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. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure it is, if they think he's going to perform like he did in 2019. All it would've taken is a medical exam and a workout to rule out any persisting effects of the knee injuries, which of course any team would've readily done in the effort to obtain an exceptional QB.

    The point of course is that they didn't think he would perform like he did in 2019, despite that they had access to the same film people are alluding to here. Supposedly the ball and chain known as the 2012-2018 Miami Dolphins was glaringly apparent via film, though damn near every football expert in the league missed it.
     
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Disagree.
     
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So your contention is that the football experts throughout the league were 1) well aware of Tannehill's having been held back by his surroundings in Miami, 2) knew he would play like he did in 2019 if his surroundings could only be merely average, and 3) let his knee injuries keep them from determining, via a simple medical exam and workout, whether he was fit to play for them in the way he did in 2019, when they all know the degree to which the game hinges on quarterback play?

    LOL -- you're essentially alleging gross incompetence of virtually the entire league.

    Yeah, it must be that. It can't be that two or three nobodies on a message board are wrong about the 2012-2018 Dolphins.
     
  4. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    You make an extremely important mistake. It was the passing offense that was average. You have admitted that there is no good way statistically to separate the play of the QB. What people are trying to explain is that film study is necessary to do that. They had done that study and their opinion was that it was the surroundings that were the problem. They predicted an improvement to top 10 with improved surroundings and were proven correct.
     
    resnor likes this.
  5. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I didn't make that mistake. All this started with my response in post #8547 to raf's statement:
    "And stat-wise, he produced a top 5 rating in around 50% of the games."

    He's the one who talked about "Tannehill's" stats. I just pointed out that those stats aren't distinguishable from average.

    So sure passer rating is a passing offense stat, and as I told resnor in post #8550 I have no issue with people looking at film to put stats in context, but it's simply not true that "Tannehill's" key passing stats are anything but average in Miami.
     
  6. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    yet, here we are, proven correct....

    BTW, all 32 teams whiffed on Tom Brady too.

    where was the bidding war for Drew Brees? Surely the experts couldn’t get that wrong, right?

    Jesus, man..... make some sense.
     
    resnor likes this.
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, you aren't proven correct, because we still don't know the nature of the change in the surroundings, whether they went from garbage to average, or from average to exceptionally good. We're still dealing with an unconfirmed hypothesis on your part.

    Of course you're so desperate to appear right that you're unable to acknowledge the uncertainty in the matter that still exists. Ironically you're telling me to "make some sense," however.
     
  8. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    No, you don't know the nature of the surroundings and you never will. You have no interest in football, just stats.

    Here is another clue, the Dolphins passing efficiency went down in 2019 after Tannehill left from 93 to 80......LOL.....
     
    resnor likes this.
  9. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I'm convinced that Tannehill was the SOLE reason that Miami was even marginally threatening on the offensive side of the ball. He turned Hartline into an actual threat, and got Bess a $12,000,000 (almost) deal in Cleveland.
     
    Irishman, Sceeto and rafael like this.
  10. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    What I'm saying is that in about 50% of the games from 2014 on Tannehill had a QB rating that would fall within what the top 5 produced that year. So if for example the top 5 rated QBs in 2016 (I didn't look it up, this is just an example) were 107, 106, 104, 102 and 100, then in that same year Tannehill would have had some number of games that were around a 100 rating. And if in 2017 the top 5 were 99, 98, 97, 97 and 95 then in that year he would have had some games that were around 95. And if you looked at his totals for years 2014 on he had approximately half the games where he had a rating around whatever the top 5 guys that year produced.
     
    resnor likes this.
  11. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    The only reason Tannehill could be rated as “average” in Miami was for one really simple detail...

    The offensive UNIT in Miami was below average. Kinda difficult to make sugar out of ****e and that’s what Tannehill was working with...****e, from the top down
     
    Irishman, FinFaninBuffalo and resnor like this.
  12. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Addressing just your first paragraph, you could have put Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees behind the line the Dolphins has with Tannehill and you would have the same result.

    The TEAM was THAT bad!!!!
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  13. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yes, I understood what you were saying. First of all it's not correct. Just quickly looking this up he had 18 out of a total of 56 games from 2014-2018 that satisfy that requirement, so 32.14%. And second that's close to what you'd expect from any average QB.

    It's that second point that's important. Because you're not doing an apples to apples comparison, it makes it sound like he was performing "above average" when he was not, because that's what average QB's do. The standard deviation for league average passer rating tends to be around 11-12 while for individual games by a given QB it's usually over twice that. So to get an estimate for what percentage of your so-called "top 5" ratings an average QB would have, take the z-score for "top 5", which is a little over 1 in most cases, and divide that by a little more than 2. In other words, the estimate is at about a z-score = 0.5 which is 31%.

    That's just a back of the napkin calculation so to say, and if it's important I could actually write a program to calculate this, but it's pretty clear Tannehill was average when it comes to "top 5" ratings. That's why making the proper comparison is important.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I don't believe that at all. I think if we had Brees he would have put up some of the league's best numbers. As far as I'm concerned I think not signing Brees was the biggest mistake of this franchise in the last 20 years and it IMO cost us at least one SB.

