Ryan Tannehill

"resnor wrote:

The screen/dump off to a Henry I initially thought was a bad decision. Then I watched the replay and saw TWO linemen JOGGING up the field, and just missing getting the block to spring Henry. If they'd run, Henry would have had blockers.

yeah that’s called in from the sideline and if he doesn’t throw it then you got illegal men downfield

one of them was a dump off if I recall correctly

"resnor wrote:

The screen/dump off to a Henry I initially thought was a bad decision. Then I watched the replay and saw TWO linemen JOGGING up the field, and just missing getting the block to spring Henry. If they'd run, Henry would have had blockers.

I thought the same thing- at first it looked like a dumb pass, but the replay showed that it had huge potential if Henry could have made the first blocker miss.

Well it will be interesting to see what choices the Titans make and how it will effect them over the next few years. THill on a huge contract, Henry on a big one ... will they get enough surrounding pieces to stay competitive? Can those 2 guys continue to carry the team? It's not really all that different from the Vikings if you think about it, and the money they dumped into Cousins and will into Cook. Are the Vikings legit Super Bowl contenders with Cousins under center?

"The Guy wrote:

There is a difference between blaming a quarterback for losing a game, and saying his performance was consistent with needing help from a top pass defense to be able to keep pace with the league's best QBs.

Josh Rosen would've flat out lost yesterday's game. Tannehill didn't lose the game -- he simply performed in a way that necessitated a top pass defense so as to diminish Mahomes's performance and help Tannehill keep pace.

And he was performing at about his personal ceiling in such a game, so his team shouldn't think it can get more out of him in that regard -- it should focus on improving his pass defense so he can contend with those kinds of QBs in the playoffs next year.

Whether the Titans can accomplish that under the salary cap is questionable, but that should be their strategy. They aren't in the position of targeting an elite QB in the draft like the Dolphins are.

I'm not sure any QB would've been able to overcome the Chiefs offensive production the past two weeks without an top 5 or elite pass defense. At one point, I believe the Chiefs scored a TD on 5 straight possessions (all of 60+ yards) or 5 of 6 possessions

Tom Brady needed someone lined up offsides last year to surmount the same offense. And this year, I'm confident they would've lost the same game. Same goes for Rodgers's Packers and Brees's Saints IMO

"Eop05 wrote:

I'm not sure any QB would've been able to overcome the Chiefs offensive production the past two weeks without an top 5 or elite pass defense. At one point, I believe the Chiefs scored a TD on 5 straight possessions (all of 60+ yards) or 5 of 6 possessions

Tom Brady needed someone lined up offsides last year to surmount the same offense. And this year, I'm confident they would've lost the same game. Same goes for Rodgers's Packers and Brees's Saints IMO

Yeah we may be looking at the Michael Jordan of the NFL here.

"texanphinatic wrote:

Well it will be interesting to see what choices the Titans make and how it will effect them over the next few years. THill on a huge contract, Henry on a big one ... will they get enough surrounding pieces to stay competitive? Can those 2 guys continue to carry the team? It's not really all that different from the Vikings if you think about it, and the money they dumped into Cousins and will into Cook. Are the Vikings legit Super Bowl contenders with Cousins under center?

I don't believe Tannehill will get top money...maybe something with some incentives built-in, but nothing near $35-40M. Maybe around Cousins' money, I'm thinking slightly less. Henry may get top dollar though.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

I don't believe Tannehill will get top money...maybe something with some incentives built-in, but nothing near $35-40M. Maybe around Cousins' money, I'm thinking slightly less. Henry may get top dollar though.

I think Tannehill and Henry will (should?) give Tennessee a home town discount because Tennessee gave Tanny an opportunity that basically no other team was going to give him and they stood by Henry with his early career struggles.
If I am Tannehill I’ve been paid a big contract in Miami and I would be more motivated about establishing a legacy than maximizing the dollar value of a contract. Henry is still on his rookie deal so he will want to get paid properly.

