Ryan Tannehill is ranked #10 in Pro Football Focus Top 10 QB Rankings

[SkapePhin]

PFF's Top Ten Quarterbacks:

#1: Aaron Rodgers | Green Bay Packers | 92.7
#2: Drew Brees | New Orleans Saints | 89.5
#3: Ben Roethlisberger | Pittsburgh Steelers | 87.2
#4: Philip Rivers | San Diego Chargers | 85.6
#5: Peyton Manning | Denver Broncos | 85.3
#6: Tom Brady | New England Patriots | 83.7
#7: Tony Romo | Dallas Cowboys | 83.3
#8: Matt Ryan | Atlanta Falcons | 83
#9: Russell Wilson | Seattle Seahawks | 82.1
#10: Ryan Tannehill | Miami Dolphins | 80.2

Their Methodology:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/how-we-grade/

OUR RATING IS HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS RIGHT NOW
Not last season. Not two weeks ago. Right now. It is represented through a 1 to 100 scale and we use a weighted depreciation over the past two years with more weight given to recent games.

---

OUR GRADING SYSTEM IS CONCERNED WITH HOW A PLAYER PERFORMED ON A PARTICULAR PLAY, NOT THE OUTCOME OF THAT PLAY.

For example, if a quarterback hits a wide receiver perfectly in stride on a post route in between two defenders, and the receiver drops the ball, it goes down in the box score as an incompletion. But in our system, that quarterback receives a positive grade for making a great throw. His statistics should not be punished based on the fact that his receiver dropped a pass.

Our detailed analysis starts by adding to the base statistics with critical information, including the depth of the drop by the quarterback, the intended and actual point of attack on a run play, and the hang-time of punts and kickoffs on special teams.

We then add to this with a level of detail that surpasses any other data source: the grading of each player on a play-by-play basis to judge how each player has executed his assignment on a given play.

This in-depth grading allows us to judge player performance in every facet of the game before compiling individual plays into an overall grade for each player by game, by season, and beyond. As a result, we can show things like how two edge defenders may have the same overall grade, but one is a significantly better run defender while the other is significantly more disruptive as a pass-rusher.

 

[phinasota]

Oh nooooooooooow everyone in the media is going to hop on the tanne fan bandwagon. .. and talk about how they all knew he was special. I seeeeeeee

Ps. That's for the media bro, not you

 

[BlueFin]

Would only trade him for Rogers on that list.....and that is somewhat questionable due to Rogers age.

Everyone else is either too old....or I just like Tannehill better in some cases.

That doesn't't mean I rank him #2 for this coming season....but if I was GM of Team in an expansion draft.......

 

[Phinatic8u]

No Luck?

 

[420DAN]

Luck not in the top 10? Wow.

 

[dolpns13]

Oh no. Where Are the haters

 

[SkapePhin]

No Luck?

I think under their methodology Luck has had too many bad throws that should have been intercepted but weren't. So the results of the play don't really matter, it is graded by a team of analysts as a bad play and fits into their grade. So in this regard, their grading system would tend to favor a player like Tannehill who relies on safer throws.

 

[SkapePhin]

Oh no. Where Are the haters

It's not QBR, it's their own grading system. They have a team of analysts that look at every play by a player and grade the play not based on the outcome. They give each play a grade of -2 to +2. It is a qualitative approach that may have some similarities to QBR, but appears to be more detailed and in-depth. Each play grade is reviewed by several analysts before ultimately being reviewed by the "Pro Coach Network and their 400 years of combined NFL and college coaching experience."

See more here:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/how-we-grade/

 

[420DAN]

If this is based on their own arbitrary bs like everyone else then luck should definitely be there.

I'm sure someone could find a way to make almost any qb whatever number they want on a list using stats.

 

[DuderinoN703]

Where the hell is Matt Moore?

 

[SkapePhin]

If this is based on their own arbitrary bs like everyone else then luck should definitely be there.

I'm sure someone could find a way to make almost any qb whatever number they want on a list using stats.

How do you know? Have you seen every single play by Luck, or just the highlights like everyone else here?

Their approach seems pretty comprehensive having several different analysts review the same plays to ensure as much consensus as possible, before then going through a 3rd party of coaches to review the plays.

As I mentioned above, I think the thing that helps Tannehill here is that he tends to make much safer throws than Luck, so by extension he would have less negative plays because he attempts less difficult throws than Luck. This is also only looking at the past 2 years and places a greater weight on more recent games.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

I think under their methodology Luck has had too many bad throws that should have been intercepted but weren't. So the results of the play don't really matter, it is graded by a team of analysts as a bad play and fits into their grade. So in this regard, their grading system would tend to favor a player like Tannehill who relies on safer throws.

In that case Drew Brees is too high. Actually anyone claiming that it is based off of a players talent "right now" Drew Brees is way too high at #2. Same goes for Rivers.

I posted this article in the VIP but here's a quick glance at the chart used. Most of this chart is self explanatory. The second column tallies the total number of interceptable passes a quarterback threw. Only interceptable passes that were the quarterback’s fault were included. The third column tracks the number of official interceptions a quarterback had that weren’t his fault.

 

[hoops]

Agreed brees is too high off of 2014

 

[SkapePhin]

In that case Drew Brees is too high. Actually anyone claiming that it is based off of a players talent "right now" Drew Brees is way too high at #2. Same goes for Rivers.

I posted this article in the VIP but here's a quick glance at the chart used. Most of this chart is self explanatory. The second column tallies the total number of interceptable passes a quarterback threw. Only interceptable passes that were the quarterback’s fault were included. The third column tracks the number of official interceptions a quarterback had that weren’t his fault.

Are you also looking at the other sign of the coin? Good passes that could have led to TDs but were dropped? Those get a good grade under the methodology but would not be seen in statistics. It could be that Brees had a ton of great passes that were dropped in addition to these INTable balls that were dropped by defenders.

I haven't watched many Saints games the past 2 years to make any kind of assessment on it. All I know is that PFF has a team of qualified analysts review every one of these plays and I doubt any of these are Dolphin or Aggie fans. So what incentive would they have to fluff Tannehill's grades?

It is what is. People will have issues with any grading system.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

Are you also looking at the other sign of the coin? Good passes that could have led to TDs but were dropped? Those get a good grade under the methodology but would not be seen in statistics. It could be that Brees had a ton of great passes that were dropped in addition to these INTable balls that were dropped by defenders.

I haven't watched many Saints games the past 2 years to make any kind of assessment on it. All I know is that PFF has a team of qualified analysts review every one of these plays and I doubt any of these are Dolphin or Aggie fans. So what incentive would they have to fluff Tannehill's grades?

It is what is. People will have issues with any grading system.

I never said they fluffed Tannehill's grades. It's been noted by many the high amount of passes and TD's missed were a result of the receiving corp last year. Putting Brees at #2 and leaving Luck out of any top 10 in ranking current QB's is ludicrous. I don't give a **** what their algorithm is.