Mel Kiper bashes Tannehill

Wait, so when people blast Tannehill for the team not having a better record and not making the playoffs, you think resnor is at fault for countering that argument?

Also, how does one quantify things like "tendency to stare down WRs" to such a degree that you can rank him as 15th in the NFL?

 

Yeah, I do.

Anyone that claims to want to move the conversation towards something more meaningful yet doesn't do it when they have the chance is helping to perpetuate pointless threads.

Resnor is a good guy but he needs to move on. Everyone needs to move on. At this point, anyone still talking W/L record needs to be put down, I agree. But defending the W/L record is STILL talking about W/L record!!!

So let's move on.

 

And yet, by pointing that out you brought up...w/l records for a QB. Weird how that works.

Also I added to my post.

 

Tannehill stares down WRs and doesn't see the field well.

Re-read my post and you won't ask me about the ranking. You mis-read that.

 

No. I think you need to re-read it.

The first paragraph lists issues you believe Tannehill has. The second paragraph then literally refers to "those things" and says it ranks him 15th if that.

So I will ask you again, and hopefully you'll actually answer it this time, how do you quantify stares down his receivers to the point you can rank someone by it or with it.

I'll wait.

 

Here's my contention...if you want to have a serious conversation it comes down to whether you're willing to watch a decent QB over the next couple years and then move on to trying to find a better one or whether you're happy to just roll with a guy you know doesn't have the necessary skills to play his position well.

If I were to make an analogy. This is like people who love Jarvis Landry's energy and enthusiasm letting that color the real issue of how good is Jarvis Landry the football player? If you want to have a football conversation you'll find Jarvis Landry isn't nearly as exciting nor as beneficial to his team nor as irreplaceable as you previously thought. Look, I like Tannehill in the same way I like Landry. I liked Bess for many of the same reasons but when it comes to football none are really that valuable.

When you look around the league it's getting easier and easier for QBs to enter the league and produce. Derek Carr is playing really well. Bortles is playing well. Meanwhile mid-tier QBs like Andy Dalton, Matt Ryan, Carson Palmer and Cam Newton are completely balling.

The expectations are high for Tannehill. He needs to be one of the best players on the field and for the vast majority of his career he's failed to do that. Well, that's kind of important when you're the QB.

Sorry, but it's reality.

Either you build around defense and the rushing and let Tannehill be a game-manager (which I'm in favor of) or you cut ties and continue looking for a QB that can lead a team. I've seen enough to believe Tannehill is not every going to be dominant passer. That's a pipe dream. In reality, he can't even throw well enough to do that.

We're sitting here celebrating when he completes a long throw in practice for God's sake. That's embarrassing.

 

Again, you are not presenting what I wrote accurately.

Summarize my points correctly and I'll have a discussion with you like an adult.

Be honest and represent my side of the argument honestly and we can discuss this. Otherwise, have a good morning.

 

Which is all great and everything and probably worthy of discussion.

However, you're not paying attention to this board and what is actually going on and instead you're just piling on. Instead of taking the chuckleheads who agree with you about Tannehill, but for different and stupid reasons like W/L record, you take the ones telling them that argument is stupid to task. You're throwing your lot in with a group of fools who are the Skip Bayless' of this board and then pretend you want rational debate.

Also, you're acting like Landry is a detriment to the team, which is just silly. There's more dynamic receivers even on this team, (though they don't get on the field for some reason) but its not like Landry is a problem. He's an asset and a significant one.

 

I for one would like to see the team give Tannehill a couple years, rebuild the defense and O-line in an attempt to become a more physically imposing team and by 2017 be able to say whether or not the team can win with that model.

In my eyes, Tannehill is NEVER going to take Miami to a Super Bowl via his abilities as a passer. Miami has tried that over the last couple years and they've been a .500 football team, even with Tannehill playing as efficiently as he ever has last year.

My only fear is that people view Tannehill's success as being more important than Miami's success, which it's not. I want Miami to win a Super Bowl and so with Tannehill there, the question is, can they win with him and how?

In my eyes, the only way is if the team is Play-off caliber without him and if his skills are icing on the cake. Maybe at that point the team will be diverse enough yet still strong enough to really go deep in the Play-offs.

 

You're actually exactly right. I'm taking to task people who I believe are intelligent and rational.

Why not put that to better use instead of arguing with idiots?

That's the whole point. Arguing with idiots is what drive these threads. Again, Resnor is a great guy. Why is he wasting his breathe continue to beat a drum all the intelligent people heard a year ago?

