Comparing Tannehill to Luck,

Conversely...

https://twitter.com/AllbrightNFL/status/729367231100936192

 

All but proves that if Tannehill were drafted by the Colts and Luck by the Dolphins, Tannehill would be the one making the playoffs on a more consistent basis, maybe even playing better than Luck has considering his supporting cast.

 

You can never tell, because sometimes a player just needs the right situation to succeed in, but its a great point. Had Luck been drafted by Miami at #1 overall, and put up the exact same stats but with the Dolphins same won/loss record, would people be calling him one of the biggest busts in league history? (because people are dumb)

 

Remember that time when the flavor of the day was "but Tannehill's arrow keeps pointing up and Wilson just keeps regressing..."

Like that, sooner or later Luck will make any Tannehill comparisons look silly.

Andrew Luck is a football player first and foremost, but he also happens to be a great athlete. Tannehill on the other hand is a great athlete masquerading as a football player.

 

Love these "comparisons"....not one NFL GM would look at these 2 QB's and say "ehh give me Ryan Tannehil!" at this point in their careers.

 

If you're the owner of Indy, the argument should be easy (assuming both are on the market): Luck is a known quantity and clearly a good enough QB to lead a not-so-great team deep in the playoffs. The solution isn't to go gambling on a new QB even if the stats look comparable. You simply don't know anywhere near as well what Tannehill would do in Luck's position as we know how Luck actually did.

The solution is to pay Luck like a true franchise QB and focus on building the rest of the team. It's an argument that would convince me on the spot.

 

I can get on board with that. Tannehill needs to be more assertive and aggressive. Can he get that fire in his eye like Dan Marino? I sure hope so, but I fear that his previous coaches have screwed him up. IMO, being passive and standing back in the pocket and taking a beating isn't my idea of good quarterbacking. He should be taking advantage of his athletic skills and making things happen ala Fitzgerald who has less athletic skill than Tannehill, but who seems to get more done. I am confident Gase understands this and we will see a more improved Tannehill this season.

 

You can hump your ratings all you want. 7.7 ypa, 40 TDs, 16 INTs, 4700 yards or whatever he had. Ryan Tannehill has never played to the peak Luck has achieved. At the end of the day, watch the games.

Again, I like passer rating, but it's still just a single rating. And it weights completions/completion percentage very heavily. It counts it twice. So you need to know that when you compare it. Knowing that a short throw guy who makes a lot of completions will have a high rating. Even though the ball just isn't getting too far.

Luck's problem is his loosey goosey'ness with the football. He turns it over a lot. He needs someone to come in and coach him on that.

 

Brady throws short at least as much as Thill it seems. Never here anyone banging on him for it.

 

I do watch the games. Pauly's statistics back up what I see.

While I do think Luck is better than Tannehill, Luck is overrated by the fans/media and Tannehill is underrated.

Luck hasn't made it and still has questions.

Tannehill isn't a failure.

 

OK, suppose you're a GM trying to convince an owner (your original "convince me" question) you should acquire Luck instead of Tannehill assuming both are FA's. The owner trots out the stats in this thread.

First thing I'd point out as GM is that (almost certainly) Luck is going to get a much bigger contract than Tannehill (you hinted at this already). That means it's not just one GM, but almost all (probably all) GM's/HC's etc... that value Luck more than Tannehill. Since no statistical analysis has proven as good over time as the collective intelligence of NFL experts (I wouldn't make this argument for everything in baseball, but in football it's still true), Luck commanding far more $$ than Tannehill in the same FA period implicitly gives you a great reason to think Luck > Tannehill if you don't have your own opinions set.

Second thing I'd point out is that if you're only going by stats, you should probably disregard Luck's 2015 stats for future projections because he really was injured, so much so he couldn't finish a season. Take away his 2015 stats and Luck looks a lot better. Now a statistician might or might not do that, depending on whether he can confidently argue 2015 for Luck was a different "condition". Not saying which way that argument should go, but as a GM you'd argue it.

