You would agree that there is a difference between having top-10 production of your on a loaded team, and being the driving force of a highly effective offense, wouldn't you?
Yeah but I don't agree that he was the driving force of the offense. I think Derrick Henry was the driving force of the offense. Just because I posted something written by someone doesn't mean I agree with everything said in it.
It’s called having balance and all throughout this thread it’s been demonstrated time and time again that teams that are balanced offensively have more success than teams that rely sole on the quarterback. It’s been demonstrated time and time again that Henry’s performance didn’t explode until Tannehill took the helm in Tennessee. Your anti-Tannehill bias just refuses t accept what’s been clearly illustrated by not only we amateurs but sportswriters from multiple respected sports publications. It’s painful to watch you go down with your ship but I do respect your tenacity in sticking to your opinion, as flawed as it may be. I have made bod predictions concerning Tannehill for the 2020 season but with how covid has affected the NFL, all bets are off on any team. Hell, for all we know, the Dolphins could win it all this year.
It actually isn’t balance. In comparison to the average team in the league, it’s extreme imbalance in favor of the run game, and that’s precisely what’s likely to be unsustainable.
And we've broken that down several times to show you how that wasn't the case. You just refuse to understaff those posts.
Yeah whatever you’ve done there isn’t persuasive when the basic numbers tell a different story. Tannehill‘s passing volume was roughly two standard deviations below the league average. Not much more to be said there.
In addition it has been shown that the “extreme inbalance” was a function of the Titans olaying with a lead and using Henry to run out the clock. In fact if you compare this list of NFL teams ranked by run% from highest to lowest Source: https://fftoday.com/stats/19_run_pass_ratios.html against their w-l record you will find that almost all the teams with high winning% also had a high rushing %. Also, if I am reading it correctly the only team with a run pass ratio of less than 40% runs and a winning record was Kansas who have (1) the best QB in the league and (2) a HC who has always passed at a higher% than the league average.
Again, you're showing that you: 1. Didn't pay attention to the explanations given you 2. Don't understand what is happening in the games that you are looking at stats for.
No it has not. The Titans' percentage of passing plays in quarters 1 through 3 was 1.98 standard deviations below the league average. They had a cumulative scoring margin of -1 through those quarters -- hardly "playing with a lead." Get your facts straight folks.
The post just above this one should adjudicate to whom your point should be addressed, and it isn't me. Again, get your facts straight.
And there you guys go again looking at “numbers” instead of the game itself. Your “numbers” don’t account for the game itself. Henry rushes on 1st down Henry rushes on 2nd down Tannehill throws a 50 yard TD pass on third down This is the series that occurs and instead of looking at the game itself, series by series, play by play your “numbers” say the Titans ran the ball twice as much as they passed. Well duh, they scored! It’s still a balanced offense...an effective running game that doesn’t put all of the pressure on the quarterback. An effective passing game that keeps defenses on their heels and creates those huge rushing opportunities. Numbers will only tell you so much but if all you do is look at numbers, you’re being told nothing at all.
Gentlemen, I can't comprehend why you're not all taking his "yeah whatever" retort as an end-all and be-all to the argument.
Probably because it isn't "yeah whatever." If it had that little substance, it would be left alone and left to stand on its own (little) merit.
Then why were the Titans nursing a -1 cumulative scoring margin through three quarters in 2019, when Tannehill's percentage of pass attempts was 1.98 standard deviations below the league average? If he's throwing 50-yard bombs for touchdowns on third down after two run plays, certainly it would've shown up on the scoreboard in the form of a lead. Moreover, why were the Titans' percentage of pass attempts and Tannehill's YPA, game-by-game, uncorrelated? Why was there no relationship between his passing efficiency and their run-pass ratio? If he's throwing 50-yard completions on third down after two run plays, the correlation between his YPA and their run-pass ratio, game-by-game, would've been very strong. His passing efficiency (i.e., one play, 50 yards) would've permitted the high percentage of run plays, but that isn't what we saw. And you're hardly "looking at the game itself, series by series, play by play." You're proposing a theory without doing any of that. And the theory is controverted by the data. Folks, come back to reality here. The guy had a great season with a very low level of difficulty involved. He was asked to throw the ball very little, against defenses that were keying on another player. I'm sorry it's not yet possible to exalt him as the player you thought he was all along and thereby confirm your genius, but it's just not.
