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. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    200 pages!! Woooo!!
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  2. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    I disagree that a quarterback's main role is to throw the ball. His main role is to execute the play called. If that involves throwing the ball, then he throws the ball. If it calls for him to hand off the ball, then he hands it off but in my opinion, the most important skill a quarterback must have is being able to read a defense, particularly pre-snap reads.

    If the defense is lined up to stop the play called, the quarterback has to be able to adjust for the defense...changing a pass to a run or vice versa...adjust blocking schemes, etc.

    I do agree with you about receivers and speed. Although speed is great, if he's not where he's supposed to be, then his speed it worthless. That's what made the Marks Brothers so incredible. They always ran precise routes. Marino always knew WHERE those receivers were going to be.
     
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Defenses in the NFL have attempted to control opposing passing offenses primarily with pass-rushers and cover men. You can see why Patrick Mahomes for example is so effective when he can evade pass-rushers while still surveying his options downfield, which gives his receivers time to break coverage and get open. At that point the defense essentially has nothing left with which to defend him. Only then, however, does he make a throw. There's a whole lot of ability to play the quarterback position being displayed prior to that point.
     
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Well, by saying his role is to execute the play called, is sort of semantic, and, not even right when it comes to the more trusted QBs who are allowed to audible out of plays. But, if a QB can't throw the ball, he won't make it to the NFL, No matter how smart he is. So, being able to throw the ball is incredibly important. Lol

    His main job isn't to read the defense, but, I agree that it's important. But that is a mental ability. So, again, I believe that the best players are mainly differentiated by their mental abilities.
     
    Sceeto likes this.
  5. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, if Mahomes hadn't displayed an ability to properly throw the ball at a high level, he wouldn't be in the NFL as a QB, no matter how good he was at evading pressure.
     
    Sceeto likes this.
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, but certainly you can see how the ability he demonstrates prior to throwing the ball distinguishes him from the average QB, who might throw the ball no worse than he does. If what we're talking about is what distinguishes the elite QBs from the average ones in the NFL, then certainly that ability needs to be taken into consideration if it's distinctive and exceptionally good. We can't just see something pretty unique from a QB who's arguably the best in the league and pretend like it isn't a source of significant variation between him and other QBs, just because there may be less variation among them with regard to throwing the ball.
     
    resnor likes this.
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Interesting article here about Tannehill:
    https://theathletic.com/1452645/201...-curious-case-of-ryan-tannehill/?redirected=1

    Here's another one:
    https://www.musiccitymiracles.com/2...leading-an-offensive-renaissance-in-tennessee
     
  9. JPPT1974

    JPPT1974 2022 Mother's Day and May Flowers!

    410
    84
    28
    Apr 15, 2012
    Really glad Ryan found a team that can fit his scheme of things. Good luck to him! As really deserved a team and a new deal.
     
    xphinfanx and Irishman like this.
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Interesting article here about ranking QBs. Here is the definition of "Tier 3" in their system, which I hadn't seen prior to speculating here about the effect on Tannehill of his run game and low-volume passing:
    https://theathletic.com/1082093/2019/07/22/2019-nfl-quarterback-tiers-rankings/
     
  11. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    There will be no agreement on a tier to put Tannehill. I put him in Tier 2. You'll likely argue for Tier 3. We can agree to disagree if that is the case.
     
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I think it's up in the air. If he plays this year like he did last year and there is substantially greater independence between his performance and the run game/passing volume, then I'd put him in tier one, in fact.
     
  13. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    I'd say he's a solid Tier 2...toward the top of the tier - inching toward 1. I just don't know if I'd ever be able to call him Tier 1 (I view Tier 1 as elite) if his pocket presence/evasiveness doesn't improve. Could use some improvement at reading the defense too...he seems to get confused on how formations impact his route trees sometimes, and it causes him to just barely be too late to take advantage of particular match-ups, so opportunities get missed. All QBs miss opportunities, but the elite guys miss a lot less.

    Based off of what I always saw in him, and last year's performance, he's definitely top 10, IMO. There are only a few QBs I'd take over him, personally...Mahomes, Watson, Wilson, Rodgers, Brees (short term lol)..."maybe" Jackson. That's about it.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  14. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I mostly agree but don't understand the fascination with Watson. Overrated as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise I agree with your top group. I also think the next group of QBs is a fairly large group. I think there is 4-5 at the top. followed by a group of 10 or so that can all do the job in the right situation. The situation that they are in plays a bigger role in distinguishing them from one another than their talent does. That is why I never argue about whether Tannehill is top 10 or 10 - 15. IMO, doesn't matter.
     