Third thing I'd point out is that there's one stat (the most important) that favors Luck: W/L and playoff appearances. Those are of course team stats, but the problem is it's hard to argue Indy without Luck was clearly more talented than Dolphins without Tannehill. In some years you could argue the opposite. HC favors Indy, but no one can seriously argue all the difference was due to the HC and not the QB.

Fourth thing I'd argue is that Luck has shown he can make spectacular comebacks and you at least have a chance to win games where your defense lets you down far more than Tannehill. Tannehill in the right system may outperform Luck, but you don't get the comeback abilities you get with Luck. This is shown in the stats too, with the now infamous 4th quarter while trailing stats for Tannehill. Luck does well there, his ratings don't drop off anywhere near as much as do Tannehill's from "leading or tied" situations.

Finally, I'd argue that the salary shouldn't be too much of an issue when it comes to QB given the massive importance of the QB for a modern NFL team. You shouldn't mind spending extra to get that position down as solid as possible. I wouldn't say this for any other position necessarily (depends more on the player), but for the QB, it's a system issue: rules and their interpretations just make the QB tremendously important.

So yeah, I think there's a good argument I could make as a GM to an owner for choosing Luck over Tannehill.

 

Because Brady has only been in the league for 3 years so we're going to IGNORE 2007-2011 when Belichick actually gave him wide receivers to throw to.

[video=youtube;yNxr1bWT-ac]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNxr1bWT-ac[/video]

You guys are going the wrong way when looking for QBs to bring up when discussing Tannehill. You need to turn around and head back to the Matt Ryan/Joe Flacco/Andy Dalton area. The Brady level is not gonna turn out well for you.

 

I don't disagree with what you say here. Luck is overrated (although there is a recent push the other way). Pauly's statistics say Luck ISN'T better than Tannehill. You are saying he is. I agree with you.

Luck's team hasn't been put together well and I don't see coaching as a huge plus there in Indy. They are also a mess.

Pauly says there is little to distinguish the two players. So they are essentially equal. I disagree with that vehemently. And I think all team FO's would disagree. They are high on luck because they see great ability, just a little reckless with the football. Stats don't tell you that.

Stats won't tell you if 15 INTs are because the guy is such a crappy passer, or is being too aggressive. There is a difference between a QB just flat out not seeing defenders vs throwing to a covered WR. Both will result in INTs but one is correctable. Luck's ceiling is higher than Tannehill and I don't think anyone disagrees. Luck's 2014 is better than anything Tanny has yet to put together.

Am I predicting Luck will course correct and will 100% be better than Tanny? No, anything can happen. Luck wouldn't be the first touted prospect to flame out. Again, you can coach a QB to be more protective of the football, and make better decisions. You cannot coach prolificness and that's what Luck has. He just needs to be smarter with the ball.

I can see coaching turn Luck's 2014 14 INTs into 12 INTs. But his 40 TD passes can't be coached. I find that production to be innate.

Luck has issues. And if he corrects those issues he can be great. If he doesn't, then he'll fail. I think 2015 will be good for him. A slap in the face. A wake up call. You are no longer a top prospect learning your way. Welcome to the NFL.


Can Tanny turn around and hit 35 TDs this year and 10 INts? Sure. That would be great and I'd crown him a good QB. He's got all the weapons now. Short game, mid range game, long game, Red Zone. There is a WR for every situation. Just get out there and do it.

 

Things can be argued lots of different ways though.

1. It can be argued that Luck is living off his reputation/collegiate career and hasn't shown that much more than Tannehill in the NFL. A lot of these people believe their team can "bring that guy back" and of course would pay a lot to get the "best prospect since Elway."

2. Tannehill was peeing blood last year, so it isn't as if he wasn't injured? It looks like Luck's best season was more of an anomaly than last year's "bad season."

3. There's team dynamics at work here. Luck has had a whole city and coaching staff behind him while Tannehill has had a city that seems to hate him and a head coach who was probably angry because he may have played a part in getting his best friend/mentor Sherman fired.

