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. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You can be lacking high-end talent, but you can’t expect a QB to lead you to wins if you have below average talent around him at receiver, oline, and backs.
     
  2. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure, but they are top quarterbacks, who can compete with the other top QBs in the league when the game revolves around the pass. They don't need their running backs to average 8+ yards a carry and gain 180+ yards on the ground, while they pass the ball a mere 19 times, to squeak out a win against the top QBs in the league.
     
  3. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    You act like most of the veteran QB's knocked off Baltimore and New England last year. Those two teams must have been terrible in this new league of ultra elite quarterbacks.
     
    Hiruma78 and resnor like this.
  4. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Lamar Jackson has the same problem Tannehill does -- put him in a high-volume passing game and he wilts. His team needs one of the best pass defenses in the league to win a Super Bowl as well.
     
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    This was covered earlier in the thread. Tannehill "beat" Mahomes in the regular season under the conditions of being asked to throw only 19 passes in the game, while his running back (Derrick Henry) rushed for 188 yards and 8.2 yards a carry.

    In the playoffs, however, Henry rushed for only 69 yards and 3.6 yards a carry, thus forcing Tannehill into a high-volume passing game with Mahomes, in which he couldn't compete. In fact Tannehill demonstrated a season-long pattern last year in which his performance plummeted in high-volume passing games, and that pattern was no different from his performance in high-volume passing games previously throughout his career.

    When Tannehill is forced to be the centerpiece of the offense and he has to carry it, his performance is almost never good enough to accomplish that.

    The only remedy for that sort of scenario is to either 1) count on Derrick Henry to have extremely good output every time Tannehill plays a top QB in the league, which is unrealistic, or 2) have one of the best pass defenses in the league, so that when Henry has an expected off game, the top opposing quarterback's performance can be diminished enough for Tannehill to compete with him in a high-volume passing game.

    And as I said earlier here, losing their Pro Bowl defensive tackle isn't a good start with regard to accomplishing #2.
     
  6. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Tannehill proved he was worth more than a rookie contract before he hurt his knee... He put up back to back seasons that statistically put him in the debate to be considered a top 10 NFL QB... Despite playing on truly ****ty football teams with bad coaching.
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Unfortunately "top-10" is meaningless unless it's also top-six. That's the level of quarterback play at which a playoff berth is expected, with all other things equal.

    So if Tannehill's performance made him top-seven through top-10, that isn't meaningfully distinct, in terms of an expected playoff berth with all else equal, from the designation of "bottom-26."

    When the league revolves around the pass and around quarterback play, it creates a bigger distinction between the top QBs in the league and the rest of them than it would if it functioned differently.
     
  8. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    But being "top 1" for 2020 and leading in most statistical passing categories still isn't good enough? You're talking in circles and managed to disprove your own point in the span of 5 minutes.

    Either it matters or it doesn't....please stop cherry picking to tell the same story over and over again.
     
    Cashvillesent, resnor and Irishman like this.
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You're neglecting the context in which the post you quoted was made. The person I responded to was talking about what Tannehill had done previous to the most recent season, and the contract he felt he deserved as a function of that part of his career.

    Please try to follow along better.
     
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Another two salary-related moves that have the potential to interfere with Tannehill's ability to replicate his 2019 season:

    1) Losing Jack Conklin, the starting right tackle.
    2) Franchising Derrick Henry, which increases his percentage of the Titans' salary cap from 0.9% in 2019 to 5.2% in 2020.

    So again, the point is that it's possible for QBs who aren't great to have great seasons (i.e., Andy Dalton in 2015), but how likely is it that a team can sustain the surroundings necessary to maintain that performance?

    That is the question, and it's obvious already that the Titans will be a different team in 2020 than they were in 2019. How will that translate to Tannehill's performance -- we shall see.
     
  11. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Again, as I've said in the past:

    There is no such thing as being a "top 6" QB in the context you put it.

    The top 6 changes every year. Being in the top 10 consistently means you have the capability to be in that top 6 any given year.

    You also neglected the other part of his post. Despite the fact he was on terrible teams. He was implying that he could have finished better than top 10 without poor talent.
     
    resnor likes this.
  12. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Yup, and that very same person (and dozens of others) said that if RT was on a different team with a better line, he'd likely be a top-5 quarterback. But in case the math got confusing, #1 is definitely one of the numbers that go in that top 5 statistic. My pre-school teacher once told me that's a fact!