    Irishman, PhinFan1968 and resnor like this.
  15. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    An interesting thing about their "tier" formulation is that it's a function of how dependent the QB is on his surroundings:
    The Tier 1 guy takes perhaps average surroundings and carries them. The Tier 2 guy does that but not consistently. The Tier 3 guy needs to be buoyed by especially good surroundings. If that's accurate, then the only thing that can explain that sort of variation is differences in individual ability among QBs.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2020
  16. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    What do they mean carries, and how do they determine that?
     
  17. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    His full skills toolbox doesn't jump off the stat sheet, but that dude just has a knack for keeping them in games they shouldn't be in (save the KC playoff game lol). I don't think he's elite, but he's not far from it. That play against Buffalo where he bounced off two defenders who SHOULD have sacked him was crazy, and it's not an anomaly...the kid is shifty. That was a very stout Buffalo D he singled-handedly made look average on several occasions.

    I dunno, they just seem to always have a chance with him in the game...then again, we don't yet know how much that'll change without his go-to, elite receiver who they just shipped off. Hopkins makes the QB look good, not the other way around, IMO. We'll see.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    From the article:
    This is precisely why the jury is still out on Tannehill by the way. His performance in 2019 was so intertwined with his run game and his passing volume that it's difficult to determine the caliber of QB he'd be without those variables' being what they were.

    We do know that based on within-season variation in 2019, however, his performance was far worse when he was passing the ball heavily and/or when his running game wasn't as efficient. And is that true for all QBs? No.

    So what we're talking about here, in my opinion, is the difference between somebody who belongs at the top of tier 3/bottom of tier 2, or in tier 1.
     
  19. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    What did I tell you......
     
  20. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Eventually Qbs need to be accurate throwers of the football to survive in the league. I don't see that yet from Watson.
     
    PhinFan1968 and resnor like this.
  21. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Sorry, I meant with your overall point in the thread. Not that specific point. I worded that poorly.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  22. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    This.

    It means nothing in the end if you cant consistently move the ball. That's one reason a guy like Russel Wilson is successful and a guy like Josh Allen is up in the air.

    Avoiding pressure is important, but if your offense is entirely boom or bust there is an issue.

    I wouldnt be surprised if the Texans pick top 10 this year honestly.
     
    resnor likes this.
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Listen, again, that "carries the team" rating is so subjective.

    1. You don't want your QB throwing far more than you run (unbalanced offense), unless your room game is terrible.

    2. If you have a legitimate back, and don't use him enough, he'll be unhappy and may want to go to a different team.

    There's two, out of many potential reasons, why looking simply at how much of the load a QB had, and drawing conclusions, can be inaccurate.
     
  24. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    All throughout 2019, there were obvious passing downs for the Titans. 3rd downs, red zone, etc. Tannehill threw the ball with tremendous accuracy, into tight windows. You do not end up as the best red zone QB if you are not throwing the ball well.

    IMO, a much better gauge is expected completion percentage and CPOE. Add to that passer rating and YPA and you paint an undeniable picture.

    Tenn was built around an offensive style. That style was failing under Mariota. Tannehill steps in and there is instant success. There was no reason to move away from the system. In fact, it is an approach that most teams aspire to. There are two types of pass heavy teams - successful ones that use parts of the passing game as their runs to keep teams off balance (KC, NO), and unsuccessful ones.

    For those keeping score, it was 2 vs 16 last season.

    upload_2020-5-17_9-21-15.png


    IMO, the Titans need to improve on defense this year. That was reflected by them mostly standing pat on offense and spending most of their efforts adding to the defense.
     

    Attached Files:

    Pauly and resnor like this.
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    There are actually arguments against that:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/for-a-passing-league-the-nfl-still-doesnt-pass-enough/
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-called-a-run-on-first-down-youre-already-screwed/

    The question is whether your quarterback, not your run game, can facilitate that approach, or whether it's the case that he can't perform well amidst such high-volume passing. If he can't, then obviously you need a stud run game and plenty of balance.
     
  26. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And here are your Super Bowl 55 odds:

    https://www.oddsshark.com/nfl/super-bowl/futures

    Note that KC and New Orleans are atop the league, behind only Baltimore, which substitutes QB runs for "passing volume" in that Lamar Jackson ran the ball 176 times for 1,200+ yards and 6.9 yards a carry last year.

