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
    Titans secondary lost that Chiefs game in the playoffs. Their CB were too slow for the Chiefs explosive offense. Adoore and Butler were both injured that game as well. Logan Ryan kept getting beat every play, damn near.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  2. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Precisely why I said very early in the thread that if the Titans are going to keep pace with teams like the Chiefs with Tannehill at quarterback, they’re going to need to improve their pass defense first and foremost.

    If you’re going to outduel the likes of Mahomes with Tannehill, you’re going to need to make Mahomes play uncharacteristically poorly.
     
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    YOU MADE THE CLAIM NOT ME.

    Again, YOU are making the spurious cousin, YOU are not providing proof of your claim, YOU are asking is to do the work to prove YOUR claim.
     
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You literally are describing EVERY team out there, and then trying to use that to discredit Tannehill.

    You don't ever talk about the game where Tannehill and the Titans beat the Chiefs, because it doesn't fit your narrative.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Here’s what you said:
    You said Tannehill played well in pressure/must-win situations. That is not my claim.

    So support your claim. Or again, should it just be taken to be true because “resnor” said so with no support, until somebody else comes along and refutes it with actual evidence?
     
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What is your narrative, and how is it supported by that game?

    Let’s see if you can actually support a position with evidence, rather than stating one with no support and acting as though it should be deemed valid.
     
  7. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Same can be said for 31 teams in the league.
    If you are going to out duel the 2nd best QB in the league, 30 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 3rd best QB in the league, 29 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 4th best QB in the league, 28 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 5th best QB in the league, 27 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 6th best QB in the league, 26 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 7th best QB in the league, 25 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 8th best QB in the league, 24 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 9th best QB in the league, 23 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 10th best QB in the league, 22 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 11th best QB in the league, 21 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 12th best QB in the league, 20 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 13th best QB in the league, 19 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 14th best QB in the league, 18 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 15th best QB in the league, 17 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 16th best QB in the league, 16 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 17th best QB in the league, 15 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 18th best QB in the league, 14 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 19th best QB in the league, 13 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 20th best QB in the league, 12 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 21st best QB in the league, 11 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 22nd best QB in the league, 10 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 23rd best QB in the league, 9 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 24th best QB in the league, 8 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 25th best QB in the league, 7 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 26th best QB in the league, 6 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 27th best QB in the league, 5 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 28th best QB in the league, 4 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 29th best QB in the league, 3 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 30th best QB in the league, 2 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 31st best QB in the league, 1 team need to hold that QB's production below normal.
    If you are going to out duel the 32rd best QB in the league, 0 teams need to hold that QB's production below normal.
     
    resnor likes this.
  8. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Mahomes wasn't held below his normal production and they still lost. It happened without "out dueling" Mahomes. KC played their game. Tenn played their game and Tenn won.

    So, your premise of "If you are going to out duel Mahomes......." is flawed. Most often teams won't try to "out duel" KC and Mahomes.
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    OK Jack Nicholson from "The Shining." We get the point.

    Your position doesn't take into account standard variation game-by-game, the kind of variation Mahomes exhibits, the kind of variation the top QBs exhibit, and the kind of variation Tannehill exhibits and what it depends on.

    Drew Brees for example has quite a better shot against Mahomes than Tannehill does in a high-volume passing game. Jimmy Garoppolo has a better shot against Mahomes than Tannehill does in a high-volume passing game. Believe it or not Jacoby Brissett has a better shot against Mahomes than Tannehill does in a high-volume passing game.
     
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The two games provide precisely the contrast I've gone over here, with regard to low- versus high-volume passing games for Tannehill, and the degree to which the offense is placed on his shoulders.

    In the first game Derrick Henry ran the ball 23 times for 188 yards and 8.2 yards per carry, Tannehill dropped back to pass on 47% of the Titans' offensive plays, well below the league norm, thus enabling him to post a passer rating of 133.9, higher than Mahomes's rating of 119.2, and the Titans were therefore able to squeak out a win by three points (35-32) against Mahomes and the Chiefs.

    In the second game, however, Derrick Henry was held in check and ran the ball 19 times for 69 yards and 3.6 yards per carry. That forced Tannehill into a higher-volume passing role, in which he dropped back to pass on 58.7% of the Titans' offensive plays. His passer rating fell from the 133.9 he posted in the first game to 108.1. Mahomes played like he did in the first game, however, posting a passer rating 120.4, and the Titans were beaten handily (35-24).

    So, the Titans' ability to beat the Chiefs in 2019 was precisely a function of whether Ryan Tannehill could remain in a low-volume passing role. When he was forced out of that role, the Titans were easily beaten.

    At this point you should simply acknowledge that Tannehill has a weakness of this nature. The fact that you can't is telling. The guy isn't the second coming of God.
     
  11. Two Tacos

    Two Tacos Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    11,123
    5,828
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    The Tua thread in club currently has over 500 more posts than this one, but now that he's a Dolphin I expect that discussion will be rolled into various other threads. It will be interesting to see if this has the staying power over next season. Probably depends on Ryan's play.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  12. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL. All your bull**** is to disagree with a point that nobody has ever made.......
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
  13. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL. Your opinions on QBs are comical, IMO.