    For future reference-

    [​IMG]

    See how that #1 goes first? That means it's better than 2, 3, 4 or 5 in terms of rankings (and 6...we can't forget about six since that was your big revelation! Six goes just after 5....I'll try to get a new diagram for that soon).
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2020
    resnor likes this.
  13. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I wish I could see this.
     
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The point is more about the fact that top 10 is meaningless if it isn't also top six. That's how the league functions. People shouldn't run around saying "top 10" all the time without understanding its meaning. It's an arbitrary designation.

    Why not top 11? Is the eleventh guy significantly worse than the tenth? The people who say "top 10" all the time are implying that, without any evidence of it.

    So, the other fellow's point was about contracts. Points about contracts are likewise meaningless if they're based on an arbitrary designation ("top 10").
     
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The guy ranked 5th isn't that much better than 6th, and 6th isn't much better than 7th.

    Assuming QB ability is normally distributed (a decent approximation based on historical data), the 6th ranked QB will be on average about 0.938 standard deviations above the mean, the 7th is on average about 0.823 standard deviations above the mean, and the 10th is at around 0.529 standard deviations above the mean, at least based on 10,000 simulations.

    Using the equations in these graphs I posted before:
    https://www.thephins.com/threads/titans-to-start-ryan-tannehill.94693/page-124#post-3245983

    The probability of a 6th ranked QB making the playoffs in a given year is 52.7%, the 7th ranked is 49.5% and the 10th ranked is 42.2%.

    So yes you're right that "top 6" has a statistical meaning "top 7" and "top 10" don't have in that the probability of making the playoffs is just above 50%, but there's no huge drop-off to #7. Those graphs in that link are useful: they show how gradual the change occurs.

    Many said "top 10". I don't remember any saying "top 5". What Tannehill did last year was a surprise even to those who said he could play at a top 10 level with proper surrounding cast. He played elite last year. That was never predicted as far as I remember.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2020
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  16. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, the distinction of meaning for me is the cutoff at which, with all else equal, the quarterback's performance is sufficient for a playoff berth. And that has meaning it does, obviously, because it's impossible to win the Super Bowl without making the playoffs.

    As for what Tannehill did last year, he played at an elite level until he hit the playoffs, when his performance plummeted.

    Consider that Tannehill's regular season passer rating last year was 117.5. In the playoffs it was 98.5.

    Here are the career figures in that regard for some of the QBs typically considered elite (regular season passer rating listed first, playoffs passer rating listed second):

    Brady: 97; 89.8
    Rodgers: 102.4; 100
    Brees: 98.4; 99.6
    Wilson: 101.2; 96.7
    Mahomes: 108.9; 106.6

    The thrust there isn't the figures themselves, because they would need to be adjusted to era to have meaning in a comparison with Tannehill's. The thrust rather is in the comparison between Tannehill and these other QBs in terms of the difference between regular season performance and playoff performance.

    It's difficult to believe Tannehill belongs in their company long-term when his performance in 2019 changed so much more than theirs as a function of regular season versus playoffs.
     
  17. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The average difference in regular season vs. playoff ratings for a starting QB is about 10 passer rating points lower for the playoffs, but in Tannehill's case you can't really make any inferences because sample size is so low. He has only 60 attempts in the playoffs so far.

    If that difference persists after 7-8 playoff games with 150+ passing attempts then maybe you can start to make a case, but right now it's too small sample size to make any (statistical) inferences.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure, and unfortunately Tannehill himself is likely responsible in large part for the small sample size, which is another mark against him in terms of believing he's part of elite company long-term.

    Also, with regard to the portion of your post I highlighted above, the comparison for me here isn't between Tannehill and the average QB; it's between Tannehill and the other elite QBs in the league. And the reason for that is because the question of relevance in my opinion is whether his performance in 2019 establishes him as having elite ability. When we look at how the elite QBs in the league function, we see important differences between them and the 2019 version of Tannehill.
     
