Ryan Tannehill Tier 3 according to ESPN

No that means he was a spectator.

Wide receivers catch the ****ing football.

 

Pretty sure Mike Wallace had 2 DROPS one of those seasons...hes not even really the topic, but lets be sure to keep everything realistic and not let it turn into a bunch of fictional crap.

 

Wallace was ranked 20th in the league in 2014 (football outsiders). The recievers ranked higher than him with mediocre QBs or worse:
10. DeSean Jackson
13. Alshon Jeffery
15. DeAndre Hopkins
16. Calvin Johnson
17. Mike Evans
18. Jeremy Maclin
19. Anquan Boldin
20. Mike Wallace

Those are all considered to be among the best of the best at wide receiver. Wallace was even ranked first overall one season with Roethlisberger. But he can't catch the football...

 

For a speed WR it is the most important stat, it's not like they are possession WRs.

 

Getting open deep is not the most important thing a WR can do. He has to be able to catch the ball. If a WR's catch radius is tiny and he's playing in a timing based offense, then getting "open" deep is almost worthless.

 

Say what???. You have river over Ben? Tell me that's a typo?

 

Getting open deep with a QB that can't get you the ball is worthless.

There are youtube views on these misfires, this really doesn't need to be rehashed...its in the past and Ryan has improved some although his two best WRs are now guys who dont fly by db's and can go up and get the ball.

 

Its worthless if the QB keeps throwing you into the coverage (as opposed to throwing you open). In this play Wallace almost has to stop to make the catch, allowing the DB to have a great chance to break it up (still made the catch), but there was a ton of room in front of him where he could have made a much easier catch. All of that space should also count in his catch radius. Same thing happened in the Colts game where he had to stop and wait to make a catch costing them both an easy TD. The window on that was easily an extra 15 yards in front of him, and 15 yards is a giant window in the NFL. Its not Wallace's fault that Tannehill could only hit the outer edges of the window occasionally, turning what should be easy catches into difficult, contested catches.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-...93/WK-12-Can-t-Miss-Play-What-a-catch-Wallace

 

One of these days, I hope people learn the difference between a timing based offense where the QB throws to a spot and an offense where the QB just throws to the receiver.

On that day, progress may occur.

 

so Tannehill is worse then Feidler? UGH.

 

Bottom line is Ryan Tannehill has worked and succeeded in improving his touch and didn't seem to be throwing line drives as often on plays where you can just "let it rip" and let the WR run under it. Its water under the bridge to me.

Especially since in the EP offense you do not see much of an emphasis on the vertical game.

Lets focus on some nice pocket awareness, footwork, anticipation and maybe even some playmaking skills being displayed as early as tonight.

 

I agree. Also, you shouldn't compare Ryan's first 4 years to Manning's prime. Ryan and Manning are actually pretty comparable for their first 4 seasons with only a few exceptions...

1. Ryan's rookie season was statistically paltry, but probably expected coming form a rookie who was playing WR in college the previous season who also faced unusual pressure due to poor OL and no true 1st string WR, and shabby TEs. Sophomore season and on, he'ss put up very similar numbers to what Peyton did his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th seasons with the Colts. Tough to say what the overall team talent level was compared to the Colts back in Peyton's early years, and despite the Bills and Dolphins owning the division back then, the Colts always seemed to play tough.

2. Ryan has played with a poor/beat up OL.

3. Ryan was sacked 101 more times than Peyton manning in their first 4 seasons. He put up comparable numbers despite this added pressure, and threw fewer interceptions.

3. Ryan has some rushing skills that Peyton has really never shown.

4. Ryan had a coach or possibly coaches who didn't support him. What QB could accomplish what he's done with a coach trying to do you in, trying to throw you under the bus on multiple occasions. Ryan has demonstrated a keen sense in this area and has persevered through this as well.

Some intangibles:
Peyton spent a lot of time rolling out and leaving the pocket during his early seasons as I recall, at least when he played the dolphins. His pocket poise didn't fully develop until later. This is probably pretty normal developmentally for NFL QBs.

Peyton has shown a leadership quality I think Ryan has not shown yet. I think this is very significant. I never really payed much attention to Peyton's leadership during his 1st 4 seasons, so I can't say what that was like. But he certainly became a great leader who just simply took over the offense of a team. For Ryan to get to the next level, he needs to start developing this area of his game. You simply can only go so far on technical skill and professionalism when it comes to football.

