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. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Not suprised either way. The only legit pass rusher on this team is Casey.
     
  2. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    What?!?!?

    How do you think these offenses and defenses are crafted and designed if not for people being able to dissect what’s happening on the field by watching the games?
     
  3. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There's no logic in that kind of argument. You think anyone who can "craft and design" an offense or defense MUST be capable of "understanding what's happening on the field"? That's like saying any doctor who can design a treatment plan tailored to the patient MUST understand disease progression. Nothing remotely close. Usually the information people work with is partial at best.

    Specifically, the question is whether any person's ability to dissect what's going on includes an accurate representation of to what degree the offense or defense was responsible for an outcome. THAT requires evidence, none of which anyone has provided.

    So again.. I'm providing a wealth of evidence looking at ALL games where statistics actually is a powerful tool, and on the other side you have NO evidence provided. Yeah.. as far as I'm concerned unless you start providing evidence of HOW to estimate the relative impact of offense vs. defense through tape watching this discussion is over. Waste of my time otherwise.
     
  4. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    23,698
    39,847
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    Weather looks suited for a strong running game.

    Don't care if Tannehill is 1 for 3 in this game. Just Win.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    23,698
    39,847
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    While the pic itself is indicative of a "moment", you're missing the larger picture that it demonstrated what we've always seen from Brady in that he plays poorly under the same sort of duress other QBs do in situations like that.

    The Giants were credited with beating "him" twice in SB's with strong pressure up the middle and having him under duress throughout the game.

    YMMV.
     
    resnor likes this.
  6. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    To be fair, one of those wins also took possibly the most ridiculous catch of our generation.

    I get what you're saying about Brady but pressure isnt the only reason the Giants won.
     
    resnor likes this.
  7. Carmen Cygni

    Carmen Cygni Well-Known Member

    2,422
    5,732
    113
    Dec 30, 2017
    You're missing the point. If you have true pass rushers up front, you are less pressed to call blitzes, bc you are getting the pressure you need up front without it and in turn have more defenders for coverage. When you lack pass rushers, examples like the Titans and the Ravens, you need to dial up pressure with blitzes.

    Martingdale, unlike Pees, puts more trust in his secondary to get this done. Martingale is able to create pressure thru creative blitz packages often leaving the secondary in C0 and does so in very critical times in the game (which is where the trust part factors in). The Ravens D has blitzed an astounding rate of 55%.

    Again, I like Pees, but the Titans D should be more aggressive and yet they have only blitzed at a rate of 25%. The Titans and Ravens share similar roster characteristics defensively. With Butler, Jackson, Ryan, Byard, and Vaccaro there's a lot of talent and experience available in the secondary to do similar things that Martingdale has done with the Ravens. But, Pees has continued with his same philosophy and despite not having many true pass rushers (as was the same case when he was with Baltimore) still refrains getting aggressive in his calls and leaves it up more to his coverage, countered with proper playcalling.

    In the postseason you are facing the best offenses, and you need to be more creative in your calls and blitz packages. And that is something that Pees has shown to lack.
     
    cuchulainn likes this.
  8. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You think doctors designing treatment don’t understand how diseases work and progress?? Of course they do. You have to understand how defenses and coverages work if you want to design an offense that exploits weaknesses in the defenses.
     
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    There's nothing but logic in that statement.

    Yes, anyone that can craft an NFL offense or defense MUST be able to understand what's happening on the field. Your analogy doesn't match up at all.

    You are providing a partial glimpse into what happens on the field and calling it complete. You are 100% wrong about this. The whole sport is proof. There is no team, no coordinators that don't design their gameplans around game film. None. Nada. Zilch. You are the one that needs to provide evidence to the contrary.
     
  10. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Just to play Devil's Advocate here, couldn't that also mean that the opposing defense gets outplayed by the offense while your own D steps up? It's hard to argue one aspect without the other since there's always someone's offense and some else's defense on the field at the same time. How can stats really say which side steps up more on any given drive?
     
    adamprez2003 likes this.
  11. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    You've said ever since 2016 that tannehill can win in the regular but can't win a super bowl. Neither has Wilson on a normal team. Other then that one year with an all time great defense and running back where 30 other QBs could have won a ring he hasn't done anything but feast on bad regular season defenses and like Richard Sherman said cost the Seahawks a second ring. He's like Trent dilfer and jim mcmahon. Now if he wins a second Superbowl according to your logic then you can call him elite. Until then he's a scrub according to your logic. An btw when is this revolution in qbs finally going to take place and one of these running qbs actually win a SB. You have been preaching it for a decade yet pocket passer after pocket passer keeps winning it
     
  12. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I'm more adding my own thoughts to your post than debating what you said.