    And Rodgers is a singular talent that can compensate really well for a bad surrounding cast.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  15. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What's also important is looking at what those top-five QBs did in 50% of their games, and I suspect it was produce single-game passer ratings that were well above even the high level at which they performed generally.

    So when you compare Tannehill to the league's best QBs 2014-2018 and restrict the comparison to the above-average games for them (their top 50%), I suspect you're still looking at quite the discrepancy.

    And if you aren't, then what you're looking at is quite a record of "clunker" games on Tannehill's part, where he essentially went out and lost games himself with extremely low passer ratings, far worse than for the league's best QBs. There's no other way of reconciling it.
     
  16. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You're arguing with a scout.

    Lol
     
  17. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Except for when he doesn't......

    Like the 93.8 passer rating in 2008 and the 92.7 passer rating in 2015. How very Tannehill-like.
     
    resnor likes this.
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It's not Tannehill-like, because again, what determines a QB's ability is the level at which he varies from season to season.

    [​IMG]

    If you look at the distributions of season passer ratings for both players, you don't get the image on the left above, where there is considerable overlap in their passer rating distributions and they're statistically indistinguishable. Instead you have the one on the right, where there is some overlap (probably more than what's actually pictured there) but not enough to say they're comparable players. Rodgers's career average is far higher than Tannehill's.

    This is precisely why we still don't know Tannehill's level of ability, because his level of season to season variation -- including 2019 -- still doesn't put him in the category of anything but an average QB.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2020
  19. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    But you look at when Rodgers threw those ratings...look at the players... When he had a team that was more like Miami, his rating went way down.

    This idea that elite QBs or up router QB numbers regardless of the team around them is generally garbage.

    You guys dissect Tannehill more than any other QB in the league.
     
  20. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Brad this is where you have to put numbers and stats away and actually look at the games. I can’t count how many times Tannehill was sacked in less than 2 seconds after the ball was snapped.

    I don’t care who you are.

    Brady would have been flat on his back
    Brees would have been flat on his back
    Rodgers would have been flat on his back

    I can’t truly believe you’re going to argue that Miami wasn’t below average offensively.

    We SUCKED that badly, and don’t even get me started on the defense. That’s a whole other Greek tragedy
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  21. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah put away the stats. Ask most football fans what they think and they're much more likely to agree with what I said. Put Brees on the Dolphins? And he'd do no better than Tannehill? You'll get stares of disbelief from most non-Dolphin fans. How good would Brees have been? Who knows, but I think most fans in the NFL would say he'd have taken the Dolphins to the playoffs almost every year.

    Seriously.. try your argument out on non-Dolphin fans. Your view on this is not the norm.
     
    Irishman and The Guy like this.
  22. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Well and now you’re back into one of the biggest disagreements of the thread, that somehow Miami had seven straight years of terrible surroundings that didn’t vary, despite being in a league driven by parity, while other quarterbacks like Rodgers were the beneficiaries of positive and expectable variation in their surroundings.
     
  23. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    The issues with the OL were proven true. The league has spoken. Those players are out of the league. The Dolphins teams of that era were near tops in the league in roster turnover and the guys they were replacing weren’t good enough to play anywhere else. There just isn’t any other way to look at it.

    BTW, how were the surroundings in Miami last season? LOL
     
    Irishman likes this.
  24. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Then those fans never watched any Dolphins games.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  25. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You claim this, yet offer no proof.

    We've offered numerous ways Miami wasn't average.
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I would even bet that most Dolphins fans would argue it's absurd to suggest Brees wouldn't have done any better than Tannehill. You're now suggesting that anyone that watches Dolphins games would agree with you? Well that's certainly not true with me, and it wasn't true for around half the posters here (based on memory) during Tannehill's time in Miami.

    Don't presume that only people who watch games are people who agree with you. It's provably not true.

    And once again.. note what those insiders say. That's the largest source of "expert" opinion we have, and they do watch at least some game tape on who they comment on. Brees was always in tier 1 or tier 2 as far as I can remember. Tier 1 = can carry his team consistently: team wins because of him. Tier 2 = can carry teams sometimes but not consistently. Tannehill was tier 3 in all such polls I saw: legit starter but needs heavy run game/defense to win.

    So the "experts" (who again aren't that good at prediction so let's not elevate them too much) would not agree with your view or with TDK's. Point is, don't think that people would agree with you only if they watched games.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  27. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I actually argued with someone on the message board that Brees was an elite QB at that time based on his traits (elite accuracy processing speed and release), but they argued that he'd only had one good year statistically...
     
    FinFaninBuffalo and resnor like this.
  28. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I vehemently disagree with any fan who thinks that Brees would have consistently lead those Dolphins teams to the playoffs. That's patently absurd. Way to build a giant strawman, cbrad. I didn't say Brees wouldn't have been better. I mean, of course a vet will be "better" than a raw, unpolished rookie.

    Come on, man.
     