4. Just looking at 2014 seasons for both guys, which I think can be said are both guys' best seasons.....

Luck when BEHIND in 2014 - 149/254, 58.7%, 12 TD, 12 INT, 75.3 RATE
Tannehill when BEHIND 2014 - 219/333, 65.8%, 13 TD, 10 INT, 83.6 RATE

Oddly enough, looking at the breakdowns....Tannehill has better rating when Ahead 1-8 (103.5 tot 101.4)...Tied (116.6 to 84.7).....Behind 1-8 (84.0 to 72.4)....Behind 9-16 (87.0 to 86.1)....and Luck was only better when Ahead 9-16 (115.6 to 113.7).

Looking at these numbers, you would think that Tannehill plays better when games are close and Luck pads stats when his teams were way ahead (17 of his 40 TDs that year came when his team was up 9+ points).

Also, if you want a guy to take down the Patriots, it doesn't seem Luck is your guy.


I think the arguments could be made both ways. I tend to think Luck has been a bit overrated and Tannehill a bit underrated, but both guys careers are in the beginning stages right now. Some people like certain things (ability to avoid a sack when in the grasp) from a QB, which means they'll like Luck.

From reading here the past few years, some guys just go too far and some expect things from Tannehill and make exceptions and special rules for guys like Luck.

 

There are more than enough stats so that you can pick and choose to make the argument you want to make. But if it's really true that Luck would command a much higher salary than Tannehill in the same FA period, that should really tell you something about how most experts that probably know these stats are interpreting their relevance.

In any case, I definitely agree with all those saying Luck is overrated and Tannehill underrated, but I'm squarely in the boat of Luck > Tannehill. In the end, the ability to lead your team to a win when it counts is what really matters, and even if you include 2015, Luck shows you something Tannehill doesn't, say with stats alone.

Here are some links:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LuckAn00/splits/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TannRy00/splits/

Notice two things you'd want to look at if you care about playing well when it matters: 4th quarter rating and how they perform when trailing with <2 or <4 minutes left. Luck is 86.8 to 78.4 in 4th quarter performance, and averages 81 vs. 55 or so for ratings when playing from behind in the last 2-4 minutes of the game.

That type of stat for ME has outsized relevance.

To the points you listed, Tannehill is also VERY tough, but the severity of an injury that makes you ineligible to play is different than one that doesn't. And one reason Tannehill doesn't have the support Luck has is precisely because of his performance as perceived by fans. Maybe in year 1 this was different, but when your team goes 11-5 three seasons in a row and goes to the AFC championship game, it makes total sense the fanbase will be far more behind you than if you miss the playoffs every year, especially when you can't easily argue the rest of the team was far superior in Indy's case.

So sure you can pick stats to show Tannehill looks better. The question is which matter most. I'm like most in the NFL that think Luck > Tannehill, but yes no question in my mind Luck has not lived up to expectations.

 

Tannehill is definately good at beating the Patriots at home. Maybe better than anyone else in the league:

81/136, 1026 yards, 7 TD, 1 INT, 97.24 rating. Team is 3-1 in his four home starts vs New England, and has scored 20+ in all three wins.

 

Making excuses for Brady? HE'S ONE OF THE GOAT.

You don't make excuses for the best. You make them for the lesser players to compare them to the best. "Oh brady throws short passes too" is an excuse for Tannehill, not Brady. The guy had a 102 rating, 36 TDs, 7 INTs. 4,700 yards. Nobody is making excuses for Brady lol.

Like I said. This doesn't turn out well for Tannehill when you're comparing him to Brady. Ryan Tannehill, through college and the pros has never been prolific. Never dominated. Never been at the top of the class. Wake me up when he does so.

Let's get back to Tannehill. Who is like, a strong armed Alex Smith That's not a slight, I love Alex Smith's game he just needs a better arm. I think Alex Smith is better with the mental aspect, but Tanny has that arm. Not the most accurate arm, but mostly good enough if you surround him with QB friendly receivers (hello Parker, Landry and Carroo) and less of the precision-requiring WRs (hello Wallace/Stills).