  19. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Joe Flacco, Eli Manning and Nick Foles are not top QBs. They are average to good QBs who had hot streaks in the playoffs. All 3 QBs were matched with very strong defenses. Random distribution is not even distribution so, theoretically at least, any average to good QB can put together a hot 3 or 4 game streak in the playoffs. Combine that with a strong defense and some other offensive weapons to help you get into the olayoffs and it’s a recipe that can net you a superbowl. It’s not the recipe for a dynasty with multiple deep runs into the playoffs, but it’s better than not having a shot.
    Peyton Manning won his last Superbowl with a noodle arm, while the defense carried the team. That’s 4 of the 9 superbowls in the “rookie salary cap era” being won by a team without a top performing QB.
    The “Top QBs” who won were Tom Brady (3 times), Russel Wilson and Pat Mahomes, Aaron Rogers and Drew Brees, who most people would consider top 3 or 4 QBs in that nine year period haven’t even made the superbowl in the same time span.
     
    resnor likes this.
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The only one of those QBs who won a Super Bowl on a typical veteran contract was Eli Manning. And he's the only non-HoF-level QB who's won a Super Bowl on a typical veteran-level contract since 2004.

    Foles wasn't on his rookie contract, per se, in 2017, but his salary cap hit was a mere 1% of the team's cap that year.

    So since 2004, other than Eli Manning in 2011, Super Bowls have been won only by either 1) Hall of Fame QBs, or 2) non-Hall of Fame QBs who were on rookie-level contracts.

    Non-Hall of Fame QBs who were on veteran contracts have won exactly one Super Bowl of the last 17.

    As for your point about some of these QBs' having been matched with a strong defense, that's exactly what I've been saying Tannehill will need, and what his salary may preclude.
     
  21. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Any comparison starting before 2011 is invalid. That is when the rookie contract rules went into place. Before that time, guys weren't getting "rookie" deals if they were drafted early.
     
    Silverphin likes this.
  22. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The only QBs for whom that's relevant in the current discussion are the non-HoF QBs who have won Super Bowls since 2004.

    Those are Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, Nick Foles, Patrick Mahomes, and Russell Wilson. Of course some of those QBs may make the HoF, but as of now all of them are at least debatable in that regard.

    Eli Manning's salary cap hit percentages prior to his first Super Bowl win were 2.8%, 5.3%, 7.2%, and 9.2%.

    Joe Flacco's salary cap hit percentages prior to his Super Bowl win were 1.1%, 4%, 4.8%, and 6.6%.

    Nick Foles's salary cap hit percentage the year of his Super Bowl win (he wasn't with that team previously) was 1%. That team's starting QB, Carson Wentz, had salary cap hit percentages in the years prior of 3.1% (2016) and 3.6% (2017, the year of the Super Bowl win).

    Patrick Mahomes's salary cap hit percentages prior to his Super Bowl win were 1.8%, 2.1%, 2.4%, and 2.7%.

    And finally Russell Wilson's salary cap hit percentages prior to his Super Bowl win were 0.5% and 0.6%.

    Now compare that to Ryan Tannehill, whose salary cap hit percentages will now be 11.4% in 2020, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 15% thereafter, depending on how the salary cap moves.

    To put Tannehill's salary cap hit in greater perspective, consider that Aaron Rodgers's salary cap hit percentage in 2019 was 15.6%. In 2020 that figure will drop to 10.9%. Drew Brees's salary cap hit percentage in 2019 was 11.9%. Tom Brady's in 2019 was 11.4%.

    Again, the pattern of outcomes in Super Bowls since 2004 is that you win one with either a Hall of Fame QB, or with one who had been making peanuts, comparatively speaking, in the years prior, whether their salaries were based on "rookie contracts" or something else. Again the lone exception in those 17 Super Bowls was Eli Manning in 2011.

    So, Super Bowls since 2004 have been won 94% of the time by either HoF QBs, or non-HoF QBs who had been making peanuts. If you have neither of those, you have a 6% chance of winning a Super Bowl based on those variables alone.

    The issue, again, is that to win big with a QB like Tannehill, you need to surround him with sufficient talent. If he's making a ton of money himself, obviously that becomes more difficult.

    The Titans have already lost their starting right guard and Pro Bowl defensive tackle due to salary concerns, and they had to franchise Derrick Henry rather than signing him to a more cap-friendly deal (in 2020 at least). So the issue of whether Tannehill will have the talent around him necessary to replicate or improve upon his 2019 performance is unfolding as we speak, and it's based primarily on his own salary increase.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  23. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    And again...

    Your big money argument is invalid. The Cowboys offered Prescott 33 million last year and he turned it down... Tannehill has won more playoff games than Prescott... Despite being surrounded with much less talent on offense. Prescott wants 40! And over the next three years there will be more and more quarterbacks surpassing the 35 million dollar mark.

