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. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    upload_2019-12-23_8-29-9.png
     
    Irishman, cuchulainn and Mcduffie81 like this.
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I just think people are setting it up so that if the Titans lose, they've already set Tannehill up as the scapegoat. There are many reasons why the Titans could lose, and it would have nothing to do with Tannehill. With the ratings he's putting up, they should have no losses.
     
  3. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Hence the statement - "wins are not necessarily a direct reflection of the play of the QB". This is why I hate the "great QBs elevate the play of their teammates" crap. Brees is one of the best ever and he has 6 seasons in NO with 8 or fewer wins.
     
    Irishman and Mcduffie81 like this.
  4. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    There have already been the posts by the typical hater crowd blaming Tannehill for the last two losses.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The sacks issue (noted above) is something to explore in my opinion, because the outcome of that game was not consistent with what would be predicted by the passer ratings involved and the difference between them, Tannehill's 133.6 to Brees's 118.2.

    In fact teams with passer ratings between 130 and 136 have won 73 of 78 such games (97%) since 2013, and the average point differential in the five losses is 5. The Titans yesterday lost by 10. It's quite an anomaly to have a passer rating around 133, outduel the opposing quarterback by roughly 15 passer rating points, and lose a game by 10 points. The issue to explore is whether the sacks, which of course are not reflected in passer rating, are stalling drives and preventing the Titans from having as many scoring opportunities as the opposing team.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2019
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, but they aren't using statistics to do so, at least from what I've seen. The post we're talking about here was a manifesto as to why eyesight is better than statistics to determine that Tannehill is playing well right now, yet there isn't anybody using statistics to say he isn't playing well right now.
     
  7. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Look no further than the fumble. Could have easily been called a personal foul. That would have setup the Titans with 1st and 10 at the Saints 25 yard line with 4:18 to go. Instead it is a TD the other way a few plays later. That is enough to account for the 10 points.

    BTW, 73 of 78 is 93.6%.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  8. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That absolutely should have been a penalty. Leading with the head into the back of a receivers head. He fumbled it because he got knocked out. Such garbage.
     
    cuchulainn likes this.
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I’ll explore it more later, but I suspect that isn’t anywhere near enough to account for the difference between what normally happens when passer ratings are that high and discrepant and what happened yesterday. I suspect the norm in such a situation is a comfortable win by the team with the passer rating around 130, not something where a single turnover had it not happened would’ve made the game close.
     
  10. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I just took a look at the sacks. The first shouldn't even been called a sack. Tannehill escaped the pocket and got caught from behind for no gain.

    On the second sack, Tenn had SEVEN blockers against 4 pass rushers on a 3rd and 10. Pressure still got their pretty quick. The pocket is squeezed and you can see that Tannehill cannot throw it away without risking his arm getting hit and causing a fumble. Unbelievably, three linemen decided it would be a good idea to triple team a player... the left guard and TE completely screw this up. The guard passes off the pass rusher to the TE who is not looking because he is helping the LT.......

    sack2.png

    On the 3rd sack, the RT gets driven back into Tannehill and, again, cannot throw the ball. The RT is driven back 7 yards and across the field to the far hash mark. Again, Tannehill steps forward to minimize the lost yardage. Only 3 yards.

    The 4th sack is an absolute joke. The LT gets RUN OVER and the RT whiffs on his block. The two ends have a foot race to the QB.

    sack4.png
    On the 5th sack, he maybe has a chance to dump it to the RB but the pocket is so collapsed, that he would be risking getting his arm hit so he pulls it down. As you can see, he is trying to throw from a phone booth. This is deep in his own territory. He tries (I think correctly) to escape the pocket and only takes a 2 yard sack.

    sack5.png

    I see a QB that sees the rush and good decisions to avoid turnovers and moved well when possible to avoid big losses (0, 3, and 2 yards). The two sacks with large losses were complete screw ups by the OL. In addition, NO did a very good job squeezing the pocket to prevent Tannehill from escaping.
     
