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
    Two more posts above featuring personal opinions with no empirical support. I’m going to start leaving those alone from now on. When you want to start supporting opinions with evidence, we can start talking. Until then your stuff can just sit there as a musing of an anonymous individual on a message board.
     
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You make a statement that top passing offenses are a result of QB ability. At best you have correlation for that. But you never try to find the relationship that receivers and tight ends have.

    When it's raining outside I don't need to provide empirical evidence that it's raining. I just say it's raining. It's observable.

    Just the same, it's observable that many of the "great" QBs share the field with "great" receivers/tight ends.
     
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The point made above was that survival as a head coach in the past four years in the NFL has been based largely on having a top passing offense, which is in turn based largely on the quarterback's ability. The coaches who have survived that period of time have either won Super Bowls previously, and/or have had Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Patrick Mahomes, Russell Wilson, Matt Ryan, or Kirk Cousins -- essentially a short list of the top QBs in the league during that period of time.

    This is why the saying that an inadequate quarterback "can get a head coach fired" exists.
     
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't believe you've been able to prove that it's based largely on QB ability. All the ability in the world isn't going to make an offense potent if you don't have good receivers/tight end to throw to.

    It's symbiotic. You try to separate it apart, but it's not possible.

    You need receivers who run good routes and can be depended on to be where they're supposed to be, when they're supposed to be there, and have the ability to separate and catch the ball.

    If your offense is say Hartline/Bess/Landry/Fasano (hypothetical lineup to make a point) Marino himself isn't going to make that into a high powered offense.
     
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    True, all we can do is speculate about the portion of the offensive output attributable to the quarterback versus the surroundings, because at present there is no way of teasing it apart empirically. What we do know though is that the league clamors for QBs like none other, and they're the highest-paid players on the field. So the league is either functioning with the correct belief that the QB drives the bus on this, or the entire league is wrong and it should be prioritizing surrounding players instead.
     
  6. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Come on, that's such an invalid argument. They're aren't as many QBs as receivers. Just more players needed on teams at receiver. So more kids go to college at receiver than at QB. So it's simple supply and demand that is driving up the price of QBs. It's not that QBs are more important than receivers, it's just that there's more receivers, so they're cheaper to pay, compared to QBs, had nothing to do with their importance to the offense.

    Like, I feel like you think that the only thing that matters is the guy throwing the ball. As long as he makes the right decision and throws a great ball, it will be successful. You completely ignore that the receiver has to maintain his route almost exactly, and get open against the defender, and then make a catch while getting smashed. Having receivers that consistently do that is what allows QBs to make those confident great throws. It's symbiotic.
     
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    My point is that there is no team that is standing pat with an average or worse QB and building around him with surrounding players and thinking that's the way to win in the NFL. Any team standing pat with an average or worse QB is doing so because there are no better alternatives available.

    If winning with an average QB and great surrounding players were indeed probable (notice I didn't say "possible"), teams would be employing that strategy. "We got our average QB and that's good enough -- now let's build around him with great players." What team do you see employing that strategy if it isn't forced to?

    Andy Dalton just got ****-canned in favor of Joe Burrow, for example. Dalton is your prototypical average QB. Why didn't the Bengals just draft a building block around him with the #1 overall, or trade back and gather more picks and add even more surrounding pieces? Can't they get him to play at a level elevated above average just by adding pieces around him? Did you hear a single person on the planet criticize their strategy of drafting Burrow instead of standing pat with Dalton and adding surrounding pieces?
     
  8. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Really? This is your argument? They've been building around Dalton for almost a decade. So if you're saying Dalton is average, than an NFL team has spent significant time and resources building around him. That's sort of counter to your point. They've passed on other big name QBs in that time. Maybe it's because he's older, and they're going in a new direction now.
     
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So your position is that teams should stick with average QBs and build around them, because surrounding pieces are just as (if not more) important than QBs in the NFL?
     
