and as I said earlier in this thread.... numbers and stats don’t tell the whole story. You’re missing it because you’re concerned about the numbers that fit your narrative specific to one player. You’ve got to open your eyes man. There were several plays tonight than Tan shill audibled and changed to key runs. Several key throws as well. While the numbers may not look pretty. It’s. It relevant. What’s relevant is the W and the TEAM complementing itself with the run and pass and taking what the Pats were giving. Titans ran and passed well on the first drive. That TD Todd was a beauty under pressure.. from there it seemed like NE was more focused on shutting down the lass and the Titans were content to run it down their throats which is because their run D is weaker than their pass D. It’s called complimentary football and winning game plans. It’s not all about numbers guy. stats are helpful. Sure. But the old eye test never lies. It doesn’t matter whether one player had more “impact”. than another. The outcome matters. That’s all. If you can beat a team with more run than pass so be it. Because they’ve won ole ty if other games this season based on the pass. This whole argument is stupid. Did they win? Yes. Is RT a part of that. Yes. Is Henry? Yes End of story. The parts change weekly. Who cares. The outcome is what matters. It the numbers.
In literal terms making the throw of the game or game clinching throw, is always better as it results in a Win.
We don't agree about that. My position is that the team won in spite of Tannehill's performance. A passer rating of 61 loses a good number more games than it wins, so Tannehill's performance actually helped the team lose, and other parts of the team compensated for that to the degree that a loss didn't occur.
But they won. Yes? Because it's a TEAM sport... so, in fact, Tannehill won. Right? That makes him a playoff game winner. Yes? You certainly don't think they lost do you? Or that Tannehill lost?
Again, if the point is that Tannehill can perform in a way that's associated with losing and be compensated for by his teammates to such a degree that he wins a game in the playoffs, then yes, "he" can win in the playoffs. Folks, we're talking about a guy here who just went out and completed 8 of 15 passes for 72 yards, 4.8 yards per attempt, and a passer rating of 61. This isn't rocket science. He didn't have a good game.
this dude. Seriously. We all know what he’s about. Pats are now 20 and 4 at home in the postseason in the Brady era. tannehill ices it on a 3rd down conversion as clutch as you will ever find no credit. After what looked to me like a bad illegal formation call the play prior romo blamed the qb for. What?
See, I knew you were capable of saying that Tannehill helped the Titans' win, hence making him a winner. And in FOXBORO. You must be soooo thrilled, like the thousands of other AFC fans who hate the Patriots. As for this other stuff, that's not a Tannehill thing. It's true of all QBs... and all players regardless of positon. Hence the importance of Catfish Hunter's quote. And again, not a single person has said he had a good game. BUT he still made more plays than Brady when it mattered. Hence the better passer rating.
Hell...the team's game plan was icing him on its own, but he hit a few that they really needed. Besides that INT, his throws were pretty spot-on as usual. With temps in the 30s, you gotta get into a flow and keep the arm warmed up. Wasn't able to. That fumbled snap was ugly too...bad juju. Gotta do better.
Once again, I don't think he helped them win. We can be done with this now, however. Our positions are clear.
hey boss you win in that building in the postseason I don’t care how you did it you accomplished something. it’s rarefied air.
Just a follow-up here. Apparently the QBR statistics for tonight's game are already posted, just a couple hours after the game ended. So either they have their crew of people fast at work during or immediately after games, apportioning credit to the various players involved in an entire game, or QBR is determined numerically without any subjectively determined input on a game-by-game basis.
So he didn't make any important plays? He didn't throw a TD? He didn't twice run for 1st downs? He didn't have a clutch and very crucial 3rd down conversion on 3rd and 8 late in the 4th? You're saying none of that happened nor mattered? Surely not. For someone to think that they may need to seek medical attention for cognitive failures. So you see, you simply agree that Tannehill directly contributed to helping the team win the game.
In his eyes it’s on the same level. Qb and long snapper. Why cause somewhere along the line he’s probably cherry picked some number that supports it.
I'm saying his performance overall was associated more with losing than with winning in the playoffs in the NFL.
QBR is a formula, and the 10,000 lines of code means it's deterministic: you input the data and out comes the QBR. The subjective assumptions are hardcoded in those 10,000 lines of code. In other words, the specific values of each parameter (for example, how much of a passing play in a specific situation is "due" to the QB) were subjectively determined the last time they modified the formula (according to wiki that's 2013) but once those values were hardcoded no additional human judgment is necessary. The problem with QBR is that they HAVE such subjectively determined parameter values in the first place.
Right, but I have trouble believing for example that in that amount of time they could even determine what happened in that game in such a way as to map the "prewired" data accurately onto it. Like for example, how many air yards and yards after the catch were associated with every play, by both quarterbacks? On which plays were the quarterbacks under pressure?
It's why I suggested he take up following single person sports and not TEAM sports. Bottom line is that Tannehill and Brady BOTH had bad games. Between the two, which performance does both desire to have? Tannehill's. He WON. Passer Rating says he was the better as well. He also put points on the board, converted 1st downs, and made clutch throws. It's that simple.
There aren't many input parameters. Obviously more than the 4 you have with passer rating. Maybe they have 10? 20? Not sure. But we're talking about a large organization in ESPN. All you need is a small number of individuals (I'd estimate no more than 10) looking at the game tape and figuring out "air yards" or "under pressure" etc.. That's not at all hard to imagine doing within a few hours.