    Statistically, next gen stats ranks Tannehill as the 8th best QB in football last year. So if he comes close to replicating his success... He is a top 10 QB... By this time next year there will be more than 10 other QB's that make more per year than Ryan Tannehill

    A year from now QB's like Lamar Jackson will be looking for a new deal... Mahomes is about to get a new deal... They will easily make more than tannehill... Before anyone gets a raise Tannehill will be the 10th highest paid QB in football in base salary and against the cap he will rank


    And furthermore... Passing on Tannehill the Titans are left to hit the market... and that means still spending more than 20 million a year on someone like Teddy Bridgewater...

    It is not easy to find a capable experienced veteran for 5.5 million like we did when we inked Fitzmagic ... The titans could not win with someone like Mariota last year..... This was proven.... To ink a nothing QB like Mariota it will cost the Titans more than 10 million a year... and with Mariota at best next year they win 6 or 7 games and miss the playoffs.

    They are getting something for their money... Those extra 3-4 wins a year and the chance to go deep into the playoffs...
     
    resnor and KeyFin like this.
  24. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Just so you know...if you look at the bottom-right of each person's post, there's a "reply" button. Click that and it quotes their text, then lets you type below it.

    If nobody has said it yet, welcome to the forum. It's good to have new members who know football and will argue their viewpoints without going nuts over folks that disagree. Believe it or not, the forums are super slow right now with only maybe 10-15% of our regular members posting. Most don't hop back on the forums until pre-season. Anyway, we're glad you're here and enjoying the site!

    Oh, and if you want a profile picture, just pick something out and I'm sure a moderator can help you get that taken care of. Or to do that yourself, you go to your profile (click your name at the top of the page or in any of your posts), then "personal details". The second area on that page lets you upload an avatar or you can use one of theirs that's already on the site.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The "big money argument" is hardly invalid when non-HoF QBs of that nature have a mere 6% chance of winning a Super Bowl, based on those variables alone.

    Just because there are multiple teams that are willing to go down that road with multiple different quarterbacks doesn't mean it gives them any better a chance of winning a Super Bowl. The validity of the approach isn't determined by how many teams are doing it.
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Every one of those QB's you listed played great in the years they won the SB. In other words, success is already explained by performance without looking at salary cap, and those graphs I showed earlier quantify those success probabilities.

    So what you should be doing is looking at exceptions to that rule (what is still left unexplained).. like Peyton playing like crap in 2015 when he won the SB. I mean.. it doesn't matter if you have a HoF QB is he plays like crap the year he won the SB.

    So I don't see the salary cap argument yet. And to get any decent idea of how QB salary cap percentage affects a team's winning percentage, you shouldn't just look at SB winners, you need to look at all QB's over an entire season, preferably for multiple seasons and see how win% correlates to QB salary cap%. That has to be the starting point for any analysis here. And if that comes back negative (i.e., if the confidence intervals on the correlation include zero), then you really have no case.

    So I'd like to see that evidence first.
     
    resnor, Pauly and The Guy like this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure, but part of the train of thought here has been that QBs like Tannehill can play well enough -- individually -- to win a Super Bowl if they have sufficient talent around them.

    So the question becomes, did these non-HoF QBs play well enough the years they won Super Bowls because their low salaries permitted the kind of surroundings that boosted their individual performance those years?

    In other words, it isn't just what the salary cap space can do for the team as a whole; it's what the salary cap space might do to elevate the QB's individual performance.

    I'm with you on the need for more data regarding the relationship between salary cap and win percentage, and the fact that the Titans for example are losing key players as a function of Tannehill's salary increase suggests such an exploration is warranted.

    They obviously aren't going to get any better individual play out of Tannehill in the years to come, but it's a done deal right now that he will be accounting for far more salary cap space than he did in 2019.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2020
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I think 2019 already proved that Tannehill can play at an elite level with the surrounding cast he has in Tennessee. The only question is once again performance: whether 2019 was an aberration or whether it's a sign of a higher average level of play on his part.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It'll be interesting, because for the four years prior to and including 2019, the Titans' starting QB (Marcus Mariota) had salary cap percentages of:
    3.1%
    3.5%
    4%
    4.3%
    11.1% (Tannehill's was 1.2% in 2019)

    If Tannehill stays in Tennessee for the remainder of his new contract and it doesn't change, for the next four years, based on the 2020 league salary cap, those figures will be:
    11.4%
    13.7%
    14.9%
    13.3%
     
  30. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Next gen stats ranked Tannehill as the 8th best QB in the NFL last season.

    To argue that ...That level of play would not be good enough to win is insanity.

    Honest activity for everyone here.

    Rank your top 12 NFL QB's

    Remember that last year Tannehill lead the NFL in QB rating. He led the NFL in Yards per pass... and he was what tied for second I think in completion percentage... And it was over 70% ( Which is insanly good )
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You have a reference for this? As far as I know Next Gen Stats doesn't have a QB ranking system. They're using real-time player tracking data to calculate things like time to throw or expected completion%. This is their official glossary of stats:
    https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/glossary

    And these are the Next Gen passing stats for 2019:
    https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing

    I don't see any Next Gen Stats QB ranking in there.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  32. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    CBrad

    I will try to find the article that referenced this... I believe it was on ESPN
     
    Irishman likes this.
  33. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I don't know anything about Next Gen Stats, but if you argued that the 8th-best QB in the league in terms of passer rating isn't good enough to win it would hardly be insanity. The 8th-best QB in the league in terms of passer rating doesn't even make his team likely to make the playoffs on the basis of his performance alone.

    Again, people need to "recalibrate" when it comes to these traditional understandings of "top 10" and so forth.
     
  34. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    I just had a quick look at the next gen stats. On things like air yards, aggression%, air yards to the sticks etc. Tannehill is generally ranked in the top 5. The only next gen stat he is not near the top is time to throw, where he is near the bottom. Although it does make sense that if he’s throwing downfield a lot more than average that it will take longer before the ball leaves his hand.

    As has been discussed regarding his sack % what he’s being asked to do in Tennessee is to hold onto the ball longer then take deep shots more often. It is dissimilar to his time in Miami when he had a very low time taken to throw number and still was getting sacked a lot.
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  35. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    The Guy

    No in terms of passer rating Tannehill was first overall in the NFL... Just like he was in yards per pass.

    Next gen stats ranked him 8th in the QB index.... Other quarterbacks threw more passes per game and had more yard.... but when everything was calculated they ranked him 8th overall.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, I wasn't applying what I said to Tannehill specifically in the post you're responding to. What I was getting at is that the 8th-best QB in the league may not mean much in terms of the ability of his performance to help his team contend for a Super Bowl. It depends on the statistic of course, but in the case of passer rating for example, the 8th-best QB in the league doesn't even make his team probable to make the playoffs on the basis of his own performance exclusively.

    Again the whole "top 10" thing is an arbitrary designation. Of course the 10th-best QB in the league in terms of passer rating is a whole lot better than the 30th-best one, but neither of them makes his team probable to make the playoffs on the basis of his performance exclusively. We need to get to the 6th-best QB in the league to achieve that, believe it or not, so "top 10" doesn't have as much meaning as it's implied to have by many folks here.

    In the case of passer rating, for example, "top 10" has about as much meaning as David Letterman's top 10 lists. We have some sort of affinity for the number 10 because single digits turn into double digits at that point, I suppose, but beyond that it doesn't have much meaning here.
     
  37. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I'm assuming you can't actually show this is true. The official Next Gen Stats are the ones I linked to, so unless proven otherwise there is no QB index for Next Gen Stats and Tannehill was not rated 8th by them.
     
  38. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    CBrad

    I did a quick google last night and I saw several things that Ranked Tannehill in the top 10 for QB... I will look a little more for you.. and I will post a couple of the articles I did find so far

    Cheers.
     
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I think he’s specifically just disagreeing with you premise that Next Gen Starts ranked him in anything, since they don’t do rankings. He’s not disputing that Tannehill played at those levels.
     
    Etrius24, Irishman and cbrad like this.
  40. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Resnor

    I am trying to pin it down.... I was not an article from next gen stats it was an article written by another site that used numbers from a couple sources

    Shoot it was months ago now when I read it... It could have said something like... Based on next gen stats, www.whoever.com ranks Tannehill as the 8th best QB in football.

    And maybe that is why I am having trouble finding it on google now because the first thing I did was google ryan tannehill 8th best QB next gen stats and I cannot find the article.

    But I will keep digging to see if I can actually dig that piece up
     
    Irishman likes this.

Share This Page