Its like I said with Stafford, you saw about 4-5 throws in that game you dont see Ryan make or even attempt too. At this point there is very little from a pure quarterbacking standpoint Matt doesnt do better than Ryan. Before being reminded by that game I wouldve said the gap in ability wasnt all that large, but watching Matt make plays my mind has changed. In the same breath Andy Dalton does nothing really above "ok" on the football field. He sits back in a clean pocket and throws to a talented unit along with a very good ground game. Andy is a game manager on his best day, rarely will the Bengals win a game because of Andy Dalton. I think Miami has and will win games solely because of Ryan however. Dalton is just a bad example in my book because ive watched 90% of his snaps as a pro and he flat out is an average at best QB.
Stafford is in the same category as Jay Cutler. Extraordinary arm talent and lazy mechanics. Both can amaze and disgust you multiple times throughout the same game. Stafford might be a step ahead of Ryan Tannehill, but he's already hit his ceiling. The jury is still out on Ryan Tannehill's.
I can't say Stafford makes near the mistakes Cutler does...and Stafford is undoubtedly the better QB as of today. 2015 is around the corner though.
I agree, while at their best it could be argued that Stafford or Cutler are the best in the game, unfortunately those moments are interspersed with many, many moments of poor QB play. I would take Tannehill (and a host of other QBs) over those two.
If “lazy mechanics” is referring to Stafford’s occasional side-arm delivery, then no way. I’d commend him for that. In fact it’s plain to see that it’s a very big asset, regardless of whether it looks pretty. It allows him to fit the ball through tight throwing lanes, particularly when he’s moving laterally or falling backward. Romo and Brady have both demonstrated the same tactic. Hell, go to a PGA Tour event and you’ll see 150 guys doing the same kind or move. Side-arm deliveries like that can make a QB much more accurate when throwing short to the left and right and it’s invaluable on crossing patterns which Brady and Romo throw quite a bit. Brett Favre did a great job at that as well. It’s hardly a knock or something I would label “lazy.” If by "lazy" you're talking about footwork, well, I haven't analyzed the guy but he seems to do what's necessary to make a lot of great throws. The Cutler comparison is weak. Cutler is really good at throwing the ball into harm’s way for no reason. He’ll take a big risk when there’s minimal gain to be had. That’s just stupid. Matt Stafford does not have that problem nor does Ryan Tannehill. Stafford can clearly see the field. If all you’re talking about is the big arm, then you could draw comparison between Stafford and a thousand other QBs. Chad Henne was a big-arm guy who couldn’t see the field. To what extent Tannehill can really see the field we can’t say because we haven’t seen him run the kind of wide-open offense Stafford does. At this point, all we know is that Stafford can play to a certain level in that kind of offense whereas Tannehill is yet to face that challenge.
Stafford has more talent than Tannehill. But, he's not really grown since 2011 (when he had a 97 rating and threw 41 TDs). He's actually regressed. At some point most QBs are what they are. They get to a certain point and don't really grow past that. Stafford and Cutler are just that. They have habits and patterns of play that stay the same. The one's that continue to grow, however, become great - or have a chance to become great. Brady, Manning and Brees were all very good QBs but continued to improve from years 3-4 to years 8+ where they just became great. I think it really is there for RT. He has flaws right now. He needs work on mechanics & confidence on the deep pass (to get more loft under it). And, he needs work in the pocket when pressure comes (he's neither adept at skirting pressure, ala Marino, Brady, Manning; nor scrambling, ala Wilson). But, if he puts in significant extra work to improve (the way Green Bay did with Rodgers and how Rodgers really worked extra hard to improve his deep ball - on mechanics and the entire thought process), then RT can move up into the upper echelon.
Stafford is a much better Qb than Cutler, and right now better than Ryan. I dont see how that is even debatable. Its not like Stafford has some terrible td/int ratio. And he is very good at creating something out of nothing.
