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_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Ok, the "21+" may have been a SLIGHT exaggeration, but not the several times. You're right....the internet is not that hard...

    9/15/2019; Chiefs down 10-0 end of 1st quarter vs Raiders
    9/29/2019; Chiefs down 10-0 end of 1st quarter vs Lions
    10/27/2019; Chiefs down 14-0 end of 1st quarter vs Packers
    1/12/2020; Chiefs down 21-0 end of 1st quarter vs Texans

    And that's just looking at the box scores. If memories serves me correctly, the Chiefs were actually down 23-0 against the Texans before they rallied back to win.
     
    resnor likes this.
  2. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The Colts went 3-13 in 1997, the year before they drafted Manning, and 3-13 in 1998, the first year with Manning. There is NO way you can spin that to saying the team was good.

    In 2010 and 2011, the two years before they drafted Wilson, that offense was 23rd in points scored. No that was NOT a good offense by any stretch.

    You don't have a 2-14 (for Montana) or 3-13 (for Manning) record with a team that's "already built". So your statement is not true as far as I'm concerned.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2020
  3. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    i actually do Guy. I don't do like you...look at a stats sheet, nothing but numbers and think I know it all.
     
  4. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    You're right about it being just one game. Who knows what else the season will bring. Where I disagree with you in the Henry comparison was that defenses could prepare for Henry and still not stop him. Granted, it was indeed difficult to stop him but it wasn't JUST Henry. It was the One-Two punch of Henry and Tannehill.

    Because Henry was so effective at running the ball, Tannehill was able to ***BURN*** defenses so many times with play action pass...
    Because Tannehill burned so many defenses with play action pass, defenses had to adjust to defend the pass, which allowed Henry to ***BURN*** softer stacked defenses with the run. Their relationship play was symbiotic.

    Now, with the Chiefs and the extraordinary play of Edwards-Helaire (EH) that was on display last night, its going to virtually identical to Tanny/Henry. If defenses are stacked in nickel coverage to try and contain Mahomes, that's going to open it up for EH to rip off BIG runs. If defenses start stacking to stop EH, it's going to open it up for big plays from Mahomes, especially with players like Tyrek Hill and Travis Kelce on the receiving end.

    Andy Reid is one of the BEST head coaches in the league and I can see no reason why he isn't going to take advantage of his newly acquired One-Two punch to take his already explosive offense from MOAB to nuclear.
     
    resnor likes this.
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Some objective information about the above:
    Certainly you don't think Henry was facing that number of stacked boxes because of Tannehill? Certainly you don't think that after the ball was handed off to Henry, against a defensive formation intended to stop him, the threat of Tannehill -- after his involvement in the play was over -- was responsible for Henry's success?

    https://titanswire.usatoday.com/2020/06/30/tennessee-titans-derrick-henry-stacked-boxes-leader-2019/

    https://titansized.com/2020/01/10/titans-stacked-boxes-derrick-henry/
     
  6. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Oh ok....so a star ROOKIE quarterback is supposed to start and have a winning record right out of the gate, huh? You do realize this team you say that was so bad had rookie quarterback Peyton Manning with Marshall Faulk, Marvin Harrison and Marcus Pollard, with Pollard and Falk coming to the Colts under....wait for it...Marchibroda.

    As i stated earlier, in 2010, Carroll took the Seahawks to the NFC Divisional Playoffs with Hasselbeck at QB. If you look at the drafts under Carroll, who was available for Carroll to draft to eventually replace Hasselbeck? Dalton? Kaepernick? Mallett? Cam Newton was gone before the 2010 season even finished...Locker? Gabbert? Ponder? When you don't have a that start race car driver to hire, you keep building the car and Carroll focused on that.

    Again, the totality brad...you have to see the entire totality. The Seahawks nor the Colts were THAT bad of a team.
     
  7. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    And? What did that do for the Titan's play action pass game? Oh wait, Tannehill led the league in Play Action Pass!

    Gee, didn't I already say this?

    https://titansized.com/2020/02/07/titans-ryan-tannehill-pa-passer-rating/
     
    resnor likes this.
  8. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Sorry dude.. you can't have two consecutive 3-13 seasons (year before and first year with Manning) or two consecutive 2-14 seasons (the two years before Montana started) and say that those teams were "already built".

    You can't spin that. Your claim about great QB's going to teams "already built" is simply false.
     
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So you're essentially agreeing. The relationship between Henry and Tannehill benefited Tannehill more than Henry.

