Advanced Stats Poo-Pooing on Tannehill

"Fin D wrote:

Tannheill has become a magical creature on these boards.....

He's the most important player on the team and is single-handedly responsible for wins and losses BUT he can't raise the level of the team and only lowers the team. His good play is ONLY result of the team playing well around him but when the team plays badly its his fault. He plays well when the team runs well, but that's the oline and RB's fault, and if the oline plays poorly, that's no excuse for Tannehill.

When all of you are done crafting this story, I believe Tannehill will have so many confusing & evil abilities that defy reason and contradict each other, he'll end being the next Harry Potter villain.

Okay, I stopped reading when you misrepresented my posts. I said he doesn't thread the needle either way. He's mediocre.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"finsfandan wrote:

Yes it is. He's TOO dependent on the team as a whole. He doesn't elevate the team the way good to great QBs do. He's mediocre. He has big games when everybody else does well and rarely does it on his own. When we struggle, he almost always struggles.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think a majority of quarterbacks are dependent on the team around them. How's Andrew Luck doing this year?

Most quarterbacks need a good line. They need weapons around them and they need an OC who will help put them in a position to succeed. Tannehill is no different.

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

I think a majority of quarterbacks are dependent on the team around them. How's Andrew Luck doing this year?

Started out poorly but picking it up this year. Didn't he lead the league in passing TDs or yards last season? Who were his superstars on offense? T.Y. Hilton from my alma mater? Which RB?

What has Tannehill done? He doesn't deserve a comparison to Luck.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"finsfandan wrote:

Started out poorly but picking it up this year. Didn't he lead the league in passing TDs or yards last season? Who were his superstars on offense? T.Y. Hilton from my alma mater? Which RB?

What has Tannehill done? He doesn't deserve a comparison to Luck.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andrew Luck is a really good QB who hasn't played well this year. Why? Because the team around him is struggling too. Sound familiar?

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

Andrew Luck is a really good QB who hasn't played well this year. Why? Because the team around him is struggling too. Sound familiar?

Their GM is on the way out. Maybe their HC too.

His OL is actually trash. When have they EVER ran the ball effectively?

Luck deserves SOME leeway considering what he's done in the league already. I'm going to assume Tannehill will never match what Luck has done in his short career. Not even if he plays 20 seasons.

Tannehill wouldn't have led the league in TDs or hit 5k yards with that squad last year. Wouldn't have made it to the AFC Championship. Didn't deserve the #1 overall pick. Wouldn't have led that team and picked up the slack as if Peyton Manning never left.

Are you KIDDING me right now? These comparisons are freaking laughable. I WISH some fan from another team saw this discussion now. Please, somebody, invite a friend to this discussion that's a fan from another team. PLEASE.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"finsfandan wrote:

Their GM is on the way out. Maybe their HC too

Lolllll. This is your argument? You do realize we already fired our head coach this year right? How come that's an excuse for Luck but not for Tannehill?

By the way, I never once said Tannehill was better than Luck. Nor did I even say he was on the same level. So I'm not sure why you're freaking out about it.

Ryan Tannehill passer rating by the years:

2012: 76.1
2013: 81.7
2014: 92.8

What does that tell you? It clearly tells me we have a QB who has consistently gotten better each and every year. Why can't anyone grasp that?

Thanks Rocky, can't lay it out better than that. Common sense should not be so difficult to grasp. So if he keeps improving and our record stays about the same.... Let's get rid of RT because he must be the problem.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"LI phinfan wrote:

Thanks Rocky, can't lay it out better than that. Common sense should not be so difficult to grasp. So if he keeps improving and our record stays about the same.... Let's get rid of RT because he must be the problem.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly.

His play improves but the record is still not great....but somehow record is a QB stat. Its insane.

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

Lolllll. This is your argument? You do realize we already fired our head coach this year right? How come that's an excuse for Luck but not for Tannehill?

By the way, I never once said Tannehill was better than Luck. Nor did I even say he was on the same level. So I'm not sure why you're freaking out about it.

You didn't quote the rest of what I said... You made the comparison though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

Ryan Tannehill passer rating by the years:

2012: 76.1
2013: 81.7
2014: 92.8

What does that tell you? It clearly tells me we have a QB who has consistently gotten better each and every year. Why can't anyone grasp that?

Tannehill's best season coincided with Miller's best. Nice way to pick stats without giving the bigger picture.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And, like always, when inconsistencies are pointed, the posters freak out, and make outlandish claims (like people are saying Tannehill is as good as Luck or Rodgers) so that they can disregard the argument that is actually being made.

I wish people would just be honest and admit that they are going to ***** and complain about our QB until we have a first ballot HoFer throwing the rock for us.

So his QBR and Passer Rating have improved only when our running game has. His big games come mostly when the running game does. His play mostly deteriorates when the running game does. What does that tell you, Rocky?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"finsfandan wrote:

Tannehill's best season coincided with Miller's best. Nice way to pick stats without giving the bigger picture.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And people in this board were comparing about Miller last year. Miller also plays like garbage WHEN THE LINE DOESN'T BLOCK.

