Tannehill

[Dolfanalyst]

Very, very few quarterbacks are more than 1 standard deviation away from the mean in passer rating. Are their differences insignificant? Tannehill, for instance, is solidly within 1 standard deviation. Brady just barely squeaks past the 1 standard deviation limit. Why are we even having this 9-page discussion if everyone's pretty much the same?

Well, now you're talking about an area (QB play) that, based on its correlation with winning, warrants a much finer distinction than one standard deviation, where much smaller variation among players has much greater impact.  There is no such correlation between offensive line play and winning.

The standard deviation benchmark I was using was generous, really.  Based on the correlation between measurable offensive line play and winning, as well as the correlation between measurable offensive line play and quarterback play, one could actually argue that the variation in offensive line play across the league is virtually meaningless.

On those grounds alone, it really makes little sense to propose that the Dolphins' offensive line is at fault for anything.  It would have to be the five standard deviations from the mean you referenced facetiously to be!

[EKnight]

Why are we even having this 9-page discussion if everyone's pretty much the same?

Because Tannehill sucks and Dolphins fans continue to grasp blindly at the offensive line as a scapegoat.

[Run Ricky Run]

Because Tannehill sucks and Dolphins fans continue to grasp blindly at the offensive line as a scapegoat.

He doesn't suck but he will never be elite. It is similar to Henne will be great he just needs a number 1 wr.

[Dolfanalyst]

He doesn't suck but he will never be elite. It is similar to Henne will be great he just needs a number 1 wr.

The thing about those arguments (offensive line, number-one wide receiver, etc.) is that they're unfalsifiable.  No one can confirm or refute them.

Similarly, the common belief that David Carr's career was destroyed by the number of times he was sacked early on is also unfalsifiable.  The implication is that he would've been a great QB had he not been sacked so much, but we really don't know that.  It's entirely possible that his career would've been similar no matter what the circumstances.

There have been 54 QBs drafted in the first round since 1994.  26 of them have been failures.  That's a 48% failure rate.  Virtually a coin flip.

The other 28 QBs drafted in the first-round since 1994 have had varying levels of success.  Not all of them have become the stars their teams hoped they'd be when they drafted them.

Unless we have extreme and extraordinary evidence that a first-round QB is suffering due to his surroundings (and in Tannehill's case we do not, as I've illustrated convincingly in this thread in my opinion), then based on logic and probability alone, the default explanation for that QB's suffering should be that he's simply yet another first-round QB who very likely is not the star his team (and his fans) had hoped he would be.

[fyo]

^ That's a remarkable bit of circular logic. Congratulations.

[Dolfanalyst]

That's a remarkable bit of circular logic. Congratulations.

I'd appreciate it if you could politely expound on what you mean, and then we could discuss it further.

If on the other hand we're going to devolve toward rude and sarcastic comments, I'm not interested.  There's no reason why any of these conversations have to head that direction, and you certainly won't see that I'm contributing in that way.

There is a lot of emotion surrounding one's favorite football team, especially if that team is doing poorly, and the urge might be to displace that emotion onto the other folks here (i.e., take it out on them).

If the forum is to run smoothly, function in an open manner in which people feel free to speak their minds, and be a place where greater knowledge and information is obtained, then people need to resist that urge.

I'll certainly do my part.

[CF DolFan]

He doesn't suck but he will never be elite. It is similar to Henne will be great he just needs a number 1 wr.

You keep sayng this but I can't think of one person or talking head that doesn't think Tannehill is much better than Henne. In fact ... it's pretty easy to see that barring one successful season for Pennington that Tannehill has been out best QB by a long shot.  I would love for him to have the support Pennington had to see what he can do.  I know he needs to step up but he also needs to have an O-line that doesn't have him flinching on every drop back.

