saying that we need to be a top ten team in prd if we want to be successful. I think that's indisputable since 96% of the teams to ever win an nfl championship were in the top ten of that stat.

I agree with you and suspected you thought the same way. That is why I stated that the post wasn't directed at you. The post was for the Tannehaters on the site.

 

[Shouright]

One last time........ where did I use the term "statistical significance"? It looks bad for you when the only argument you can win is one I didn't make.....

Well as always, I'm certainly ready and willing to let you "win" an argument that's based on nothing but your personal opinion. Next time I suppose I'll realize that you're trying to establish nothing with any greater certainty or validity than that. :)

 

[Shouright]

Never said it was all about the qb or that qb passer rating was solely the fault of the qb. I'm saying that the end number is usually very telling of a teams success. If you want to say in order to get tannys number to where it needs to be that we need to fix the oline, get a better running game and call better plays, than that's fine. I'm not arguing or disagreeing with that. I'm saying that we need to be a top ten team in prd if we want to be successful. I think that's indisputable since 96% of the teams to ever win an nfl championship were in the top ten of that stat.

And that certainly is fine, though there is no objective evidence at this point that changes in those areas would equal greater success for Tannehill individually, and in fact, the only evidence available -- the game-to-game correlations between his performance and sacks and running game variables, as well as the data that indicates he wasn't pressured any more than the average NFL QB -- isn't consistent with it.

In other words, there's nothing in the game-to-game data to suggest that when Tannehill actually does get better play by those other areas of the team, as measured by sacks, numbers of rushes, rushing yards, or yards per carry, he plays better himself. His performance in 2013 was independent of those variables. Not a good sign in my opinion, though of course others may disagree, and that's sure fine. :)

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Well as always, I'm certainly ready and willing to let you "win" an argument that's based on nothing but your personal opinion. Next time I suppose I'll realize that you're trying to establish nothing with any greater certainty or validity than that. :)

If you can do it, so can I......

Now, if you still want to argue that 3.8 is not greater than 3.74, I'll find a 2nd grader to handle that discussion.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

And that certainly is fine, though there is no objective evidence at this point that changes in those areas would equal greater success for Tannehill individually, and in fact, the only evidence available -- the game-to-game correlations between his performance and sacks and running game variables, as well as the data that indicates he wasn't pressured any more than the average NFL QB -- isn't consistent with it.

In other words, there's nothing in the game-to-game data to suggest that when Tannehill actually does get better play by those other areas of the team, as measured by sacks, numbers of rushes, rushing yards, or yards per carry, he plays better himself. His performance in 2013 was independent of those variables. Not a good sign in my opinion, though of course others may disagree, and that's sure fine. :)

View attachment 12066

 

[Shouright]

If you can do it, so can I......

You sure can.

Now, if you still want to argue that 3.8 is not greater than 3.74, I'll find a 2nd grader to handle that discussion.

Nope. Only arguing that within a sample with a standard deviation of 0.47, that difference is meaningless. Of course you're your own person, however, and you're free to assign whatever meaning you'd like to it.

Ironic, however, that you seem to be unable or unwilling to consider that the bias against Tannehill you believe is exhibited by other people isn't also being exhibited by you in the opposite direction, in the context of believing such a numerical difference to be significant in some way. Everyone else has "an agenda," but of course you can't possibly have one, correct? :)

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

You sure can.

Nope. Only arguing that within a sample with a standard deviation of 0.47, that difference is meaningless. Of course you're your own person, however, and you're free to assign whatever meaning you'd like to it.

Ironic, however, that you seem to be unable or unwilling to consider that the bias against Tannehill you believe is exhibited by other people isn't also being exhibited by you in the opposite direction, in the context of believing such a numerical difference to be significant in some way. Everyone else has "an agenda," but of course you can't possibly have one, correct? :)

Only one of has tried to deny that 3.8 is greater than 3.74. Only one of us has created many, many threads blaming the QB for team issues. Only one of us contradicts themselves on a regular basis because they don't really understand what they are writing. Only one of us spent all season defending a ridiculous position and ultimately had to backtrack and find some other lame "objective analysis" to continue their agenda.

Your credibility can be summed up in:

Shouright: "Tannehill is at fault for most of the sacks."
Shouright: "The OL is at fault for most of the sacks."
Shouright: "Sack don't matter."
Me: "Why did you spend all season harping on sacks?"
Shouright: "I'm an idiot"

 

[Shouright]

Only one of has tried to deny that 3.8 is greater than 3.74. Only one of us has created many, many threads blaming the QB for team issues. Only one of us contradicts themselves on a regular basis because they don't really understand what they are writing. Only one of us spent all season defending a ridiculous position and ultimately had to backtrack and find some other lame "objective analysis" to continue their agenda.