    PhinFan1968, Mcduffie81 and resnor like this.
  11. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL. Spoken like a true statistician who doesn't watch the games........ I point out an ACTUAL PLAY late in the game in question that goes from FG position in one direction (3 points) to a TD in the other direction (7 points) and you claim that it isn't statistically big enough to account for the 10 point difference..... And you wonder why your use of stats is dismissed....... Jesus man.
     
    cuchulainn, resnor and Mcduffie81 like this.
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Umm.. all these "should have" or "could have" happened arguments should be dismissed until you apply the same standards to everyone, at least if you're trying to argue against a stat. No point in applying it to one QB and not to anyone else.
     
    The Guy and Irishman like this.
  13. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    6,053
    5,608
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    Go ahead and do it then.

    It doesn’t change the fact that Tannehill has done more than enough to win those last 2 losses. He’s been nearly perfect.
     
    resnor likes this.
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No.. the onus lies on those introducing "should have" and "could have" scenarios to do that. The stats are the way they are based on as standardized a way of collecting them as we have right now, so it's best to use them without any "should have's" or "could have's".

    And that's what the stats say (at least for the NO game.. less so for the Houston game).
     
    The Guy and Irishman like this.
  15. bbqpitlover

    bbqpitlover Well-Known Member

    881
    829
    93
    Aug 28, 2008
    Maine
    Who won, its late December and trying to get in playoffs. Tannehill has never lead a team to a winning season and guess what Titans are 8-7 and have the Texans as last game.
     
  16. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Are you talking singles tennis or football? BTW, Tannehill led the Dolphins to a winning season in 2016. The Titans have won 6 of 9 with Tannehill starting or are you blaming Tannehill for the Mariota led losses? Tannehaters are looking more and more pathetic.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2019
    Irishman and PhinFan1968 like this.
  17. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    6,053
    5,608
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    Are we going to ignore that in 4 of those losses Tannehill wasn’t the starting QB?

    During his tenure the losses he was a part of he is responsible for 8 TDs and 3 Ints.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  18. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Except nobody is using them to elevate one QB over another. Tannehill was statistically the better QB in both of the last two games.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  19. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No, it's on you to prove that your stats actually factor that stuff in...you know, the argument that has been reading for almost a decade here. You always say these things, but then want us to prove the opposite of your point.
     
  20. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    6,053
    5,608
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    No one but you is judging Tannehill purely by stats. The onus isn’t on anyone or anything other than you.

    And using your eyes (not stats) you learn that Tannehills lone interception vs the Texans was not his fault. It should have been a TD.
     
    resnor likes this.
  21. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Of course people are doing that. Suggesting a INT could be considered a fumble (I agree but you'd have to make the same adjustments for all QB's) or saying that "if X occurred that would explain a 10 point swing" (a LOT has to happen for that btw).

    You're elevating Tannehill by only applying a "should have's" or "could have's" to him and not anyone else. Apply the same standards to everyone and you'll probably end up with a similar result statistically to what you have now.
     
    The Guy and Irishman like this.
  22. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    So what? Tannehill's play over this span correlates to no losses, if I'm not mistaken. Tannehill had losses on the record before he took the field, and his two losses are not on him.

    Try actually watching the games.
     
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No we don't have to do it for ALL QBs. We aren't comparing ALL QBs. We're talking about specific games, where bad calls have turned specific games into losses, and some people are trying to blame Tannehill for those losses.
     
    Mcduffie81 likes this.
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I already pointed out that there are very good arguments for "averaging out" occurring over large sample sizes for most of these things you want to "factor in". I admit that's not happening for coaching, but all this stuff about differences in surrounding cast or different "should have" and "could have's"? Yeah.. that's most likely averaging out over larger sample size.

    Either way, you don't apply one standard to one QB and not to all others.
     
