ESPN BLOG: Is Ryan Tannehill Better Than Andrew Luck?

Tannehill threw 2 TD's in that game and easily should have had 4. Wallace failed to keep his feet inbounds on a deep ball in the end zone and Dion Sims had a perfectly thrown 35 yard pass go straight through his hands for a walk in TD.

Also Zurlon Tipton had TEN carries last season. Boom Herron and Ahmad Bradshaw both played well for the Colts last year. They tried to make Trent Richardson work for far too long though.

 

For those that worship at the altar of PFF, here is one of the comments:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/bl...ew-luck-ranks-outside-our-top-10-qbs-for-now/

Here is the link

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/05/20/qbs-in-focus-under-pressure/

And they indeed, gave him a positive top 5 rating under pressure, but one of the main reasons for leaving him off, is because he had a negative rating under pressure.

Dafuq?

 

I never said that they were 'objectively' better. That was your qualifier.

Of course I do. I even cited his ability to deal with and overcome poor protection.

Either way, I'm not sure why a debate about which QB is better is centering around other players.

 

This is what happens when you have to defend a clearly inferior player. Tannehill is good. NOBODY is seriously taking him over Luck.

 

I mean at this point the argument is that Tannehill is better because his teammates are worse? Its a non-sequitor.

There are definitely some valid points to raise as to why Tannehill is better. His accuracy being the primary one. Instead we are debating whether a good running game and bad pass pro is better than a bad running game and average pass pro.

 

You need to go back and read the argument you and I are having. I never said or implied anything about Luck vs Tannehill.

I took exception to you using yards per attempt to imply one QB is better than another. I actually gave you objective stats. (That was NOT the grading, but the fact that Miami's oline was one of 2 teams in the bottom 10 in sacks, hurries & hits). You took it in your head that I was using the grading and decided to what you do.

From there, you made baseless claim after baseless claim, including but not limited too our Oc is better than their OC and even what you think I was using to back up my stance.

So, I am not using other players to say Tannehill is better than Luck and I haven't. All I'm telling you is that our oline was objectively worse than Indy's and they had better skill players then we did. It was YOU, who added layer after layer of irrelevance, not me. And that too is objectively true, btw.

 

Right, in a thread about Ryan Tannehill vs Andrew Luck, you're talking about the OL and the skill position players. Thats all that needs to be said.

 

Was that a function of Tanny's miracle workings or the amount of attempts and lack of other receivers? I mean he put up 1083 yards and 1016 yards in those two seasons. You need like 60 something yards a game to get 1,000. One of those years his monster game in AZ is what skewed the numbers as he was largely mediocre the rest of the year.

Hartline was his go-to comfort guy. His numbers were inflated because of it.

 

Yes, because an average QB, for instance, could look great behind an online that gives him all day to throw, or terrible behind an online who gives him no time.

How do people take oline out of the equation when evaluating this stuff? ?

 

Hartline became a deep threat, as defined by passes over 20 yards.

 

It's just so secondary to the guy who handles the ball every play.

Tannehill has played QB with 5 different offensive lines, and with each one he has shown similar production. Same tendencies, same strengths, same weaknesses (high comp%, low ypa, protects the football, conservative decision-making). He has never finished in the top third in quarterback rating.

 

You talked about them too. So i guess that's also all that needs to be said?

Unbelievable.

 

This is solid reasoning and is logical.

So be prepared to have it go in one ear and out the other, mostly because it is met with little resistance inbetween.

 

Our D isn't giving him a 80 rating in the 4th, the D had problems, but Tanne's 4th quarter play is sub par.

 

So since the QB handles the ball every play, nobody else has to do their job? Just the QB?

And how are things like high comp% and protecting the football weaknesses? His TEAM has never finished in the top third in passer rating...unless of course he does all the blocking and receiving as well.

The low YPA argument always gives me pause. I mean, in previous years, it could certainly be said that he didn't lead his receivers with his throws as well as he could have. It could also be said that his receivers didn't get the separation they should have. And it could also be said (before 2014) that he had the same play-caller in all those years, in the same system, that was designed to be short/intermediate as a lion's share of the action, and it could be said in 2014 he was learning a new system. Throw all that together with bad protection, and it's no surprise the TEAM'S YPA is just under 7 (only a smidge away from the "elite" Marcia Brady at 7.1, who won a Super Bowl with those numbers...and that's with YAC monsters!).

His game has developed to the point where it's plenty enough to be successful in the post-season, reliably. His seasons, since he's been here, have basically shown much like his performance in OTAs, camp and pre-season. If that trend repeats itself (and I don't know any reason to assume it won't), he's in for a big leap this year.

 

I like how he's had a crap oline for three seasons, and people act like saying he's done X with 5 different olines means something. You gave a raw QB, who needed time to develop, the worst group at the most important part. And he's developed nicely anyway. And people want to bag on him.

Crazy.