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Never said that was my position. Was just pointing out that using Dalton for your example doesn't work in your favor. My position still is that you need a relatively complete team to compete for a Super Bowl. Ideally you get a great QB prospect on a rookie deal after you've got a decent team assembled, and then try to win in that 5 year span. If successful, you can resign that QB , and hopefully stay ahead of attrition of other players leaving for bigger paychecks. Example, Seattle... Once Wilson started getting paid, they couldn't spend as much on their defense.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  11. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Maybe I wasn't clear enough about what Dalton was an example of -- how teams shouldn't build around an average QB. From 2011 to 2019 (Dalton's career) the Bengals were in a mere 5 playoff games, below the league average of 6.2 during that period, and their cumulative point differential in those playoff games (-62) was the worst in the league. One swallow doesn't make a summer, but perhaps the prototypical average QB in recent history certainly isn't an argument for building around such a QB.

    Sure, but despite that, Seattle's win percentage during Wilson's starts during that period (2016-2019) has been 63.5, which translates to a 10-6 single-season record and a likely playoff berth. Obviously that's due in large part to Wilson's performance, so his example supports the idea that a team retains the ability to make the playoffs and contend for a Super Bowl if it has a top QB, even if that QB's salary precludes as much of a quality surrounding cast.

    Compare that to the Bengals' win percentage during Dalton's starts 2011-2019 -- 53%, or a single-season record of 8.5-7.5 and a far lower likelihood of playoff berths. Such is the difference between an average and a top QB -- about two wins above average per season, which makes all the difference in terms of playoff probability.

    This is why you don't build around an average QB. You put yourself on a treadmill of not making the playoffs, or making them sparingly and fizzling out of them quickly, while drafting too low to replace the average QB with one projected to be better. This is precisely why "tank for Tua" was a thing.
     
  12. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Seattle had an elite defense and what many would argue was an elite run game when they started with Wilson. Now that Wilson is getting paid, yes, they have lost some players, but that defense is still good, and offense still has great players. I might not call their run game elite, but their guy did go off for 1200 yards last season. So even though their defense is not as good as it was when Wilson was on his rookie contract, they've still been able to retain most of the defense, so it's still a really good defense, and the offense is still a really good offense. So the fact that they're still winning isn't all about Wilson. Yes, Wilson has had to increase his workload from what he was asked to do his first couple seasons, but that how it goes, as the money for defense is less available, then the QB you're paying big money has to take on a bigger role in the offense to offset that.

    The point is, then Bengals didn't have an elite defense and an elite run game to pair with Dalton as a rookie. They've not had an elite defense with him throughout his career. So, when Dalton got his first big contract with Cinci, and they had to cut money from elsewhere on the roster to afford it, the team is going to get worse more than a team like Seattle. They have less talent already. Again, it doesn't have anything to do with QB talent. So then you have a QB getting paid more being asked to do more than he already was, and having to do it with even more inferior talent than he may have had the year before.

    Generally, now, you need to have a pretty good core team, then make a move on a young QB so you have him on a rookie contract, and hope he's as good as he's supposed to be. Build your defense and offense while you're paying him very little, ands hope to have success for two or three years so that when you have to pay him, you are now able to attract a few good free agents to come on, or some good trades, to replace the guys you're going to lose.
     
  13. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It sounds like you’re saying Wilson is no better than Dalton in individual ability?
     
  14. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I'm not sure how you read all that and came away with me saying that.

    You put up team win % to try to show that Wilson is responsible in Seattle while Cinci was not successful because of Dalton. I'm simply pointing out why that is an ineffective way of trying to look at it. In your world it doesn't matter about the defense or other offensive pieces, all that matters is have an elite QB.
     
  15. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The post was all about the difference in the two teams’ performances as a function of the difference in the individual ability of their quarterbacks. You get about two more wins per season from having a top quarterback as opposed to an average one. With all else average, that takes you from 8-8 to 10-6, and a likely playoff berth.
     
  16. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Does that factoring take into account the level of talent other than QB in those teams? I don't see how any conclusion that doesn't take that into account would be valued at all. You're essentially operating under the presumption that everything else is equal other than QB.
     
  17. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So simply adjust the math as a function of variation in surroundings. Two QBs, one of them a top one and the other an average one, both have garbage surroundings. The average QB's team finishes 4-12 -- the top QB's team finishes 6-10. Likewise, two QBs, one of them a top one and the other an average one, both have stellar surroundings. The average QB's team finishes 11-5 and plays an away game in the wildcard round (for example), whereas the top QB's team finishes 13-3 and has a first-round bye and home-field throughout.
     
  18. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Perusing this page of posts, the bottom line here seems to be this...