That's part of the lazy mechanics issue. He doesn't drop back, square his hips, plant his feet, and deliver strikes. He unnecessarily gets his feet out of position and doesn't throw with balance. In years past, I've wondered if Stafford is sometimes scared, the way he wanders further back from the LOS and throws off his back foot. Or wander to his left/right to avoid very mild pressure. Like, if a guy gets a good first step off the edge, Stafford is prone to what I believe, is panic movements. I'm not saying that throwing side arm is a bad thing by itself. When he does it, it's not often out of necessity. It's because he's put himself out of position to deliver the football properly. And I'm not sure why the PGA has any relevance. QB's who throw one way, from the same angles, with the same footwork, with proper mechanics are the best and most consistent QB's in the game. From Manning to Rodgers to Brady to Brees, etc... Stafford isn't one of those guys. The comparison was about rare arm talent gone awry due to bad mechanics. Cutler and Stafford have two of the biggest arms in the history of the NFL. Both guys can throw 60 yards off their backfoot with ease... That's rare arm strength. Not as common as you seem to think. And both guys have a tendancy to wing it into traffic jams they shouldn't. Neither properly set their feet and square their hips consistently. All of which is why they both throw close to 20 picks a season. And I think both guys are bit jittery in the pocket for my liking. To be fair, they've both gotten beaten up quite a bit. One reason I want Tannehill to finally get a settled oline. I agree that Stafford > Cutler in probably every way (except athleticism). And Stafford is still young (27) and could potentially be salvaged. In 2014, I thought Stafford really did a better job of controlling his feet and eliminating unnecessary movements. He took a step forward this season, while Cutler took another back.
Brett Favre was a similar QB most of his career all the way up to his last game. I WANT a QB with the let it rip mentality, we have enough caretakers in this league. Alot of that is the individual you are, and the coaching you absorb. I know its old to here me say this again but Chad Henne was a gunslinger in college if i had ever seen one. He confidently threaded the needle in tight windows and trusted his arm. He got to the pro's and seemed to be coached not to win the game just dont lose the game and it showed in his play. Did he trust his conservative coaches and Chad Pennington to a fault?? Or did he become scared to be himself because it could cost him his job? I dunno, but if he wouldve maintained that fire he had at Michigan we would be just fine at QB.
Many people consider Tannehill in the same category as Alex Smith (Game Manager). Short to intermediate throws, doesn't take too many risks down the field & has the ability to run. Any thoughts?
Yeah, pretty much. Except Tannehill is capable of putting up more TDs and, unfortunately, more INTs. Also Tannehill throws TDs to WRs. I believe Tannehill is the better QB.
So far in their careers, probably. But Alex has hit his ceiling. Ryan hasn't ... we hope. Ryan has more arm talent and physical talent. He has 4-5 years to grow still. It's entirely possible he doesn't grow, but it's also possible he takes a leap. Alex Smith is what he is, at this point.
I think that's fair, yeah. I don't think either of them really scare opposing defenses that much, which is the key imo. Even as a fan I hardly ever expect to see Tannehill suddenly gash a defense for a quick score, or make an electric play on his own. He's steady, accurate, and moves the chains. Neither of them create many big plays or improvise outside of structure. I said last offseason that the most important stat for Tannehill is YPA, which has been low since he started playing QB at Texas A&M. The other stats are fine, but as we saw this season, comp% and yardage rarely equate to more wins. We need to be more dangerous on a snap-to-snap basis, and that comes from getting yards in chunks. But I have a ton of faith in Bill Lazor, and I really think these issues are the next things on his task list.
Interesting, insightful take on this. I'm really curious to hear what your take is on Tannehill's extension. The discussion is in another thread.
According to ESPN, he's 11th in most guaranteed money for QB's behind Sam Bradford & Joe Flacco. The funny thing is he was guaranteed the same amount of money as Alex Smith ($45 Million)
It's right in line with what he should be paid relative to other QBs but i believe that's the problem (QBs are overpaid).
