Ryan Tannehill Analytics Profile Video.

[Sons Of Shula]

You called numbers useless obviously there not self-explanatory in your case; actually based on the arguments of certain posters on this forum they also don't get analytics.

Concerning football and specifically in this case they're useless when used alone, useless without context, and useless when unsupported by film.

We get it. We really do. Most fully understand what the analytics have concluded here but it still doesn't mean it's a sound argument being presented. Breaking down football and/or it's players cannot be done thru numbers alone.

 

[Digital]

For those of us who cannot see the now deleted quote, here is the information of the post it was quoting:

Jerrysanders, post: 7410091, member: 128559

I'm going to assume you wrote something. Based on what Travis34 said, you clearly tried to respond, but either you thought better of what you wrote or the moderators saw fit to delete it for being a personal attack or something. Regardless, we disagree on this video and our assessment of Tannehill.

IF you are going to do any sort of analytics on a QB, it is beyond comprehension that you fail to stress the change in coaching staff and offensive scheme. Tannehill has had 4 sets of coaches in 4 years, with very little continuity. But, it is the current coaching staff that merits the most close scrutiny. With any transition you will see an initial learning period, followed by more stable data once the team has adjusted to the new offense. The Author ignores this. He lumps ALL of Tannehill's 2016 stats into one undivided bucket. Anybody knows that is a poor analysis. The more prudent thing to do, and the way any NFL analyst (and I mean analyst, not reporter or blogger) would do it is to look at the break points.

With Tannehill, we see a break point after 5 games. He threw very few INT's after that point, and his metrics, even by the Author's standards, were stellar. The next break point, obviously, would be the injury which ended his season. But yeah ... why note that, because it would show clearly that once the Dolphins had gotten a handle on the offense that the QB position was performing at a very very high level. If Tannehill plays the 2017 season at a pace similar to how he played the 2016 season after the first 5 games ... we are looking at a lock to make the Pro Bowl. I'm expecting him to be close to that good. It will be interesting to revisit this Author's thoughts at that point.

 

[Jerrysanders]

Concerning football and specifically in this case they're useless when used alone, useless without context, and useless when unsupported by film.

We get it. We really do. Most fully understand what the analytics have concluded here but it still doesn't mean it's a sound argument being presented.

Actually they can be used alone depending on what question your asking; If that question is has Tannehill been an elite QB, than analytics can determine that without looking at any game film if its good analytical data. Trying to determine how well Tannehill reads defenses or what plays he executes the best those are questions game film is better equipped to answer.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

I'm going to assume you wrote something. Based on what Travis34 said, you clearly tried to respond, but either you thought better of what you wrote or the moderators saw fit to delete it for being a personal attack or something. Regardless, we disagree on this video and our assessment of Tannehill.

IF you are going to do any sort of analytics on a QB, it is beyond comprehension that you fail to stress the change in coaching staff and offensive scheme. Tannehill has had 4 sets of coaches in 4 years, with very little continuity. But, it is the current coaching staff that merits the most close scrutiny. With any transition you will see an initial learning period, followed by more stable data once the team has adjusted to the new offense. The Author ignores this. He lumps ALL of Tannehill's 2016 stats into one undivided bucket. Anybody knows that is a poor analysis. The more prudent thing to do, and the way any NFL analyst (and I mean analyst, not reporter or blogger) would do it is to look at the break points.

With Tannehill, we see a break point after 5 games. He threw very few INT's after that point, and his metrics, even by the Author's standards, were stellar. The next break point, obviously, would be the injury which ended his season. But yeah ... why note that, because it would show clearly that once the Dolphins had gotten a handle on the offense that the QB position was performing at a very very high level. If Tannehill plays the 2017 season at a pace similar to how he played the 2016 season after the first 5 games ... we are looking at a lock to make the Pro Bowl. I'm expecting him to be close to that good. It will be interesting to revisit this Author's thoughts at that point.

FWIW, his response appears in the last sentence of your post that he erroneously quoted. It's this:

Data shows elite QBs produce regardless of Talent around them.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

Actually they can be used alone depending on what question your asking; If that question is has Tannehill been an elite QB, than analytics can determine that without looking at any game film if its good analytical data. Trying to determine how well Tannehill reads defenses or what plays he executes the best those are questions game film is better equipped to answer.

Who the **** around here is saying Tannehill is an elite QB? And why the hell would you need analytics to answer such a rudimentary question?

 

[Digital]

Um Digital your arguments about offensive Line play, sack total over 4 years, coaching and lack of TE plays implies you don't get the analytics he used.

LOL. Yes, I do understand the analysis. It's an attempt to lengthen the data through a three tiered analysis that ignores many significant contributing factors in an attempt to streamline an elongated process.

This is what is called "little data" and he is trying to say that normalized over time there is some magical QB talent that wins out. Sometimes that's true, but not all the time. When you attempt to normalize an offense with multiple All-Pros and numerous Pro Bowlers vs. an offense that has zero All-Pros and only 1 Pro Bowler ... it renders the Author's point obviously skewed.

Do you honestly think that I do not understand his analysis? Is that even a real question?

 

[Digital]

FWIW, his response appears in the last sentence of your post that he erroneously quoted. It's this:

Thanks SOS.

