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

Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Other NFL' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

Ryan Tannehill is...

  1. A terrible QB

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. A below average QB

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  3. An average QB

    7 vote(s)
    10.0%
  4. An above average QB

    39 vote(s)
    55.7%
  5. An elite QB

    16 vote(s)
    22.9%
  6. The GOAT.

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  1. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Based on what?

    You are creating false benchmarks that don't have a basis in reality.

    They can and have cheated in numerous ways. It does NOT make sense that:

    - The ways they cheat are always the same effectiveness versus every opponent in any game.
    - The ways they cheat are always the same effectiveness at every point in a given game.
    - That Belichick would continually cheat (which he has for a fact) if it gave him no benefit.
     
    resnor likes this.
  2. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Both of the above posts attribute variation in the Patriots’ performance to things other than cheating, which implicitly diminishes the significance of their cheating.
     
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No it doesn't.

    You are creating numerous false benchmarks.
     
    resnor likes this.
  4. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    You dont even have a baseline for their performance without cheating, so how can anything hope to measure its impact?

    Any statistic that shows they are a winner could be severely impacted. It could also not be.

    It's an unknown impact and because of that people will have their own take on it.
     
    Fin D and resnor like this.
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If, as I have in this thread, I present to you a scenario regarding the Patriots’ performance, and you explain their performance by using variables other than cheating, then your response implicitly diminishes the significance of cheating and increases the significance of those other variables.
     
  6. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That's an assinine statement. They still have to play the game, regardless of cheating, so the opponent can still overcome their cheating. You have literally no idea how much the cheating helps, so you default to it doesn't help. But that is a ludicrous conclusion, as it is completely ridiculous to believe that they would engage in cheating if it had no benefit. Your only other conclusion could be then that they don't cheat...except that they've already been proven to cheat.

    I'll never understand why people contingency to give that team a pass.
     
  7. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No.
     
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Again, when the team has accomplished the highest possible levels of play in the league in a way that can’t possibly be attributed to cheating, then it becomes obvious that cheating can’t possibly be highly significant in their performance.
     
  9. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's been asked many times...but how many of you Patriots defenders would allow a buddy who's been shown to cheat at poker to continue to play with you? Especially if he won every Saturday night for 6 months?
     
    RGF and Fin D like this.
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, you cannot say that. You have zero way of knowing how much the cheating helps. The FACT is that they've been caught cheating several times. If you're going to go without facts, the only conclusion you can reasonably come to is that the cheating helps, otherwise they wouldn't risk doing it. I don't give a damn what your stats tell you.
     
  11. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Something else to consider:

    1) We don't see former players or former coaches come out and say the Pats are getting such an unfair advantage due to cheating that their past SB wins should come with an asterisk.

    2) No one else seems to be able to replicate the alleged cheating that we don't know about, and the NFL is full of people who are competitive and want to win and would very likely copy it if they could (to assume otherwise ignores human nature).

    So in addition to the lack of statistical evidence in win% that any cheating (including stuff we don't know about) is leading to something totally abnormal, you also have the lack of former insiders coming out and the inability of anyone to copy it. And while I don't expect the NFL to be honest about it, there's no reason for individual players and coaches (especially those out of the league now or coaches/players still in the league that are competing against the Pats) to not come forth. And people do come forth after the fact (e.g., Jerry Rice admitted to cheating after the fact.. and imagine the financial incentives from the media if you were such a whistleblower).

    All that is pretty damning evidence for me that while the Pats may technically cheat in many ways it's not the reason they're dominant. Also, the sudden success Belichick had from 2001 when Brady started is something to consider. He couldn't build a dominant team in Cleveland and went 5-11 in 2000 with the Pats before Brady. I think the best explanation for the Pats success is that you have one of the greatest coaches ever combined with one of the greatest QB's, at least one that thrives within the Belichick system.

    btw.. to give one example of how another coach reconciles Belichick's cheating and his success, Jimmy Johnson said "everyone does it" when asked about the Pats stealing signals, yet also came out and said "Belichick is the best ever".
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2019
    The Guy likes this.
  12. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    No it doesnt. This isnt physics, these are human beings.

    Again, if someone said the Patriots are incapable of winning without cheating, youd be 100% correct.

    However, you dont think if a team is already great or borderline great an additional push doesnt help at all?
     
    resnor likes this.
  13. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    We're talking not about whether it happens and whether it helps, but how much it helps.

    The fact that cheating is entirely inconsistent with the Patriots' performances in the Super Bowls against the Falcons and Giants should tell you its relative importance in their performance. A team that can flip a "cheating switch" and win a Super Bowl after being down 28-3 midway through the third quarter doesn't also lose a Super Bowl to a 14-point underdog.