    Game plans are designed around film to a high degree but not entirely.

    For example, every offense has a general feel to it and staples it runs. It isnt going to switch styles entirely during a week and run a new offense.

    What the film dictates is how much you plan to run certain staples of your offense as well as any plays in the playbook you may not run often that would exploit certain things you see on tape.

    Also a lot of tape study is more so your individual players know the tendencies of the opponents as well vs building a specific set of plays.

    It's pretty rare to see an offense go out and go entirely against what they run game to game. At the same time there are tweaks.
     
  13. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah, they have their own style and they craft their gameplay from their available plays based on what they've seen their opponents do. Then during the game, they do the same thing, on the fly.
     
  14. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Super Bowl XLIX is a prime example of DEFENSE winning championships Brad. On my phone so it’s too difficult to multitask but I KNOW there are multiple examples of the DEFENSE winning the game, not the offense
     
  15. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    I believe football moves in decade long cycles. Two decades ago the QBs dominated. This is the period when peyton, brees and Rodgers all won Superbowls. It's the period when the rules changes had just gone into effect making the passing game easier. The last decade however I think saw an adjustment to where defenses were the number one factor in determining super bowls. The teams started playing nickel and dime more and got smaller and faster. Now however I think I see a new trend emerging and that is running back being the difference maker and I think that's because offenses are saying ok you want to play your tiny little fast guys, we are going to pound you now. I think the 20s are going to be a replay of the 70s
     
  16. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    In seasons other than 2013 (the one in which he was on an extraordinary team, according to the above), Russell Wilson has played in 11 playoff games since he's been in the league.

    In 6 of those 11 games he posted a passer rating that gave his team at least a 50% probability of winning. His most recent game of that nature was just last week, when he went to Philadelphia and posted a passer rating of 108.3.

    So Wilson has definitely demonstrated the ability to perform in a way consistent with winning in the playoffs in seasons other than 2013.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  17. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Lol.. NO THEY DO NOT. In most cases they only have partial understanding of disease progression. Dude.. I do research in this field and am at one of the top medical institutes in the world (Johns Hopkins). I gave that example because it's so accurate.

    And no, you can't just assume that a coach that designs defenses can accurately estimate how much the offense or defense was responsible for some result. That requires proof positive, and no one has provided such evidence.
     
    Pauly and Carmen Cygni like this.
  18. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yes of course. You need to understand what I'm claiming before arguing against it. I'm saying that on average the offense has been more important. There are MANY examples of playoff games and SB's where defense was more important. It's just that there are more examples with offense being more important.
     
  19. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I've already been through this. Neither stats NOR anyone else can dissect that despite all these claims (provided without evidence) to the contrary. So what the statistical approach does is say that GIVEN all those possibilities that you have, not just in the regular season but in the playoffs, what is the relative production of the offense and defense of the winning team (relative to league averages). In other words, you don't need to solve that problem is that's the same confound in EVERY game. You look at relative performance instead.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  20. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    First off all, I never said they could accurately estimate who was responsible or how much they were responsible. I said that you can't design an offense to attack a defense if you don't understand how the defense and coverages work. A doctor cannot design an effective treatment of they don't understand how a disease works. I don't care who you work for, you have to understand the problem in order to design an effective treatment.
     
  21. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    We're not talking about coverages. Stick to the specific claim I made about NO ONE being able to tell you how much the offense or defense was responsible for an outcome. Of course they can tell you about coverages.

    And you're wrong about disease progression. I mean I'm right now writing up a grant proposal on using a model of retinal ganglion cell processing I developed to apply to glaucoma to better predict visual impairments from measures of structural damage in the retina. There are tons of treatments for glaucoma, most of which don't work because no one really understands what's going on (except a few cases). It's actually quite common that disease progression is only partially understood. You have no idea what you're talking about.

    I should add that in many cases, even if you do understand what's going on you can't do much about it, but that's another story (and that's true for many common eye diseases).
     
    Pauly and Carmen Cygni like this.
  22. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    6 of 11 games is just over 50% thanks to the most recent game.

    So basically half the time he gives his team an over 50% chance to win according to your statistics correct?

