Ryan Tannehill Analytics Profile Video.

[Wildbill3]

Actually it never becomes irrelevant. The "large" sample size of which you're suggesting would be a playing career of around 200 years. That's when all of those things could fully normalize. But when we're talking about taking an NFL career of 4 years and trying to elongate that through a collegiate career of 2 years and not collecting the data to elongate it through the high school years like the Author assumes is needed for his analysis ... it is the very definition of not enough data. This is the classic "too small" sample size. Clearly 4 years is not going to show any normalization of variances in crucial factors such as offensive line protection, presence of a run game, and average time to throw. It's like comparing 1st and 10 performance with 3rd and long performance ... it's apples to oranges.

I don't want to put words in awsi's mouth, but I do agree with his approach of looking at a Qb's YPA to determine how effective a QB and system are. and this last season when tannehill was clicking it was borderline elite, and as high as it had been for his career (from what I remember...)

 

[Digital]

I don't want to put words in awsi's mouth, but I do agree with his approach of looking at a Qb's YPA to determine how effective a QB and system are. and this last season when tannehill was clicking it was borderline elite, and as high as it had been for his career (from what I remember...)

You quoted me, so I'll respond. :)

I am also a big fan of YPA if you are going to use a single stat. The problem is that the Author's analysis didn't use a single stat, he used a half dozen stats but crafted a very narrow swath of information, then tried to extrapolate from there. We see the failing. Of course, I would never spend time watching a 25 minute video on a player's YPA, when I could just look it up. When he professes a full analytics, and only brings this to the table ... it is extremely disappointing.

And as you mentioned Wildbill, when you look at YPA, Tannehill looked stellar. When you look at the stable data, after the initial 5 game learning curve, it looks extremely good. But the Author didn't even bother noting the new offense, learning curve, or adjustment period.

 

[Jerrysanders]

It's not. Jerry has a better eye than sowrong ever will.

Thanks Hoops, for some reason we have ppl on here stating I'm anti Tannehill by pointing out flaws in his stats , but Ignore the fact that I post more pro Tannehill articles than any of them.

 

[Jerrysanders]

You quoted me, so I'll respond. :)

I am also a big fan of YPA if you are going to use a single stat. The problem is that the Author's analysis didn't use a single stat, he used a half dozen stats but crafted a very narrow swath of information, then tried to extrapolate from there. We see the failing. Of course, I would never spend time watching a 25 minute video on a player's YPA, when I could just look it up. When he professes a full analytics, and only brings this to the table ... it is extremely disappointing.

And as you mentioned Wildbill, when you look at YPA, Tannehill looked stellar. When you look at the stable data, after the initial 5 game learning curve, it looks extremely good. But the Author didn't even bother noting the new offense, learning curve, or adjustment period.

Its much better to use A/YA (better indicator of QB performance)

 

[nick1]

Its much better to use A/YA (better indicator of QB performance)

I'm Sorry But what is that. air yard average?

 

[Jerrysanders]

Actually it never becomes irrelevant. The "large" sample size of which you're suggesting would be a playing career of around 200 years. That's when all of those things could fully normalize. But when we're talking about taking an NFL career of 4 years and trying to elongate that through a collegiate career of 2 years and not collecting the data to elongate it through the high school years like the Author assumes is needed for his analysis ... it is the very definition of not enough data. This is the classic "too small" sample size. Clearly 4 years is not going to show any normalization of variances in crucial factors such as offensive line protection, presence of a run game, and average time to throw. It's like comparing 1st and 10 performance with 3rd and long performance ... it's apples to oranges.

200 years no, sample size is the number of observations included (QBs in this case) and again were talking about 1969 so QBs with only a 3 year career will be included. Actually 4 years can show normalization of all of those crucial factors depending on the sample size, (bigger sample more qbs with Tannehills situation) the author is reserving judgement on Tannehill for this year which will be his 6th season.

 

[Jerrysanders]

I'm Sorry But what is that. air yard average?