    Consider also the following -- note especially the highlighted portions, indicating the exceptionally good passing performance against stacked boxes, and the significant drop-off in passing performance against non-stacked boxes:

    https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/slow-down-derrick-henry-titans-stacked-box/
     
  10. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    There you go again...keep looking at just numbers but you’re right...

    Marshall Faulk? SCRUB!!!
    Marvin Harrison? SCRUB!!!
    Marcus Pollard? SCRUB!!!

    Those guys than Manning played with were flat out GARBAGE

    :pity:
     
  11. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    They weren't scrubs, but clearly in those years the team was NOT good. No you're simply wrong about the team already being built. There's no way an "already built" team without a last missing piece of QB goes 2-14 or 3-13 twice in a row.

    And as I said, top picks go to the worst teams. The ONLY reason you're arguing like this is because you don't want to let go of your hypothesis even in the face of clearly contradictory data.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2020
  12. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Ok, let me get this straight...

    The 1997 Colts go 3-13. Lindy Infante gets fired.

    The 1998 Colts go 3-13, Peyton Manning’s rookie season...and new HC Jim Mora throws Manning to the wolves.

    The 1999 Colts go 13-3, Manning’s 2nd season in the league and you’re going to tell me he wasn’t drafted on a team that wasn’t set? Not to mention the fact the Colts were 10+ game winning from there on out with the exception of 2001 when they went 6-10...you’re REALLY going to try and sell that?

    Many of the players pre-dated Lindy Infante when Marchibroda took the Colts to the playoffs and many of those same players remained to Jim Mora’s tenure. The team was set. The failed coaching of Lindy Infante wasn’t.

    You numbers guys are just too much!
     
    resnor likes this.
  13. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, I'm selling that. Find me some articles suggesting that that 3-13 Colts in 1997 were just a QB away from the SB. If it was that obvious they were set, it shouldn't be difficult to find articles making such a claim.

    And what about Montana? 2-14 two consecutive years before he starts. You do realize I only need to find one exception to your claim to disprove it. I've given you several, but you shouldn't ignore one of the most obvious ones.
     
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Excluding his rookie season, Manning's career win percentage in the games he started was 73.5%, well above the league average. Was he on "set" teams his whole career?
     
  15. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Oh, my analysis isn’t enough, based on logic. You need me to find someone who’s a sportswriter and gets paid for an article to persuade you? Fine, I’ll see if I can’t get Travis to write an article.

    As for Joe Montana and the 49ers, their problems went WAAAAY behind a 2-14 season. You do realize that San Francisco had 5 head coaches in 5 years prior to Bill Walsh don’t you? Walsh came in along with Carmen Policy and completely revamped that failing team. That team went 2-14 in 79, 6-10 in 80 and 13-3 in 81.

    Now that think about it, why are you even bringing up Montana? I never even mentioned him.
     
    resnor likes this.
  16. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That's just it. There's no logic in your analysis. I have NEVER seen people talk of a team that goes 2-14 or 3-13 in 2 consecutive years as "just a QB away" from greatness. NEVER. And I'm talking about people who commented on those teams at the time. Trying to get someone today to put something in print means nothing when they're not even experiencing the situation as it was back then (i.e., yours isn't a purely statistics based argument).

    I brought up Montana because you said this:

    "Teams with GREAT quarterbacks already possessed good teams, but was missing that one elusive piece to elevate said team to greatness."

    So.. Montana was a great QB. He wasn't drafted to a good team. That's a great counter-example to your claim, a claim that is clearly false. SF was not one QB away from greatness when they drafted Montana.
     
  17. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Somehow the likes of Peyton Manning and Joe Montana -- first-ballot Hall-of-Famers -- were the beneficiaries of exceptionally good surroundings throughout their careers -- "set" teams as you call them -- but you can't accept the possibility that Ryan Tannehill was the beneficiary of exceptionally good surroundings for 11 games in 2019. :huh:
     
  18. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    But for what ever reason, maybe because it's not posted in a mathematical equation, you're not looking at the entirety of the team and the common sense factor that goes along with it.

