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. mooseguts

    mooseguts Well-Known Member

    362
    368
    63
    Jan 12, 2018
    No different than you not believing the the Titans ranked 11th and if you don't believe they're 11th I know you don't believe their 4th on the website of your choice. OL ranking are only relevant when you decide they are, makes sense.
     
  2. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You're looking bad on this one.... just stop.

    In 2018, with a good pass blocking OL, Wilson had a career worst in sack % and career bests in nearly everything else JUST LIKE TANNEHILL IN 2019. The parallels are unmistakable and completely understandable, if you drop the perceptions you had for Tannehill and Wilson from 2013.

    I'm sure you regret throwing down the gauntlet, but the fact is that my assessment was correct.

    Sorry man, but to continue this line of argument looks silly.
     
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    My first guess would be a greater percentage of play-action dropbacks, combined with a running back defenses have to respect greatly.

    The offensive line's job would be easier in that scenario, thus enabling it to give Tannehill more time to pass.
     
  4. mooseguts

    mooseguts Well-Known Member

    362
    368
    63
    Jan 12, 2018
    I look bad? Lol I can't even tell if you're being serious. Imagine debating with someone who says NO those ranking are wrong and ranking don't matter because there's no universal ranking. Then later on that person uses RANKINGS to try and prove a point.

    In essence what you said was no those ranking are no good because they don't fit my narrative, now THESE ranking are good because they fit my narrative. MY RANKING are correct for no other reason than they fit what I'm trying to say.

    You question my football intelligence I question your character. I'm sure you regret throwing down the gauntlet on OL rankings once you scoured the internet and found one you liked.

    The gauntlet was thrown as soon as blatant hypocriticalness entered the conversation.
     
  5. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL......... Let me know when Seattle produces a borderline top 10 pass blocking line...... I'm sure Wilson's sacks will plummet....

    You are not walking away from that one. It simply proved that you came into the discussion with a preconceived notion of how things were and were proven wrong. It's okay. I'm sure watching the Wilson highlights just gave you the wrong impression. I'm sure the crap on the OL that Miami has fielded for years has clouded your judgement.

    Just admit that YOU HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA. I'm serious, it's okay.

    I can admit that I was wrong about the Titans OL ranking and NOTHING about my argument changes. Nothing. Tannehill's sack %, TD %, passer rating, etc. etc. etc. all remain the same and incredibly similar to Wilson's in 2018. My rationale for why the sack % remained relatively high for both Tannehill in 2019 and Wilson in 2018 stays exactly the same. Nothing inconsistent. Every single point I've argued about sacks this year and in the past stays the same. Not all sacks are the same. Quick sacks are different than long sacks. Sacks in max protect are different than sacks with only 5 blockers. Long sacks for a team that attacks successfully down field are different than long sack for teams that are dinking and dunking.

    Can you admit you were wrong?
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2020
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  6. mooseguts

    mooseguts Well-Known Member

    362
    368
    63
    Jan 12, 2018
    I see you wish to completely ignore how hypocritical you're previous post were. Trying very hard to turn this conversation back onto Wilson, hoping I'll engage. I guess if you pretend like nothing happened it makes it easier, but we both know. I mean it's hilarious but surprising I didn't think thats who you were. I can't let you know when Seattle produces a borderline top 10 pass blocking line....theres NO UNIVERSAL RANKING...except ESPN...yeah they have it right but they're only right about Seattle in 2018....they are WRONG about Tennessee being 4th in 2019!! Lol oh god pure comedy gold.
     
  7. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Pathetic....... You respond to claims of me being hypocritical by being MORE hypocritical? LOL. I'm embarrassed for you.
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  8. mooseguts

    mooseguts Well-Known Member

    362
    368
    63
    Jan 12, 2018
    LMAO okay man sure. I guess I was the one that disavowed OL rankings and then proceeded to use OL rankings once I found one that worked in my favor. Can't make this stuff up.
     
  9. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Stop being a spaz for a moment and take me out of it.

    Use a common OL ranking system (PBWR) or none at all and NOTHING about the 2018 and 2019 seasons change. Nothing. Tannehill's sack %, TD %, passer rating, etc. etc. etc. all remain the same and incredibly similar to Wilson's in 2018. My rationale for why the sack % remained relatively high for both Tannehill in 2019 and Wilson in 2018 stays exactly the same. Nothing inconsistent.

    Not all sacks are the same. Quick sacks are different than long sacks. Sacks in max protect are different than sacks with only 5 blockers. Long sacks for a team that attacks successfully down field are different than long sack for teams that are dinking and dunking.

    Can you admit you were wrong?
     