    The quarterback lines up under quarterback, takes the snap from the quarterback and drops back...great protection from the quarterback, steps up into the pocket and throws a deep bomb to the quarterback wide open down the seem for a touchdown
     
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Funny, because in the post just above yours, there was an implicit acknowledgment that the combination of the quarterback and his surroundings can account for a team record anywhere between 0–16 and 16-0.
     
  20. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    resnor likes this.
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah I'd say the rigor of the analysis in that article pales in comparison to what I've done here.

    Any analysis of Tannehill's performance in 2019 as a function of his surroundings needs to consider four fundamental things:

    1) that his passing volume in quarters 1 through 3 was virtually two standard deviations below the league norm, which would bolster the performance of almost any QB, and his low passing volume was not caused by the Titans' having a lead on the scoreboard,

    2) that his passing volume was strongly correlated (-0.64) with Derrick Henry's rushing efficiency, game-by-game,

    3) that his passer rating and Derrick Henry's rushing efficiency, game-by-game, were correlated at a strength (0.64) more than two standard deviations above the league average,

    4) that Derrick Henry's rushing efficiency was non-significantly different with Tannehill than it was in 2018 and 2019 pre-Tannehill, combined -- his greater number of yards in 2019 was simply a function of carrying the ball more (thanks to @cbrad for the work on that finding).

    That's pretty much an open-and-shut case about the dependence of Ryan Tannehill on Derrick Henry, and not vice-versa. Any article that analyzes his "surrounding cast" and doesn't feature those observations at that level of rigor pales in comparison to the work I've done here.

    Essentially the findings from 2019 indicate that if Derrick Henry doesn't perform like he did in 2019 (or can't, due to injury), Ryan Tannehill's performance will likewise suffer. Henry on the other hand can perform like he did in 2019, in terms of efficiency, regardless of whether Tannehill plays like he did in 2019 or plays like he did in Miami.

    Rarely is something in football this clear-cut.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2020
  22. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Sheldon Cooper in the house
     
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah you probably won't find a more rigorous analysis on the planet. Just another of your perks of membership at thephins.com.
     
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Wait a second. Yes it's true that Tannehill's 2019 stats were statistically significant relative to his Miami years while Henry's Y/C with Tannehill is not statistically significant relative to Vrabel pre Tannehill (i.e., from 2018) or even from 2017, but there's no question there was a pretty big increase.

    "Statistically significant" in this case just means that the probability of the data given the hypothesis is below 5%. From 2017 that probability is 6.66% while from 2018 that probability is 11.24%, in both cases assigning the very low 1.87 Y/C in the Denver game to the "pre-Tannehill" era (meaning that these probabilities are slight undercounts).

    All you need is another game or two with huge Y/C like Henry had with Tannehill to push that towards "significance". The reason it's not significant is mostly due to small sample size, which is fine, but let's not act like this is clear cut evidence of the influence going in one direction only.

    No, there's good evidence of performance dependencies going in both directions, just that at the moment the evidence suggests the magnitude of Henry's influence on Tannehill is greater than the other way around (specifically, it's sufficient to make it statistically significant).

    Also, the question about the magnitude of the influence each had on the other is separate from any question about the effect of passing volume on Tannehill's rating, and I don't think you've shown your hypothesis is correct there. Remember that graph I showed you plotting the correlation between passing attempts and passer rating, and Tannehill straddled the league average, even in 2019? Nothing you've shown undercuts that as far as I'm concerned.
     
    Pauly, The Guy and resnor like this.
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I can live with all of the above. This, however:

    ...needs attention, because the statistic we're using to determine that Tannehill performed significantly differently from Miami is his 2019 regular season passer rating (117.5). So if we restrict the analysis of the relationship between Tannehill's passing volume (percentage of the Titans' offensive plays as pass dropbacks) and his passer rating, game-by-game, to the 2019 regular season, that correlation was a whopping -0.84 (p < 0.001). I can't imagine that was anywhere near league average.

    So in the regular season, the more Tannehill dropped back to pass in a game, the worse he played. And this is significant because his percentage of pass dropbacks on the season was well below the league norm. He was asked to pass the ball far less than the average QB in 2019, and that wasn't a function of the scoreboard. The Titans were essentially having him assume a workload strongly associated with elevated performance on his part -- it's no wonder he played well.