"finsfandan wrote:

So his QBR and Passer Rating have improved only when our running game has. His big games come mostly when the running game does. His play mostly deteriorates when the running game does. What does that tell you, Rocky?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The run game deteriorates WHEN THE OLINE plays like ****. The passing game, oh so coincidentally, deteriorates when the oline plays like ****.

I know, it's weird, and hard to understand.

"finsfandan wrote:

Tannehill's best season coincided with Miller's best. Nice way to pick stats without giving the bigger picture.

I think it's a losing argument to suggest Tannehill hasn't gotten better each year, either through stats-based or eyeball based arguments. Having said that I do agree with your general premise that Tannehill doesn't compensate for weaknesses in other parts of the team like some of the great QB's do. I wouldn't use the word "mediocre" though.. maybe "average" or "slightly above average".

Either way, while Tannehill isn't a QB you can rely on to win the game for you when it counts, he's more than good enough IMO to keep and build the team around. Many teams have won the SB with good game managers and Tannehill is certainly fit for that role.

"resnor wrote:

And people in this board were comparing about Miller last year. Miller also plays like garbage WHEN THE LINE DOESN'T BLOCK.

He's not the best RB either. He could improve just like Tannehill can. It's just funny how Tannehill's performance is eerily tied to Miller's but you guys give Tannehill the credit... Right...

Chalk Tannehill's NFL record up to him. Nothing to do with Miller's 175 yards and TD. His best season was all him, not Miller's best season. Yep. Sounds about right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"cbrad wrote:

I think it's a losing argument to suggest Tannehill hasn't gotten better each year, either through stats-based or eyeball based arguments. Having said that I do agree with your general premise that Tannehill doesn't compensate for weaknesses in other parts of the team like some of the great QB's do. I wouldn't use the word "mediocre" though.. maybe "average" or "slightly above average".

Either way, while Tannehill isn't a QB you can rely on to win the game for you when it counts, he's more than good enough IMO to keep and build the team around. Many teams have won the SB with good game managers and Tannehill is certainly fit for that role.

I'm on the record for saying we can win a Super Bowl with Tannehill. We just need a really good supporting cast. The running game has to be more consistent. The defense needs to keep doing what we were doing with Wake.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"finsfandan wrote:

So his QBR and Passer Rating have improved only when our running game has. His big games come mostly when the running game does. His play mostly deteriorates when the running game does. What does that tell you, Rocky?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They will never admit to it. He's highly dependent on the rest of the team around him in particular the running game - the exact description of a "game manager". There's no compensatory factor there when it comes to picking the team up in big spots. He plays down to the rest of the offense.

"Rock Sexton wrote:

They will never admit to it. He's highly dependent on the rest of the team around him - the description of a game manager.

No matter what the correlation or stats show. It's the offensive line both ways. The OL is always to blame even though they've shown what they can do when given the right game plan. Now teams counter that by honing in on the run. Tannehill craps the bed. Story of his career for the most part.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"finsfandan wrote:

You didn't quote the rest of what I said... You made the comparison though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I compared their struggles this season. Which is valid. I didn't compare their careers.

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

I compared their struggles this season. Which is valid. I didn't compare their careers.

Obviously the supporting cast matters. I'm saying our supporting cast is good enough to have a winning season. Luck elevated a bad to okay team to what they did last season. Tannehill could at least bail out our team when the opposing defense hones in on the run. He's rarely done that. Luck has proven that he can be a one man show.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"finsfandan wrote:

No matter what the correlation or stats show. It's the offensive line both ways. The OL is always to blame even though they've shown what they can do when given the right game plan. Now teams counter that by honing in on the run. Tannehill craps the bed. Story of his career for the most part.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Say what? We abandoned the run down 9-0. Miller had 9 carries on the night. What happened to "all we have to do is run the ball more" derp derp derp that I heard after the Tennesee game?

Everyone has been saying it's harder to pass block than run block, so why make the line pass block all game? Now this game happens, and is like no one argued those things two weeks ago. It's back to Tannehill being terrible.

"finsfandan wrote:

Obviously the supporting cast matters. I'm saying our supporting cast is good enough to have a winning season. Luck elevated a bad to okay team to what they did last season. Tannehill could at least bail out our team when the opposing defense hones in on the run. He's rarely done that. Luck has proven that he can be a one man show.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Incorrect.

"resnor wrote:

Say what? We abandoned the run down 9-0. Miller had 9 carries on the night. What happened to "all we have to do is run the ball more" derp derp derp that I heard after the Tennesee game?

At one point I saw a stat where we ran 17 plays and 10 were either negative or for zero yards. A few three and outs. The offense wasn't clicking the entire first half.

We abandoned the running game because it got out of hand quickly and the Pats were solely focused on stopping the run. How many total runs did we have before we were down two to three scores?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk