So what I've learned today, is that the QB position is completely unencumbered by any other portion of the offense. QBs function the same, regardless of oline, receivers, or running backs.
"The lack of a run game," the same one that finished 2nd in the league according to the most robust measures.
What you should've learned is that QBs function differently, primarily according to their own individual ability, but of course you're in complete control of your own mind.
lol. Robust measures? How about the most robust one when talking about the lack of a running game or not...attempts. We were 22nd. Do you understand that means 21 teams ran the ball more than we did? You're arguing success of the run game when the person your arguing against was talking about frequency, hence whether a team has a run game or not.
Yes, the irony. You're using team stats like YPA and QBR to explain why QB play isn't related to team play.
Dont forget about the mighty Greg Camarillo, only if Tannehill had Ginn and Camarillo instead of Wallace, Hartline, and Landry...
We're up to 5 seasons of subpar-bad YPA, including both at A&M. In other words, he has never had a good season in this aspect of the game since he started playing the position. But I guess if you really want to you can try to find other reasons to explain five years of consistently poor production in this dept.
And not only that, but YPA is unrelated to offensive line and running game play across the NFL, and YPA is unrelated to offensive line play and running game play game-to-game for Ryan Tannehill. So, these external factors that are proposed to drive Tannehill's YPA aren't even correlated with it, either for him or for QBs in general. But like you pointed out, if someone wants to believe something, he will.
Andrew Luck had a 7.7 YPA and had a **** OL and hands down worse RB's corps in NFL (Richardson, Herron, Tipton and Bradshaw for a few games). Hmmmmm, but Dolphins fans told me having these two horrible ingredients means he is supposed to have a super low YPA. Hmmmm something dont add up here?
If you're implying that Luck is a better QB than Tannehill, I agree. But it's far more accurate to say that the Colts had a 7.7 ypa. They run more of a downfield passing attack and take more risks, thus the higher INT numbers.
As pointed out previously, after Tannehill and the receivers acclimated to the new offense, for last 12 games of the season, he averaged over 7ypa. But let's act like he's trash. I don't think you ever answered me about a hypothetical situation where an oline gives the QB 1.8 seconds to throw before getting hit...would you expect his ypa to be above 7? Is YPA dependent upon how long oline blocks. Or how well receivers can break tackles and get YAC?
Poor production in college, seriously? Are you saying we shouldn't have drafted him? Shouldn't be in talks to extend him? RG3 put up video game numbers at Baylor, as did Weeden at OK St, would you rather have them under center? Seriously, I could write an essay on things RT needs to improve on but if we're talking ways to improve the offense, which is what I'm doing, then it starts with more balance/running and better pass pro. Jmo.
People are suggesting that Tannehill is a high YPA guy who's being held back by the surrounding cast. I'm pointing out that he has never in his QB career been a high ypa guy - not in college, and not in the pros. If people want to ignore the beginning of this season where he struggled against some of the best defenses he saw all year (NE, KC, Buf), then fine...have fun cherrypicking away and blaming his perfomrances on "the system" rather than the three weeks of stiff competition. Me, I'll tend towards actual full seasons and bigger sample sizes, particularly when the trend is almost entirely consistent for half a decade.
I pretty much agree with all of that. I don't include NE in the same group as Buffalo or KC but yeah, those games were more about tough defense than a new offense imo. However, look what happened in those games.. vs NE Tannehill was off his game, there were three first half TOs yet we still put up 30 pts, the Moreno-Miller combo was lethal, and we mopped the floor with the eventual Super Bowl champs. Then Moreno gets hurt, we lose the physicality he provides and we look lost on offense for the next two weeks vs two teams who excel at rushing the passer. That's my main point. We need a physical run game to augment what we do offensively, I think that will lower RTs attempts and raise his YPA but even if the YPA is the same the overall offense and team as a whole will be much improved.
No, let's simply act like his individual ability in the league is improving, regardless of what's going on around him. Take a look here at your bias toward attributing the play of the quarterback to his surroundings, rather than vice-versa: Notice there that you took a change in the play of two players and immediately came to the conclusion that the change in the QB's play was caused by the change in the other player's play, rather than vice-versa. I think you should ask yourself why you have the philosophical belief that the player the game tends to revolve around -- the QB -- is so affected by what's going on around him, rather than it's being the other way around, where the functioning of other players on offenses are affected by QBs. You seem to have this philosophy that the QB is this almost robot-like, helpless individual who can do nothing to advance his own cause, and is instead hopelessly hamstrung by the players around him. He is incapable of doing anything unless the things around him change. It's a philosophical belief of yours that's very evident in your posts and that needs to be examined in my opinion, if you want to have a more accurate appraisal of the real goings on in the NFL. And I'm spending time discussing that with you because you also seem to have the intelligence to do such a critical reexamination.
This sums it up well. Tanne defenders choose to ignore this. And before you say it. Hilton is no different then Wallace. Put Wallace on indy, he will match hiltons #. Put Hilton on Miami, he will match Wallace's Miami #'s.
Where do you get that I think that the QB is helpless to everything around him? I don't think that, and have never said that. I DO think that what the offensive line does, or the receivers do, affect certain things for the QB...such as rating and YPA. The better question is, why do YOU think that what other players on offense do has NO effect on the QB? It's a symbiotic relationship. You throw up these stats, but, in reality, if we follow your stats to the end, then we come to the conlusion that a great QB doesn't need good receivers or a good oline, and that if the team doesn't have those, and doesn't win games, then it's all the fault of the QB. Yet we know that isn't true. Good QBs need good receivers and a good oline, and a good defense, to win games.
Well, no, no one is ignoring it. Andrew Luck is the greatest prospect to come out in like, 20 years. So, if you'd prefer to go back to drafting a QB every year, in search of the next Luck, then be my guest.