Chemistry: The NFL has become more of a plug and play league than it used to be. Whether it's due to salary caps, talent boom, or whatever, teams and players buy into the idea that if you're good enough you can be plugged into any team and should be able to thrive. Some teams do chemistry better than others. From a viewer perspective, it appears the Dolphins haven't thrived in this area since the revolving door started at coaching so many years ago. And this has had an impact on the potential for several of their starting quarterbacks over the years including RT. So many times we've seen the team come out flat on game days, or give up on the season altogether. Teams that have that chemistry thing going will never give up. They believe if the game or season is even slightly out of reach it can still be won and will never give up until they either get the win, or die trying. Getting that chemistry used to be easier when you had more stability on a team (less player turnover). Now it's a real skill to develop that kind of chemistry quickly. The 2 most critical positions in doing this on offense is the head coach and the quarterback. So as we've been discussing all summer, we'll see if this Gase/RT hookup pays off.

 

The word "atrocious" comes to mind quite easily - and it has been thus for more than the term of Tannehill's time as quarterback. And, the entire shebang actually began with Wayne Huizenga hiring Jimmy Johnson - and it continued with his protege Dave Wannstedt, and the team has never recovered to have any sense of a 'Will to Win' since that era. It has stumbled and faltered with wannabes and couldhavebeens and aintnowaybabies for almost two decades. Let us fervently hope, pray, and say incantations (well, not really!) that Gase ends that attrocious string of miserable head coaches and even more miserable teams. Even the best of the Dolphins teams since Shula's forced retirement only toyed with our hopes, and crashed and burned well before they should have. Worse was that lots and lots of careers were lost in the backwash of futility - good to almost great players on horrible teams. The Dolphins and "1-15" should never have even been in the worst haters wildest dreams - yet that near paradigm of failure is branded to the Dolphins record by two owners who probably, as football team owners, could have not figured out how to pour water out of a boot if the directions were on the heel.

 

so now Ryan is as good as Peyton Manning...................wow

 

That's not what he said. Jesus wtf is wrong with you?

 

Between 2004 and 2010 the list of QBs who won the Super Bowl seemed to indicate that the NFL was all about that particular position. Names like Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning, Brees, and Rodgers were the only ones who seemed good enough to lead their teams to the title. The league was so dominated by QBs that a guy the caliber of Philip Rivers was even denigrated as not being enough. I think most Miami fans would've killed to have had Philip Rivers, lol.

More importantly, it didn't seem like you could play defense well enough to stop those guys from beating you. There were some great defenses but with the 5-6 Hall of Fame QBs floating around the league at the time, you inevitably wound up seeing one of them win.

That era with it's insane QB production (which I think was fueled by both a boom in talent as well as a re-writing of the rules) led to a new strategy of building teams and drafting QBs. To be quite frank, I'm embarrassed by some of the guys who now get drafted in the 1st round. Our very own Ryan Tannehill should never have been a 1st round pick yet he's still unquestionably ahead of many of the guys who have indeed been taken just as highly.

But since that crazy boom in the mid-to-late 2000s, we've seen QB'ing come back down to Earth. With Peyton Manning now retired and Brady soon to follow suit, the future of the AFC will be run by QBs who appear far less dominant than their immediate predecessors. This list includes Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton, Tyrod Taylor, Blake Bortles, Andrew Luck, Alex Smith, Brock Osweiler, Marcus Mariotta, Ryan Tannehill, and others who aren't even starting (i.e. Paxton Lynch, any of the 3 Jets QBs behind Fitzpatrick, lol).

No matter how much we insist that QBs carry their teams, it just doesn't look like the future AFC will be like that. Cam Newton did it last year in the NFC with his unbelievable ability to act as both a threatening downfield passer and a full-fledged RB simultaneously but there are no others that I can think of who at that age are capable of that feat. Even the better examples of young QB play which include Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson have a lot to prove in terms of what they bring as individuals and to what extent then can carry their teams against good opponents. To this point, Luck's carried his team well against mediocre opponents and Wilson has had the benefit of being on the Seahawks, one of the league's premier teams.