    Again what you emerge with from this is the very simple following narrative: the 2019 Titans prioritized Derrick Henry, which wasn't dictated by the scoreboard, and Henry played extremely well despite being keyed on by opposing defenses, thus allowing Tannehill to make a select few passes (comparatively speaking) against defenses keyed on another player.

    A quarterback's dream scenario. It's no wonder he played well.
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You're getting that because you're excluding the Denver game. That 117.5 rating includes the Denver game, and the correlation between passing attempts and passer rating when including the Denver game is -0.4525.

    There's a huge amount of variability in those correlations league-wide over the years. To get statistical significance at 117.5 you'd have to be outside a range of approximately -0.7 to +0.5 (average is just below -0.2). So there's no statistical significance argument here. It is true that on average Tannehill has been slightly below league average, year by year, but he still straddles league average.

    Also, you get statistical significance with Tannehill when you include his playoffs games, even without any "playoff adjustment" which would add 10 rating points per game. The correlation between passing attempts and passer rating with the playoffs goes down to -0.0993, which is slightly better than league average for a 114.2 combined rating.

    So while there's nothing to show your low volume theory is incorrect, you don't have any evidence to suggest we need to add passing volume as an interaction term. The more parsimonious explanation is that Tannehill is slightly below but close to league average in terms of how passing volume affects him.
     
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, but I'm not correlating his passer ratings with his passing attempts, per se -- I'm correlating them with his workload, as measured by the percentage of offensive plays that were pass dropbacks, including the Denver game, where that figure was 66.67% during his time in the game. That obviously controls for 1) sacks, which involve pass dropbacks but not pass attempts, and reflect a part of a QB's workload, and 2) variation in total offensive plays game-by-game.

    Here are those figures for the 2019 regular season:

    upload_2020-9-1_15-30-38.png
     
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I see. Well, you'd have to get correlations between pass dropbacks and passer ratings for a large enough sample of QB seasons (at least 5 years worth I'd say if you want to estimate confidence intervals at each point on the x-axis = adjusted passer rating) to see how Tannehill fares relative to the league. All I know is you can't make the argument using "volume" per se = passing attempts.

    Maybe it's best if you stop saying "volume" here and use "percent dropbacks" instead. In any case, I'd have to see the distributions of such correlations first. Oh, and what is that correlation when you include his playoff games? If that suddenly becomes more reasonable, then you might be looking at an effect due mostly to small sample size.
     
    Pauly and The Guy like this.
  29. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It does become more reasonable, but only because of the New England game, where his passer rating was a mere 61 on 28% pass dropbacks. If you exclude that game, the correlation for the full season (regular and playoffs) is -0.65. If you include that game, the correlation for the full season is -0.23.

    I know you'll say not to exclude that game, and we've gone over this before, but that game shows only that he could perform poorly with a low percentage of pass dropbacks, not that he could perform well with a high percentage of pass dropbacks. If the overall effect on his performance was driven by keeping him out of high-percentage games (by featuring Henry), then that game does nothing to discount that. It shows only that he'll have a poor performance in a low-percentage game here or there, despite having a limited workload.
     
  30. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    OK, so this is probably just a small sample size issue. And the key thing with excluding data is that you have to show independent of the data itself that the conditions under which the data were obtained were categorically different than the rest of the data you're comparing to. That doesn't apply here.

    More importantly, if there was a significant effect of pass dropbacks with Tannehill, there's no reason why that wouldn't show up in Miami, unless you alter your hypothesis to include 2 interaction effects rather than just 1. And I'm pretty sure the Miami data won't support Tannehill being way beyond the mean with the effect of pass dropbacks.

    So as with volume per se, one can't reject your hypothesis yet, but I don't see any evidence for including pass dropbacks as an interaction effect — the more parsimonious explanation is that Tannehill is maybe slightly below average but not significantly different from it.
     
    The Guy, Pauly and resnor like this.
  31. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Here's something we do know in that regard. Tannehill's percentage of pass dropbacks per game in 2019 (including the playoffs) was 49%. That's below his career figure with the Dolphins of 55.7%. In the games for the Dolphins in which his percentage of pass dropbacks was 49% or less (N = 23), his average adjusted passer rating was 103.02, well above his career adjusted average with the Dolphins of 87.3 (N = 88), and obviously well above his career adjusted average with the Dolphins of 81.8 in games with a pass dropback percentage above 49% (N = 65).