  29. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You're referring to 2006 I'm guessing? That person should have known how to calculate z-scores. His z-score in 2004 was a whopping 1.6835 (the year that poster was referring to) and in 2005 it was 0.8374, which corresponds to top 80th percentile. The raw rating of 89.2 might have looked a little low (though it was 10th in the league that year), but in terms of z-scores it was pretty darn good. Another reason not to use ranks because differences between ranks aren't equal while they are with z-scores.

    So unless someone is arguing against signing a QB in the top 80th percentile even when his stats don't look that good, from a purely stats point of view I'd say you'd want such a QB, especially since our QB was Gus Frerotte!
     
    Irishman likes this.
  30. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I'm fine with you having your opinion. But to suggest people who think differently than you do so only because they didn't watch the games is what's absurd. You know when those "experts" say a tier 1 QB (which Brees usually is) "carries his team consistently" and "his team wins because of him", they're implying basically what I'm saying, that Brees would probably take a 8-8 team (which we on average were) and take us to the playoffs.. despite the surrounding cast.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  31. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, explain to me HOW a QB "carries his team." I don't care how many experts say that phrase. The QB isn't blocking. The QB isn't running routes. The QB isn't catching passes.

    This isn't basketball we're taking about. It's not like watching MJ take over a game and score at will, and play stellar defense.

    For a guy who's so into stats, you sure latch onto the biggest BS myths out there.
     
  32. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You're assuming it's a myth. We both have to agree we simply don't know how much a QB can influence the game when presented with the surrounding cast Tannehill had in Miami. That's just an unknown so you shouldn't assume to know.

    What we do know is that QB's have sometimes dramatically changed the production of an offense of more or less the same team. Look no further than what Marino did compared to all QB's prior. Brees did that in New Orleans. Look what happened when Peyton went down. Look at Mahomes in KC. Tons of examples showing the influence of the QB. And within individual games I've seen enough cases where it "seems" like QB's pull out wins (whatever the true cause and effect relationships are).

    So for me it's a totally viable hypothesis to think some of these QB's would take a mediocre surrounding cast like the ones Tannehill had in Miami to the playoffs relatively consistently.
     
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    What I do know:

    1. QB isn't blocking for himself
    2. QB isn't running routes for himself
    3. QB isn't catching balls for himself

    So you can talk whatever nonsense you want about QBs taking over games, but you need to explain AT LEAST those three things.
     
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I'm sick of hearing about Indy when Peyton went down.

    They ****ing tanked. End of story.
     
  35. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Marino with Shula, surrounded on offense by tons of talent.

    Compared to the next 20 years of ****ty HCs and truly average QBs, like Griese/Beck/Harrington etc?

    Get a grip man.
     
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Right.. Michael Jordan didn't play on his own either. You'd be hard pressed to "explain" the mechanisms by which he "took over games" too. But what's clear is that Brees has one of the quickest releases in the NFL which would automatically reduce sacks. Him generally being more accurate and a better passer would not only improve chances of winning but keep defenses more honest, etc...

    But no one can simulate exactly how Brees with Miami 2012-2018 would look like. It's nevertheless a viable hypothesis to say he would have done really well and taken us to the playoffs many times.

    They weren't tanking at the beginning. They had just franchise tagged Manning and were expecting him to come back later that season. Some of the score lines early on suggest this: losing 20-23, 17-24 and 24-28 are not what you'd expect from "tanking". And the odds of getting Luck were higher for Miami early on than for Indy. Most people thought it was Miami that was in the lead for "Suck for Luck".

    And yet no QB up till that time did anything close to what Marino did in 1984, no matter the surrounding cast.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2020
    Irishman likes this.
  37. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No, it's not hard to explain MJ taking over a game, if you played sports and watched basketball. In basketball, you can take over a game by yourself. You can dribble and shoot and play defense independent of your teammates. It's completely different than football.

    Who says Brees is more accurate? He had better receivers running better routes. Look at Tannehill this year. You can't teach accuracy. But you can look inaccurate when your receivers are in the wrong place.

    These are all things we've brought up, and you have always ignored them.
     
  38. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Ah yes, back to the "if you watched the game" argument. Sorry res but Jordan on his own isn't winning games.

    Well statistically he is. What the reason behind that is can be debated, but you're automatically ascribing everything to the surrounding cast as if it's not equally viable to suggest the QB is the (primary) reason.

    I haven't ignored what you've said. You simply think you already know things no one really knows.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Sorry cbrad, if you'll argue that MJ couldn't, then there is zero way for you to defend anyone claiming QBs can.
     
  40. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I didn't say MJ couldn't. In fact, I agree he "took over games". I'm saying you can't explain mechanistically how that happened. Remember Jordan without Pippen was not that good, especially in the playoffs. It's actually rare to see any NBA championship winning team with only one true "star" player. But yes, I'll agree that it's easier to "take over games" in the NBA where you have fewer players on a team than in the NFL. That much sure. Just saying.. don't expect someone to show you mechanistically how that happens in either sport.
     
    Irishman likes this.

Share This Page