    So like the articles explain in the post I just made above, the teams that can pull off high-volume passing (with Mahomes and Brees) are the ones presently predicted to be the most successful. When EPA per passing play is so much greater than EPA per running play across the league, it makes sense to have as high a volume of passing as possible, again if your quarterback can play well in that environment.

    If he can't, well then you can use a different approach, but note for example the Titans, which use a different approach, are well down the list (+6000) when it comes to 2020 Super Bowl odds. Having a highly balanced offense by virtue of the fact that your quarterback is dependent on it comes at a cost. This is why the QBs who exhibit such dependence on their surroundings are "Tier 3" and not "Tier 1."
     
  27. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Agree to disagree. (This will be my only answer to you from now on.)
     
    Irishman likes this.
  28. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    But what if you agree? :huh:
     
  29. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    No doubt...he needs to improve there. I'm just saying, as of "right now," with Tannehill's warts, I'd take those guys over him. If he turns in another year anywhere close to last year, and shows some improvement on the evasiveness, I'd have to put him top 5 for sure. I'm not a big fan of the Newtons, Jacksons, Allens types of QB...but they can be damned entertaining at times, and they can get it done, particularly with a sub-standard line.

    I prefer a pocket assassin, but along with that, you gotta be very good at evasion/pocket movement to be THE dude. The Titans' OC did a VASTLY better job at calling gameplans that suited Tannehill's strengths, which certainly contributed to his 2019 performance. If they can continue that and Tannehill continues to steadily, if slowly, improve all facets of his game (which he always has), he just may end up in that elite category after a few more years.

    Edit: We may just have that in Tua. If his college work carries over, we've finally found that pocket assassin we haven't had since Danny. And I, for one, will be estatic! But I'll always be a Tannehill fan, regardless. Contrary to some on this board, you can respect and be a fan of a player in another uniform and still be a big fan of your own guy.
     
  30. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    We might be splitting hairs here. I agree with everything you wrote, except taking Watson over Tannehill. But they are close enough to be not worth arguing over. Both are good enough to win with.

    Let's hope about Tua. I am tired of talking about how terrible the Dolphins are.
     
    PhinFan1968 likes this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What's also telling here is what Tennessee did when it got to the playoffs and the stakes increased considerably. At that point, in quarters 1 through 3, Tennessee passed the ball 40% of the time, which was 1.67 standard deviations below the league playoff average of 55%. Tannehill's YPA was 6.0 on those passes, which was 1.01 standard deviations below the league playoff average of 7.1. So Tennessee wasn't passing the ball that infrequently because of Tannehill's efficiency.

    The team that passed the ball second most in quarters 1 through 3 -- Kansas City, which was 1.14 standard deviations above the league playoff average -- won the Super Bowl. That team's YPA (7.5) was also 0.42 standard deviations above the league playoff average of 7.1. So high passing volume alongside fairly high efficiency won the Super Bowl in 2019. And again, that stands to reason, when EPA per passing play is so much greater than EPA per running play across the league.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2020
  32. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Agree to disagree.
     
  33. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    Call me crazy but Tennessee's year reminded me a lot of Mark Sanchez and the Jets, who rode a similar run-first mentality into the Play-offs for a couple straight seasons on the back of a really good defense that made life tough on the opponents.

    If you look at the stats put up by both QBs during their Play-off runs they are strikingly similar.

    Mark Sanchez Play-off passing stats:

    2009 - 2 wins, 1 loss
    41/68 (60%), 539-yd, 7.9 ypa, 4-td, 2-int, 93-rating

    2010 - 2 wins, 1 loss
    54/89 (61%), 616-yd, 6.9 ypa, 5-td, 1-int, 96-rating

    Ryan Tannehill Play-off passing stats:
    2019 - 2 wins, 1 loss
    36/60 (60%), 369-yd, 6.2-ypa, 5-td, 1-int, 99-rating


    What bothers me (and what would scare me if I were a Titan fan) is that Ryan Tannehill only completed 13 passes a game for 123 yards. That suggests he really didn't affect the outcomes as much as most QBs do. Even Sanchez averaged 190+ yards per game and he was never really considered very good.

    Anyway, the lackluster stats of Tannehill jive with what I know about him. He'll go as the team goes. But that's exactly why Miami let him go. In the NFL, if you're not making a positive difference you're going to ultimately be seen as a liability. And just as Mark Sanchez was a liability on the Jets, I think Ryan Tannehill's limitations are going to rear their ugly head in critical situations against the Titans better opponents.