Ok, this YPA being the benchmark of QB play is ridiculous. YPA can be affected by play calling: Luck had a 7.7 ypa. Luck also had 30 more targets of 20+ yards or more. YPA can also be affected by receiver play: Tannehill to Wallace had a 7.5 ypa. He was targeted 115 times. Tannehill to Landry had a 6.8 ypa. He was targeted 111 times. So with virtually identical number of targets we have one receiver get 7.5 ypa and another get 6.8 ypa. Following the "logic" in here, that would mean Tannehill is magically better throwing to Wallace then he is Landry and their individual skill sets have no bearing. Meanwhile, Luck's top two targeted receivers: Hilton 10.3 ypa on 130 targets. Wayne 6.7 ypa on 116 targets. So now what we have is Hilton, who Tannehill bashers say is not very good, raising the average of Luck's ypa drastically. Meanwhile, Wayne is getting the same ypa as Landry. Does that mean Luck sucks as bad as Tannehill when he's throwing to Wayne and is all world when he throws to Hilton? Hilton, with just 15 more targets amassed 483 more yards and 121 more YAC than Wallace. Was it because of QB accuracy? If a qb was more accurate than more caught balls would equal more yards per attempt. Wallace caught 58% of his targets and Hilton caught 63% of his. But..... Landry caught 76% of his targets and Wayne caught only 55% of his. Which means Tannehill throwing to his top 2 receivers completed 62% of his targets while Luck only completed 58% of his. There is no way to look at these numbers and keep using YPA has the benchmark for QB play and be intellectually honest.
Why is the result of play calling and not ability to evade pressure? Or it means Tannehill checked down too much? YPA (better yet net YPA) is widely regarded as the best measure of QB play by non-Tannehill fans. You have taken a fringe position here.
Why that and not too much pressure from a poor oline? Or it means that was the play call. Or that the other receivers weren't open. I thought YPA was associated with winning not the benchmark if a QB is good or not. Yet, the numbers bear out what I'm saying soooo.......
Because Luck had one of the worse OLs in the NFL. Very rarely is a play call designed to throw to the player closest to the LOS. The answer is both.
I'm not sure why the answer to the YPA for Tannehill is always "But Luck..." Luck is the best prospect in decades. Tannehill may never be as good as Luck. Luck doing something others probably won't makes him the exception. Not sure why we want to use the exception to grade QBs.
And? I didn't know you had you had the Dolphins' playbook. I didn't know you were privy to their calls either. That's quite an honor, I'm jealous. And yet...the numbers given don't bear that out with respect to QB benchmarks. Why did Luck suck throwing to Wayne?
Got it. I'm into Pennington and Tannehill. Both had their different issues with the deep ball but both have proven that they are the best 2 QBs to operate the Miami Dolphin offense since The Man, The Myth, The Legend - Dan Marino.
It is a bad comparison. Maybe some posters cannot let go of not entering the suck for Luck derby. The more important question is what is Ryan's value to the team?
Tannehill has consistently been challenged by playing behind one of the worst offensive lines in the league for three years. There is not another QB in the league that has endured the same level of pressure, so stop making the comparison. The important part of this discussion is that Tannehill is expected to provide quality QB performance for the next seven years. He is durable, accurate, able to read through progressions, productive, and improving. He is not the best young QB, but he is one of the better young QBs. He is a good choice for building a team. I believe locking hi up to a long term contract is a wise choice.
I've never taken a position that the other players on offense have "no" (zero) effect on the QB. The position, based on objective data, is that the QB's play is caused by his own individual ability far more than anything going on around him, and so the default attribution of what's going on with a QB, whether good or bad, should be centered on his own ability, not his surroundings. And ironically enough, we have evidence of this with Ryan Tannehill alone. Once again, his offensive line showed no measurable improvement from 2013 to 2014, yet his individual play improved significantly during that period.
And let's say that's true. How, then, has he managed to improve considerably during that period? Is some part of the offense other than the offensive line responsible for his improvement, or has his individual ability actually improved?
They aren't, but you won't find any objective data to support the idea that other parts of the offense have caused his improvement. And so what's left?
Ironically, literally no one is arguing that the QB isn't responsible for his play. Many are simply pointing out, oline and receivers have an impact on stats such as YPA, more impact than you would like admit. Since YPA is being bandied about as the be-all-end-all statistic for QB awesomeness, I think it appropriate to actually consider the other factors that go into YPA. For instance: QB A's oline gives him 1.8 seconds to throw, on average. His receivers do not excel at YAC. Would you expect QB A to have a greater than 7 YPA? QB B's oline gives him 1.8 seconds to throw, on average. His receivers DO excel at YAC. Would you expect QB B to have a greater than 7 YPA? QB C's oline gives him 2.5 seconds to throw, on average. His receivers do not excel at YAC. Would you expect QB C to have a greater than 7 YPA? QB D's oline gives him 2.8 seconds to throw, on average. His receivers DO excel at YAC. Would you expect QB D to have a greater than 7 YPA? Purely hypothetical, but you get the point.
And all of those things are researchable. What we find, however, is that the variation in YPA is independent of the variation in other factors on offense. So, considering that quarterbacks also vary in individual ability, what factor do you presume is primarily, if not overwhelmingly, responsible for the variation in YPA?
We know. Lazor said he stopped calling any long throws because Tanny wasn't successful with it. QB play affected playcalling, which affected his ypa. Which means, QB play = ypa.
There is no objective data period in football in regards to QB play. Because, for the billionth time, the QB can't do his job without a line to block or a receiver to catch the pass. No pass is successful without someone else. This was proven to you when we had Hartline, Bess & Nananee. Following your "logic" all receivers are the same. there's no objective data that backs that up either, but it is logical conclusion of your stance.