1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Evaluating Tannehill's Value

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by finsfandan, Jun 1, 2017.

  1. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'm not asking for ideal circumstances. I'm not expecting ideal circumstances.

    I need you to pay attention to what I'm saying, because you aren't.

    Thill needs an average oline to play well. IF he can't have at least an average oline (so circumstances are less than ideal) then he needs the ability to audible and/or have the team commit (read: rushing attempts) to running the ball.
     
    danmarino and eltos_lightfoot like this.
  2. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014

    What's your prediction? Tannehill will continue to have top 6 stats? Because you asked why wouldn't he continue, or something like that. What is it?

    Because if you're expecting that, then you have to expect Ajayi to be number one against stacked boxes. You have to expect Landry to continue setting the record of most completions ever in the first X seasons. You'd have to expect the offensive line to be able to allow for that type of production.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I predict he'll continue as he was and be a Top 10 QB.

    The rest of what you said doesn't actually have to happen for him to be Top 10 at all.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  4. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    We'll see. I also believe he'll be top 10 if Ajayi and Landry can produce anywhere near their recent production. But a lot of QBs can do well with the number one RB against stacked boxes and the number one WR in completions in their first few seasons. Plus, didn't Ajayi average the most YPG after you cut out the first few games where he barely played?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    How well Ajayi runs isn't as important as how much he runs. That's why I say they need to commit to the run.

    You have to think of it in terms of what are the ways to slow the pass rush.

    - Oline producing solid pass blocking. This is the number 1 way to stop the pass rush. But if it fails then....
    - Running the ball. The pass rush becomes more difficult to stop when they know you're passing. So commit to running the ball. In the past, we've been anywhere from dead last to bottom 10 in rushing attempts. Teams knew we were going to pass, so their pass rush could tee off on our crap oline.
    - Audible. If you can audible then you're reacting to what the defense is showing you and altering the play before it happens.

    Guess what? Last year, Gase got rid of Thomas and Turner. He committed to the run as we went from 32nd in attempts to 18. He also allowed Thill to audible. Once the offense got the hang of the new system and Gase (the OC) got the hang of his players, Thill was a Top 10 qb.
     
    danmarino and eltos_lightfoot like this.
  6. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    It's both, actually. Believe me, you don't need to tell me about the benefits of running. I'd run the Ground Chuck offense if I could.

    But even if they handed the ball to him 20 times a game, he'd need to do well against stacked boxes and thank God he does. He's basically like AP in his prime.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  7. sports24/7

    sports24/7 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    32,924
    41,461
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Right. What I'm saying, is you can't really make an accurate determination based on numbers from a small Moore small sample size.

    If you would prefer that option, you are entitled to feel that way. Personally, I do not. I love Lamar Miller, but having him and Ajayi is unnecessary. And honestly, if Miller were still here I think the odds would strongly favor Ajayi being cut, or at the very least not getting a chance to become what he was. The D would be better with Kuechly, but I wouldn't want a great LB if it meant having to start a backup QB, and that's what Moore is. He's a good backup. As far as McCarron, again, maybe he turns into a good QB, maybe he doesn't. I think it's cherry picking a bit to use him as an example, though, because he's a guy who still has upside that went later in one of those drafts. I'd still rather Tannehill because I have more faith that he will be a good QB in Gase's offense. If he isn't, I'd then go and spend another high pick on one because that's your best bet in trying to get a franchise QB.

    I think you're oversimplifying how easy it is to become a top 10 QB. If he becomes a top 10 QB, you will be in great shape and shouldn't worry about how else we could have gone about things.
     
  8. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    You lost me there since there's only 3 possible routes-

    - Tannehill continues to start
    - Tannehill is released/traded
    - Moore (or someone else) starts while RT rides the bench

    Despite anything else that's happened in the past, there is a very slim chance we take the escape clause on Tannehill after this season. He'd have to be seriously injured or play terrible for this organization to just walk away, and I just don't see it. For trading him, I'm guessing that there would be interest but not at his 2018 numbers UNLESS he's a top-10 talent. And if that happens, I can't see the front office trading him after six years of waiting. So unless he stinks this season, trades or cuts won't happen.