    The Guy and Irishman like this.
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Where did I judge Tannehill "purely by stats"? Read my posts before making false statements like that. You're so determined to act like stats should be dismissed you have to resort to making false claims.
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The stats being talked about, like passer rating differential, are stats taken from ALL QB's. So when you say "X would have changed this or that conclusion based on such stats" then yes you need to do this for all QB's.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  27. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    6,053
    5,608
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    I should have said “primarily”. Wow you got me!
     
    resnor likes this.
  28. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Tannehill was the higher rated passer in his last two games. Period. End of sentence.
     
    Mcduffie81 and resnor like this.
  29. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That was a period end of sentence BEFORE people started trying to apply a separate standard for Tannehill. Can't we just stick to the actual stats when arguing stats?
     
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Specifically, right now, we are taking about two losses, that people are ascribing to Tannehill, and we are pointing out that not only were the losses not on Tannehill, but bad calls really tried like turned two almost sure wins into losses. No, I don't need to look at every game. I'm not saying that Tannehill should be undefeated, while ignoring games for other QBs that perhaps turned on bad calls.
     
    Mcduffie81 likes this.
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Specifically, right now, you don't see people using passing stats to argue Tannehill should have lost the games. You've totally lost sight of the argument and are simply blinded by saying "stats are bad".
     
    Fin-O likes this.
  32. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    6,053
    5,608
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    Thank you Tannehill for coming through and helping me win my Super Bowl!

    The yahoo statistical formula (or stats) told me he would likely score 18.79 points. I knew that meant nothing, though.

    He got me 23.68 and I won for the 5th time in 10 years.
     
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    What? There are several people who are claiming that Tannehill again, can't get it done when it matters. So, people bring up two plays, from two losses, that directly changed the outcomes of those games, and we're pointing out that it isn't Tannehill's fault. In fact, Tannehill's play indicates that should have win those games.

    That's it. That's the point I'm making.
     
    Mcduffie81 likes this.
  34. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I did. Period.

    Neither of the two points I made about the INT against Houston or the fumble against NO had anything to do with comparing Tannehill against another QB. Period. No need to go back to the beginning of time for all QBs.

    The first point was in reference to TANNEHILL'S play being a dropoff from his previous 4 games. The dreaded "regression". OMG his passer rating was BELOW 100!!!!!!.

    The second point was in score differential in a game. It was a play that had a direct impact and a play that stats won't account for. There was no comparison to another QB and no mention of passer rating at all.
     
    resnor and Mcduffie81 like this.
  35. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Not using passing stats. I didn't argue it nor did The Guy argue that. Regardless, it's important to apply the same standards to all.

    For the record I agree many of those key plays (negative ones) weren't Tannehill's fault.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The 130 rating thing The Guy introduced is based on a comparison to other QB's. That stat isn't adjusted for era so it's a little high in terms of win% for that rating (130 years ago was worth more), but that's the comparison where you can't just say "if X occurred there would be a 10 point swing that would account for the difference", etc.. without applying it to all.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  37. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    6,053
    5,608
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    We must forgive Resnors ignorance. He’s only applying stats when it’s meaningful. Shame on him.
     
    resnor and Fin-O like this.
  38. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015

    Ryan has ALWAYS struggled with pocket presence, this is nothing new and it does NOT diminish how well he has been playing. No QB is perfect, and neither is Ryan.

    They are looking very good for that 6th seed and likely matchup with the Chiefs who they smacked earlier in the year in large part because Ryan played solid and that Henry guy almost ran for 200 yards on 23 carries.

    That matchup intrigues me because the Chiefs defense doesn't have the talent to do anything other than stack the box vs a guy like DH. If Tannehill is playing his A game I believe they have a good shot at a first round upset.
     
  39. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Once more, slowly....... I .... didn't ....compare .... his .... passer .... rating .... to .... another .... QB.
     
    resnor likes this.
  40. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Who are all these people I keep seeing referenced in this thread? The people who have blamed Ryan for the past two games and this mythical group of guy's who are Tannehill hater's?

    All i've seen are people who like Ryan but want to see more before anointing him. The constant hyperbole and desire to defend even the most obvious flaws in Ryan's game has been triggering folks for years.
     
    cbrad likes this.

Share This Page