Ryan Tannehill

"The Guy wrote:

No, in this particular game it was. His performance overall was associated more with losing than with winning in the playoffs in the NFL. That it was, regardless of the outcome of the game.

I disagree. Anytime you throw less than 20 times should be associated with a win. You only pass when you need to score. When running out the clock and playing field position are more important then you usually are winning

There is a difference between having a great game and helping your team win.

He absolutely helped his team win by making plays when it counted. When two QB are both awful you need to start looking at conditions rather than both QB just being crap, especially in the playoffs.

Tannehill didnt have a great game and it wont be enough going forward, but he helped his team win a tough game today yes.

Even Manning had playoff games he didnt play excellent but still won and helped to win.

"adamprez2003 wrote:

I disagree. Anytime you throw less than 20 times should be associated with a win. You only pass when you need to score. When running out the clock and playing field position are more important then you usually are winning

What if you throw 10 times and you throw 10 interceptions? What if you throw 10 times, with three completions, and 10 yards?

There's obviously a difference between the small quantity of performance needed from the quarterback, by virtue of the load the rest of the offense is carrying (i.e., Derrick Henry), and the quality of the quarterback's performance.

By the same token a quarterback could need to throw the ball only 10 times, have seven completions for 55 yards, no picks, no touchdowns, and neither help nor harm his team. He could also throw the ball only 10 times, have seven completions for 140 yards, no picks, and two touchdowns, and do a great deal to help his team win.

Again, a difference between quantity and quality. The quantity needed from Tannehill yesterday was minimal due to Derrick Henry, but the quality he provided was poor. As was Brady's.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

There is a difference between having a great game and helping your team win.

He absolutely helped his team win by making plays when it counted. When two QB are both awful you need to start looking at conditions rather than both QB just being crap, especially in the playoffs.

Tannehill didnt have a great game and it wont be enough going forward, but he helped his team win a tough game today yes.

Even Manning had playoff games he didnt play excellent but still won and helped to win.

The highlighted portion above is the main point. It won't be enough going forward because it isn't associated with winning in the NFL.

The only reason it was enough yesterday is because the rest of his team compensated. So he didn't help his team win; he helped his team lose, and his team overcame that.

"The Guy wrote:

The highlighted portion above is the main point. It won't be enough going forward because it isn't associated with winning in the NFL.

The only reason it was enough yesterday is because the rest of his team compensated. So he didn't help his team win; he helped his team lose, and his team overcame that.

I wouldnt agree with that though.

You're creating some baseline that has to be reached to be considered helping your team win. I dont think that is what that term means.

He could have gone 0-32 for 0 yards passing but if he ran for the game winning TD and his team won 7-0, I'd still say he helped his team win.

What you are saying is more like, what he did USUALLY wouldnt be enough to help the team win. Yet we know it was.

I'm pretty sure everyone here would have taken beating NE in NE in the playoffs regardless of ratin

If anything just consider it good Karma for the Saints game lost with n amazing rating.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

I wouldnt agree with that though.

You're creating some baseline that has to be reached to be considered helping your team win. I dont think that is what that term means.

He could have gone 0-32 for 0 yards passing but if he ran for the game winning TD and his team won 7-0, I'd still say he helped his team win.

What you are saying is more like, what he did USUALLY wouldnt be enough to help the team win. Yet we know it was.

I'm pretty sure everyone here would have taken beating NE in NE in the playoffs regardless of rating.

The highlighted portion above is exactly what I'm saying, and what that means, then, is that the contribution he provided to his team was a contribution that would normally result in a loss. The team overcame that contribution, however, and won the game.

What people aren't seeming to get here is that Tannehill's overall performance wasn't "harmless," leaving only his good plays in the game as what we should judge his contribution on. His overall performance was something that typically makes teams lose in the NFL.

Brady had a very similar performance and his team lost. Should we say he helped his team win as well, simply because of the good plays he made in the game?

"The Guy wrote:

The highlighted portion above is exactly what I'm saying, and what that means, then, is that the contribution he provided to his team was a contribution that would normally result in a loss. The team overcame that contribution, however, and won the game.

What people aren't seeming to get here is that Tannehill's overall performance wasn't "harmless," leaving only his good plays in the game as what we should judge his contribution on. His overall performance was something that makes teams lose in the NFL.