 

Incidentally, I'm one of, if not the biggest critic of PFFs grading on this forum. Others can attest to that. You also fundamentally misunderstand what their grades are and are very condescending.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

 

I know man, we all just hate the guy so much. Ofcourse if we were unbias and logical, we wouldn't dare accuse him of having room to improve.

 

Luck is better.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

 

From what I can recall, you're a lot lighter on him now than you used to be, FWIW.

 

Not top third is a stupid stat. It's only used to try to make him seem worse than he is. He had a 92.8 rating last season...two guys above him had fewer steps than Tannehill had completions.

Again, why we can't discusses this stuff. People literally make up metrics to try to make him seem bad.

 

Absolutely correct.

But now that he's lighter on him, he expects that everyone will forget what he used to say.

 

Perhaps that is because he began playing better.

 

Read above.

This isnt middle school, you can evaluate a player on a short term basis, if he plays better why would I be down on him? I feel stupid having to explain this.

 

That's my take on it...I didn't mean it as a slight on you, my apologies if it came off that way. It was kind of a compliment (and a compliment to RT).

 

For discussion's sake would you mind talking about some of the games where his play was sub par?

 

Fin, why would you bag so heavily on the new guy, though? That's been what I have never understood about a bunch of you guys all along. You're happy now that he's looking polished, but complained every step of the way to get here. If some of you had gotten your way, Tannehill wouldn't be here, and we'd have Moore fighting it out in camp with some other rookie.

 

It's not a stat or some bizarre metric. It's his ranking relative to his peers. He has never really been that high an achiever relative to other QBs. In college he was barely in the top half of the country in Passer rating. In the NFL he's never cracked the top 10. Again: this has been consistent for 5 years.

 

I think he's had a few stinkers, sure has. He's made bad decisions (end of 2013 still hurts), and he's taken sacks he shouldn't have needed to take, OL aside. I just don't dwell on that stuff, because I'm a believer if you're faced with fire enough times, you're going to realize it hurts and avoid it...I think he's slowly getting it. I'd love to see him have more of a Cerrano attitude and be like, "I say phuck you Jobu...I do it myseff" when his receivers let him down. It's OK to be cool and level-headed, but sometimes you gotta fire it up. That's the biggest area of his game I want to see improve.

Part of the deep ball problem last year very well could have been trajectory, I'm no expert on that stuff, it just seems to me when you hit a guy in the hands, it should be caught, and when you expect a guy to be somewhere on a route, he should be there...maybe he should've been able to improvise, I don't know. If he could, we'd likely have a whole lot less argument.

I'll admit, sometimes its very hard for me to be focus on his negatives, because of mitigating factors. All those drops in the first 3 games last year had me really pissed off and thinking, "what if..." Then I see analysis from Ian Wharton about his play (and I absolutely love this guy's analysis) that shows both the good and the bad, and the good is in-line with what I thought. The bad sometimes is an eye-opener, and sometimes I saw the same thing.

 

The thing is, as far as the NFL goes, he's had a terrible line 3 years running. As a raw QB, he has developed in spite of that, to a 92 rating last season. You guys act like he's done. I expext him to post an even better rating this year, then you'll have to cross that argument off your list. I don't care what you think has been consistent. He wasn't a 4 year starter in college, so I'm not sure that college stats are all that important. The only thing consistent about his oline in the NFL is how bad they've been. It's not like he's had a decent oline, that's been relatively unchanged season to season, and he hasn't looked good behind them. It's been a constantly changing, subpar unit, and he solo put up good numbers last season

 

Why can't he?

 

You can scroll back, while I was frustrated with his play at times I was never one calling for his head. It was simply frustrating watching even more inconsistent QB play I have seen for 13 years prior.

This isn't about being forced to pick a side, its about wanting the best possible QB we can for our team. Unless you are Aaron Rodgers, every QB in the league could stand to improve on something...I have no problem pointing out what I perceive to be weaknesses and still be happy he is my QB.

I have an 11 year old daughter who i love with all my heart who is a stud left handed hitting shortstop and was one of the best players in the league...but I let her know on a regular basis what she needs to improve on.

 

I like your thought process. Tannehill might be money at Safety.

 

PERHAPS the QB has something to do with subjective o-line stats.

As an example most people in their right mind seem to agree that Luck has better pocket presence, so if everything else is equal wouldn't that manifest itself in Luck's o-line having better stats?

 

Depends on who's stats you're looking at. For example, you'd think Lamar Miller running for about 1100 yards would mean you had some good run blocking, particularly on limited carries, however...

 

Brady has brought his team back from deficits time and time again. New England Patriot defenses understand this and because of this (perhaps) they have the ability to buckle down when they get behind. Not all QBs have this ability, its an intangible. So in a sense, the QB is willing, or leading the defense to be better.

 

Ah, I see. Brady didn't have an oline giving him time, and receivers making plays, so that they could get in range for a Vinatieri kick? I thought Brady had some help.

My bad.