Then why isn't the team's record any worse than those of the teams whose rookie quarterbacks have played similarly? Were all those other teams lacking surrounding talent as well?
I actually don't think it will be that hard to do. In terms of rating, Tannehill has generally either been good or very bad. He has 5 games in which his rating was above 90 and 5 when he was under 51. The very bad happens when he throws INTs. If he can avoid that in 4 of the 5 remaining games (giving him one free clusterf@#$ game) he should be able to get up to around 80 without too much difficulty.
Complete false dichotomy. Won't even answer the question because A) most did not have such a fantasy; so, B) it could not be over. Ridiculous poll.
LOL. a) The typical rookie QB doesn't start from day 1. b) "Ryan Tannehill's 72.9 QBR is average therefore Tannehill is average" is such a foolishly simplistic argument. c) Please stop using cursory stats in attempt to discredit what's obvious to the eye, as well as what his coaches, teammates, and NFL pundits praisingly say about him. d) Tannehill's stats are somewhat misleading b/c they're heavily influenced by a few crazy quarters of play rather than being consistently at a mediocre 72.9 all year. Case in point, 4 of his 10 games have featured a 90+ QBR. Dalton saw an 80.4 rookie QBR, but he only saw 6 of 16 games at 90+ QBR.... with 6 games below 66.0 QBR. The only difference is his bad games weren't as crazy bad & random as Tannehill saw verse Houston, and Tannehill doesn't have the benefit of Green & Gresham. It doesn't take a special to see that Tannehill looks to have a more promising future than Dalton. e) Tanny's stats are also influenced by a lackluster WR corps, one that offers little scoring potential that would otherwise help boost Tannehill's QBR, as, in case you didn't know, TDs increase passer rating. f) Tanny didn't look "AVERAGE" in his come-from-behind 17 point 4th quarter win vs Seattle. Know how many catches Hartline had during that 4th quarter? NONE! 17 points with ZERO contribution from your golden boy Hartline. g) Considering the running game has been inconsistent in supporting Tanny, and considering the lack of overall talent at WR, it's pretty damn good for a rookie QB to post 6 games of 86+ QBR (with 5 at 90+), as you're obviously IGNORING the developmental/upside aspect of a game, and as such, 5 games of a 90+ rating hints at a strong likelihood of doing it consistently as he becomes more developed & experienced and with a greater surrounding cast. For some ridiculous reason you seem to expect a rookie to be playing at a consistent veteran level. h) I've come to the conclusion you'll exhaust every effort to make Tannehill seem inferior and Hartline & Bess the best duo since the Carpenters. i)LOL
How about our rookie QB leading us to 17 4th quarter points and come-from-behind win against the NFL's 3rd ranked scoring D that allows less than 17 points/game (and doing so w/o his "primary" receiver having a single catch)? That's pretty impressive!
Because our defense keeps us in more games then they cost us and our schedule is softer then Charmin.
Peyton Manning posted a 71.2 QBR as a rookie. He sucks. Indy should've sat him and looked for his future replacement.
How about Brees's 5 INT game last night.... which was more like 6 INTs if you count the back to back last minute picks with one called back.
Because Tannehill is much better than you're trying to make it out to seem (in your attempt to scapegoat our QB b/c you won't accept the fact Hartline & Bess are a no-scoring, non-defensive-dictating liability as a starting duo).
If you supported that with data, which is actually possible to do, I might be convinced. Take the teams that have played rookie QBs who have had similar QB ratings and similar team records and show that ours is benefitting from significantly better defense and a significantly weaker schedule.
Stats are cursory, and "the eye" is penetrating and all-knowing. If "the eye" were so reliable, we'd never disagree here. After all, we all watch all the games, and we all see the "same" things, right?