In line with the comments about value, I think it will be interesting to see what the NFL looks like in 15 or 20 years once it's taken another step in its evolution. I don't think the NFL is subject to the same constraints as college football so I highly doubt we'll see the NFL game become a clone of that, however college programs do feed the NFL so in the long run, the players of college football will dictate the NFL game. We've continually seen the trend of dominant players throughout the history of college football. One guy can really put a team over the top. Tim Tebow and Cam Newton are players that come to mind. But in college football you're always 1-2 years away from having to put that guy's replacement on the field and so the position has become somewhat copy and paste. The game is structured in such a way that a freshman is able to come in and have pretty good success (Deshaun Watson is a guy that comes to mind). In the NFL there's not really a need to replace players so finding a guy that's dominant (Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Luck, etc.) can be a ticket to the big time that lasts for 15 years. It's no secret that the success of the very top-most guys is what's created this rush to hand out big money contracts to any QB who looks like he can be a starter. I think that's really it. The position of QB has so much turnover, just being a starter is now considered a badge of honor. The truth is that you can pay those top-most QBs virtually anything you want and hardly anyone is going to fault you. The Colts could give Andrew Luck a $180M deal and it would be shocking for about a week but there would be a ton of people talking about how perfect he is and how that's value because he's going to attract FAs who will take less, blah, blah, blah. The problem comes about when people apply a linear kind of thinking. If elite QB A is worth X then clearly mid-level QB B is worth a certain percentage of that based on some fraction I'm proposing. What finsfandan has attempted to say is let's hold our horses on this improper assumption of proportionality. Is the world linear? No, the world is not linear. So the question that no one can yet answer is...at what point do our decisions start looking stupid because our assumptions are no longer valid? Where value becomes interesting is at the mid-tier level because there's always a cheap rookie option and there are usually relatively inexpensive veterans who can be plucked out of thin air. Kyle Orton's 2014 season with the Bills comes to mind because he certainly wasn't as good as Tannehill but he wasn't so bad the Bills couldn't win about the same number of games. Orton's QB rating was only about 4 points lower than Tannehill's over the year actually so while Tannehill's pure numbers were far more impressive you wonder what it all amounted to. It's funny how all these mid-level guys all lump together at some point, huh? If I've learned anything this week it's that there's not a lot of statistical difference where I thought there would be a lot. Maybe not now but at some point I think we'll see teams who are perpetually in the bottom half of the league start looking more into value at QB as opposed to continually chasing this myth that you can't do anything without an elite guy. That myth might be wrong. The mistake might be attaching yourself too much to the middle tier. Now, I'm okay with the Tannehill deal. I'm not picking on it. I'm just raising the same question most of you are probably thinking. You can build around someone who's cheap or you can sell the farm for an Andrew Luck, but can you win with mid-tier? That's the thing that keeps us up at night...or on here arguing. Maybe that myth about needing an elite QB is true because the last 10-12 Super Bowl winners have mostly been very, very good QBs but there always seem to be 1-2 teams in the Play-offs with shockingly bad QBs as well. Mark Sanchez went to 2 AFC Championship games. And while Russel Wilson isn't a bad QB, we need to stop and consider that a guy who notoriously operates in a short-bus of an offense has been to 2 Super Bowls in his first 3 seasons. That kind of early success is ridiculous but it demonstrates the value of building a strong team--one that can allow Wilson to be mostly average...right up until he makes the game-winning play. Maybe QBs coming out of college are much better than they used to be or maybe we've all over-estimated how much it takes to play the NFL position right now. Either way, I think it'll be interesting to see how the NFL evolves in my lifetime.
Yeah, but both Sanchez and Wilson had great defenses great running games. So, you still have to invest money. Is it easier to build a great defense and run game, or get a great QB?
Good point. The only thing I could tell you off the top of my head is that great coaches seems to mold great defenses. Rex Ryan could go anywhere and I have faith his defenses will show up. Same with Belichick. I think Todd Bowles will do a great job in NY. I don't think QBs are that way. Coaches are still a huge factor but usually it's much more difficult to distinguish who came first, the great HC or the great QB. Who's more integral to the sustained success in Green Bay, Rodgers or McCarthy? The truth is, we can't automatically conclude HC like we do with defenses because there are equal numbers on both sides--in fact most of the time the QB gets the nod, am I right? When it's one on one, the fans favor the player. The history of big contracts kind of tells that story. So who was more responsible for Tannehill looking more polished than ever last year, him or Lazor? To be honest, I saw it as Lazor's doing. From the onset I saw a new offense but with largely the same short-comings (aka players). I thought that outside of 4-5 outstanding players, 2014 was a repackaged version of the same old Tannehill. 2014 told me a lot about Lazor. It didn't tell me much at all about the QB. That's just me being brutally honest. I know many folks disagree but I've gotten a lot of people agreeing with me in my comments too.
"Short-bus of an offense" omg lol. Dude, it's actually genius. My dad always tells me about Jimmy Johnson's transition to the NFL and how everybody made fun of him for running a highschool offense. Turns out people couldn't stop it anyway.
Great defense and running game for sure. There've been a lot more great defenses and running games than there have been elite QBs.