No, in this particular game it was. His performance overall was associated more with losing than with winning in the playoffs in the NFL. That it was, regardless of the outcome of the game.
It was the Derrick Henry show, but I loved watching Vrabel out fox Bill with the clock mgt... and Tannehill make clutch plays running and passing. Even if he did have an otherwise bad game.
that Henry show was a product of the safety depth (lots of 2 deep) and the front. Which tannehill checked off of or to at the los.
Defense held them to 13 points, including a goal line stand. I give the game mostly to the defense, then to Henrey, and then to other players. Though you have a point. Bellicheck creates gameplans to eliminate the other teams best player and he looked to eliminate Tannehill.
I’m not sure that’s what he was doing. It was odd to see so much 2 deep safeties though although if I had to guess I think it had a lot to do with no mccourty and Chung leaving early witb what I believe is a likely torn Achilles so beli played it more conservative with the safeties goalline stand was massive though no doubt
I disagree. Anytime you throw less than 20 times should be associated with a win. You only pass when you need to score. When running out the clock and playing field position are more important then you usually are winning
There is a difference between having a great game and helping your team win. He absolutely helped his team win by making plays when it counted. When two QB are both awful you need to start looking at conditions rather than both QB just being crap, especially in the playoffs. Tannehill didnt have a great game and it wont be enough going forward, but he helped his team win a tough game today yes. Even Manning had playoff games he didnt play excellent but still won and helped to win.
What if you throw 10 times and you throw 10 interceptions? What if you throw 10 times, with three completions, and 10 yards? There's obviously a difference between the small quantity of performance needed from the quarterback, by virtue of the load the rest of the offense is carrying (i.e., Derrick Henry), and the quality of the quarterback's performance. By the same token a quarterback could need to throw the ball only 10 times, have seven completions for 55 yards, no picks, no touchdowns, and neither help nor harm his team. He could also throw the ball only 10 times, have seven completions for 140 yards, no picks, and two touchdowns, and do a great deal to help his team win. Again, a difference between quantity and quality. The quantity needed from Tannehill yesterday was minimal due to Derrick Henry, but the quality he provided was poor. As was Brady's.
The highlighted portion above is the main point. It won't be enough going forward because it isn't associated with winning in the NFL. The only reason it was enough yesterday is because the rest of his team compensated. So he didn't help his team win; he helped his team lose, and his team overcame that.
I wouldnt agree with that though. You're creating some baseline that has to be reached to be considered helping your team win. I dont think that is what that term means. He could have gone 0-32 for 0 yards passing but if he ran for the game winning TD and his team won 7-0, I'd still say he helped his team win. What you are saying is more like, what he did USUALLY wouldnt be enough to help the team win. Yet we know it was. I'm pretty sure everyone here would have taken beating NE in NE in the playoffs regardless of ratin If anything just consider it good Karma for the Saints game lost with n amazing rating.
The highlighted portion above is exactly what I'm saying, and what that means, then, is that the contribution he provided to his team was a contribution that would normally result in a loss. The team overcame that contribution, however, and won the game. What people aren't seeming to get here is that Tannehill's overall performance wasn't "harmless," leaving only his good plays in the game as what we should judge his contribution on. His overall performance was something that typically makes teams lose in the NFL. Brady had a very similar performance and his team lost. Should we say he helped his team win as well, simply because of the good plays he made in the game?
Like I said, when both QB perform badly I believe you need to factor in things like the weather. You arent playing against the league in a game, you're playing your current opponent. Anytime you keep pace or surpass that opponent you've contributed to winning. I get what you are saying, it's not technically incorrect, it's just not my definition of helping a team win. We both agree he didnt play well. We both agree it isnt likely to be enough going forward. I just disagree because it was enough to win that game and he out performed his peer. If Brady put up a decent rating I'd agree they won despite Tannehill. He didnt though and Tannehill paced him, helping his team win that particular game.
This was no longer the case in the second half. They changed up their coverage immensely, and STILL could not even contain Henry. Tannehill did the opposite of what he normally does, and instead of misleading inflated “numbers” he made the plays to win that don’t show up in the box score. It’s obvious he wasn’t slinging the rock around Foxboro leading his team to some epic offensive performance. I mean they scored one TD. What he did however was win the game with timely 3rd down conversions and his legs. The Titans needed Ryan to do exactly what Ryan did last night. Goes to show football is a game of inches, NE gets one of those fumbles and wins the game he is being martyred in this thread. His team had his back (protection was SOLID) and he had theirs in crunch time. It was a great team win.
What I hear you saying in essence is that Tannehill didn't need to do a lot for the team to win, because the opposing quarterback played so poorly. That I would agree with, because passer rating differential is paramount in the NFL, but certainly we shouldn't define the quality of quarterback play in a game on the basis of what the opposing quarterback does. Both QBs can play poorly and provide contributions to their teams that are associated with losing in the NFL, and that's what happened. Tannehill's team overcame Tannehill's losing contribution, and Brady's team didn't overcome Brady's.
All I know is that in crunch time both QBs had critical 3rd down throws to make. Tannehill's was longer and into tighter coverage, under more pressure and he nailed it. Brady missed his throw. Enough said.