Thats a project and a half I frankly dont have time for after Sandy rolled through. But I will sit here and tell you that our schedule is undeniably weak so far: Teams we have faced over 500: Seattle (won 24-21) 6-5 Houson (lost 30-10) 10-1 Colts (lost 23-20) 7-4 Cincinnati (won 17-13) 6-5 _______________ 29-15 Teams under 500: Oakland (won 35-13) 3-8 Arizona (lost 24-21) 4-7 Rams (won 17-14) 4-6-1 Jets (lost 23-20) 4-7 Jets (won 30-9) 4-7 Tennessee (lost 37-3) 4-7 Buffalo (lost 19-14) 4-7 __________ 27- 49 -1 Total: 56-64-1 Teams aside from Houston: 46-63-1 (Not omitting them, just showing how good they are and how much 1 team tilts the SOS) We beat 2 teams with winning records and theyre both 1 game over 500. We got trounced by the 1 good team we faced Houston albeit in Tannehill's first start (and to be fair it was like 7 bad minutes but results are what they are). The Colts would only be 1 over 500 if we had beat them as we should have but again results are what they are. The disturbing part is we are 3-4 against teams under 500. Thats the first sign of a mediocre team is when they start playing down to their level of competition. The schedule is going to be tougher to end the season with NE 2x, Buffalo, SF and Jacksonville playing well (and their starting QB getting a shot at his old team). Id say we probably beat Buff and Jax and lose both to NE and the game to SF....or maybe we win one of the games vs NE and lose to Jacksonville...thats something we would do. Im excited for the future because when we get more playmakers and better db's/additional pass rushers we will be a force again but right now we are playing very average vs one of the easier schedules.
I'm not sure QBR is the best measure. I prefer to look at YPA. At this point I think Tannehill has shown that he can be an above average QB. He can be as good as guys like Joe Flacco, Matt Schaub, Philip Rivers, Donovan McNabb, etc. Unfortunately I haven't seen enough to believe he could be in the same class as Manning, Brees, Brady, etc.
3-4 against teams under .500 isn't that bad when you consider two of them are division rivals. Especially when we missed a fg in one and were raped by the refs in the other.
This is exactly where my expectations are. Which, to be honest, leaves me a little disappointed. Although improbable, I'd hoped we might have gotten very lucky and found an elite QB. It appears we found a good one. Still, that's more than we've had for years.
Yeah, it certainly would be a good outcome if he ends up there. Not great though. I am disappointed too, mainly because I live in DC and now have to see what I consider an already elite QB play for the Redskins for the next ten years. He's going to be a HOF IMO, and Skins fans are the worst.
Shedding some better clarity & perspective on Hartline's near one-dimensionalness and misperceived yards per target since it seems to be needed: Hart has a decent looking yards per target, not because he's outstanding downfield but b/c he's inadequate in the short passing game/WR screen game, an area that would normally bring down a receiver's ypc if he was a contributor in it. A high-percentage quick pass turned into a 5 to 7 yard completion isn't a bad thing despite lowering a receiver's overall yards per catch. It's like an extension of the run game and helps open up other opportunities when defenses are forced to defend against it, not to mention it allows the QB to take advantage of favorable coverage matchups for an easy quick gain. Case in point: Brandon Marshall has roughly the same amount of receptions & yardage on passes thrown 11+ yards as Hartline (despite Brandon routinely facing bracketed coverage), Marshall: 23 catches (48 targets), 478 yards, 4 TD Hartline: 25 catches (44 targets), 563 yards, 1 TD **Keep in mind 80 of Hart's yards came off one severely busted-coverage play. But on passes thrown 10 yards and under, a talented & multidimensional receiver like Marshall shows where Hartline is lacking: Marshall: 58 catches (76 targets).... 76%.... 539 yards... 7.10 yards/target... 4 TD... 221 YAC. Hartline: 30 catches (49 targets)..... 61%.... 244 yards... 4.98 yards/target... 0 TD.... 49 YAC. (that's still in the face of Marshall seeing heavier coverage) So, would you rather have a more one-dimensional receiver who has a high yards per target but fewer total receptions and less impact in the short game (and redzone), or would you rather have a multidimensional receiver who produces just as much down field but contributes significantly more in the short game & redzone even though the extra short game receptions effectively lower his yards per target?
