Wow, where to start?
OK, this guy took a 5 minute analysis and squeezed it into only 25 minutes! Wow!
He mentions the people around Tannehill at least a dozen times ... he says how he has good receivers, which is a fair point, but he never once mentions that Tannehill had a horrible OL. That has been his team's defining statistic, and if you're doing an analysis that includes his teammates, it's THE most important part ... but hey, gloss over it if all you want to do is rationalize your point right? Most sacks of a rookie QB, not mentioned, check. Most sacks of a QB in his first two years, not mentioned, check. Most sacks of a QB in his first 3 years, not mentioned check. Top 10 worst protecting OL in the NFL history, not mentioned, check. Most sacks of a QB in his first 4 years, not mentioned, check. Suuuuuuuuuuure you took the team into account .... wink wink. Maybe your analysis should have mentioned this ... and then looked at his analytics for how fast he got the ball out, which improved from his rookie year and were actually good, because he was getting the ball out quickly. Yeah, but those stats don't rationalize your "analytics" so let's just throw those out right? The narrative is that Tannehill = bad, so why clutter it with knowledge that contradicts your point?
This one is very funny, but follow along. The Author can only find some stats for Tannehill's HIGH SCHOOL career, but rather than tell us the stats he found, he does two things: 1) Tells us that the most important stats are TD/INT and Completion %, which he couldn't find, and 2) then he blames Tannehill for not having good stats because the Author cannot find them. Umm, that's both circular reasoning and very unsound logic.
He shows the metrics for average NFL starting QB's collegiate performance (26) and NFL Pro Bowl threshold QB's collegiate performance (80), and then shows Tannehill's metric for that collegiate time period (89) which well exceeds the NFL Pro Bowl threshold, so that should be a good thing right? No, instead the Author decides to use the Author's inability to locate Tannehill's High School statistics to somehow infer that they must be bad if he cannot find them (wtf?) and then suggest that QB's that do not meet his metric in High School but do meet his metric in College tend to not be good NFL QB's? So let me get this straight ... you cannot find his HS stats so you ASSUME they are bad, INFER they suggest a negative consequence, but the only thing you are really basing your determination that he isn't good enough on is that he exceeded your metric for Pro Bowl NFL QB's ... so he was BETTER than the threshold for Pro Bowl NFL QB's so your inference is that he is not good enough? Ummm, that's biased analysis son, you need to learn more about how analytics works.
He resorts to the knee-jerk QBR and QB Ratings ... and calls it analytics ... well, if these are analytics, they're what we refer to as a starting point, not any sort of in-depth analytics. Again, use a holistic review when evaluating a position. This isn't baseball, where stats are very conducive to representing individual performance as at any given time there is only 1 batter. In the NFL, there are always 11 players on the other team and you require interaction with the 10 teammates of yours to effectively compete against the opposing 11. In Baseball, when I'm batting it is a defense that is not designed to stop my team, but only stop me, with minimal variances for possible men on base. It is the pitcher vs. me with an infield and outfield set vs. MY scouting report. When I'm in the field most transactions do not involve me (unless I'm a pitcher or catcher), so the few that do are a very small set of similar situations, ground ball, fly ball, bunt, double play, rinse and repeat. This makes for great individual stats. NFL Football requires more.
He never once mentioned the absence of a run game playing a part in how defenses covered him but he pounded home how the improvement Tannehill is making is all because of the WR's. Did he mention the TE situation? Ummm no, doesn't fit his narrative. According to this guy, Dak Prescott and Ryan Tannehill have the same offense around them ... sorry, but I disagree.
And another thing, don't stretch your video's out so darn much. We didn't get the first word of an analysis until the 3:00 mark, and you didn't even start talking about Tannehill in the NFL until like minute 8:00. Stop wasting people's time with this drivel. There are a lot of stats out there to be had ... use them!
This guy simply doesn't understand analytics. He found a few stats he likes and he tries to jump on them, the problem is that he doesn't even interpret them properly in many cases. He extrapolates far too much out of some, and he completely ignores major contributing factors. I hope someone one day takes him aside and explains football and the vitally important role that analytics can play when used correctly. But hey, don't just spew your narrative and throw a few stats in that fit your analysis ... actually use the information available and build an objective analytical analysis. What you've done here is basically garbage.