So why did Derrick Henry have a complete career resurgence under Tannehill? Aliens? Sunspots? Voodoo? Or is it possible that Ryan Tannehill was the perfect complement for the team? See, the problem isn't that "all these people thought Ryan Tannehill needed to be exalted." Its that they (like me) simply thought "he's not the main problem." And he pretty clearly wasn't. Guess what? If you have a team like the Titans last year, and suddenly you put Tannehill in, and the team miraculously takes off...then the problem for 6 years in Miami WASN'T TANNEHILL. It was that the team refused to built around his strengths and minimize his weaknesses. I've seen it stated beautifully elsewhere: "The biggest shame of it all during the Tannehill era is that everyone had been waiting for the next Dan Marino and completely squandered the next Bob Griese."
Every average quarterback in the league has a theoretical set of circumstances that would elevate his play. The question is, how likely are those circumstances to be assembled and sustained? That question hasn't yet been answered with Ryan Tannehill, and so we don't know his level of ability. This is why 8-game and 11-game stretches don't distinguish above-average from average QBs. These short-lived elevations in play due to unsustainably good circumstances indeed happen for average QBs.
That statement indeed sums it up beautifully by the way -- Bob Griese was surrounded by all-world talent virtually throughout his career, while Dan Marino was not. Marino established himself as a HoF QB on the basis of his individual ability, largely unaided by his surroundings, whereas Bob Griese was the beneficiary of HoF surroundings. The question that remains for Tannehill is, how sustainable are the surroundings that elevated his play? If they aren't sustainable, he isn't Bob Griese, let alone Dan Marino.
Have a look at Griese’s seasons after Csonka/Kiick/Warfield left the Dolphins and before his shoulder got wrecked. If the Dolphins didn’t win the SB in those years it had nothing to do with Griese. Cbrad posted the career numbers for Griese someways back in thus thread, and they tell you Griese was a legitimate HoF QB even if you take away the 1972-1975 glory years.
Well we can debate that all day, but the point still remains -- we have yet to determine the sustainability of the kinds of environmental and situational variables Ryan Tannehill apparently needs to play well. And there were such variables present during his 11 games in 2019 whose sustainability should indeed be questioned -- most notably 1) his low passing volume, and 2) the opposition's keying predominantly on another player.
What people need to sit back and think about here is the following: the interaction between individual ability and surroundings. The better a QB's individual ability, the less he needs from his surroundings to play well. The worse a QB's individual ability, the more he needs from his surroundings to play well. There is no guarantee that a QB will ever have the surroundings he needs to play well. The particular surroundings he requires may simply be unachievable in the NFL, despite that they may exist theoretically. For example, if Josh Rosen could play with NFL all-pros at all 10 of the other positions on the offense, he may play very well. Well obviously such surroundings aren't achievable. Likewise, there is no guarantee that the surroundings a QB requires to play well for relatively brief periods will be sustained. Such surroundings may be unsustainable in the NFL. For example, it may be the case that Ryan Tannehill can continue to play well only if he can throw an exceedingly low number of passes while having defenses focus predominantly on Derrick Henry. Such surroundings likely aren't sustainable in today's NFL, however. So a QB's individual performance is based not only on what he has going on inside himself, but also the degree to which the surroundings he requires can be achieved and sustained. Patrick Mahomes for example may need only average surroundings to play at a very high level. Obviously that makes him a better QB than one who needs the stars to align -- and stay aligned -- around him.
Blah blah. A great QB on a terrible team will almost always struggle to have a good win/loss record. Constantly framing the argument as Tannehill needs a great team around him to be successful is disingenuous. It isn't unreasonable, or hard, for a team to at least put average players around their quarterback.
You're measuring individual performance by team performance there. What I'm talking about is what QBs need around them to play well individually. Drew Brees played on three sub-.500 teams in a row between 2014 and 2016, yet he posted passer ratings well above the league average all three of those years. Why? Because he doesn't need the stars to align around him to play well individually. Sure, but no one knows with certainty whether he needs just average surroundings, or ones that are less sustainable. The data necessary to make that conclusion have yet to be generated.