    Now for the scenario where we keep him and start Moore. I could see that happening for a short stretch if he had a few epic bad games, but there's no way he's there in 2018 riding the bench. And hey, I'm one of the biggest Moore fans on this forum...it's just not going to happen though. The only way Moore starts long term is with a rookie behind him. So that brings us back to the release/trade conversation...it doesn't happen with Tannehill on the roster unless it's a short term (less than one season) injury.

    The last option- he continues to start. And this scenario only requires one magic number.....what that is we don't know though because we're not in the front office. But I think it's safe to say that 8 wins makes him a keeper. So does 4k yards, 20+ TD's, an 90+ QB rating, etc. I just can't see the scenario where he's not there in 2018 without completely sucking- maybe he re-hurts the knee and they decide to move on. Otherwise, I think he's here for life.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2017
  9. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Let's agree to disagree on which route makes more sense.

    I'm not oversimplifying anything. Tannehill has always been a slightly above average QB in the rankings. We're looking at a small data sample where there was a good run by the team including Tannehill. If we're going to give him a pat on the back for that and make a prediction based on that, we have to see how much help he had. You can't discount arguably the top physical RB in the league and a record setting WR.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  10. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    I'm not even talking about now. I'm talking about all the moves we could've made without drafting him and assessing his value so far. I do think, though, that we should continue drafting QBs but not reaching for them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  11. sports24/7

    sports24/7 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    32,924
    41,461
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    We're not talking about what he was, though. If he's a top 10 QB in the NFL, I don't think anyone is going to denigrate him for his supporting cast. He's been hamstrung by a poor line and multiple offensive systems in the past, but you label him slightly above average. He has been what he has been just like he will be what he will be. This is all predicated on the assumption that Tannehill will be a top 10 QB, which you said you think he will be. Matt Ryan had similar numbers to Tannehill in his first few seasons in the league. He had a monster year last season and won the league MVP. Nobody says "oh sure, but he had the most talented WRs, and one of the better backs in the NFL". Nobody says Big Ben shouldn't get much credit for being a star QB because he has the most productive WR, and best RB in the league. If Ryan Tannehill ends up being a top 10 QB, why should anyone care how he gets there? This is a franchise who's gone two decades without a QB of that caliber, in a league where it's hard to find good players at that position.
     
    danmarino and Dol-Fan Dupree like this.
  12. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Dak?
     
  13. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Those same people say Moore is terrible at pre and postsnap reads, and his passer rating was still pretty good.
     
  14. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Moore was even better than top 10 over his stretch, which is also an inarguable fact.
     
    Finster likes this.
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Just so the stat is out there for comparison, Moore's overall passer rating (including the playoff game) is 104.05 compared to Tannehill's 100.13 over his last 8 games. Tannehill would've been #6 and Moore #5 among starting QB's if they had done that for an entire year.

    One small issue with the Moore stat is that he only had 123 attempts. Passer rating starts to become relatively reliable from 150+ attempts, but it's not that far off.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  16. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    I've heard all the comparisons. He's not Wilson, Luck or Ryan.

    Big Ben has been good with different weapons for a while. Don't even make that comparison. Let's not get into Mike Wallace, SB rings and Pro Bowls or any other accomplishments.

    Tannehill's passer rating ranked 12th even with Ajayi and Landry. We'll see if he continues this trend everybody is focusing on. Let's not get carried away.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  17. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No, he wasn't. But you keep making stuff up.
     
  18. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Making stuff up? I was eyeballing it but CBrad crunched the numbers and I was right:


     
  19. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You skipped over the second half of that post. Moore's numbers don't qualify. It's the same reason you can't compare numbers between a guy that throws 300+ passes and a guy that threw 3 passes.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  20. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    You know what also doesn't qualify? Ranking QBs starting from the point that "the offense started clicking."
     
    Steve-Mo and jdang307 like this.
  21. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Sure it does. Only crazy people think a team with a brand new offense doesn't have a learning period.
     