I can see Tannehill, if all things go well, hitting Rivers levels of production (although I think Rivers is better still) 4,500 yards, 30 TDs, 10 INTs.

 

I am not a big stats man. I prefer to judge a QB on how he responds which it is late in the fourth quarter and the game is on the line. Can he put the team on his shoulders and lead his team to victory?

In this scenario, I will take Luck over Tannehill every day of the week. All I know is that if the Colts can't sign Luck and they decide to trade him, (unlikely), I would offer them Tannehill and next years first round draft pick and not think twice about it.

 

These threads are pointless. The guys who are anti-Tannehill will never back off, no matter what stats or information they're shown.

They will continue to make excuses for pretty much every other QB in the league, while continuing to act like Tannehill hasn't been successful, as far as wins, solely because, well, Tannehill.

 

I was on forums a few years back, before everyone considered Brady possibly the GOAT, and people continuously bashed on him for the short throws. Winning as a team changes perceptions of players.

 

Well I've read people say Fiedler is better. And I see them post here regularly still..

 

so what are you saying?..that he is not the cause of the winning?

 

Lets compare Tanne to Marino.

 

I'd definitely take Tannehill over Marino right now. Key words: "right now".

 

Well never compare nobody to the great #13. But who knows if Ryan T could be getting there!

 

lol, leave it to you, to use coaching and player acquisition to give a QB excuse for short passes, all while the irony of that is completely lost on you.

 

They've always won with Brady so why would the perception change on him? Its because they just keep winning despite many iterations of the team around him. I'm guessing the people that claimed Brady was overrated way back then are the same lot that changed their tune on Wilson. "Tom Brady is not a god, he's just a guy in a better situation than our guy..."

 

Uh, what? I said that I have seen people bash Brady for short throws. They said he was a system QB.

I argued nonstop with them.

 

I'm not saying Brady isn't great. However, he was a 6th round pick for a reason. There's a very good chance that stellar coaching, and players that fit a system, helped develop him (with some cheating sprinkled in for good measure).

But, I guess it's much more realistic to have the attitude that Brady was always awesome, but noone saw it.

 

I don't think you provided evidence for the bolded claim. If your claim is that Luck's passer rating (over his career) against the AFC South is not much different from the overall average NFL passer rating, that's patently wrong.

Here are the averages:
https://instantreplay1.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/pr-chart.jpg

Passer ratings in the low-to-mid 80's is average across the league. Luck did that in 2012 and 2013, but in 2014 his average was 112, which puts his overall average (including 2015) at 92, which is way above NFL average. This is an argument that's obviously independent of any comparison to any other QB including Tannehill.

btw.. since that chart doesn't include 2013 and 2014 and I don't know their methodology, I did this. I went to these links:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2012/passing.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2013/passing.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2014/passing.htm

and calculated the average passer ratings of all QB's that started at least 8 games (at least methodology is clear this way). I get 86, 86.8, and 89.2 doing it this way, giving an overall average of 87.3. So 92 should be compared to 87.3.


If on the other hand you're arguing that 92 is the average passer rating for an NFL QB against teams that had the same records as those AFC South teams had, well I haven't seen you do that analysis and any such analysis has to be done over a large sample size to get good estimates of passer rating vs. opponent record. I guess I could someday write a program to do that (would be interesting info) but not right now.

So yeah you can argue (not a strong argument anyway) based on average passer rating alone that Luck helped his team beat the AFC South. Having said that, I'd prefer to take more of a scalpel to the data and say Luck improved tremendously in 2014, but that's another story.


As to the question about why Luck isn't better against non-divisional opponents, I don't know but in general I think teams are built to win in their division, which makes sense because you play those teams twice. Whether that effect (assuming it exists) alone explains this I don't know.

 

I think i misunderstood, my bad..for those people who bashed brady before he was considered one of the great because of some short throws had no idea what they were talking about..prolly the same people I debated the past few years when they said that he was getting old....lol.told them he's getting better..told the the arm is getting stronger.