  10. mooseguts

    mooseguts Well-Known Member

    362
    368
    63
    Jan 12, 2018
    No my response is to throw your own words back at you. Claims?? LOL...it's not claims buddy it's facts.
     
  11. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    But you can switch to ignoring OL rankings when it suits you, right?
     
  12. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    No, you were the one that advocated using OL rankings and now won't touch them because I found one that blows up your whole argument. Can't make that stuff up.
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  13. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    Sacks here are like strikeouts in baseball used to be for some people.... It used to be regarded that strikeouts were the worst thing ever... They are far from the worst thing. Hitting into a double play is much worse than a strikeout. Hitting into a fielder's choice where a fast baserunner is replaced by a slow baserunner is much worse. A Strikeout is just an out...

    A sack is a negative play no queston, but it is far from the worst outcome. Fumbles are worse... Turnovers are worse.... Turnovers that result in the other team scoring are worse...


    So yes there are a few more sacks ideally than you would like to see. But to argue he has no pocket awareness? How can you be the #1 red zone QB in football and run the #2 scoring offense in football with no pocket awareness?

    And furthermore.... You still did not address the point made where Fitzmagic had less sacks, but His QB rating was 32 points lower... He threw for less yards per pass... Lower completion percentage Turned the ball over more and his TD to INT ratio was worse.

    But hey, I guess you can congratulate yourself on the fact that he had a couple less sacks.
     
  14. mooseguts

    mooseguts Well-Known Member

    362
    368
    63
    Jan 12, 2018
    I don't know how they can be the #2 scoring offense in football with no pocket awareness last I checked the Titans weren't the #2 scoring offense in football. Is this some kind of riddle?

    I addressed all the points in your post that I quoted, why would I address something you didn't bring up? But the easy answer is sacks do not effect QB rating whatsoever. Sacks don't bring the QB rating down. He threw for less y/a, completion%, etc etc....is there a point here? Did I say Fitz had a better year?

    As long as you congratulate yourself on being a fan of the Tannehill Titans.
     
  15. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Tell him you love OL rankings then ask what he thinks of the sacks that Wilson takes.... LOL
     
    Etrius24 likes this.
  16. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    From the moment Tannehill took over as the starter the Titans were the #2 scoring offense in football behind the Ravens. This has been discussed at length in this thread... but catching up on the last page I see where you say you did not start reading at the beginning.

    Cheers.
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  17. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I thought the same thing. It is possible that I read it before the end of the regular season. It is possible that it is offense points and excludes defensive and special teams scores. I don't feel like trying to figure it out. I did find this in a Boston Globe article before the playoff game against the Patriots (Tom Brady's LAST game as a Patriot!!!).

    In the first six games with Mariota, the Titans went 2-4 and were 28th in the NFL in scoring (16.3 points per game).

    And since Tannehill took over in Week 7, the Titans . . .

    ■ have gone 7-3.

    ■ are fourth in the NFL in points (30.4 per game) and second in touchdowns (42).

    ■ are first in yards per pass attempt (9.64) and quarterback rating (119.5).

    ■ are first in rushing yards per attempt (5.64) and rushing touchdowns (17), and second in rushing yards per game (160.6).

    ■ are first in yards per play (6.94) and third in yards per game (406.2).

    ■ and are first in red zone touchdown percentage (86.7).

    So, maybe not second in offensive points per game, but damn.....
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  18. mooseguts

    mooseguts Well-Known Member

    362
    368
    63
    Jan 12, 2018
    Sorry dude but that is incorrect information, and I definitely saw that being discussed in the last few pages which is why I looked it up since I'm not gonna believe everything I read on the internet.

    From week 6-17 the Titans are 5th in scoring offense. Week 6 being when Tannehill replaced Mariota in the 3rd or 4th QTR.
    From week 7-17 the Titans are 4th in scoring offense. Week 7 being when he became the official starter.
    Either way not #2 as has been spread around here.

    On page 172 post #6874 I said the Titans were 5th in scoring offense, but I guess I'm not the only one who didn't read the whole thread.

    Mazel tov.
     
    Etrius24 and Irishman like this.
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I would like @cbrad to weigh in on the following, if he's willing and able, regarding the statistical portion.

    The correlation between adjusted (to 2019) season passer rating and points scored per game for every team in the league between 2015 and 2019 is 0.77, with the following regression equation:

    y = 0.3078x + 5.1514

    Based on that equation and Ryan Tannehill's regular season passer rating of 119.65 (excluding the Cleveland and Denver games), the 2019 Titans, in the regular season games in which Tannehill played, would've been expected to score 41.98 points per game. They scored 30.4 points per game in those games, however.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2020
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That makes no sense. If you adjusted to 2019 where the average passer rating was 90.4, then you should get the 2019 average ppg of 22.8 out of that equation by plugging in x = 90.4 but you don't. Instead you get 33, so that equation can't be correct.