Like I said, when both QB perform badly I believe you need to factor in things like the weather.

You arent playing against the league in a game, you're playing your current opponent. Anytime you keep pace or surpass that opponent you've contributed to winning.

I get what you are saying, it's not technically incorrect, it's just not my definition of helping a team win.

We both agree he didnt play well. We both agree it isnt likely to be enough going forward. I just disagree because it was enough to win that game and he out performed his peer.

If Brady put up a decent rating I'd agree they won despite Tannehill. He didnt though and Tannehill paced him, helping his team win that particular game.

"Hoops wrote:

that Henry show was a product of the safety depth (lots of 2 deep) and the front. Which tannehill checked off of or to at the los.

This was no longer the case in the second half. They changed up their coverage immensely, and STILL could not even contain Henry.

Tannehill did the opposite of what he normally does, and instead of misleading inflated “numbers” he made the plays to win that don’t show up in the box score.

It’s obvious he wasn’t slinging the rock around Foxboro leading his team to some epic offensive performance. I mean they scored one TD.

What he did however was win the game with timely 3rd down conversions and his legs. The Titans needed Ryan to do exactly what Ryan did last night.

Goes to show football is a game of inches, NE gets one of those fumbles and wins the game he is being martyred in this thread. His team had his back (protection was SOLID) and he had theirs in crunch time. It was a great team win.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Like I said, when both QB perform badly I believe you need to factor in things like the weather.

You arent playing against the league in a game, you're playing your current opponent. Anytime you keep pace or surpass that opponent you've contributed to winning.

I get what you are saying, it's not technically incorrect, it's just not my definition of helping a team win.

We both agree he didnt play well. We both agree it isnt likely to be enough going forward. I just disagree because it was enough to win that game and he out performed his peer.

If Brady put up a decent rating I'd agree they won despite Tannehill. He didnt though and Tannehill paced him, helping his team win that particular game.

What I hear you saying in essence is that Tannehill didn't need to do a lot for the team to win, because the opposing quarterback played so poorly. That I would agree with, because passer rating differential is paramount in the NFL, but certainly we shouldn't define the quality of quarterback play in a game on the basis of what the opposing quarterback does.

Both QBs can play poorly and provide contributions to their teams that are associated with losing in the NFL, and that's what happened. Tannehill's team overcame Tannehill's losing contribution, and Brady's team didn't overcome Brady's.

All I know is that in crunch time both QBs had critical 3rd down throws to make. Tannehill's was longer and into tighter coverage, under more pressure and he nailed it. Brady missed his throw. Enough said.

"The Guy wrote:

What I hear you saying in essence is that Tannehill didn't need to do a lot for the team to win, because the opposing quarterback played so poorly. That I would agree with, because passer rating differential is paramount in the NFL, but certainly we shouldn't define the quality of quarterback play in a game on the basis of what the opposing quarterback does. Both QBs can play poorly and provide contributions to their teams that are associated with losing in the NFL, and that's what happened.

They both did play poorly.

What I'm saying is you dont need to play well to help your team win an individual game.

More or less I'm saying this:

Firs career playoff start against a team that is known for basically being unbeatable at home in the playoffs, in bad weather for the passing game to boot IMO.

So yes, it was bad for a regular game, but I dont consider it a regular game.

My definition of helping your team win has nothing to do with final stats. Its did you make any plays that helped seal the victory?

Let's use the NBA for example.

If Dwyane Wade missed every shot in the game but hit the buzzer beater to win, I'd say he helped the team win in the end despite his awful performance. To me the two things arent linked when talking about the sample size of one game.

"cbrad wrote:

QBR is a formula, and the 10,000 lines of code means it's deterministic: you input the data and out comes the QBR. The subjective assumptions are hardcoded in those 10,000 lines of code. In other words, the specific values of each parameter (for example, how much of a passing play in a specific situation is "due" to the QB) were subjectively determined the last time they modified the formula (according to wiki that's 2013) but once those values were hardcoded no additional human judgment is necessary.

The problem with QBR is that they HAVE such subjectively determined parameter values in the first place.

But how is QBR produced? Is someone watching each play and inputting data based on his assessment of what the QB (and others) did?

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

They both did play poorly.

What I'm saying is you dont need to play well to help your team win an individual game.