 

Look, you listed things and then quantified those things as equalling up to a ranking. You did it, stop pretending you didn't. Either explain how you can quantify something like "stares down his receivers" or bug off.

Jesus. what is it with you people that dislike Tannehill, to a man, you all have no clue about things you've actually said.

 

Because stupid rules the narrative if left unchallenged. Its happened before and it happens all the time.

 

Not much of a difference? The difference between 2-2 and 1-3 is ginormous. Plus, the Jets game was winnable. I know it seems to be virtually impossible to come back from a 2 score deficit with this team but it does happen around the NFL. We had 8 tries to get in in the red zone to make it a one score game. We were 0 for 20 or something on converting 3rd and 4th downs. That game was very winnable with a decent QB performance.

 

So we're monkeys slinging poop and we're just going with that?

Far be it from me to suggest we might hold ourselves to a slightly higher standard!

I don't know if I agree with that, Fin. I think that at any point we can shift the conversation to something else--and quite frankly it's long overdue. We can be adults and talk about the real issues which don't point to Tannehill as having grown that much at all. I was raked over the coals when I suggested that Tannehill's 2014 stats were really just an "optimized" version of his 2013 stats. He was the same guy but the OC came in and built everything around making the QB look better. People argued contentiously that, "oh no, he threw more TDs and fewer INTs and even had a few great throws!"

Yeah, but he didn't grow. He didn't fix his issues. Sadly, that's why even lowly Skip Bayless can get on TV and still actually be somewhat correct about Ryan Tannehill not being the answer to the Dolphins. Sometimes even a blind squirrel who's paid to act and say crazy things according to a script finds a nut.

The truth is, Bill Lazor took the same QB from 2013 and put him in an offense where he didn't put the ball in harms way and he let Tannehill throw an extremely high volume of passes and so the overall production went up but on the whole the efficiency went down and effectiveness of the offense to dictate to defenses in tough situations went down as well. Not surprisingly, the team went 8-8 with no real ability to fix or overcome the same weaknesses we had seen the year prior.

Tannehill is consistently ranked near the middle in his overall rating because while he's good about not throwing too many horrendous passes, he's also not that equipped to throw great ones.

You're asking about quantifying things. That's easy. I quantify Tannehill by things like passer rating. Why is passer rating not accurate when the list of QBs sorted by passer rating is pretty damn accurate to my eyes?

So I just Google'd ESPN rankings (which I know are a little BS) but let's just use them for ****s and giggles. He was 14th last year. In his best and most ideal role he's still 14th. This year he's 31st. He's always ranked low in efficiency anyway.

To me, you don't need to go much further because you got the correct answer. That right there is something statistical that agrees totally with what you see on the field.

If you want to go further you can. You can isolate every detail, come up with a rubric and and average all the areas you graded with weights you deem appropriate. That's not hard to do but it takes time. A million people do this and there are lots of stat websites you can go visit to get numbers. This is subjective but possible. The subjectivity is the problem. It's hard to trust websites like PFF for a variety of reasons I won't get into.

But why not having a freaking conversation about that instead of this constant BS about wins and losses? There's a great issue to discuss. What should be the criteria we're looking at? How should we grade it? How should we weigh it?

Where's that conversation happening? I don't see it.

The other way is to acknowledge that overall production is a product of all things. So by looking at the end result you can perform inference as to what role you believe each criteria played given other information. What I referenced, Tannehill being around 15th, is continually born out in the "overall" rankings generated by various entities (much like we saw with ESPN) and that fits the context given I was going through a long list of things that help contribute to how success a QB is. If you want to understand how much "staring down WRs" plays into that, you have to take some overall rating and/or production and perform inference give some data that describes what you think is happen when a QB stares down WRs. In other words, you have to evaluate Tannehill as well as other QBs who are doing better and worse in that are. You can look at correlations or simply try and find a model you believe most accurately predicts the given data.

It's do-able.

 

Controlling a narrative on an anonymous internet forum? That sounds productive. You sure are a cocky one that's for sure.

 

WADR, all I saw in your post was the same argument as the Bayless Bunch just without the insults. You're still using the team w/l record to justify your stance, just like they do. You are saying X is proved by Y. Y being team record and X being Tannehil is barely average. I will never agree with that. Never. Doesn't matter how many times its been repackaged.

 

Reading. Try it.

 

I did. It's the same nonsense you've said in the past about having to be here to ward off all the negative Tanny talk. You're a bigger Tanny guy than a Dolphins guy that's for sure.

 

What the ****?

Why even try?