Who was catching the passes from Brees? You keep saying "individually" and then using metrics that involve other players to rate their success. The only way to determine the INDIVIDUAL level of play of the QB, is to actually go watch film, and only look at the throws and decisions being made by the QB, with the end result of the play being inconsequential to the rating.
OK so do that with Peyton Manning. Tell me what sample of film you're going to choose, and then tell me how you know whether that film represents his typical level of play. Or are you going to watch his entire career on film?
That's such a strawman response. Instead of acknowledging what I said, you then tell me to watch Peyton's film. Why? I'm simply pointing out, that when you say you're rating individual ability, but revert to passer rating of Brees to make your point, you're not looking at individual ability
So tell me how you use film to determine individual ability. What sample of film do you use, and how do you know that film represents their typical level of play? Or do you watch their whole career on film to do that?
The qualifications you are now asking for, have zero to do with the initial point. You are using cooperative ratings to judge individual talent. I'm not getting into a back and forth over which samples etc, as it has nothing to do with my point. Now, if you want to argue that it's not possible to do what I'm saying, fine. But then you need to also stop arguing that you're ever judging individual talent as you claim you are.
You're essentially arguing that Peyton Manning's career passer rating (for example) is meaningless as a measure of his individual ability. 17 seasons, 266 games, two teams, a plethora of variation in surroundings (players, coaches, schemes, etc.), and the career passer rating he compiled is meaningless as a measure of his individual ability. When we compare his career passer rating to that of Andy Dalton for example, both passer ratings say nothing about how good the players are individually -- both passer ratings are merely a reflection of the players' surroundings. Peyton Manning can be deemed no better than Andy Dalton on the basis of their career passer ratings -- we have to watch their entire careers on film to make that determination.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Passer rating can be a good place to start. But it isn't the be all end all. There are things that should be taken into consideration. For instance, with Tannehill, you absolutely need to take into account his lack of experience coming into the league. You absolutely need to consider the constant HC and OC turnover during those formative years of a young QBs career. You absolutely need to consider how many skill players left Miami and did absolutely nothing or washed out of the league. So, you might look at Tannehill's rating, but then not point to it as a definitive representation of Tannehill's ability, because there are significant factors that could be affecting it. That's what I'm saying.
I realized today that this thread won't die until you personally hit that "ignore" button....it looks like you're the lone standout for the past 12+ months that's still fighting the good fight. So keep fighting, my friend, and don't worry about what others may think. You surpassed the "crazy mark" about 100 pages ago and there's no turning back now! I think I made it into the 140's or 150's, and a few others nearly made it to page 200 before they had to press the button. So congratulations, you've set the all-time high score in "Anti-Trolling, Phins Style" and it's a record that will likely never be challenged!
I have no problem agreeing with any of that, because it leaves plenty of room for the fact that his 11 games in 2019 potentially say nothing about whether the surroundings he needs to play better than he did for the Dolphins can be sustained. In other words, I see nothing in the above that indicates his history with the Dolphins combined with his 2019 performance has established his individual ability definitively.
I jump in occasionally when I find something. I put the Guy on ignore so no more responses to him. Check this out: I'm going to watch the whole thing on Game Pass
Really excellent film session. It went into depth on a few plays with respect to what the defense was doing, the play design, and other options on the play. Really interesting. Tannehill has matured into a really good QB.
Hey, if it’s off season I am perfectly entitled to go to my favorite fishing hole, drop a line and see if I get a bite.
No. Just that it’s an activity I do to pass the time of day until the season starts. It isn’t something I am heavily invested in, but it’s better than twiddling my thumbs waiting for training camp to start. It is interesting. It is worthy of discussion. It just isn’t worthy of getting into trench warfare over.
And your first statement sums it up beautifully... Griese had 3 Super Bowl appearances and 2 Championships. Marino had 1 Super Bowl appearance and no championships.
You're supporting my point: Notice we aren't talking anymore about how Tannehill's performance was responsible for his own low passing volume. That theory's been debunked.