    I'm guessing that's a -5.1514 not a +5.1514 in which case the result is 31.7 which is just about right if you use 119.65.
     
    Irishman, resnor and The Guy like this.
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yes indeed -- appreciate your feedback. The minus sign in the equation was sitting right on a gridline in the scatterplot, making it look like a plus sign.
     
    resnor likes this.
  22. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Damn, another attempt at making Tannehill's passer rating seem less impressive foiled......
     
    Hiruma78 and resnor like this.
  23. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    Moose

    This was taken from an article on ESPN... So it may have been worked ambiguously...

    Perhaps they looked at total points scored and did not factor in points scored by the defense or special teams? Maybe that is the difference from being the #2 offense in football and the #4

    You mentioned #5... but Tannehill did not become the starter until week 7.

    So we are arguing over scoring offense and points scored

    Congrats your bias against Tannehill has you holding onto these split hairs and loose straws at the edge of a cliff for dear life.

    I hope you survive.
     
    mooseguts and Irishman like this.
  24. mooseguts

    mooseguts Well-Known Member

    362
    368
    63
    Jan 12, 2018
    I know he didn't become the starter until week 7 but I don't see any one using his season stats starting from week 7 so I didn't think it mattered if I started from week 6, but thats also why I posted the ranking from week 7 as well.

    No, no one is arguing scoring offense, I was merely telling him he was incorrect. There's no argument because it's not up for debate.

    No my preference for facts when using numbers has me correcting false information. If we were talking about anything else and I saw incorrect information I would look it up and correct it if needed, that's just who I am as a person.

    My bias against Tennehill?? I said he had a great season, I also said if he repeats it he's probably a top 5 QB next year. Yes the Tannefaithful are so non-biased they definitely look at things balanced and fair just like Fox News.
     
  25. Losferwords

    Losferwords Member

    77
    60
    18
    Sep 1, 2012
    Serious question... why do you only show up to defend Thill?
     
  26. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I hadn't visited this message board in years until this thread started. Spent most of my time on a different message board. Ran into a poster that I debated with years ago. Just resumed.

    The real question you should be asking is, After last season, why the hell should Tannehill have to be defended at all?
     
    Hiruma78 and Irishman like this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That’s like saying any debate about Andy Dalton after 2015 or Nick Foles after 2013 shouldn’t have occurred.
     
  28. Losferwords

    Losferwords Member

    77
    60
    18
    Sep 1, 2012
    You seem overly invested in a player that no longer plays here. Shouldn't you take to this to a Titans message board?
     
  29. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I didn't create the thread, nor am I the only poster in the thread.
     
    Hiruma78 and Irishman like this.
  30. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Not to me. If you understood what was happening in Miami, you could have seen the same potential many of us did. Put away the stats package and watch some games.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  31. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Buffalo

    Who was the poster you reconnected with from the other message board?
     
  32. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    I am not sure why you singled Buffalo out... Everyone has been participating in this thread... It has been by far the most active. Honestly, it is a little unusual... but this has been the best thread on this site for months.

    Flipping the coin to the other side... I wonder why several posters spent all of this time trying to deny that Tannehill is a great QB? Why come up with 137 different arguments to try to diminish his success?
     
    FinFaninBuffalo, resnor and Irishman like this.
  33. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What we're talking about here is the player X environment interaction across two teams, and at this point nobody can determine with certainty the quality of the player or the two teams.

    What we do know is that Tannehill had six previous seasons in the NFL in which his overall performance was average. Those seasons consisted of many combinations of surrounding personnel (players and coaches).

    If someone held a gun to your head and demanded that you bet all of your belongings on one of the following two possibilities, which one would you choose:

    1) Tannehill's surroundings in Miami, across many combinations of surrounding personnel (players and coaches), were terrible for six years, thus enabling merely average surroundings in Tennessee to elevate his performance to his 2019 level. He will therefore play significantly better for the rest of his career than he did in 2012-2018, because his surroundings in Tennessee are likely to remain at least average and are unlikely to be as terrible as his surroundings in Miami.

    2) Tannehill's surroundings in Miami weren't significantly different from average, and his surroundings in Tennessee in 2019 were exceptionally good (for him specifically), thus elevating his performance to his 2019 level. He is therefore unlikely to play at that level for the rest of his career, because such exceptionally good surroundings are unlikely to be sustained or replicated.

    Here's why I would bet on possibility number 2:

    First, the league is geared toward parity among teams. It's unlikely that across six seasons any single team (i.e., Miami) could be especially horrible to the degree that it explains the difference between Tannehill's performance 2012-2018 and his performance in 2019.