 

I wont argue that, but that doesnt make me feel any better about our situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How does this:

...not boil it all down to you backing up your view of Tannehill by using win loss record?

 

These "win/loss is a team stat" guys are the exact same guys that used to say the exact same thing about passer rating before Tannehill had his good season. "Team stat..." Then when Tannehill was above average they changed their tune just like I predicted they would.

If Wilson was our QB and some Jets fan came here talking about passing yards I guarantee the same people would use the win/loss record to bolster their argument. I would bet everything I have on that.

On top of that we have a guy saying "hey Tannehill could have won us the Jags game, but one game is not a big deal." Yeah, an extra win here or there is a big deal. Its the difference between 10-6 and 8-8. We would have been 2-2 at worst with any of the top 12 or so QBs. I think most would agree that we would have a better record with any of the top 5 QBs. If you believe that we would be 2-2 with Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers then you must also believe that a teams record can be an indicator as to the skill level of that teams QB.

These guys are either blinded by their admiration for Tannehill or they are being purposely obtuse. That is the reason its silly to debate win/loss with them. But like passer rating I'll continue to use win/loss as QB measuring stick. If that bothers you, too bad.

 

Of course one game is important in the NFL where there are just 16 games. The point I was trying to make is that the whole team is really bad yet here you guys are pointing all the blame at Tannehill. Way bigger fish out there to fry right now.

 

Roy, this measuring stick of wins/losses only applies to the QB who do not like, not to the HC you have defended the last 3+ years ? I'm curious as to your answer to this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm guessing he thinks Philbin didn't have success in Miami because of Tannehill. Because, you know, the only thing the matters is the QB.

 

Oh boy....where to begin...

Did Philbin cost us games last year? Did the defense? Don't argue, just answer honestly.

You'd lose.

That's not what he meant. Talk about being obtuse. He wasn't taking about wins and losses in the broad sense. He was saying if you are going to count W/L as a QB stat, we'd have only won one more game if Tannehill played like you want him to. He's not saying one win isn't important, he's saying we'd still be a pretty sorry team right now.

The only people blinded are you chuckleheads who believe W/L is a QB stat.

 

I agree that the win/loss record is a team stat. Otherwise Jay Fiedler was the greatest QB in Dolphins history.

 

Spot on! He pushed hard for Philbin and killed RT every chance he got. Do I get the chance to blame Philbin for RT's average w/l record? Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

When's the last time anyone has heard a Dolphin player say "I'm confident we'll win close games because we have RT17", or anything similar?

That's a problem.

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That's in your Top 3.

 

That measly win might be pretty important for team morale and selling the team philosophy. Losing breeds losing.

As far as whether Philbin cost us games I agree with his overall philosophy: dynasty or bust. He acted and made decisions as though Tannehill was an elite QB. And if Tannehill actually turned out to be an elite QB Philbin would look like a good coach. And if Tannehill didn't turn out to be an elite QB he'd be fired at some point, but so what? In that scenario he would have been fired at some point regardless of what he tried so I can't hate. In fact the bust part of "dynasty or bust" could net us the top pick and rid us of Tannehill (and Tannenbaum) so its not the disaster that it appears. What would be disastrous in my opinion is perpetually finishing between 7-9 and 9-7 seasons after season after extending and riding with a below average QB for a decade plus.

I would rather be the first one eliminated from a poker tournament than finish on the bubble. Finishing on the bubble is worst case for me. Being an average football team is worst case to me. But I am a boom or bust type.

 

Soooo, you're just not gonna answer the questions asked of you then....

Did the defense cost any games last season, yes or no? This is really simple.

 

Defense costs games for every team in the NFL every year. Who cares?

 

lol.

If the defense costs games, then how can the W/L record be a QB stat? You are aware the QB doesn't play on defense...right?

 

Zero chance of that happening, "a leopard wont change his spots"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I never said anything about anyone's W/L record.

 

Then wtf were you *****ing about when I asked a complete different poster about defenses then? You guys are unbelievable.

 

Like you can talk.

 

To my eyes Ryan Tannehill was an 8 win QB so no, I won't say the defense cost him games.

To my eyes Drew Brees was an 11 win QB, in his case I would say his defense cost him games.

To my eyes Russell Wilson was a 10 win QB so in his case his defense probably helped win him some games.

Andrew Luck looked like an 11 win QB, I don't even know how many games he won.

 

Defenses can't bail you out all the time. Sometimes defenses can't make a play at the end of the game and you lose and that shouldn't count against the quarterback. Maybe if you weren't such an ******* you would understand better.