If anything, this proves that: -Brandon Marshall is inefficient away from the LOS. or -Chicago needs a lesson in basic game theory. Any perceived weakness in any isolated aspect would manifest itself in total efficiency. A 7 yard completion is inherently worth less than a 9 yard completion, that is irrefutable (at least I hope so). Either way, Im not sure how any of this is relevant to the topic at hand.
Eh, ref rapage claims are always subjective. I know you were probably right but I could say we got a few calls vs Seattle (we got called for 2 penalties, they got called for 10) or the Rams (they got called for 12, we got called for 5).
I think if you're looking for ways to positively spin the team's record, fumble recoveries are the most obvious choice. Thats just bad luck.
No. Buffalo had an illegal run back for a TD, plus all the bs pi calls and non calls. Seattle had an illegal TD when Odrick was molested. The reffing issues are very real.
I wasnt looking for a way to spin anything. I had originally stated that we had played a soft schedule and he made a comment that 3-4 vs under 500 teams wasnt bad when I considered that 3 were vs division rivals and 1 we may have lost because of a few bad calls. I replied back by pointing out that refs may have played an equally important role in 2 games we won.
Oh I know, it was FinD. Just thought I would chime in on the subject. I dont think officiating has been that detrimental.
I dont know what BS PI calls youre referring to because Carroll was freaking hanging on for dear life vs Barfalo. I watched the Bills game and never saw any illegal run back for a TD either. I dont know what game you watched but we clearly watched 2 different ones. Defensive players not getting calls should be something you are used to by now. Happens every week to many teams. I watch every Giant game as well as every Miami game...I see Tuck and Osi and JPP get held and punched all game without complaint. Part of the deal with the way the NFl is marketing the game
Watch it again. The first there to make the tackle on the run back was rammed so hard in the back you thought he was tackled by Sanchez. Carrol first PI call was legit, the next two calls that went against him were not. Each of those drives ended in FGs. We started to move the ball a bit and were about to have a huge gain when Hartline took a forearm to the back of the head so hard, you can actually see the moment he lost childhood memories...before the ball got there. They even showed again going to commercial I believe, close up. Then the whole Hartline call at the end that killed that drive. Their WRs were doing the exact same things all game and no calls, Hartline does it with the game on the line and its called. They were gift wrapped 13 pts and we were robbed of at least 6. That's not made up. That's not bs. That's not an excuse. Its all fact and right there to see again.
But I thought you claimed Hartline is productive downfield, so by default wouldn't that qualify Marshall's downfield numbers as productive, especially when he does the same damage but against much stiffer coverage? I'm sorry but that seems kinda silly in this regard, SB. You're essentially saying Chicago should quit giving Brandon so many quick 7 yards per attempt completions b/c 7 isn't as good as 9, and that it's better to take 50 plays of 9+ yarders than 50 plays of 9+ yarders plus an additional 30 plays of 6-7 yarders. I guess teams should stop running completely since 4 is inherently less than 7. Like I said (and as you know), an aspect of the passing game can serve as more like an extension of the run, and in that regard a consistent 6-7 yard per attempt completion is significantly better than a 4 yard per average run. Furthermore, it's statistically proven that consistently picking up 5 yards on 1st down is crucial for drive success, so I'm not sure how you can interpret a 7 yard quick pass as anything but a benefit in that regard. Plus, on 2nd and 6 or less I'll take the occasional 6-7 yard catch and run for a 1st down rather than none at all. It relates to the unfair criticism of Tannehill seen in this thread that circles around the belief that Tannehill performed at a higher level b/c of the WRs around him. I'm countering that by showing how a duo of virtually 1 dimensional receivers have hindered Tannehill's performance and that he's playing quite well at times in spite of how limited our starting duo is (both being unproductive inside the 40, a slot receiver relegated to playing outside much of the time, and our top target who offers little in the quick pitch'n'catch+YAC game). Essentially, Tannehill's playbook is limited, and thus our opportunities are limited.... so it doesn't surprise me that Miami has the NFL's 6th highest percentage of total yardage over the first 60 yards of the field but the 26th lowest percentage of total yardage over the final 40. (that's not to be confused with having the NFL's 6th most yards over the first 60).