    If the "cheating switch" is that powerful, they flip it whenever they want and win at will, and the 14-point underdog gets crushed. If if isn't that powerful, then what is? What explains their performance against the Falcons? Must be things other than cheating, and now you know just how strong a team they really are aside from cheating.
     
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    btw.. if we're talking about Pats' SB wins, I'd say that the defining moment for 2 of them was a terrible call on the part of the opposing coach. Remember Seattle NOT running the ball (with Marshawn Lynch of all guys) on the 1 yard line with a timeout left to run another play, the result being an INT? Remember Atlanta NOT running the ball on 2nd and 11 to run out the clock and kick a FG, the result being a sack that led to the greatest comeback ever in SB history?

    That's not Belichick cheating right there, that's the opposing coach blowing it.

    With the Giants SB's it's kind of the opposite IMO. The defining moment in one of them was clearly David Tyree's helmet catch which is one of the greatest catches in NFL history (at worst top 3 IMO) while in the other it was arguably Mario Manningham's sideline catch which is highlight reel level for any team's season. So with the Giants SB's you're looking at some highly improbable plays being made by the opposition regardless of whether NE was cheating or not.

    Just saying that the focus on these SB's should be either on specific decisions made by the opposing coach or on incredible plays being made at crucial times by opposing players and not on any possible cheating by Belichick.
     
  15. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    1. Patently false. That is literally how they got in trouble with SpyGate. Its highly likely at that point Belichick and Adams, changed the way they cheat so that only they know. Or, the implied answer is, Belichick was cheating and it worked, then he got caught, and said, ok screw all this cheating let's just be the greatest ever instead.

    2. There was a substance a hairdresser made in the 80's called Starlite that was fire proof, didn't conduct heat, and was cheap. Its recipe died with the inventor and no one can reproduce it to this day.
     
    resnor likes this.
  16. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    What I said is true. Mangini, a former Pats assistant and then Jets coach, reported the fact the Pats were illegally taping (the taping itself wasn't illegal, just the location). HOWEVER.. Mangini also said "I didn't think it was any kind of significant advantage". Don't forget the part where I said former coaches/players aren't saying the Pats cheating is a major reason for the Pats dominance.

    Manufacturing techniques are hard to copy. The Chinese can steal a design for a jet engine or stealth fighter but manufacturing the materials to the specifications required can't easily be copied, which is why they're still way behind (and will be for quite some time). That however has nothing to do with stealing opposing signals. The tech and expertise is for sale is you want to use it.

    Oh, and the formula for Starlite is apparently owned by the company Thermalite so it can be reproduced.
     
  17. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah, he told the league because he didn't think it gave them an advantage.......


    I didn't know that about Starlite, but it did take awhile.

    And again, its weird you're sticking to just stealing signals. But regardless, you ignored the point about did belichick just decide to stop cheating and instead be the greatest ever?
     
    resnor likes this.
  18. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The taping itself isn't illegal, just the location, AND many other coaches were doing it (just not in a technically illegal location) which makes Mangini's comments quite understandable. Remember we're talking about "significant" advantage.

    That part of your post (about what Belichick and Adams decided to do afterwards) was pure speculation so I didn't respond. Look.. there's no question the guy has been caught cheating. There's also no doubt in my mind that he continues to try and find every tiny advantage possible, some of which might be technically cheating and some of which might not be. I'm willing to accept that.

    The only issue for me is the effect of the cheating. There's just no evidence from the statistics on win% to what former coaches/players say to the inability of anyone else to copy what Belichick has done (this isn't materials engineering) that suggests the effect on win% is great. I can accept it probably does affect win% to some degree however, just that it's not the main reason(s) for the Pats success.

    While we're at it, there IS one piece of statistical evidence for an abnormality with the Pats but in the years I've looked into this it's so far the ONLY one: the abnormally low fumbling rates from 2007 (this is independent of spygate in terms of the timing) for outdoor teams. But that's not affecting win% that much, estimated at least. So for me it's all about the magnitude of the effect and I simply need more "hard" evidence of that magnitude, not whether Belichick cheats or is prone to cheating.
     
  19. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    So he's a moron. Cause only a moron would continue to cheat if it gave no benefit. I guess it is habitual for him then?
     
    resnor likes this.
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Like I said earlier there are highly competitive people who just by their nature try to refine every tiny aspect of what they do to give them even the slightest advantage. Whether that's smart or not depends on the cost of doing so. Obviously one cost is getting caught if it's is technically illegal, while another cost is time/resources expended.