  22. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    I was using the total team passer rating, not individual team PR
    I find there is a lot of noise in starter QB numbers, which I assume is from partial game credits .http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2016/#all_passing for 2016.
     
  23. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Ah! Thanks for clearing that up.

    OK, with backup stats mixed in with starter stats you can definitely get different correlations and it's no surprise the correlation could be higher than for starters alone because backups tend to have worse PR and lose more, meaning the relationship between PR and wins can get stronger (I say "can" because if it's always the best QB's getting hurt the prediction would be the correlation would get weaker).

    And there's no problem using overall team PR.. just have to make sure to point that out. I did check the correlation to wins for 2016 team PR data and you're right it comes out higher: 0.655.

    So no problem there!

    However.. there IS a problem with the slopes you're getting. Yes, the slope should be higher but not double! I generated the best-fitting line for team PR vs. wins for 2016 data:
    http://ibb.co/jfsjQv

    For comparison.. the best-fitting line for starting QB PR vs. expected wins for 2016:
    https://ibb.co/jNwfha

    Slope for team PR is 0.1867 and slope for starting QB PR is 0.1429, so using team PR in 2016 you'd need 1/(0.1867) = 5.36 passer rating points to get one extra win while using starting QB PR in 2016 you'd need 1/(0.1429) = 7 passer rating points to get one extra win.

    So I think there's something wrong with your best-fitting line, but using team PR is totally fine. Let's keep in mind though each approach answers a different question, one for how you'd expect a starting QB to do and the other for how you'd expect a team to do.
     
  24. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    The big issue for Matt Moore and his pay scale/demand in the market is his history of concussions. Trent Green showed what happens when you make a QB with serious concussion history as your primary QB. It's like drafting 3rd round rookies to be your QB. For every Drew Brees he can be acquired cheaply because of injury there are several Duante Culpeppers, Trent Greens and Chad Penningtons.

    Leave that aside however.
    The real problem for 'moneyball' and NFL QBs is that moneyball assumes that the underpriced assets you covet are available on the open market. That just isn't the case for the QB market. NE are holding onto Garropolo as a backup even though there are at least 5 teams who start him in a heartbeat. The 49ers happily had Young holding a clipboard for Montana. The restriction of supply just makes moneyball inapplicable to the NFL QB market.

    I think moneyball applies to other positions. LB, S and OG in particular seem to be positions where quality aging veterans can be acquired relatively cheaply.
     
    Dol-Fan Dupree likes this.
  25. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Not sure if the Bengals would be willing but AJ McCarron had great college stats and won a championship, that could be a good "moneyball" play. Foles would have been a "moneyball" play. The guy had one of the best statistical seasons in the history of the league. BTW, the Eagles have been killing it and if Wentz is the real deal, or even just above average that team is going places. As far back as Football Outsiders data goes they are the only team to be ranked 4th or higher in team efficiency and not make the playoffs. And that is probably due to having a rookie QB as their starter.
     
  26. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,070
    22,827
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    Moore is nothing more than a good backup QB. If he was worthy of starting, someone would have paid him as a starter. Look at the contract Glennon got. Going with the strategy of starting a "backup" QB to add a few more pieces to your team doesn't work, we've been trying that for 20+ years. Tannehill has a chance to be a consistent top 10 QB, and his contract will be a bargain once that happens (taking into consideration the inflation on QB contracts the next year or two).
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  27. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    To me, MM's most impressive feat as a Dolphin was righting the ship in '11, a rudderless, winless team that just fired the HC, and he rallied them and turned things around.

    MM has shown that leadership quality that RT has not yet shown, it's innate.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  28. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Leadership is a skill. Innate leadership does not exist. It is a myth.
     
  29. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    I disagree. Eagles have done a pretty poor job. Foles had a good run, and then has been a waste of space. Wentz hasn't proven anything yet and cost them a pretty penny.
     
    eltos_lightfoot likes this.
  30. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Is being outgoing a skill also?
     