More or less I'm saying this:

Firs career playoff start against a team that is known for basically being unbeatable at home in the playoffs, in bad weather for the passing game to boot IMO.

So yes, it was bad for a regular game, but I dont consider it a regular game.

My definition of helping your team win has nothing to do with final stats. Its did you make any plays that helped seal the victory?

Let's use the NBA for example.

If Dwyane Wade missed every shot in the game but hit the buzzer beater to win, I'd say he helped the team win in the end despite his awful performance. To me the two things arent linked when talking about the sample size of one game.

The two things are linked because a buzzer-beater was needed in part because of Wade's poor performance. This is in essence why you said Tannehill's performance "won't be enough going forward," because you can't rely on the equivalent of a buzzer-beater in terms of improbability (i.e., Derrick Henry's over 200 total yards, the opposing QB's poor performance, etc.) every week, to overcome that degree of poor quarterback play.

If I start a fire and then grab a hose and extinguish it, I still started it. Again, Tannehill's performance wasn't "harmless." If the question was whether he could make single positive plays in a difficult playoff game, then I'll agree, he answered that question affirmatively. If the question was whether he could play overall in the playoffs in a way that's associated with winning, he still has to answer that one.

"cbrad wrote:

Yeah Baltimore is SB bound I think. I won't be rooting for Tennessee in this matchup though given that I live in Baltimore. Was thinking the whole season it would be NE vs. Baltimore in the AFC conference championship, but I'm a lot happier with today's result.

Anyway.. I'm hoping for Saints vs. Ravens SB (always root for Brees.. a guy who should've been the Dolphins QB).

What kind of (confused) Dolphin fan cheers for BALTIMORE?!

"cbrad wrote:

Yeah Baltimore is SB bound I think. I won't be rooting for Tennessee in this matchup though given that I live in Baltimore. Was thinking the whole season it would be NE vs. Baltimore in the AFC conference championship, but I'm a lot happier with today's result.

Anyway.. I'm hoping for Saints vs. Ravens SB (always root for Brees.. a guy who should've been the Dolphins QB).

I live near Baltimore too and let me just say fuck the Ravens. I hate that team more than Buffalo and their fans are as bad as Phillys

"Hoops wrote:

hey boss you win in that building in the postseason I don’t care how you did it you accomplished something.

it’s rarefied air.

Oh no doubt...it was a great team win, and Tannehill contributed with some crucial plays. I'm just saying that he, in isolation, could've done better. That INT pass was a good decision, poor execution off his back foot. They have had great success this year with Tannehill letting his receiver make a play in that scenario, that one just ended up a bad pass. And fumbled snaps just can't happen. Luckily, he and Henry recovered both fumbles.

I'm not saying it was all bad, but the mistakes were ugly...not Josh Allen @ Houston ugly, but still not getting a date on prom night.

His TD pass was gorgeous and dead accurate. He threw a few absolute dimes he won't get credit for, because the Pats PI wasn't called (and I'm sorry..."letting them play" doesn't equal "letting them mug receivers and hold their arms down with the ball incoming.") I thought Vrabel should have challenged at least 2 of them...where it was BLATANT they intentionally held the receivers' arm down...both on 3rd down passes...1 in each half. Would've made a big difference in the narrative and probably on the scoreboard. His pass to Sharpe where they DID actually get a PI call was money too.

The Titans' game plan going in was, "alright Henry...you're going to carry this team tonight," and it worked. The Pats sold out to stop Tannehill...that alone says something. The same Tannehill that we heard reports of in the past, that defensive coordinators didn't have to plan around, 'cuz he wasn't anything special...and Henry made 'em pay. Belichick is legendary for taking away your #1 weapon...and last night, the weapon he went after was Ryan. There were even a few what looked like pass plays that Tannehill audibled out of into a run play, and they worked well, so he was making smart decisions all game.

So overall, decent game, all things considered, just a couple "doh" moments that I'm sure he wishes he had back.

The gameplan needs to be the same next week.. it will be Derrick Henry and Tannehill vs Lamar and Ingram.

i think next week Tannehill needs to use his legs and move the chains on some quarterback draws and sweeps. Also he should look to push the defensive backs with an early deep shot to Aj Brown.

Lol this had me laughing hard..