It's food for thought.

I think the NFL has for several years now whored itself out to these young QBs and as a result we see a lot of mediocre guys in positions of leadership.


To me, there are two ways to interpret this: (1) you keep Tannehill because he gives you a better shot than you might have realized and (2) you ditch Tannehill and do everything to find a dominant, future-HoF QB knowing that it might make you the next dynasty given the level of competition you'll face of the next 10 years.

 

Considering that Miami was the only team he was a starter on, Jay may actually owe his success to Wannstedt.

 

I know! I know!

 

Have to first adjust passing stats for different eras before comparing because we know the rules and interpretation/enforcement of the rules affecting the passing game have changed quite a bit even over the last 10-15 years.

The average passer rating during Manning's first 4 years was 75.1-76.6, while during Tannehill's first 4 years it was 83.8-88.4, so basically a 10 point difference. Manning's passer ratings are: 71.2, 90.7, 94.7 and 84.1, which except for the 1st year was WAY above average. Tannehill's are 76.1, 81.7, 92.8 and 88.7, which except for the first year is around average. So not similar at all.

Look at other stats: Average Y/A during Manning's first 4 years was around 6.7-6.8, while during Tannehill's first 4 it was 7.1-7.3. Manning's Y/A during his first year was a bit below average at 6.5, but the next 3? It was 7.6-7.8!!! Tannehill's was way below average at 6.1-6.2 his first 2 years, then closer to average at 6.9-7.1 in his last 2.

Same with TD%. During Manning's first 4 years, average TD% was 3.9-4.2% while Manning had 4.5-5.8%!! Tannehill? During his first 4 years average TD% was 4.3-4.6% while Tannehill had 2.5% his first year and 4.1-4.6% his next 3 years.

Point is.. once you adjust for the era, Manning was with the exception of his first year WAY above average, while Tannehill with the exception of his first year was around average. So no they are not comparable even in their first 4 years.

 

Nice look at things cbrad. It's amazing to see how much the NFL has changed.

 

Yeah it has changed a lot. Just to be clear, the primary change is in completion percentage, which is by far the most influential component in passer rating, leading to a big change over time in passer rating. The others, like TD% or Y/A don't change nearly as much and also bounce around. INT% has gradually dropped, but it influences passer rating the least.

Anyway for reference, here's the average passer rating by year since 1966 (the season that concluded with SB 1), and so you can see how much completion percentage influences passer rating I've added that below it too:
https://i.imgsafe.org/e0b83f3918.png
https://i.imgsafe.org/e0b908b5bc.png

 

cbrad bringing real meaningful data. Thank you!!

 

"comparable" used to say that two or more things are very similar and can be compared to each other .... from webster, you know that guy that handle the DICTIONARY!

if someone says they are comparable, that implies they are similar, equal in value.................

so to say Tannehill compares to Peyton is exactly saying they are of similar value.

comprehension not your strong point i know.

 

LOL, thank you!!!!!!!!!

 

Yeah, looking at football outsiders data Manning's passing offense was ranked
98- 13th
99- 4th
00- 1st
01- 8th

Tannehill
23rd
20th
11th
24th

And the Colts fired a coach somewhere in those first few seasons too. So they are not close at all if you compare rankings from then to now.

 

Good post Brad, and I just want to emphasize what you are pointing out, during those 1st 4 years of Manning's career he was top 5 in yards and TDs each year, actually leading the league in yards and TDs in his 3rd year.

Manning turned a 3 win doormat into a playoff team in his 2nd year.

QB17 has a two top 10 showings in yds, 10th and 9th.

Tannehill has done nothing to change the direction of this team.

 

Peyton Manning is one of the greatest QBs ever to have played. I'm not sure why we're comparing him to RT anyways. RT compares VERY favorably to Eli though. I've also said in the past that if Andrew Luck is this generation's Dan Marino (which he may not be anymore), and Russell Wilson is the Steve Young, then I think that Ryan can be the Jim Kelly or Boomer Esiason, to carry the analogy. Not in play style, but in comparable quality. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

Regular season Eli isn't that great a QB. It's those 2 postseasons where he was instrumental in helping the Giants win the SB that are hard to overlook when comparing RT to Eli.