For people who think you have to have an elite QB I wonder what exactly that means. I see Brady, Rodgers, Manning(s), Big Ben, and Drew Brees as Elite QBs. Considering some of them are on the down side that is even debatable but you have a few more possibly elite in Luck, Newton, Russel but they have yet to establish themselves long term. Either way only about 20 to maybe 25% of the league have elite qbs and some of them don't have supporting cast to win. If being elite was the only way then the payoffs would be predictable and they never are.

[Dolfanalyst]

You keep sayng this but I can't think of one person or talking head that doesn't think Tannehill is much better than Henne. In fact ... it's pretty easy to see that barring one successful season for Pennington that Tannehill has been out best QB by a long shot.  I would love for him to have the support Pennington had to see what he can do.  I know he needs to step up but he also needs to have an O-line that doesn't have him flinching on every drop back.

For people who think you have to have an elite QB I wonder what exactly that means. I see Brady, Rodgers, Manning(s), Big Ben, and Drew Brees as Elite QBs. Considering some of them are on the down side that is even debatable but you have a few more possibly elite in Luck, Newton, Russel but they have yet to establish themselves long term. Either way only about 20 to maybe 25% of the league have elite qbs and some of them don't have supporting cast to win. If being elite was the only way then the payoffs would be predictable and they never are.

What support did Pennington have in 2008 that Tannehill does not?

Before you answer, please realize that Pennington played for the Dolphins in 2008 in a way very similar to how he had previously in his career, with a different team.

If you're referencing the Dolphins' current offensive line, also be aware that there are five (and other) offensive lines in the league that were rated more poorly in the area of pass blocking in 2015 than the Dolphins' offensive line.

Those offensive lines are Seattle's, Arizona's, San Diego's, Kansas City's, and New England's.  Note the quarterbacks on those teams, and how they performed in 2015.

If the ratings of those teams' pass blocking are considered valid, then those QBs must've done something to overcome their offensive lines that Ryan Tannehill did not.  Does Ryan Tannehill not deserve criticism on those grounds?

[CF DolFan]

What support did Pennington have in 2008 that Tannehill does not?

Before you answer, please realize that Pennington played for the Dolphins in 2008 in a way very similar to how he had previously in his career, with a different team.

If you're referencing the Dolphins' current offensive line, also be aware that there are five (and other) offensive lines in the league that were rated more poorly in the area of pass blocking in 2015 than the Dolphins' offensive line.

Those offensive lines are Seattle's, Arizona's, San Diego's, Kansas City's, and New England's.  Note the quarterbacks on those teams, and how they performed in 2015.

If the ratings of those teams' pass blocking are considered valid, then those QBs must've done something to overcome their offensive lines that Ryan Tannehill did not.  Does Ryan Tannehill not deserve criticism on those grounds?

First of all Brady is one of the best to have ever played so you can take him out of the equation and Wilson, Rivers, and Palmer are better QBs to this point. None of them started out with a crappy O-line to get to where they are now. I'd aslo argue regardless of stats that Arizaona has a much better O-line.

Outside of an o-line, the 2008 Dolphins had a top 10 defense and Ricky and Ronnie who had to always be accounted for. With all of that Penny still couldn't get it done so we introduced the Wildcat to put some points on the board. While I don't see Tanny as the next Tom Brady or Dan Marino I think he would have faired better than noodle arm Pennington in that same situation. He has proven that he can dink and dunk with the best of them but he can also hit the out pattern that neither Fiedler or Penny could ever do. This season helped him to inprove the deep ball. Again ... all most of us ask it just once let him play behind an O-line before we cut his head off.

[fyo]

I'd appreciate it if you could politely expound on what you mean, and then we could discuss it further.

Passive aggressive comments aside, I'd be happy to, in case it wasn't obvious. (Sorry, that's two passive aggressive comments of my own .)

You state than the 28 non-failure QB's drafted in the first round have had varying levels of success. This is obviously and objectively true.

You then proceed to use this to argue that any single QB who is not seeing the greatest of success is at fault himself, since history has shown that quarterbacks "naturally" have various levels of success. This is a claim with no statistical or logical basis provided (feel free to supply it, though) and relies on an unstated (but required) argument that the varying levels of success are inherently "internal" in nature, that is, the quarterbacks fault.