  31. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    11,035
    4,419
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    That can be learned.
     
    eltos_lightfoot and Fin D like this.
  32. sports24/7

    sports24/7 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    32,924
    41,461
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Who said he was any of those guys? The statement that was made was if he accomplishes top 10 status (you yourself said you expect him to be top 10), it doesn't matter what his supporting cast looks like. I gave examples of others who don't get knocked by having a good supporting cast. Are you saying that statement is untrue?

    As for his rating "even with Ajayi and Landry", that's not painting the whole picture. You're giving his rating for the season. During that period, Ajayi was benched for one game and lightly used in others. What ranking did Tannehill have from the Steelers game (when Ajayi became the dominant back we know) on?

    It's becoming clear to me that this isn't a thread to really do what you asked originally, but rather to find a way to criticize Tannehill. Let's just call a spade a spade. You don't really like him, and wanted people to agree that going in a different direction would have been the better move.
     
    eltos_lightfoot and Fin D like this.
  33. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Yes. You can learn to be outgoing.
     
  34. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    This doesn't make sense. Because something is a skill it means it's. It's not innate?

    Being able to hit a 95 mph fastball is a skill. Or a curveball. Yet some are born with the ability to do so better than others.

    Playing tennis on grass or clay. Ivan Lendl was obsessed with grass. Yet he could never get good enough at it.

    Innate leadership exists. You can improve on it but there are baselines and there are ceilings
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017
    Finster and roy_miami like this.
  35. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    You can take it that way. If somebody gives me a good argument about how I'm wrong then I'll accept that. I don't see how Tannehill or any other QB of his caliber and pay are a good value.

    If you think it's critical to say I'd rather have had Moore for less money and Kuechly drafted in place of Tannehill, then idk what to tell you.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017
  36. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    I don't think Moneyball is incompatible in this case. It's not so much that other QBs are undervalued, but that many QBs are overvalued and the price difference would be better allocated elsewhere.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  37. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Show me the study
     
    eltos_lightfoot and Fin D like this.
  38. eltos_lightfoot

    eltos_lightfoot Well-Known Member

    4,297
    720
    113
    Apr 14, 2008
    The problem with this approach is that it isn't that simple. You CANNOT overpay for the QB position. You already have Joe Montana, you best be looking for the next Steve Young. Brett Favre, uh, Aaron Rodgers. If you think that 20 teams wouldn't take Tannehill with his current contract (including signing bonus which can't be done but you get the idea), then you are nuts. Again, moneyball doesn't work at the QB position. Even a QB like Tannehill is too important to factor into such an approach.

    And the flipside is that if we had JUST Moore and others, then we would be looking for the next Tannehill. We would be worse off. In fact, if I am wrong on the guy, we are all worse off because now we are in that crapload of teams that need QBs.
     
    danmarino and Pauly like this.
  39. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Joe Philbin.

    That's all I need.

    You need a study to know that if you spent the same amount of hours as Tony Gwynn in batting practice you're not going to hit a baseball as well as him?

    People are born with a certain amount of raw Material and of course you need to develop those materials. You're never going Barry Bonds without any practice. But nobody can be Barry Bonds with double his practice.

    Philbin with enough change and practice would become a not terrible leader but he was never going to be a great leader.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017
    Finster and djphinfan like this.
  40. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I wouldn't trust any study that says they've found the degree to which leadership is or is not innate because:

    1) There's no good operational definition of it so how the hell are they measuring it?
    2) Whatever "leadership" refers to, it's such a complex trait that tons of genes probably contribute to it and modern genetics tends to fail when trying to understand how large numbers of genes interact.

    Anyway, just in general.. your genes determine the range of possible traits while the environment selects which of those possibilities actually occurs.

    So it's highly likely that for ANY trait there is a genetic basis of it so that some individuals have higher ceilings/floors than others, and it's also highly likely that for any complex trait the environment is absolutely crucial for that trait to be expressed. In other words some people probably can never be taught to be good leaders (pretty obvious if you include people with autism etc... but it's probably true for many in the general population), and it's probably near to impossible for a person to be "born" a good leader so that the environment doesn't matter.
     

Share This Page