"Pauly wrote:

I think Tannehill and Henry will (should?) give Tennessee a home town discount because Tennessee gave Tanny an opportunity that basically no other team was going to give him and they stood by Henry with his early career struggles.
If I am Tannehill I’ve been paid a big contract in Miami and I would be more motivated about establishing a legacy than maximizing the dollar value of a contract. Henry is still on his rookie deal so he will want to get paid properly.

IMO obviously but no they damn well shouldn't give up money to a team for that reason. Football is a violent and dangerous sport that will cause them problems later in life. Get your fair worth.

We likely haven't seen the last of Tannehill to Landry connections. They're both gonna be in the pro-bowl...along with Tunsil.

And Calais Campbell will be too :/

Edit: And Minkah, of course.

If anyone here truly believes that "elite" quarterbacks don't have all of, or a combination of...

A powerhouse offensive line
A powerhouse running game
Elite talented receivers that can catch nearly anything thrown to them
A powerhouse defense

You have no idea what you're talking about...

Should be amusing when the 49ers crush the chiefs. I guess it will be because Mahomes is an average game manager and garrapolo is on an elite level. QB theory according to Guy

"adamprez2003 wrote:

Should be amusing when the 49ers crush the chiefs. I guess it will be because Mahomes is an average game manager and garrapolo is on an elite level. QB theory according to Guy

KC is very slightly favored by Vegas at -120 with a spread of -1. Over/Under is at 54.5 so they're expecting a high scoring game.
https://www.sportsbook.ag/sbk/sportsbook4/nfl-betting/super-bowl-liv-game-lines.sbk

I don't agree with the -1 spread per se (it's consistent with their -120 moneyline but I think whoever wins will win by a larger margin), but I do agree with Vegas that KC should be slightly favored and that it is likely to be a high scoring affair.

SF stopped Rodgers but let's be honest: both Rodgers and GB as a whole looked flat for the entire 1st half, and Rodgers in general looked "old" to me in that game. Mahomes is another story, and I don't think SF's defense will stop KC's offense that easily. I also don't think KC's defense will have an easy time stopping SF's offense, but of the two I think Mahomes will have it easier.

Anyway, I'll be rooting for Mahomes because I really like him as a player. I'm also never forgiving SF for preventing Marino from winning a SB in his record-breaking 1984 season. Maybe Mahomes can pay back SF with the same scoreline: 38-16 (which coincidentally is just 0.5 points under Vegas' expected points total for this upcoming matchup lol).

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

If anyone here truly believes that "elite" quarterbacks don't have all of, or a combination of...

A powerhouse offensive line
A powerhouse running game
Elite talented receivers that can catch nearly anything thrown to them
A powerhouse defense

You have no idea what you're talking about...

You’ve said multiple times that you define quarterback play in terms of whether their team wins, so naturally the above is true for you.

However, that doesn’t account for the quarterbacks who play at an elite level individually but whose teams don’t win. Those quarterbacks don’t have the team ingredients listed above, but they play at an elite level nonetheless.

"adamprez2003 wrote:

Should be amusing when the 49ers crush the chiefs. I guess it will be because Mahomes is an average game manager and garrapolo is on an elite level. QB theory according to Guy

The 49ers won’t crush the Chiefs precisely because Mahomes isn’t average and Garoppolo isn’t elite.

The 49ers can certainly win, but they will not “crush” the Chiefs.

"The Guy wrote:

The 49ers won’t crush the Chiefs precisely because Mahomes isn’t average and Garoppolo isn’t elite.

The 49ers can certainly win, but they will not “crush” the Chiefs.

I dont necessarily think either team will be crushed, but that is a pretty bold statement. It's the NFL and games get away from even the best teams sometimes.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

I dont necessarily think either team will be crushed, but that is a pretty bold statement. It's the NFL and games get away from even the best teams sometimes.