    Second, as I said above, Tannehill's environment in Miami consisted of many combinations of players and coaches. It's unlikely that all of those combinations were so terrible that it explains the difference between Tannehill's performance 2012-2018 and his performance in 2019.

    Third, there have been NFL quarterbacks in the past who have experienced just one exceptionally good season, only to never perform that way again for another full season. Those quarterbacks obviously don't have exceptionally good ability -- they simply benefited from exceptionally good circumstances in just one season of their career. That doesn't mean Tannehill is definitely one of them -- it simply raises the possibility that he is.

    So with all that, it certainly makes sense in my opinion to explore the situational advantages Tannehill may have been experiencing in 2019, and that's what I've been doing in this thread.

    At any rate, next season (hopefully there will be one) will shed much greater light on what's going on here.
     
  34. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    The Guy was Shouright on Finheaven
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  35. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    if the Dolphins weren’t mostly terrible from 2012 - 2018, why all the changes on the roster and coaching staff? If the players and coaches that they cycled through weren’t inept, then wasn’t the front office inept? And if the front office was inept, why isn’t it likely that the team would be mostly terrible?
     
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I think we would see about the same degree of personnel turnover with any team (and its personnel) that was merely average over the same time span.

    Remember that average teams tend not to make the playoffs, and if a team isn’t making the playoffs year after year for seven years, it will likely be turning over a good bit of personnel in that scenario.

    What’s most likely for any team in the league is that its personnel, from the front office down to the players, is average overall. Exceptional — whether good or bad — is by definition the exception to the rule.
     
  37. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    Guy

    The Dolphins suck... They have sucked for a long time... This is a team that makes the playoffs once a decade as a wild card... and on those years they were easily the worst team in the playoffs and got the ever-living dogsh*t kicked out of them in the wild card round... It looked like that commercial with The Bus running over accountants in a flag football league. (Geico)

    Put Tannehill on a team that bad.... Run that poorly.... And he still passed for more than 4000 yards with a QB rating in the 90's completing what 64 percent of his passes.

    This is why we all knew that if he got the chance to start in Tennessee he was going to be effective... He was going to shine. Because he did not have to play for a coach that could not call more than 3 yard dump offs ( Gase ) and he did not have to dumb the offense down to the Go, Go-Go play calling. There was a half decent line... a top 10 running back and Tannehill was trusted to run the offense... to make reads to look downfield. We saw screen plays... We saw bootlegs... We saw the play action used properly... All things that were not happening in Miami... ( None of those things were Tannehill's fault )

    I am not sure why you are now arguing over the amount of turnover in regards to the roster for the Dolphins... It is not even relevant. The rosters were lacking in talent. Those Dolphins teams had terrible O lines and terrible coaching. At the end of the day that is all that matters....

    Tannehill went to a team that did not absolutely suck... and he was able to make a difference...

    The End.
     
    resnor and Pauly like this.
  38. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL. More ridiculous attempts at redefining the English language. Average teams don't make the playoffs. The Dolphins fail to make the playoffs so they're no worse than average...... Can't you even see your own logic flaw? I'll give you a clue. Crappy teams don't make the playoffs either.

    I suppose the Dolphins were merely an average team last season too.

    Let's take it to your typical absurd extreme.

    What’s most likely for any team in the league is that its personnel, from the front office down to the players, is average overall. Exceptional — whether good or bad — is by definition the exception to the rule.

    Does that mean the Patriots haven't been a dynasty since 2000? By your logic, we shouldn't believe it, despite what we witnessed. Ridiculous.
     
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Certainly you all are capable of grasping the idea that when you gather together the most ardent supporters of a professional sports franchise -- i.e., this forum and others -- and that sports franchise fails to make the playoffs in six of seven consecutive years, the perception that the franchise "sucks" will be reified by those supporters as a product of their communication with each other and their mutual "confirmation" of that perception.

    Since average team performance is the norm in the league, I'll let you all take on the task of supporting the notion -- objectively, and not just with your personal perceptions -- that the team was significantly worse than average from 2012 to 2018. Good luck with that. If it's so evident that the team was significantly worse than average, that shouldn't be difficult.

    I'll sit back and wait, with the null hypothesis that the team wasn't significantly different from the average team in the league during that period.
     
  40. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    How do you know that most teams aren't bad, and the few teams that are actually good are the playoff teams? In other words, average can still be bad. You haven't done any work to define what average actually represents.

    Essentially you want to restart all the arguments we've ever had in there just 7 years. We've been bottom of the league in third down conversions, bottom of the league in defensive stops on third down, bottom of the league in blocking, terrible coaching. I mean we could go on and on.
     

Share This Page