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

[FinfanInBuffalo]

With the key difference being in some of the YPA numbers./QUOTE]

And the difference in YPA being YAC not air yards. Tannehill's average air yards is higher than Brady. Tannehill's avg air yards per attempt is ABOVE AVERAGE.

 

[FearTheBeard]

http://www.thephins.com/forums/showthread.php?71436-WVDolphan-over-at-Finheaven

Since no one would tell me how to change my username I tried to google it, came across this gem!

 

[Shouright]

Stats can certainly be telling.....but only part of the story. If all things were equal, they would probably be more critical, but all things aren't ever equal. Tom Brady had a top 10 rushing offense to help him and that changes defenses and how they scheme against you. When Tannehill has the 26th rushing offense behind him......all defenses do is sit back and wait for him to chuck it.

I think the real astonishing thing, is that there were 6 NFL teams with worse running attacks than we had!

Game-to-game this year, Tannehill's performance in terms of YPA and QB rating, and the performance of the running game in terms of number of rushes, rushing yards, and yards per carry, was unrelated.

In other words, Tannehill played no better or worse in terms of YPA and QB rating as a function of variation in the performance of the running game. His play in those areas was unrelated to how the running game functioned.

In theory it makes sense to believe that areas like these are related, but it isn't always true in reality.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

why is that delusional?

Because the assumption is that the only difference between NE (the division winner) and Miami is Brady vs Tannehill. That is delusional. WE WERE THE WORST PASS BLOCKING LINE IN THE LEAGUE AND THE 26TH RANKED RUSHING TEAM. Why the hell to posters on this message board keep ignoring the fact that this team had serious issues that are unrelated to the QB?

 

[Shouright]

And the difference in YPA being YAC not air yards. Tannehill's average air yards is higher than Brady. Tannehill's avg air yards per attempt is ABOVE AVERAGE.

He's in the 50th percentile. I'd hardly call that "above average."

Also, Brady had the highest percentage of sacks in the league within 2.5 seconds of the snap. Are we going give him one of the typical "Tannehill" excuses and say that his air YPA suffered because of his offensive line, or not?

I don't know whether it did or not. I just find it interesting that the excuses appear to be applied selectively.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

How is he delusional?

Why can't you say Tannehill wasn't great this year, WV is right if Miami had consistent above average qb play they'd be in the playoffs. Tannehill has shown it too against Pitt, NE and even a Cin. He just needs to do it more consistently.

See my other response.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Game-to-game this year, Tannehill's performance in terms of YPA and QB rating, and the performance of the running game in terms of number of rushes, rushing yards, and yards per carry, was unrelated.

In other words, Tannehill played no better or worse in terms of YPA and QB rating as a function of variation in the performance of the running game. His play in those areas was unrelated to how the running game functioned.

In theory it makes sense to believe that areas like these are related, but it isn't always true in reality.

Bogus analysis. Shows a continued lack of understanding of football and statistics.

 

[Shouright]

Because the assumption is that the only difference between NE (the division winner) and Miami is Brady vs Tannehill. That is delusional. WE WERE THE WORST PASS BLOCKING LINE IN THE LEAGUE AND THE 26TH RANKED RUSHING TEAM. Why the hell to posters on this message board keep ignoring the fact that this team had serious issues that are unrelated to the QB?

Probably because they are unrelated to the QB?

Where is the evidence, other than in theory, that Tannehill's performance was related to the offensive line's performance? For one, his performance didn't covary with sacks game-to-game, and he wasn't pressured any more than the average QB.

The difference between his overall completion percentage and his completion percentage when pressured wasn't any different from the league average.

Where is the evidence, other than in theory and in the subjective perceptions of a group of people who desperately want to see Tannehill succeed and could very well be biased because of it?

---------- Post added at 08:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------

Bogus analysis. Shows a continued lack of understanding of football and statistics.

Well as always, I'm happy to be enlightened by the analysis you deem to be more appropriate, but I have yet to see it. Is it coming sometime soon?

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

The reason Brady's percentage of sacks within 2.5 seconds was so high is that the refs are quick to blow the whistle on Brady. That stat you're quoting is measured on when the whistle blows. Nevermind that the sack compilation videos we've seen all clearly demonstrate that the number is objectively and demonstrably false when applied to Ryan Tannehill as he was actually on the ground and down within 2.5 seconds quite a lot.

This has already been pointed out to you. Once again, I leave it to my fellow posters to make the determination on whether you are trolling or simply incapable of reading.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

He's in the 50th percentile. I'd hardly call that "above average."

Of course you wouldn't because (even though it is true) it doesn't fit your narrative.

Also, Brady had the highest percentage of sacks in the league within 2.5 seconds of the snap. Are we going give him one of the typical "Tannehill" excuses and say that his air YPA suffered because of his offensive line, or not?

More bogus analysis. If Brady was sacked once and it was within 2.5 seconds of the snap, that would give him the highest % but would say NOTHING about sacks.

 

[Shouright]

Of course you wouldn't because (even though it is true) it doesn't fit your narrative.

Well please, then, enlighten us about how figures in the 50th percentile are above average. I'm ready to learn.

More bogus analysis. If Brady was sacked once and it was within 2.5 seconds of the snap, that would give him the highest % but would say NOTHING about sacks.

Once again, I'm ready to learn. Please, provide the appropriate analysis of the impact of sacks on Tannehill's play.

 

[roy_miami]

One interesting stat is all of the playoff QBs have a passer rating of at least 87 or higher and I believe Tannehill was right there until those last 2 games.

 

[nick1]

Lol at the idea of a running game no effect on how effective a passing game is. Watch some football

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

The reason Brady's percentage of sacks within 2.5 seconds was so high is that the refs are quick to blow the whistle on Brady. That stat you're quoting is measured on when the whistle blows. Nevermind that the sack compilation videos we've seen all clearly demonstrate that the number is objectively and demonstrably false when applied to Ryan Tannehill as he was actually on the ground and down within 2.5 seconds quite a lot.

This has already been pointed out to you. Once again, I leave it to my fellow posters to make the determination on whether you are trolling or simply incapable of reading.

Everyone one of his bogus replies has been refuted. That doesn't stop him from posting the same crap over and over. How liberating it must be to have no reservations about appearing foolish. You'd have the freedom to post whatever nonsense you want. You might even be willing to say that a moderately strong correlation makes two variables largely independent.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Well please, then, enlighten us about how figures in the 50th percentile are above average. I'm ready to learn.

Ready? Not likely, but what the hell, I'll try....... 3.8 > 3.74. Jesus, I can't believe that is even necessary.......

Once again, I'm ready to learn. Please, provide the appropriate analysis of the impact of sacks on Tannehill's play.

Already covered this dozens of times.