One might argue that the line of reasoning is not circular in nature as much as it simply relies on an unproven hypothesis.

Let me restate your argument using

A measurement of some property of A of a population P is distributed according to some distribution D. (Success of non-failure quarterbacks chosen in the first round varies).

A(P) -> D

A measurement of A for a specific member of P, P0, returns a result that is X.

A(P0) = X

Your argument now goes: The value X is due to the inherent nature of P0.

However, at no point has it been established that the distribution D is the result of an internal property of the population P or its individual members. The only thing established is that measurements of the property A result in a distribution D when looking at P.

Thus, at best, you could argue: The value of X is due to the inherent nature of D.

This doesn't bring us anywhere, since that is just closes the circle with the original  A(P) -> D.

Take P to be a bunch of coins and A to be the number of times heads turns up after 100 flips. D is then the familiar binomial distribution.

Your claim amounts to saying that one coin that turned up 50 heads is inherently different than a coin than turned up heads 90 times. That the coin is, effectively, weighted.

In the case of NFL players, there's certainly a "weight" (skill level), but that's the very thing we're trying to establish with our candidate (Tannehill). You cannot do that simply by pointing to the distribution.

[Rich]

What support did Pennington have in 2008 that Tannehill does not?

That 2008 team ran the ball a lot more.

In fact, before the Dolphins rolled out the Wildcat, here are Pennington's numbers.

36 of 63, 57% completion, less than 6 YPA, 2 TD and 1 INT with a QB rating hovering around the 70s.

And then when teams figured out the Wildcat and that Pennington has trouble throwing past 10 yards with any inkling of velocity, the entire offense got shutdown (see Baltimore Ravens).

[Rich]

The thing about those arguments (offensive line, number-one wide receiver, etc.) is that they're unfalsifiable.  No one can confirm or refute them.

No one can confirm or refute that Tannehill may do better behind an average or above average offensive line because he has never played behind an average or above average offensive line.

Yet you seem to be willing to do so.

If you are going to rely on analytics, objectivity should be consistent. You shouldn't pick and choose when you want to be objective about something and when you don't.

It seems to me that you have made up your mind about Tannehill and so you pick and choose data points that seem to back up your hypothesis versus simply using the data to form a hypothesis. Operating in this manner typically makes one miss the forest for the trees.

[Rich]

If the forum is to run smoothly

Sorry, but... you should be the last person to go there.

[Dolfanalyst]

No one can confirm or refute that Tannehill may do better behind an average or above average offensive line because he has never played behind an average or above average offensive line.

Yet you seem to be willing to do so.

Actually, I'm not.  What I'm saying, rather, is that there is no quantitative evidence to suggest he would, and the only quantitative evidence available suggests he wouldn't.

There is still the possibility that he would play much better behind a better offensive line.  There is just no quantitative evidence to support that assertion.  The support for that assertion rests entirely in the land of theory and subjective opinion.

[Dolfanalyst]

That 2008 team ran the ball a lot more.

In fact, before the Dolphins rolled out the Wildcat, here are Pennington's numbers.

36 of 63, 57% completion, less than 6 YPA, 2 TD and 1 INT with a QB rating hovering around the 70s.

And then when teams figured out the Wildcat and that Pennington has trouble throwing past 10 yards with any inkling of velocity, the entire offense got shutdown (see Baltimore Ravens).

The "before" and "after" the wildcat you're citing consists of two games and one game, respectively.  Between those events, Pennington did what made him the runner-up in the league MVP voting, including playing very well during the five-game win streak with which the team ended the season.

If teams indeed "figured out" the wildcat in a way that affected Pennington's performance, then it took them the entire season to do so, leaving only the playoff game in which that effect transpired.  There was no such "figuring out" that affected Pennington's performance in the five wins prior to that game.