Can we start with having decent talent around him? Again, all this whining and complaining about Tannehill, when the dude has not even had an average oline, coaches who were inept and trying to get rid of him, and poor scheme. And not much help from his defense.
The other side of this argument is that even when he gets good protection he has shown to be just plain ole average. These are disadvantages for any QB, but he controls much more than many realize......and he hasn't exactly looked like a top 10 pick by any means.
Funny how the snarky comments aren't aimed at the guys who come into threads and spew the anti-Tannehill rhetoric. They get unleashed when people disagree with the rhetoric.
I'll nominate Tanne's game against Green Bay. He bounced back from a poor first half to have a great second half and did everything you could ask a QB to do. The final result wasn't on the positive side of the ledger, but he impressed me that game.
I agree that he played about as well as I've seen him play in that game, in the 2nd half, but the 2 picks earlier were awful, awkward silence picks, they were inexplicable. I've referenced this game before, as an example of the best and worst he's played.
What Im I wrong about? And hell no my narrative hasn't changed, nor will it until I see some better QB play and less people blaming every thing else in existence the than the QB. Rather you or any other over zealous Miami Dolphins fan likes it or not, a QB who has played 4 seasons in the NFL is accountable for his own performance. And you of all people really shouldn't be making that statement anyways. You make some of the most laughable claims on your stance of Ryan I have ever seen. "His Ol is bad, his coaching is bad, he couldn't audible, Philbin hated him, his defense has let him down (even though they have been better than his offense) he hasn't had any weapons, Mike Wallace screwed him, if Ryan were a Seahawks, Colt, Falcon he would be great too! I really could keep going. Then you mix in the typical 11th grade straw man crap like "People say its ALL Ryan's fault" Which Im not sure ANYONE has ever actually typed. You take your apologizing for all things pertaining to Ryan to some extreme levels and IDC who will admit it or not around here, but the reason it is impossible to have a REAL discussion on this topic the past 3 years is because you and a couple others just lack the ability to truly evaluate your QB without 250 "yeah but's". It isn't some mystery that Ryan has played in unideal conditions in his career....you are not wrong to feel that way. Where you go wrong is believing that free's him of being accountable. He still needs to see the field better, still needs to develop a sense of awareness, needs to stop sucking at the most pivotal times in games (3rd downs and 4th quarters) These issues have much more to do with Ryan himself than the backup RG.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...roof-ryan-tannehill-perfo-20160405-story.html Ask and ye shall receive.
I've never said he's not accountable. I've argued that he's not accountable for the whole host of things that you and others lay at his feet. I've seen people argue that the oline being bad was Tannehill's fault. I've seen people argue that Wallace, and other receivers, being bad was Tannehill's fault. I've seen people argue that the defense being bad was Tannehill's fault. Yet I'm the one who's in fantasy land?
Would you not agree those 2 games were pretty much playoff games? If we win we are in, simple as that, and he laid a huge egg in both. How exactly can you conclude he would star in a playoff game????
You stated, "The other side of this argument is that even when he gets good protection he has shown to be just plain ole average." The link provided by Pauly shows that for the 7 games over the last two seasons where Tannehill had the his three primary linemen healthy his passer rating was 107. Since the average passer rating those years was 89 and 90 and 107 is much higher it is factually incorrect to state that he has been average in those situations. Now I wouldn't say that his protection was necessarily good in those games but it was better and more consistent than he usually enjoys. All those other team failures still existed, but when the one factor (protection) was improved Tannehill overcame those and produced far above average results.
There was that thread a year or so ago, that the minimum amount of linemen needed for QB success was 3, and Tannehill almost never has that.
While it makes sense on paper that he would have better overall protection with healthy lineman than without...does not mean he had good protection in those games or that he did not in the others. Regardless of who was on the field late last year he was getting solid protection against some bad secondaries and the results were quite underwhelming. So no I don't think just having good protection changes his play all that much. Atleast it did not last season.
I believe all qbs are gonna have better numbers with better protection, for me the evaluation is smack dab in the face of how the player reacts and deals with pressure ..I need to see more from when that pressure does come, cause we all know it comes, He's got plenty of arm talent to shred in a comfy pocket.. remember all were doing here is a having a discussion about our future and matching variables up to the talent we have. I think some think that if he posts better numbers thats the end all be all..I don't, for me I believe the tempo goes up in the playoffs, and My question is will ryan have to keep trying to play catch up, can he make the plays neccessary to win on the road in hostile environments.
It depends on what kind of pressure. Only a few quarterbacks do well with interior pressure. I have seen Tom Brady and Rodgers fold under interior pressure.
While I haven't done so recently, I did review those games in the past and on balance he had better protection those games. I still wouldn't call it "good" protection, but it was clearly better. The fact of the matter is that when he has better protection it greatly affects his play.