    So the Titans restricted his workload and elicited a performance from him consistent with his pattern of performance with the Dolphins: elevated performance within the context of a diminished workload.

    Now, couple that restriction in workload with something he also didn't have with the Dolphins -- Derrick Henry, and the correlation between his and Henry's performance is well illustrated above -- and you have an entirely different context for Tannehill in 2019. His role was entirely different from what it was in Miami.

    So, we can talk about comparisons with other QBs and league norms, but I suspect almost all QBs would benefit from 1) a restriction in workload, coupled with 2) a workhorse running back who performs very well despite being keyed on by defenses. I don't think we need to show that Tannehill is any sort of exception to the rule in performing well in that context. Hell if you put Drew Brees in the Titans' 2019 offense, restricted his workload, and had everyone (especially Henry) perform similarly, his passer rating might very well be 130+ and make Tannehill's 117.5 look shoddy by comparison.

    In other words, Tannehill was the beneficiary of very unique and favorable circumstances.
     
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You have got to actually look at games to see why his passing volume was higher or lower. Just looking at results doesn't really tell you anything.
     
  33. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What will looking at the games tell us when we already know that, game-by-game in 2019, 1) his passing volume wasn't correlated with his own passing efficiency, 2) his passing volume wasn't correlated with the scoreboard, and 3) his passing volume was strongly correlated (-0.64) with Derrick Henry's rushing efficiency (yards per carry).

    What's left to examine? Tell me what we'll be looking for specifically in the film, when we already know the above.
     
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    A couple people have gone through and shown play by play that it was dictated by score, at least in some games. No one has gone through each and every game. You pick quarters 1-3 to determine this. You really need to look at individual quarters, score, what the defense has out on the field, many factors. Looking at results doesn't tell you the reason for the discrepancy you are finding.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  35. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah resnor's right that the effect you're seeing could possibly be almost entirely due to: 1) having a lead in the 4th quarter, where I've already shown that on average almost all the discrepancy in rush/pass percentage between teams occurs, and 2) the well known result that passer rating is much higher when playing with a lead.

    So the effect you're seeing could simply be due to Tannehill + Titans playing with a lead (or even tied) far more often than Tannehill + Miami. That effect holds in quarters 1-3 too (playing with a lead always helps passer rating).

    Thing is, the Titans weren't playing from behind as often in part due to Tannehill so you can't just say the causal relation was in one direction only. That is, Tannehill was in part responsible for his reduction in workload.
     
    Pauly, FinFaninBuffalo and resnor like this.
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm happy to do that if possible. Tell me specifically the hypotheses we'll be exploring regarding Tannehill's extremely low passing volume. What are your proposed causes of that? Tannehill's passing volume was so low because of what?
     
  37. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I addressed this earlier:

    And it's not a comparison with Miami here. It's a comparison with the rest of the league in 2019.
     
  38. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I'm not really proposing anything. I'm simply saying, looking at results doesn't tell you why it was low. You are showing it was low, and then using your own thoughts regarding Tannehill to say why it was low. I mean, yes, Tannehill threw on average 23 times a game, compared to guys like Brady/Winston/Goff who were throwing 35-40 times a game. But if those QBs had Henry with them, do you actually believe that they would still have been throwing that much? I guess I just don't understand what you're arguing. I mean, obviously a team wants to be balanced, which Tennessee was. A team wants to use all their weapons, which Tennessee did.

    We diverge when you start acting like they used Henry because they didn't trust Tannehill, or because they believed he couldn't handle more. From the throws they were asking Tannehill to make, it's clear that they trusted him.
     
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If I had a QB who'd played in the league for six previous seasons and had demonstrated a marked improvement in performance as a function of a diminished workload, and I had a running back I could feature who plays well even when defenses are keying on him, I'd certainly choose to make that my offensive strategy -- a diminished workload for the QB, while featuring the running back.

    If you think on the other hand Tannehill's diminished workload was due to his own performance, then propose an explanation of how that occurred. I've already addressed that and debunked it to an adequate level of comfort for myself, so I won't be speaking any more about that possibility unless someone proposes a hypothesis that can be explored.
     

Share This Page