    I can't comment on the cost/benefit analysis too much but so far the league hasn't put an asterisk next to their SB wins. If that however changes (like Lance Armstrong) then clearly what Belichick did is stupid. But right now it does look like it's working for them.
     
  21. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Wait, so cheating is working for them?
     
    resnor likes this.
  22. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I said it probably improves their win% by a small amount. Have said that repeatedly. You asked whether it's "smart" or "stupid". That depends on the cost. If they don't get caught (meaning the asterisk next to their SB's) and that tiny increase in win% didn't require much effort then it's "smart". But again, I don't know all the costs associated with this so it's hard to give you an answer to the "smart" or "stupid" question.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  23. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Re your point number 1. From your post #246

    - Bugging locker rooms and stealing play sheets for the first 25 plays called
    - Using listening equipment in Gillette to capture play calls
    - Jamming opponent equipment in Gillette during critical drives
    - Deflating footballs for 20 years (dating back to Bledsoe in 1999)

    - Collecting opponents playbooks and reporting play calls in real time
    - Interrogating new players on their prior team's playbooks/signals
    - Having "fans" stay outside of opposing team's hotels and screaming all night (with the police watching it all)
    - Exploiting the NFL rulebook as much as possible (like the minute plus they burned off the clock in the Jets game last week without snapping the football, or the illegal formations where a TE in a lineman's jersey yells "I'm eligible" just before the snap)
    - This is just off the top of my head...there's been A LOT more complained about


    Re your point 2. What is your alternative testable hypothesis? As I’ve said their win rate in close games (1) does not take them from an average team to an elite dynasty and (2) is replicated many times by HoF QBs and coaches, to the point where it is almost mandatory for a good close game record to get you into the HoF.

    Re your point 3: Your points about collecting playbooks, listening to playcalls, and stealing play sheets all point to New England’s advantage from cheating increasing as they get more data in their opponents.
     
  24. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    There is another advantage to having a reputation for cheating, even if you don’t cheat in a significant way.
    Which is that the other teams burn time and resources to protect themselves against cheating that they could otherwise have spent preparing for the game.

    Again it is something that makes for a tiny increase in your win%.

    I’d love it if we could find something in the data that could prove categorically that Brady/Belichek were cheats and frauds and to have their records and awards expunged. However any benefit we can find appears to negligible
     
    cuchulainn and cbrad like this.
  25. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Again, I'll say I dont personally doubt their ability to sustain success without cheating.

    What I do believe is it has bolstered their success to a level above what it would have been. They are still capable of beating any team in the league, I just dobt believe they would do it as consistently.

    I consider you one of the more intelligent guys on the site and generally half agree with you at least, so if I ever say you're wrong or something I hope you dont take it as an insult of some kind. It's just fun to debate certain aspects of the stats you provide at times.
     
    resnor and The Guy like this.
  26. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No. There is literally no way of knowing how much it helps. But it's not a question that they do cheat. Why you want to dance around that, and give them any credit whatsoever, seems ridiculous to me. Pete Rose IS STILL BANNED FROM THE BASEBALL HALL, because there's a suspicion of cheating due to his gambling on his own games, even though there is zero proof that he ever did anything other than play his heart out to win each and every game.

    And you guys want to crown the QB of a proven cheater team the GOAT. Brady and everyone else from the past 20 years should all get the Pete Rose treatment.

    It's mind-numbingly, painfully, ****ing insane.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    We're talking about two different topics. You're talking about a moral judgment of the team, and I'm talking about how much to attribute their success to cheating versus their ability.
     
  28. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, no offense taken in any way. I've enjoyed the discussion and appreciate your civility.

    What I think is a more accurate variable than cheating to which to attribute the Patriots' success -- to a level above what it would've been, as you say -- is the fact that they've benefited from having a HoF quarterback who also takes regular pay cuts so as to help the team acquire and pay other talent.

    In terms of acquiring and paying talent under the salary cap, which is a constraint for every team, that allows them to function like no other team in the league. There is no other team in the league that has experienced over a decade of HoF quarterback play while paying its quarterback an average quarterback salary.

    HoF quarterback play is usually prohibitive in terms of acquiring a great deal of other talent on a roster, but not for the Patriots. They have the HoF quarterback and the other talent, because the quarterback gives up some of his salary so the team can pay other players.

    When you look at one of the strongest predictors of winning in the NFL -- passer rating differential -- it then becomes understandable how the Patriots have led the league in that department since 2004. Their offensive passer rating is bolstered by their HoF QB, and their passer rating surrendered is bolstered by the defensive talent they are able to acquire as a function of their HoF QB's voluntary pay cuts. Couple that with perhaps the greatest head coach in history, and well now you have a dynasty.