Your credibility can be summed up in:

Shouright: "Tannehill is at fault for most of the sacks."
Shouright: "The OL is at fault for most of the sacks."
Shouright: "Sack don't matter."
Me: "Why did you spend all season harping on sacks?"
Shouright: "I'm an idiot"

Well as always, I'm happy to fully consider an objective analysis by you that tells me: 1) how sacks are related to individual QB play in general, and 2) how they affected Ryan Tannehill's individual play, specifically, in 2013.

I don't suppose we'll get that, however. Instead we'll talk more about the behavior and credibility of a guy on a message board. :)

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Well as always, I'm happy to fully consider an objective analysis by you that tells me: 1) how sacks are related to individual QB play in general, and 2) how they affected Ryan Tannehill's individual play, specifically, in 2013.

I don't suppose we'll get that, however. Instead we'll talk more about the behavior and credibility of a guy on a message board. :)

Already covered, many times.

 

[Shouright]

Already covered, many times.

If that's true, I'd encourage you to start a thread that sums up your findings in its original post.

And remember, the points of interest for me at least are: 1) how sacks affect individual QB play in general, and 2) how they affected Ryan Tannehill's individual play in 2013.

I would think that if you've already "covered" this "many times," you'd be willing to start a thread on it that sums up your findings and enlightens the forum. :up:

 

[HarryBagpipe]

And that certainly is fine, though there is no objective evidence at this point that changes in those areas would equal greater success for Tannehill individually, and in fact, the only evidence available -- the game-to-game correlations between his performance and sacks and running game variables, as well as the data that indicates he wasn't pressured any more than the average NFL QB -- isn't consistent with it.

In other words, there's nothing in the game-to-game data to suggest that when Tannehill actually does get better play by those other areas of the team, as measured by sacks, numbers of rushes, rushing yards, or yards per carry, he plays better himself. His performance in 2013 was independent of those variables. Not a good sign in my opinion, though of course others may disagree, and that's sure fine. :)

In terms of running game, I'm not sure there's enough data either way to come to a conclusion. There's probably only a handful of games that the dolphins ran the ball well and there are too many unaccounted variables that need to be considered. For instance, the opposing teams defensive gameplan. If we were an established running team that other teams had to plan for, what effect would that have? We aren't so teams aren't stacking the box like they might against a good running team.

If after a full season we have a good running game and tannys results are still the same, than I think that point has validity. I'm not sure how much it does when we can't compare season to season rather than game to game. Flaccos qb rating dropped 14 points between seasons, Eli dropped almost 20 points. Tampa cut their qb. Those were 3 of the 4 worst running teams last year. Coincidence? Maybe.

Maybe tannys game to game numbers are indicative af what he really is but I'm not ready to make that conclusion until I see how it compares to a full season worth of work where some of the other variables can be accounted for.

 

[Shouright]

In terms of running game, I'm not sure there's enough data either way to come to a conclusion. There's probably only a handful of games that the dolphins ran the ball well and there are too many unaccounted variables that need to be considered. For instance, the opposing teams defensive gameplan. If we were an established running team that other teams had to plan for, what effect would that have? We aren't so teams aren't stacking the box like they might against a good running team.

If after a full season we have a good running game and tannys results are still the same, than I think that point has validity. I'm not sure how much it does when we can't compare season to season rather than game to game. Flaccos qb rating dropped 14 points between seasons, Eli dropped almost 20 points. Tampa cut their qb. Those were 3 of the 4 worst running teams last year. Coincidence? Maybe.

Maybe tannys game to game numbers are indicative af what he really is but I'm not ready to make that conclusion until I see how it compares to a full season worth of work where some of the other variables can be accounted for.

And I think all that certainly makes sense, but in the absence of even the most foundational level of evidence that he would play better with a better running game (i.e., a correlation between running game variables and his individual play, game-to-game), should we believe he'd play better with a better running game, or should we believe the matter is simply an unknown?

In other words, the more sophisticated the analysis we need to do to support the idea that he'd play better with a better running game, the less willing we should be to believe the idea has merit.

If the correlation between running game variables and his individual play were present, we could stop there and say the idea likely has some merit. When that correlation doesn't exist, however, and we need to propose and conduct more sophisticated analyses of the variables in question, how much merit should we believe the idea to have, until and unless those analyses are conducted?