    Having watched Tannehill play for 6 seasons, I'm glad he's gone. He was a liability in a league that's set up to make QBs look good. He's a very average guy and that doesn't win Super Bowls. Now that he's a veteran I'm sure he can promise some level of proficiency but I'm certainly glad not to be rooting for him anymore. I was kind of sad to see the Titans give him a big contract as well. I think paying mid-teir players big money is generally the most surefire way to end up mediocre. I've watched the Dolphins do it a lot.
     
    Losferwords likes this.
  34. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL. Go ahead, just ignore the fact that he came in to a 2-4 team that was scoring 16 points a game and turned it into on of the leagues best offenses. Nevermind the 117.5 passer rating and 9.6 YPA during the regular season. It’s not like that was required to get to the playoffs or anything......
     
    Irishman likes this.
  35. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Mark Sanchez was a liability for the Jets. His regular season QB play cost them at least 2 to 3 wins in both seasons, robbing them of first round byes.
     
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    They already have. The fourth quarter against the Chiefs in the playoffs was a perfect example. Down 28-17 and about 10% likely to win, Tannehill took three sacks in the quarter. That's 4.8 times the normal amount of sacks teams took per quarter in the NFL in 2019.

    Compare that to what Patrick Mahomes did in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl.
     
  37. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I think the issue is that if you have a top HB you are going to feed him the ball, shorten games and keep your defense rested.

    Henry is a top back, his numbers will most likely always be good. Tannehill doesnt necessarily have a chance to whether he is or isnt reliant.

    Put it this way.

    Let's say Henry has 12 really good games. If Tannehill also has good games that means whether Henry was the cause or not, the statistics will show a strong link not because there is one, but because they both happened to perform at the same time.

    That leaves in this scenario, 4 games where Henry struggles for Tannehill to show his worth minus Henry. That isn't remotely a significant sample size.

    In case that was long winded and didnt make much sense, I'm saying if both players have good games on their own merit it will show some sort of relationship between them.

    As far as I know there is no way to determine whether the running of Henry causes Tannehill to play well, the reverse, or they both happen to be great on their own.

    The statistics just wont reflect that in my opinion.
     
    resnor likes this.
  38. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, the issue should revolve around whether your quarterback can play well in a high-volume passing offense, since EPA per passing play is so much greater than EPA per run play. If for scoring purposes passes are so much more valuable than runs on average, then the issue shouldn't revolve around how good your running back is. Should Kansas City feed a running back all day when it has Patrick Mahomes and passes are so much more valuable than runs in terms of expected points? Of course not.

    Again this is why Tannehill's inability to play well in high-volume games is so important. It makes him and his team dependent on a stud run game. Patrick Mahomes exhibits no such dependence, and his team wins because of it. When Kansas City was relegated to a passing game almost exclusively to mount a comeback in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl, against the best competition in the league, Patrick Mahomes was equipped for the task.

    Nobody here is arguing that Ryan Tannehill is Patrick Mahomes, but a study of Mahomes sheds light on prototypical team functioning in the present-day NFL, and so other teams should be measured by it. Tannehill's dependence on a run game and low-volume passing is quite the contrast, and the Titans will pay for it when the competition stiffens.
     
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If Tannehill were able to regularly play well in high-volume passing situations, the issue would be moot. It wouldn't matter whether Tannehill or Henry were the driving force in each other's performance. But when Tannehill exhibits a considerable weakness in high-volume passing situations, then it makes him dependent on Henry to carry the load and lessen his passing volume, and then it becomes hard to argue that Tannehill is the driving force for Henry.

    If Henry gets hit by a bus tomorrow and the Titans can't replace him with someone very similar, then the question immediately becomes, who performs in the run game in such a way that it can limit Tannehill's passing volume and thereby help him perform better? That question illustrates a tremendous dependence of Tannehill on Henry.
     
  40. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Henry averaged 3.6 YPC (and the team was 2-4 averaging 16 points per game) before Tannehill took over.

    Tannehill had a passer rating of 133.6 and led his team to 28 points (3 TD passes) in the one game he played without Henry. NO averaged 21 points against and finished 13th in points allowed.

    The game was 31-28 with 4 minutes to go and Tenn driving when Kalif Raymond fumbled at the Saints 40 yard line.

    I just rewatched the that game from mid way through the 3rd to the end. Tannehill was excellent in that game. They faced a quality opponent that knew Henry wasn't going to be playing and the offense still performed. Nothing more needs to be said.
     
    Pauly, resnor and rafael like this.

Share This Page