Adjusted Yards per attempt.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

Its much better to use A/YA (better indicator of QB performance)

As WildBill3 pointed out for YPA, it's an attribute and result of the system and how the offense performs within in it. And just like YPA isn't an individual statistic to the QB, that case is also true for AYA. Reason being, AYA faults or assigns the QB for every sack and that's a completely inaccurate assessment.

 

[SCLSU Mud Dogs]

As WildBill3 pointed out for YPA, it's an attribute and result of the system and how the offense performs within in it. And just like YPA isn't an individual statistic to the QB, that case is also true for AYA. Reason being, AYA faults or assigns the QB for every sack and that's a completely inaccurate assessment.

Wait a second, are you suggesting that the offensive line, the unit responsible for protecting the quarterback, is responsible for 1 OR MORE of the 200 sacks when Tannehill was quarterback? Utter blasphemy!

 

[Jerrysanders]

Yes A/YA includes
An advanced statistic in football that quantifies the contributions of a quarterbacks passing game by including five key passing statistics;
- passing yards
- passing touchdowns
- interceptions thrown
- times sacked
- yards lost to being sacked.

Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt - ANY/A = (Passing Yards + 20 * Passing Touchdowns – 45 * Interceptions – Sack Yards Lost)/(Pass Attempts plus Sacks)
per https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/player-adjusted-net-yards-per-attempt-statistics/2016/

https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/player-passing-yards-per-attempt-statistics/2016/

 

[Sons Of Shula]

Yes A/YA includes
An advanced statistic in football that quantifies the contributions of a quarterbacks passing game by including five key passing statistics;
- passing yards
- passing touchdowns
- interceptions thrown
- times sacked
- yards lost to being sacked.

Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt - ANY/A = (Passing Yards + 20 * Passing Touchdowns – 45 * Interceptions – Sack Yards Lost)/(Pass Attempts plus Sacks)
per https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/player-adjusted-net-yards-per-attempt-statistics/2016/

https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/player-passing-yards-per-attempt-statistics/2016/

How the **** is "times sacked" and yards lost to being sacked" a key passing statistic assigned to the QB?

Please don't attempt to answer. It's a rhetorical question with the obvious conclusion of "It's not".

 

[Jerrysanders]

How the **** is "times sacked" and yards lost to being sacked" a key passing statistic assigned to the QB?

Please don't attempt to answer. It's a rhetorical question with the obvious conclusion of "It's not".

Um Sacks play such a small percentage in the formula its not even worth mentioning, Adjusted net yards per attempt has a huge correlation with points scored and whether you like the stat or hate it the facts still remain.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

Um Sacks play such a small percentage in the formula its not even worth mentioning, Adjusted net yards per attempt has a huge correlation with points scored and whether you like the stat or hate it the facts still remain.

So what's the point then?

"Interceptions thrown" is also a subjective statistic which can only be determined properly by film and who is truly at fault.

So now this "fabulous" indicator and metric for QBs simply hinges on passing yards and touchdowns. Yet, lo and behold, passing yards can also be enhanced or hindered by OC scheme.

All in all, it's all worthless piles of numbers without film study and proper context that is extracted from tape.

 

[Jerrysanders]

So what's the point then?

"Interceptions thrown" is also a subjective statistic which can only be determined properly by film.

I was with u on the Sacks but no Interceptions are an Extremely good indicator of a QB play. Data proves Elite QBs throw fewer Interceptions, the law of averages normalize interceptions thrown due to errors done by wr etc, thats something every QB deals with.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

I was with u on the Sacks but no Interceptions are an Extremely good indicator of a QB play. Data proves Elite QBs throw fewer Interceptions, the law of averages normalize interceptions thrown due to errors done by wr etc, thats something every QB deals with.

Some more than others. Depends on if the offense has a new coach, new OC, breaking in a new scheme(s), getting familiar with new receiver(s). It doesn't balance out for QBs who have had the luxury to have played with the same coaches, schemes, and players for a particularly longer period of time.

And here you are talking about averages yet use "elite" for comparison which is extremely rare and certainly not the norm with the exception of 2 to 3, maybe 4 organizations out of 32 who happen-chance to land one every few decades or so.