    Their dominance of the league isn't "mythical" or difficult to understand in my opinion.
     
  29. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    We are in these discussions because I disagree with Brady being the GOAT. The reasoning for him being GOAT is always Super Bowls and stats. Those things are tainted by cheating. You cannot possibly quantify how much the cheating helped. However, it makes no sense for cheating to occur if it doesn’t help.

    So, yeah, it’s all related. Obviously they have the wins. That happened. But, IMO, they shouldn’t be lauded and put up on a pedestal. It’s like 2Pac said: “I made a G today. But you made it in a sleazy way.”
     
  30. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Duh, because you can't make an accusation like that and remain employable by the NFL. Numerous playoff teams that fell victim to Pats shenanigans have "unofficially" complained...but they stopped short of a formal inquiry (or had it quietly dismissed) because the league can't take that black eye. If someone from the inside says the Pats cheat, then the league cheats or even worse, allows cheating. That's exactly why the Pats lost that 1st round draft pick and gave it up without complaint in deflategate...the goal was to move on as quickly and as silently as possible.

    There have been former (and current) players who have made the accusation publicly though- it just makes little sense to do since it's like saying you saw an alien or bigfoot. Why scrutinize your own name with something the league will just deny?

    Read that long Sports Illustrated article again or some of the other pieces they've published...it is well documented for anyone who bothers to look- https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13533995/split-nfl-new-england-patriots-apart
     
    resnor likes this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm not wedded to considering Brady the greatest of all time.
     
  32. M1NDCRlME

    M1NDCRlME Fear The Spear

    731
    543
    93
    Oct 26, 2009
    Orlando
    So how does any of the last 2.5 pages of BS relate to Tannehill?
     
    Vertical Limit and Silverphin like this.
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    As pointed out earlier, Mangini started Spygate. That was a formal accusation, not something underhanded. And that was while he was still employed by the NFL. Of course once you're no longer employed there should be less inhibition. Jerry Rice openly admitted to cheating (using stickum) after he left the league, and Joe Montana openly admitted that his OL used silicon spray on their shirts after he left the league. And Jimmy Johnson said "everyone does it" when asked about the Pats illegal taping. So this idea that the NFL somehow has too much influence to prevent people from openly talking about cheating is provably false.

    And the 49ers are at least as guilty of cheating as the Pats are (arguably more so given the available evidence), yet no one here attacks them. You guys should be more consistent and not just keep harping on the Pats. In fact, the way you guys argue suggests it's more a hatred of the Pats than any issue with cheating itself.

    The NFL is full of cheating, so much so that anyone here who takes the position (like you do) that the effect of cheating isn't necessarily what matters but that cheating is in principle wrong should just stop watching the NFL. Cheating is RAMPANT in the NFL as in every other major sport. So why keep watching?

    Here are some nice links (note the massive number of players guilty of substance abuse cheating in the first link):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suspensions_in_the_National_Football_League
    https://yourteamcheats.com/
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2019
    The Guy likes this.
  34. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Cheating of all varieties is wrong. The fans shouldnt stop watching, the NFL should come down harder on all instances that provide a competitive advantage outside what the rules dictate.
     
    resnor likes this.
  35. Tin Indian

    Tin Indian Rockin' The Bottom End Club Member

    7,929
    4,404
    113
    Feb 10, 2010
    Palm Bay Florida
    Wow. Is it safe to talk about Tannehill again in this thread?
     
    KeyFin, M1NDCRlME, xphinfanx and 2 others like this.
  36. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    11,035
    4,419
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    He's off to a good start so far.
     
    xphinfanx likes this.
  37. Tin Indian

    Tin Indian Rockin' The Bottom End Club Member

    7,929
    4,404
    113
    Feb 10, 2010
    Palm Bay Florida
    Yeah the problems out there haven't been his. Receivers dropping balls and that fumble from Henry was a killer.

    Still not great pocket presence but thats not going to change
     
    cuchulainn likes this.
  38. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    11,035
    4,419
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    2-0 so far.
     
  39. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    I always thought Tannehill was a better QB than Mariota (or Winston for that matter). Not that that was a high bar to clear, but he seems to be showing it.
    The Titans will still need to find their “QB of the future” since we know Tannehill isn’t the long term answer, so they could well be in the QB market in the 2020 draft.
     
    resnor likes this.
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Wait until Tannehill faces one of the better pass defenses in the NFL. Next week at Carolina will be telling.
     

Share This Page