    Tannehill leads the Titans to 24 points in KC's home stadium and posts a 108 passer rating. Jimmy G leads the 49ers to 21 points in a neutral stadium and posts a 69 passer rating.

    But, TANNEHILL!!!!! LOL

    Brissett is demoted for a guy who was let go by his previous team. Tannehill is signed to a big contract and you conclude Brissett gives a team a better chance..... man the league is missing out on your knowledge...... get on the phone with the Titans this instant. They may want to swing a deal for Brissett. LOL.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  14. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Tannehill posted a passer rating good enough to win in both games.

    Seems to me like the running game failed to hold up their end of the bargain.......
     
    resnor likes this.
  15. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Weird, I don't recall your position taking that into account...... I also don't recall your position taking into account that passer rating is still a good predictor of wins in the NFL. So much so that you used to focus almost exclusively on passer rating differential when discussing QBs. An approach that you dropped simply because Tannehill led the league in passer rating.........

    Trust me, you are unbelievable obvious......
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  16. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Tannehill's passer rating in the first game, when the running game performed well, was 133.9. In the second game, when the running game didn't perform well, his passer rating plummeted to 108.1.

    Why didn't Tannehill simply post a passer rating in the second game somewhere closer to the passer rating he posted in the first game, regardless of what the Titans' running game did?

    You got two issues there: 1) the degree to which Tannehill's performance is diminished as a function of high-volume passing, and 2) the extremely strong (compared to the league norm) correlation between his performance and that of Derrick Henry in 2019.
     
  17. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL plummeted to 108........
     
    Irishman likes this.
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yes, precisely as a function of 1) having simply a league normal percentage of pass dropbacks (58.7%), rather than a percentage well below league normal (47%), and 2) Derrick Henry's diminished performance, 3.6 yards per carry and 69 yards, versus 8.2 yards per carry and 188 yards.

    Tannehill in 2019 was very obviously dependent on low-volume passing and Derrick Henry. When those factors weren't favorable, his performance plummeted, and he could no longer perform like one would expect from the league leader in passer rating.

    This is all very simple and self-evident. The back-and-forth with someone resistant to acknowledge it makes it seem more complex and difficult to discern than it really is.
     
  19. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL. Why didn't he post another 133 passer rating? Sure. He should do it every game.

    You tell me why the Titans weren't as efficient on offense (running or passing) in the second game. Why are you so sure it was the QB play at all?
     
    Irishman likes this.
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Well when you're dealing with 1) a seven-year, career-long, greater-than-normal decrement in performance as a function of high-volume passing, 2) a season (2019) in which the volume of passing overall was well below league normal, and 3) an extremely strong game-by-game correlation (compared to the league norm) between Tannehill's passer rating and Derrick Henry's yards per carry in 2019, it's not difficult to figure out how 1) far higher-volume passing in a game, coupled with 2) a markedly poorer performance by Derrick Henry, would cause the outcome noted above.

    Again, this is all very simple, until someone comes along who's resistant to acknowledge it. Then it takes on the appearance of complexity and obfuscation when it really shouldn't.
     
  21. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Can't do it by evaluating what happened, can you? I thought not.

    We're only talking about 2 games. What happened in Miami is irrelevant now that the games with Tenn have actually been played.

    You find out yesterday's weather by reading the weather report not the weather forecast........
     
    Irishman likes this.
  22. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    See post #7568 for "what happened."

    This is where anyone who wasn't a blind adherent to Tannehill would simply concede that he has a weakness, as do all players. The fact that you can't do so is telling.
     
  23. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Less efficiency and production in both the running game and passing game. I'm going with problems on the OL and play calling caused by playing on the road.

    That was easy.
     
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What evidence is there that either of those variables -- offensive line play and location of the game -- was predictive of Tannehill's game-by-game passer rating in 2019?

    Note that I'm not saying the explanation is implausible in theory, so don't bother arguing that. I'm asking what evidence there is that those variables were predictive of Tannehill's passer rating game-by-game in 2019.

    That won't be easy. Good luck.
     
  25. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Why would I want to do that? I don't care if they were predictive of things that have already happened.
     
  26. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    On what evidence do you base your estimation of the correctness of your explanation, in comparison with other explanations?

    Again I'm not asking whether the explanation is plausible in theory. We can both agree that it is, so no need to argue that.

    I'm asking on what evidence you base your estimation of its correctness, in comparison with other explanations.
     
  27. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Game film.

    What evidence do you have that any of your theories (even if statistically sound over many games) actually apply to any one game?

    You've got some notion that Tannehill doesn't play well in "high volume games". What evidence have you ever provided that the AFC Championship game was actually impacted negatively by Tannehill's play? That specific game. It has already happened. Where is your evidence that Tannehill played worse in that game than in the regular season game against KC?