    Denver Broncos; John Elway; drafted 1983
    1981; 10-6
    1982 ; 2-7 (strike year)
    1983; 9-7 Lost Wildcard game
    1984; 13-3; Lost Divisional playoff
    1985; 11-5
    Rest of his storied career is history

    New York Jets; Ken O'Brien; drafted 1983
    1981; 10-5-1; Lost Wildcard game
    1982; 6-3; Lost AFC Championship
    1983; 7-9
    1984; 7-9
    1985; 11-5; Lost Wildcard game
    1986; 10-6; Lost Divisional playoff

    Miami Dolphins; Dan Marino; drafted 1983
    1981; 11-4-1; Lost Divisional playoff
    1982; 7-2; Lost Super Bowl
    1983; 12-4; Lost Divisional playoff
    1984; 14-2; Lost Super Bowl
    1985; 12-4; Lost AFC Championship
    Rest of his storied career is history

    New England Patriots; Tom Brady; drafted 2000
    1998; 9-7; Lost Wildcard game
    1999; 8-8
    2000; 5-11; Belichick's first season
    2001; 11-5; Won Super Bowl; Brady starting game 3
    2002; 9-7
    Rest of his storied career is history

    Pittsburgh Steelers; Ben Roethlisberger; Drafted 2004
    2002; 10-5-1; Lost Divisional playoff
    2003; 6-10
    2004; 15-1; Lost AFC Championship
    2005; 11-5; Won Super Bowl
    Rest of his storied career is history

    Green Bay Packers; Aaron Rodgers; drafted 2005
    2003; 10-6; Lost Divisional playoff
    2004; 10-6; Lost Wildcard game
    2005; 4-12
    2006; 8-8
    2007; 13-3; Lost NFC Championship
    2008; 6-10. Rodgers first year starting
    Rest of his storied career is history

    Houston Texans; Deshain Watson; drafted 2017
    2015; 9-7; Lost Wildcard game
    2016; 9-7; Lost Divisional Playoff
    2017; 4-12
    2018; 11-5; Lost Wildcard game
    2019; 10-6; Lost Divisional playoff

    Kansas City Chiefs; Patrick Mahomes; drafted 2017
    2015; 11-5; Lost Divisional playoff
    2016; 12-4; Lost Divisional playoff
    2017; 10-6; Lost Wildcard game
    2018; 12-4; Lost AFC Championship
    2019; 12-4; Won Super Bowl

    See where I'm going with this? All of those above quarterbacks (less O'Brien) have either won a Super Bowl, are in the Hall of Fame or both and were drafted by established teams that just needed a quarterback to take them to the next level.

    I can't keep going on and on and on for hours on end. I do have a life but if you are really truly honest with yourself, and not use the "yea but" argument that involves first year head coaches that were hired to re-build a losing team (Aikmen, Favre et al), you're going to see that I'm right!

    Look at all of these quarterbacks that have been drafted by losing teams in a desperate move that the quarterback is the answer...when the rest of your team is in shambles
    Trubisky, Wentz, Goff, Winston, Mariotta, et al...there's too many of them. Goof and Wentz have shown flashes of brilliance but instead of being a bright light, they ended up being a bang...a bright flash and that's it.

    Ok, gotta go fix dinner...I'm out
     
    resnor likes this.
  19. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Did I argue against any of those? No I told you your statement was false because it didn't apply in general. In fact it doesn't apply to a whole bunch of great QB's. Like I said, it doesn't apply to Montana and to Manning. It also doesn't apply to Wilson nor does it apply to Brees (whether you look at SD or NO). The list goes on and on.

    Point is you're patently wrong to claim great QB's are just the missing piece on already good teams. Sometimes yes, often no.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2020
  20. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Didn't that Denver team have a pretty stacked defense when Peyton was there? 2012, they were #4 in points allowed. And then again, in 2015, 4th ranked defense for points allowed, and they win the super bowl. Plus Peyton was a shell of himself.
     
    The_Dark_Knight likes this.
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If what you're saying is true, then why do bad teams choose QBs projected to be very good at the top of the first round whenever they can, instead of choosing players at other positions with those highly-coveted resources, and waiting until later to get their QBs, after they've already become "set" as a team?

    If your theory is correct, the Dolphins should've never selected Tua at #5 overall this year. They should've gotten a surrounding piece and waited until later to get a QB. Is that what you were rooting for in the draft this year? Let Tua fall to some other team and get a surrounding piece instead?
     
  22. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, while he was there they did. But that team wasn't "built" before Manning got there. The defense was 24th in points allowed in 2011 for example. The 2012 offseason saw massive changes in Denver's roster. It's not like Manning was just the missing piece to an already complete team.
     
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure, Peyton Manning's 73.5% career win percentage as a starter beyond his rookie season is due to the fact that he enjoyed exceptionally good surroundings for 16 seasons.
     
  24. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    That wasnt the implication of what he said at all. The implication is that though Manning may have dipped physically, he had a team around him that was better built, defensively at the very least, to make up for that, and with that they won despite the fact that he wasnt as physically gifted as he was even 5-6 years before.