So.. I'd hold off on that comparison until we see Tannehill in the postseason (hopefully this year!).

 

To show how much the NFL has changed, Peyton Mannings rookie year was record breaking.

The best rookie year by a quarterback before that, Rick Mirer.

 

Ahhhhhhhh.......sweetness

 

Hahaha. Welcome to the club.

 

I'd have to disagree with this, Eli is a clutch QB, on 3rd down he's thrown the most TDs, and the same in the 4th qtr, while QB17 has thrown his fewest TDs on 3rd down, and the 4th quarter is his 3rd most productive qtr, they are opposites in this relation.

Also, Boomer and Kelly were basically instant stars, they are way ahead of QB17 in their early trajectories.

 

Can you name a QB who didn't succeed under the same circumstances as Tannehill? Ofcourse not, because no 2 QBS are in the same exact situation. Tannehill himself isn't even in the same situation year to year. Everyone has a different opinions on thill. Some make more excuses than others for his lackluster play. Nothing wrong with that. Your "argument" is just silly though. Your evidence for your opinions is nothing but comical. You might accidentally get taken seriously around here if you got away from your ridiculous "go to" argument and stuck with actual common sense, realistic counter arguments. But common sense obviously isn't in your toolbag.

 

You used a lot of words to say nothing.

Every QB is different, that you're right about.....and still not one single one ion the history of the ****ing league as thrived with a **** oline while not being able to audible and having no running game.

If that common sense fact is a problem for you, I dunno, maybe look in the mirror.

 

They were higher up the rankings earlier in their careers, yes. But take a look at the leader boards for the mid 80s to the early 90s. There are very, very few older QBs hanging around back then. In 1985, the only QBs in the top 18 in attempts older than 30 were 310 Danny White (33) and #12 Dan Fouts (34). In 86', White was off the list, and Phil Simms turned 31. in 87', Moon and Montana turned 31. Fouts, at age 36, was 12th in the league, and White ata age 35 was 13th, but again, they were the only ones in the top 17 over 31. In 88, you see Doug Williams (33) and Steve DeBerg pop up on the list. But the story of that era is always pretty similar, as the younger guys didn't have older players "in the way" to be compared.

Compare to last year. Rivers (34), Brees (36), Brady (38), Eil (34), Matt Ryan (30), Rodgers (32), Fitzpatrick (33), Palmer (36), and Jay Cutler (32) were all in the top half of the list. Then you also have Roethlisberger (33) who missed games due to injury but was highly effective when healthy, plus Peyton starting 9 games for the Super Bowl champs.

Imagine if in 1985, if Jim Plunkett (then 38), Joe Thiesman (36), Ken Anderson (36), or Steve Bartkowski (33) had all still been playing at a high level? Or if Kenny Stabler (then 40), Terry Bradshaw (37), Archie Manning (36), or Bob Griese (40) all who were then retired, were still in the league as starters? Would all of those younger guys have been able to rise so quickly? Likely not.

 

Always love these "hypothetical" threads used to try to put Tannehill in the same tiers as accomplished QB's.

If he finally steps up this year - all praise will be heaped onto him and the whole "but but but but he needs teh bestest surrounding cast" will suddenly be a forgotten mantra. Funny how that works.

 

Yikes lol...I said every QB situation is different, year to year, even week to week. Your argument if you can call it that is flawed and makes no sense. Ofcourse you can't name a QB who has succeeded or failed under the same exact situation as thill because no 2 QBS are in the same exact situation. If you use a little common sense you can evaluate a QB on his own merits without having to resort to the ridiculous show me a.....everyone knows the dolphins as a whole are flawed but most of us realize we need better play from everyone including our QB. You seem to be under the impression thill just needs better teammates?

 

Bingo! Unless his play drastically improves, he is toast in Miami. This is his FIFTH....yes, FIFTH season. Time to put up.

 

Really? You think there's never been another QB who has had to deal with a bad oline, no running game and not allowed to audible? Interesting. That means you don't think converse is true either and that no more than one QB has had a good oline, good running game and allowed to audible? Or any other combo thereof?

I'm fairly certain you've proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, you don't know the first goddamned thing you're talking about.

 

Tannehill has played well enough to get wins. Generally you need other parts of the team to play decent also.