I am not disappointed that Tanny may not be a HOF QB. Im just not. I dont even like Flacco, but he was a dropped TD away from going to the Super Bowl. Top 10 level play for about a decade suits me just fine. Yeah I would like multiple titles and all that, but at this point Im happy with relevance, being a legit contender and some playoff wins along the way.
You may be right about the run back, I didnt see it but its possible. The penalties you are unequivocally wrong about. Carroll was arm barring and jersey grabbing the whole way. He got what he deserved. The Hartline play was right on cue. He got hit hard but its a fine line and imo I think it was Jarius Byrd or Gilmore who made that play just fine. The Hartline play at the end you may have a point but it was borderline.
Why don't you check and see if that's something endemic to rookie quarterbacks, significantly more than to veterans? Until you can rule out the explanation for these things that's most obvious (i.e., starting a rookie quarterback), I don't see how you can believe what you're saying with any certainty. Rookie quarterbacks since 2004 have an average QB rating of 73, whereas the league average is around 85, which includes the rookies (the league average without the rookies is a bit higher). If you want to find out the truth of the matter, instead of just reiterating your viewpoint about Bess and Hartline, you'll do some additional analysis and rule out these alternative explanations for what you're saying. Otherwise it's just a merry-go-round here, where nobody really makes any progress or finds anything out; we just argue back and forth with nothing productive coming of it.
To be fair, Hartline has almost 4 years now contributing very little in both the redzone & quick pass/screen game (IE passes behind or at the LOS), which limits the playbook, and a limited playbook doesn't do the offense favors when it comes to sustaining drives or putting points on the board. This isn't about the QB; it's about Hartline's inherent ability. Tannehill has no difficulty throwing quick passes at the LOS (as that was a staple of his TAMU offense IIRC), but Hartline's lack of ability prevents this aspect of the game from developing, just as Bess's lack of downfield ability prevents us from opening another aspect of the playbook to help better beat cover 2 or simply open up more room underneath behind him for Bush to do some damage in the passing game on simple high-low concepts. Honestly, think about it. What if Hartline were a legitimate receiving threat to where safeties bracketed him over the top and Bess were actually a deep threat? You'd have 2 sides of the field that you could effectively drop Bush in behind the receiver where a LB would have much greater difficulty staying with him and with less coverage around to come in and help make a play. That's not even accounting for what Clay/Fasano could be doing to compound the issue on simple crossers underneath. There's so much we can't do with Hartline & Bess on the field as the primary 2 targets, and their combined yardage production [in the absence of any WR competition] doesn't supersede the offense's overall production as a whole.
The problem is that your objective measure of that is these players' production inside the 40, yet you haven't ruled out whether that's endemic to rookie QBs. So in the end, you have a theory and an objective measure of it that you believe confirms the theory, yet the objective measure could just as easily confirm a different theory.
Tannehill has 4 games of a 90+ rating through his first 11. Obviously the ability is there to be a 90+ rated passer. Our eyeballs easily tell us that. The only things that will likely prevent him from being such is poor protection, bad coaching, and pretending that Hartline & Bess are good enough primary targets despite the NFL perceiving them as nothing more than #3 receivers, evidence by Bess's sub $3.0M contact and by the sub $4.0M contract Hartline is likely to receive. Again, how many rookie QBs have seen the atypical disastrous 5 minutes of play verse Houston to lower his seasonal QBR, combined with a pair of starting receivers with a history of contributing very little in the scoring department to effectively prevent from raising his QBR? C'mon, now.... big plays/TDs by a WR after the catch show up in the QB's passer rating. Tannehill doesn't get that benefit like Dalton did. If you add in a few extra WR touchdowns and remove those 5 minutes of play verse Houston (considering they're not accurately representative of his play) his QBR is probably closer to 80. BTW, I watched the Seattle game, and there aren't many veteran QBs in this league capable of pulling off that 17 point 4th quarter win the way Tannehill did.