That almost never happens in a Super Bowl, however, obviously because in that game you’re talking about the utmost in team parity in the league.

in fact that’s happened only once in recent history, when Seattle beat Denver, and that game had none of the features of the upcoming one. In that game Russell Wilson was a very highly-rated passer, coupled with one of the best pass defenses of all time, going against, at that time, a very low-rated passer in Peyton Manning.

Those are indeed the ingredients of a blowout, but again those ingredients are almost never present in a Super Bowl, and they aren’t present in this one either.

"Fin-O wrote:

Basically I agree with all of this.

He was great. He came in and played the position at a high level. The Titans would NOT have made the AFCC game without him. The only point I made which to me is obvious and factual is that Ryan showed he can be a huge part of the reason you win in the right circumstances..but he isn't THAT guy who can lift a team with disadvantages to victory.

And naturally many are taking that as a HUGE slight to Tannehill. Like how dare I have THAT opinion of him!! It is the triggered extremists that ruin these threads and have been for years.

Well I'm a little bit different opinion I think he can overcame some basic disadvantages, a couple of dropped passes here and there doesn't usually cause his game to fall apart and things like that. But he (at this point at least) isn't that generational talent that makes average teams look like world beaters. Mahomes is clearly that type of talent.

I honestly don't have a problem with your opinion though. I just can't stand other's attempts to discredit everything he did for the year in and endless goal to sneak the word Average into every analysis.

"Phins_to_Win wrote:

Well I'm a little bit different opinion I think he can overcame some basic disadvantages, a couple of dropped passes here and there doesn't usually cause his game to fall apart and things like that. But he (at this point at least) isn't that generational talent that makes average teams look like world beaters. Mahomes is clearly that type of talent.

Again, here's the issue with that: there has been only one Super Bowl winner of the past 15 that has accomplished that with such a quarterback (described in the highlighted portion above) who wasn't on his rookie contract. And of course Tannehill isn't on his rookie contract and in fact may absorb a greater percentage of his team's salary cap next year than he ever has previously in his career.

I honestly don't have a problem with your opinion though. I just can't stand other's attempts to discredit everything he did for the year in and endless goal to sneak the word Average into every analysis.

Once again, the fact that what I said above is true makes Tannehill in effect an average quarterback, because he needs the same team ingredients average QBs do to win a Super Bowl. That became obvious Sunday, when he needed an elite pass defense to keep pace with the "generational talent" you mentioned above, despite that he played about as well as he ever has historically in that kind of game himself.

The fact that these generational talents exist, coupled with the rules of the game that make it an ultra-passing league, makes QBs like Tannehill in effect "average." It isn't "me" doing it.

"Phins_to_Win wrote:

I just can't stand other's attempts to discredit everything he did for the year in and endless goal to sneak the word Average into every analysis.

This is exactly what “The Guy” is doing. He thinks he’s onto something so he keeps harping on it.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

I dont necessarily think either team will be crushed, but that is a pretty bold statement. It's the NFL and games get away from even the best teams sometimes.

I think it's pretty tough to bet against KC in this one. San Fran is a solid team and I like Jimmy G a lot...should be a good game.

"The Guy wrote:

Again, here's the issue with that: there has been only one Super Bowl winner of the past 15 that has accomplished that with such a quarterback (described in the highlighted portion above) who wasn't on his rookie contract. And of course Tannehill isn't on his rookie contract and in fact may absorb a greater percentage of his team's salary cap next year than he ever has previously in his career.

Once again, the fact that what I said above is true makes Tannehill in effect an average quarterback, because he needs the same team ingredients average QBs do to win a Super Bowl. That became obvious Sunday, when he needed an elite pass defense to keep pace with the "generational talent" you mentioned above, despite that he played about as well as he ever has historically in that kind of game himself.

The fact that these generational talents exist, coupled with the rules of the game that make it an ultra-passing league, makes QBs like Tannehill in effect "average." It isn't "me" doing it.

He has been to an AFC championship game a total of 1 time, and this was his first time playing in the playoffs. Its a little early to say what we saw in the biggest game of his career is as good as he could expect.