    Let me give you an analogy.

    You can use whatever source of crime data you want to analyze crime. You can use that data to plan for the future, allocate law enforcement resources, setup community prevention programs, and gain understanding of what has happened all you want. But, when a crime has already been committed, and you have a video of the incident, you use the video to help determine what happened. You do not ignore the video and use the model to solve the case.
     
    resnor likes this.
  28. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    OK, so where is your analysis of it that provides the evidence necessary to overrule competing explanations for the change in Tannehill's performance?

    Certainly the mere fact that game film exists doesn't accomplish that.
     
  29. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    My analysis is that Tannehill played very well in both games.

    Are you suggesting that every game is exactly the same with respect to the QBs performance? Or even every game with a similar value of some metric like passer rating?
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
    resnor likes this.
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    OK, so then here's an important question for you: in which game(s) in 2019 did he not play well "very well"?
     
  31. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Since game pass was made free, I rewatched every game, but I'm not your do-boy. You'll just disagree with my assessments anyway.
     
    resnor likes this.
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'd neither agree nor disagree. The point is to determine whether your game film assessments comport with his 2019 individual game passer ratings. If they don't, then you're implicitly indicating that, according to you, his 2019 season passer rating is meaningless.

    You've done this to some extent already, by proposing that two games with a 25-point difference in passer rating -- which is huge -- were both indicative of his having played "very well."

    In the end we could end up with a correlation between 1) Tannehill's 2019 individual game passer ratings, and 2) "game film analysis by FinFaninBuffalo" that's either very weak or nil. Who knows?
     
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    “Plummeted” to 108. Hahahahaha. Hahahahaha.

    Two data points is not worth coming to conclusions. Asking a QB to throw above 108 consistently is a ridiculous ask.

    Clearly not watching games.
     
    FinFaninBuffalo likes this.
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You're missing the point completely.
     
  35. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You're complaining that he didn't have close to a perfect rating both games. You're also acting like 108 is somehow a bad rating against KC.

    To make that argument you'd have to show the average passer rating last season against KC, and then show that Tannehill's 108 was bad.
     
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No I'm not. You're taking two great ratings, and acting like one of them is bad. We know there can be a ton of variation, between games, because the players are human, not Madden robots.
     
    FinFaninBuffalo likes this.
  37. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The point is what Tannehill's passer rating fluctuates on the basis of, and in 2019 that was 1) passing volume (low versus high), and 2) Derrick Henry's performance.

    You're missing that point completely.
     
  38. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    1. You have never shown that other QBs don't vary based on the performance of other players

    2. You have said that a low number of passes can still be "high volume"
     
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You're not following along well. Sorry, I can't help you there.
    Passing volume is determined by the percentage of the offensive plays involving pass dropbacks, thus indicating the degree to which the quarterback, versus the running game, was responsible for the offensive effort.
     
  40. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Passer rating is very useful for longer term analysis. Less useful for individual games. Not useful for individual series or portions of games. The smaller number of plays included in the passer rating, the more important it is to understand what actually happened on each of those plays.

    Even for longer term analysis, it cannot be used in a vacuum. No single metric can. We've been over this again and again. There is no magic stat. Not passer rating (as you used to tout), not YPA (as you used to tout), not EPA per play (that you more recently began touting), not run/pass ratios (as you even more recently gotten excited about), not any stat.

    You also focus far too much on a single position (QB) and a single player (Tannehill). Your view of the NFL is very myopic. You were surprised that passer rating varies as much as it does for a player from year to year. As someone who studies the game, it is unbelievable to me that you did not know that. It is not just that variation is possible, it is very nearly inevitable at the upper end of the passer rating scale.

    I've enjoyed much of the back and forth but it has gotten tedious. At some point we can start a Tannehill 2020 thread. For me 2019 is a closed case. Tannehill was nearly universally lauded by the league and NFL analysts. He was named Comeback Player of the Year. He finished the regular season as the league leader in nearly every measure of passing efficiency. He was given a long term contract by the Titans and is firmly established as a quality NFL starter. There is no longer any question if you can win with Tannehill as the QB. A trip to the AFC Championship has removed any doubt. Whether you believe he can sustain success is irrelevant to me and certainly the Titans and Tannehill.

    You know my opinion of Tannehill and I know yours. My opinion was not changed by the 2019, it was validated. I've felt since 2014 that he would be a quality starter and I've felt since 2016 that he was a legit top 10 QB. My view of how the game works did not have to be changed based on 2019.

    You've gone from claiming that the supporting casts of NFL teams don't matter and that they are all the same. You claimed it was the QB that elevated the play of those around him. Now you want to claim that the supporting casts and system are all important in determining Tannehill's performance. A complete reversal of opinion. I have maintained the opinion that football is a team game and that you cannot completely separate the play of the QB from the rest of the team. It is very telling to me that you were compelled to change your whole view at precisely the time that Tannehill had success.

    You can have the last word.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
    Irishman and PhinFan1968 like this.

Share This Page