    Noone is implying Manning was carried by surroundings. I'm not saying I do or dont agree with what he said, but it just wasnt what you're implying it was.
     
    resnor likes this.
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The point is, why are we debating the quality of Peyton Manning’s surroundings? Is there no quarterback in the history of the league who has had exceptionally good individual ability?
     
  26. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    To be fair, the Colts were 15-1 with Peyton pre-injury, then 1-15 the year after. There's not much more evidence needed to say Manning made that team a SB contender almost single-handedly.
     
  27. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Colts went from 10-6 in 2010 to 2-14 in 2011. They never went 15-1 with Peyton. Either way, TDK’s argument is about the state of the team right before the QB is signed, so we need to look at the year right before the QB starts.

    And that’s where Montana and Manning’s rookie years, and the immediate years prior, are so revealing.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  28. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I WAS TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT MANNING IN DENVER.

    Stop obfuscating and changing the parameters. Saying Denver had a terrible defense prior to Peyton getting there is disingenuous, since the defense they built FOR him was pretty stout.
     
  29. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    The point with regards to Indy is that they didn't simply add Peyton to the previous year's bad team. He was a piece of a whole team that was assembled.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2020
    The_Dark_Knight likes this.
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Being snarky doesn't change the fact that he was playing for a large portion of time with HoF receivers, TE, and running back.

    Oh, along with not changing head coaches every two seasons and OCs every other year.
     
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Indy was bad for a full year even after adding Peyton. TDK’s claim is simple false. It is not true that great QB’s go to already good teams. Far from it. Like I said, sometimes yes but often no.
     
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You're kinda getting semantic here, though. Both in Denver, and Indy, Peyton was part of an assembled team. Dark already listed the players in Indy that were brought in with Peyton. Again, it's not like Indianapolis simply brought in Peyton to make the team good. They brought in a number of great players.

    That is something Miami NEVER did for Tannehill.
     
    The_Dark_Knight and Pauly like this.
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No, they had to still add pieces OTHER than the QB. Especially in Indy (less so in Denver) that team was not good when Peyton went there: there's no way to spin two consecutive 3-13 seasons and say that team only needed a QB to be "great". That's the argument TDK made and it's completely ludicrous.

    No, TDK did NOT list players that were brought in with Peyton. He kept arguing that consecutive 3-13 records were not indicative of how good that team actually was, which is complete nonsense. And if you're agreeing with me that it wasn't just Peyton they brought in, then you're completely disagreeing with TDK. You should read what he writes before defending him.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with Tannehill. He's not one of those "great" QB's yet, at least in most people's minds.
     
  34. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Did you ever hear the phrase “Suck for Luck” before? Indy tanked their whole season in order to draft Andrew Luck, whose career stats are very similar to Ryan Tannehill’s.
     
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That certainly sounds nothing like the strategy that would be used by a team that thought that obtaining the quarterback after all the other pieces were in place was the way to go.
     
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Post #9364

    Why can't I compare the situation Tannehill was in to theirs? Especially when people keep pointing to Miami as evidence that last season was a fluke, and the Miami Tannehill was the real Tannehill?
     
  37. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Ummm...yes it does, when you understand that that they actually did tank. The team was not that bad, they purposefully made themselves bad to guarantee that they got the final piece.

    And he was Tannehill, but playing in a soft division.
     
  38. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Yup, but they weren't doing that until Peyton went down.
     
  39. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Nope. Read that post. He's talking about players there BEFORE Manning. In other words TDK is arguing two consecutive 3-13 records is hiding a roster that only needs a QB to be "great". Like I said, ludicrous argument. There's no way a good roster that only needs a QB does that bad 2 years in a row.

    We're talking about "great" QB's going to teams that were already good. You'd have to first assume Tannehill is "great" before he belongs in this discussion. Sorry one season isn't doing that.
     
  40. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    btw.. regarding Suck for Luck, any deliberate "tanking" by Indy (if that occurred.. not saying it didn't) only makes sense once they realized Manning wasn't going to fully recover, and that came only late in that season. Don't forget, Manning had just signed a 5-year $90 million extension in July that year, and this was after neck surgery the year before.

    In other words, Indy was expecting Manning to come back that season, or at minimum be ready for the next season. They probably did realize late in the season that wasn't going to occur, but Suck for Luck for Indy did NOT begin until late. The scoreline also reflects that. Most of the early games were pretty close, only going to blowouts midseason.
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/clt/2011.htm

    Also, Vegas consistently had the Dolphins winning the Suck for Luck sweepstakes until we started winning.
     
    KeyFin likes this.

Share This Page