 

[SCLSU Mud Dogs]

I think it's really funny when somebody posts a thread like this and has no problem shoving their viewpoints down somebody else's throat but when the shovel is pointed the other direction, they get all high and mighty.

1. Analytics are useless without context. If I tell you a story about Fred, but you don't know who the **** Fred is, there is no context. Or in football terms, a stat sheet shows a player fumbled. You say to yourself, "hold onto the ****ing ball, dude!" But if you look into the context, you'd see that the center stepped on the QBs foot and the handoff to the RB was muddied.

2. I feel like PFF has breeded a culture of super nerds who like to hide behind stats until somebody fashions the stats in a certain way to refute the original argument. Which then goes back to point 1 of context.

3. Measure, in analytics, the general developmental sluggishness of Tannehill under "mastermind" Joe Philbin. Or the general psychological affect of being sacked 184 times. Or for further CONTEXT, change the variable of the defense being in the top 10. How many more opportunities does the offense have and thus, how much are the numbers accelerated?

In the end, Jerry, refer to the below photo and have a nice day.

 

[Jerrysanders]

Who the **** around here is saying Tannehill is an elite QB? And why the hell would you need analytics to answer such a rudimentary question?

Plenty of PPL on this forum believe Tannehill is an elite QB if they thought he was an average or slighly above average QB then there wouldn't be so much backlash every time someone mentions any flaw he has. Analytics is not subject to bias opinions the way game film analysis is, so it might be the best way to answer such a rudimentary question.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

I feel like PFF has bred a culture of super nerds who like to hide behind stats until somebody fashions the stats in a certain way to refute the original argument.

Amen. That and the misinformation which comes from those trying to oversimplify the game with box score conclusions (aka fantasy football analysis)

 

[Sons Of Shula]

Plenty of PPL on this forum believe Tannehill is an elite QB if they thought he was an average or slighly above average QB then there wouldn't be so much backlash every time someone mentions any flaw he has. Analytics is not subject to bias opinions the way game film analysis is, so it might be the best way to answer such a rudimentary question.

No sir, there are not plenty. There's barely a few, if any at all. That's also quite an agenda a gap in classifications going from average, and slightly above average, to elite.

Analytics and it's processes are very much subject bias. Many conclusions based on numbers alone are riddled with paradoxes and other errors. Game film analysis is not some wishy-washy process when you understand what you are watching and looking for. Now projecting talent, etc. from tape is laden with opinions and bias, but film doesn't lie.

 

[Jerrysanders]

LOL. Yes, I do understand the analysis. It's an attempt to lengthen the data through a three tiered analysis that ignores many significant contributing factors in an attempt to streamline an elongated process.

This is what is called "little data" and he is trying to say that normalized over time there is some magical QB talent that wins out. Sometimes that's true, but not all the time. When you attempt to normalize an offense with multiple All-Pros and numerous Pro Bowlers vs. an offense that has zero All-Pros and only 1 Pro Bowler ... it renders the Author's point obviously skewed.

Do you honestly think that I do not understand his analysis? Is that even a real question?

Well you definitely sound like you know more about data analysis then the average person but this is little Data and Big Data ( its better if you have both) but when you mention offensive line and TE play, you have to understand how all of that becomes irrelevant with such a Large sample size on QBs, that means QBs who's had bad wrs,OL play,bad coaches,bad defenses, trouble with the law, still all meet the threshold he's looking for ; with all that being said he's still was unwilling to discount Tannehill even though his NFL career has just been average and is reserving judgement for the 2017. (he may be optimistic because of his college production).

 

[Jerrysanders]

No sir, there are not plenty. There's barely a few, if any at all. That's also quite an agenda a gap in classifications going from average, and slightly above average, to elite.

Analytics and it's processes are very much subject bias. Many conclusions based on numbers alone are riddled with paradoxes and other errors. Game film analysis is not some wishy-washy process when you understand what you are watching and looking for. Now projecting talent, etc. from tape is laden with opinions and bias, but film doesn't lie.

Ex If you tell me Eli Apple has All Pro potential based on the game tape and I say I didn't watch his tape but every single CB in the history of the NFL has an arm length of 32 inches(this is a real stat) and Mr Apple only has a 31 inch arm length. My analysis came from the statistical history of the NFL something my bias can't effect but you judging how well he jams a wr or how smooth his back peddle is 100% subject to bias. Yea analytics in general is subject to bias but this is analytics based on every single QB going back to 1969 its either true or untrue.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Plenty of PPL on this forum believe Tannehill is an elite QB if they thought he was an average or slighly above average QB then there wouldn't be so much backlash every time someone mentions any flaw he has. Analytics is not subject to bias opinions the way game film analysis is, so it might be the best way to answer such a rudimentary question.

Then it should be easy to find posts by people claiming he is elite, right? I'll hang up and wait.....

 

[lurking]

Plenty of PPL on this forum believe Tannehill is an elite QB if they thought he was an average or slighly above average QB then there wouldn't be so much backlash every time someone mentions any flaw he has. Analytics is not subject to bias opinions the way game film analysis is, so it might be the best way to answer such a rudimentary question.

Do us all a favor and look up the posters that you say that he's elite, then PM them so that you could have this private conversation amongst yourselves. So posters like myself who think Tannehill is just above average with an elite arm don't have to listen to this drivel.