It absolutely affects his play, where we differ is the word greatly. He absolutely is a capable QB, I just think as of now he needs A handful of things to work in his favor to be successful
As do all QBs. You guys seem to think there are these magical QBs who don't need anything else to be successful. I guess it also helps to define "successful" in these conversations.
Dude, in the past I've tried to explain to you more specifically about the type of pressure, and you out of hand dismiss it. As for everyone, I'm sick of this ****. You all want to list QBs that aren't dramatically/significantly/greatly affected by a bad oline, then fine do that. But also explain in detail how they accomplish that. In doing so, don't give the vague bull**** like "X has it", "X is a playmaker", etc. Explain the tools a QB must have available to him to defeat the pass rush. List all the tools that he must have on his own and that his team can provide him. Do it once and for all. No more crying about, "that's just an excuse", no more insults. Give specifics just once.
Too much of this debate is a non-sequitor. Someone mentioned that no QB has ever succeeded with a bad running game and protection. That is a logical argument to make, but it inherently provides a counter argument - every good QB has made his running game and protection successful. Ultimately the talent around a particular player is going to regress to the mean - the odds of a QB having poor talent around him consistently for 5 years is highly unlikely. It is difficult to believe an argument that a player has had historically bad luck and has been stuck with 52 players that were below average for 4+ years, especially when the NFL makes the rules of the game to achieve parity. Coaching is a different, as there is much lower turnover. But Ryan Tannehill will finish 2016 with this 3rd OC and 2nd HC. The odds that Miami will have aggregately hired significantly below average staffs is rather low - particularly because the NFL as a whole is not very adept at hiring coaches.
The bold only makes sense in some nebulous logic problem where football and quarterbacks are random alien things no one has ever heard of. It doesn't actually fit with how football in the real world is played. We ran the ball the fewest amount of times in the NFL last year. Fact. He wasn't allowed to call the plays. Fact. Dallas Thomas and Jason Fox are two of the worst lineman in the league. Fact. Now, you have to ask yourself, why did our staff not run the ball and put it all on Thill?
I know you have.. I too have explained my side many times in detail Fin, why rehash..lets just see what level our new line will elevate his play this year then perhaps re-assess what that looks like and whether that is good enough to win championships with.
Why rehash? I'm not rehashing. You specifically told someone they didn't go into enough detail about the pass rush, you said his take was too vague....
I meant that we can say most qbs arent gonna do well with interior pressure and that throwing out the two best qbs in the game doesn't tell me that much, I just don't know what Dup is saying considering we didnt just have interior pressure. im not sure what your looking for..we've talked about how ryans pressure might be different then the norm because of how bad ours was.
That's not accurate. Having a good run game and good protection does not mean the QB made his run game and protection successful. That's not at all a logical counter argument. Further, against the odds or not, unlucky or not, there is pretty much zero argument against Tannehill having been surrounded by below average players. Oline, terrible for four seasons. Alot of that is bad luck, through injuries, but it's also bad player acquisition, since they picked up a left tackle known for being injured. Receivers, I mean, come on. Hartline, Bess, Gibson, Legedu, hardly world beaters. Wallace was at least a factor his second year, when he transformed into a red zone target. Defense has been progressively worse each year, surprisingly. Coaching has been a complete mess.
This doesn't fully answer your question, but it's kind of surprising so I'll post it. If you look at passer rating vs. sacks given up (per game) in Tannehill's career you don't see that much of a change, meaning whatever passer rating is measuring it's relatively immune to the number of sacks Tannehill takes in a game. Only one year shows a correlation that's still quite weak: in 2014 there was a negative correlation of -0.24 of passer rating as a function of sacks given up (so more sacks given up the lower the rating). All other years the correlation is nearly zero! Here's the data: http://postimg.org/image/6sg4lkic1/ Maybe all this is saying is that sacks aren't a good measure of pass protection, who knows.. but it's surprising to me nonetheless.
Well, you start getting into the thing we can't find stats on: pressure. When Tannehill had good ratings, but sacked, what kind of pressure? Was it a blitz? Was it different than when we'd watch a four man rush get pressure from multiple spots in under three seconds? I think the stats on pressure and sacks are just not robust enough.
I agree.. just saying it's still totally surprising there's almost no correlation with sacks. NFL has been recording QB hits last few years, but that's not in the pro-football-reference database so I can't use it. But yes, there's just not a great objective stat on QB pressure.
You run the ball more the more efficiently you pass. Fact. Why wasn't he allowed to call the plays? Every team in the NFL has players that are among the worst in the league. Fact. Because the Dolphins did not pass efficiently. Non-sequitor.
You're saying that the better a QB is, the better his run game or protection look? How many players has Ryan Tannehill had around him over his career, what is the distribution of talent across the league, etc. Do the math here. Agreed that coaching wasn't good. The problem is that these are the guys that identified Tannehill as worthy of drafting with the #8 pick.