    I'm not sure how good or bad that is without comparisons to other QB.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I get what you mean in terms of a more sound conclusion about his ability, but that isn't necessary to refute the following claim, to which I was responding:
    What would be consistent with that claim is zero performances at a level associated with winning in the playoffs, not six out of eleven.

    The question this week with Tannehill is, will it be one out of two, or zero out of two?
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  24. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You just said it yourself: treatments that don't work because they don't understand the disease. I clearly stated that you can't design an effective cure without understanding the disease. You designing something to predict something is different than trying to cure something. My responses here have been specifically in regards to your claim that doctors can design cures without understanding disease, which you then extrapolated to coaches can design offenses without understanding defense, and vice versa. It's simply not correct.
     
  25. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Take away 2013 and he's 5-5 in the playoffs and remember the Seahawk defense didn't just disappear overnight. They dominated for four years at least and Wilson wasn't able to win one more ring? Tannehill would've won two on that team. If the Seahawks had brady, brees, or Rodgers the Seahawks would've been an all time dynasty with three or four rings in a five year period. Wilson cost them rings
     
  26. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    You assume your numbers are relevant. They aren't. They are garbage that means nothing. But keep playing with them

    Tannehill doesn't have one playoff game under his belt. The entire season was a playoff run. He had zero room for losing when he took over. This is his third month in the playoffs
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So when Wilson wins a ring it's because of his team, and when he fails to get a ring, it's because of him?
     
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I added an extra sentence to the previous post to address that. You often can't design an effective treatment even if you understand what's going on AND you often have effective treatments without understanding the disease.

    Point is.. there's no logic to the argument Fin-D originally made that because you see someone designing a game plan of any sort that therefore they must understand the game at a level to answer questions like whether the offense or defense was more responsible for an outcome. Not true and requires proof positive.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    As usual, someone has attempted to discredit statistics without any rationale or effort in that regard.

    The statistics are meaningless because "adamprez2003" (or insert someone else's username) says so, with no supporting rationale.

    Keep trying....
     
  30. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    There's no logic in saying there's no logic in it.

    Prove NFL coordinators aren't dissecting what happens on the field to craft their gameplans.

    I'm sorry but you're literally proving you know nothing about the sport at all.
     
    Hiruma78, resnor and adamprez2003 like this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    There are bad decisions made all the time in the NFL regarding for example whether to go for it on fourth down, whether to use a time out, or whether to try a two-point conversion. Just because the folks making the decisions are immersed in the world of football doesn't mean they're experts on every bit of minutiae of the game.
     
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You mean like where you have shown how the 15 passes Tannehill threw were poor to defend your position that he played poorly?

    You routinely hold other posters to different standards than you hold yourself.
     
    KeyFin and PhinFan1968 like this.
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Of course they're dissecting SOMETHING. Does that something include an ability to estimate whether the offense was more response than the defense for an outcome? That requires proof.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  34. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Every QB in the NFL could have won on that team. Like the 85 bears and 2000 ravens
     
    PhinFan1968 and resnor like this.
  35. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Bad decision is simply a matter of perspective. When those things work, they're referred to as good moves, or outcoaching the other coach. When they fail, they're referred to as bad decisions.
     
  36. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yes!!!!!!

    WTF are they dissecting if not??!?!?!?!

    I feel like you want me to prove water is wet.
     
    Hiruma78, PhinFan1968 and resnor like this.
  37. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Except water isn't wet. Hahahaha Wet is a property of something that has water on it. Water is simply water.

    I think.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  38. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    How about coverages and which player did what he was supposed to do? That they should be able to do.

    But estimating to what degree the offense or defense was responsible? That's another story. If you can answer questions like that there are a bunch of social scientists who would be interested in your methodology because they can't answer questions like that in many situations where so many possible mechanisms could have led to an observed outcome.

    Again.. that type of ability requires actual evidence, none of which has been provided.
     
  39. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Substitute Tannehill for Wilson and game for ring and you get exactly what you have been trying to claim for 7 years. Your posts demonstrate a shocking lack of self awareness.
     
    Hiruma78 and Fin D like this.
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You're defining Wilson's performance that year in terms of what his team did, rather than looking at his individual performance.

    Could every quarterback in the league have posted a 101.2 season passer rating with that team? Could every quarterback in the league have posted a passer rating of 104.6 in the NFC Championship and 123.1 in the Super Bowl with that team?

    If your answers to those questions are "yes," then you can't possibly remain consistent with your position, given that Wilson has performed similarly on subsequent teams, which you've already claimed are weaker than that one.
     

Share This Page