The New England Patriots quarterback shared a lion-themed video before his team’s wild-card matchup with the Tennessee Titans on Saturday. The clip positioned Brady as the proverbial “lion” who remains the apex predator despite mounting opposition.

Well, after ending the Patriots’ season, Titans players, led by their head coach, made it clear that Brady’s video did not go over well in the locker room.

“They want the hyenas?” Vrabel shouted to his players after the game, a source told The Boston Globe’s Ben Volin. “They got the (bleeping) hyenas!”

Added Volin: “The players then broke out in unison in high-pitched hyena laughter.”

"Vertical Limit wrote:

Lol this had me laughing hard..

Haha.

It was beautiful to see Vrabel with the intentional offsides penalties. I hate the rule (clock should stop after one penalty) but love that Billicheat got a taste of his rule bending medicine.

"keypusher wrote:

But how is QBR produced? Is someone watching each play and inputting data based on his assessment of what the QB (and others) did?

I'm sure they have operational definitions for every type of input that goes into the formula including "pressure", "garbage time", etc... So in that sense it's probably no different than someone having to watch tape to see how many yards were gained or so, and no more or less subjective. The issue is the subjective assumptions hardcoded in the formula, not in the inputs to it.

And most of the inputs are basics of the play like pass or run, yards gained, etc.. as well as what goes into EPA (expected points added): down, distance, time remaining etc... All those types of inputs can just be automatically read off from the play-by-play in real-time (someone is out there looking at the play to produce the play-by-play.. I think the NFL itself does that because they want to control the data).

So most of what goes into QBR won't require any extra human inputting. The remaining stuff like "air yards" or "YAC" (compute one you have the other) will require at least one person but that can be done in real-time too. For something like "pressure" maybe it takes longer, not sure. And stuff like "garbage time" is probably based solely on the play-by-play data, or at least I'd do it that way. I mean.. ESPN isn't going to create a formula they can't compute quickly!

Anyway, regarding the computation of QBR in practice ESPN says this:
https://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/123701/how-is-total-qbr-calculated-we-explain-our-quarterback-rating

The details of every play (air yards, drops, pressures, etc.) are charted by a team of trained analysts in the ESPN Stats & Information Group. Every play of every game is tracked by at least two different analysts to provide the most accurate representation of how each play occurred.

So they probably only need a small team to produce QBR.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Defense held them to 13 points, including a goal line stand. I give the game mostly to the defense, then to Henrey, and then to other players.

Though you have a point. Bellicheck creates gameplans to eliminate the other teams best player and he looked to eliminate Tannehill.

If BB was that worried about RT, then maybe RT is better then many here give him credit for.

"cbrad wrote:

I'm sure they have operational definitions for every type of input that goes into the formula including "pressure", "garbage time", etc... So in that sense it's probably no different than someone having to watch tape to see how many yards were gained or so, and no more or less subjective. The issue is the subjective assumptions hardcoded in the formula, not in the inputs to it.

And most of the inputs are basics of the play like pass or run, yards gained, etc.. as well as what goes into EPA (expected points added): down, distance, time remaining etc... All those types of inputs can just be automatically read off from the play-by-play in real-time (someone is out there looking at the play to produce the play-by-play.. I think the NFL itself does that because they want to control the data).

So most of what goes into QBR won't require any extra human inputting. The remaining stuff like "air yards" or "YAC" (compute one you have the other) will require at least one person but that can be done in real-time too. For something like "pressure" maybe it takes longer, not sure. And stuff like "garbage time" is probably based solely on the play-by-play data, or at least I'd do it that way. I mean.. ESPN isn't going to create a formula they can't compute quickly!

Anyway, regarding the computation of QBR in practice ESPN says this:
https://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/123701/how-is-total-qbr-calculated-we-explain-our-quarterback-rating

So they probably only need a small team to produce QBR.

Is this the same team they use to predict the outcome of elections?

B68KwypFR57

"The Guy wrote:

We don't agree about that. My position is that the team won in spite of Tannehill's performance.

A passer rating of 61 loses a good number more games than it wins, so Tannehill's performance actually helped the team lose, and other parts of the team compensated for that to the degree that a loss didn't occur.

He surely didn’t do much to help them win..

Fitzpatrick last week showed you how you beat that great defense, from a Qb perspective.