Brady last year was dragged through the playoffs by a superior team. What does your stats say about a QB rating of 106.5, 77.1, and 71.4 in the playoffs? So you essentially have a QB who is a generational player in name only.

Now lets look at Mannings last super bowl run. 74.4, 90.1, and 56.5, again you have "generational talent" in name only.

I'm sure there are more, but that was 2 off the top of my head in the last couple of years. Or are you going to say that them being who they are made it so stats no longer mattered?

And you can't make the statement that Brady gave a team discount, cause that would mean any good QB that gives his team a discount is creating the same situation, which is exactly what I expect Tannehill to do in Tennessee.

Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers are eliminated from the playoffs... We have Mahomes and Garroppolo in the SB.

Mahomes is the best QB right now, but you cant tell me Garroppolo is better than Brees or Rodgers.

So I think besides Mahomes and Brady no other QB can "uplift" a team on its shoulders.

"Cashvillesent wrote:

Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers are eliminated from the playoffs... We have Mahomes and Garroppolo in the SB.

Mahomes is the best QB right now, but you cant tell me Garroppolo is better than Brees or Rodgers.

So I think besides Mahomes and Brady no other QB can "uplift" a team on its shoulders.

I'd go you one better, and say Mahomes is the only QB with the talent to win regardless, but looking at his arsenal of targets, it's not hard to understand why...he's a supreme talent, with the right players to throw to.

Brady's done. His defense carried him this year...and when his defense regressed, they went 4-5, including playoffs.

"Phins_to_Win wrote:

He has been to an AFC championship game a total of 1 time, and this was his first time playing in the playoffs. Its a little early to say what we saw in the biggest game of his career is as good as he could expect.

Brady last year was dragged through the playoffs by a superior team. What does your stats say about a QB rating of 106.5, 77.1, and 71.4 in the playoffs? So you essentially have a QB who is a generational player in name only.

Now lets look at Mannings last super bowl run. 74.4, 90.1, and 56.5, again you have "generational talent" in name only.

I'm sure there are more, but that was 2 off the top of my head in the last couple of years. Or are you going to say that them being who they are made it so stats no longer mattered?

And you can't make the statement that Brady gave a team discount, cause that would mean any good QB that gives his team a discount is creating the same situation, which is exactly what I expect Tannehill to do in Tennessee.

Certainly we can find exceptions to the rule. But the rule still applies and should inform teams' personnel strategies much more so than the exceptions to it.

Here's the rule:

Since 2004 there have been 15 Super Bowl winners and 330 playoff games (including Super Bowls) that involved a passer rating differential (165 games X two teams per game). The teams that won Super Bowls during that period had an average passer rating differential of +23.4 (standard deviation = 29.9) in their 46 playoff games. The teams that did not win Super Bowls during that period had an average passer rating differential of -3.8 (standard deviation = 38.8) in their 284 playoff games.

Now, what's the best way to obtain a highly positive passer rating differential in the playoffs consistent with that of the Super Bowl winners above? Of course that's by 1) having one of the league's best QBs, and/or 2) having one of the league's best pass defenses.

If you don't have #1, you'd better have #2 (and vice-versa), or you're left praying to be an exception to the rule.

And that's essentially the upshot from the game Sunday between Tennessee and Kansas City. Tannehill isn't #1 (one of the league's best QBs), and so Tennessee needs #2 (one of the league's best pass defenses).

Of course they can pray they become an exception to the rule, but again that shouldn't be what teams base their personnel strategies on. They should go with what's probable, not improbable.

(As always I invite @7089 to critique the work above and point us in a different direction statistically speaking, if he's willing and has the time, if I've erred in my approach.)

"The Guy wrote:

Certainly we can find exceptions to the rule. But the rule still applies and should inform teams' personnel strategies much more so than the exceptions to it.

Here's the rule:

Since 2004 there have been 15 Super Bowl winners and 330 playoff games (including Super Bowls) that involved a passer rating differential (165 games X two teams per game). The teams that won Super Bowls during that period had an average passer rating differential of +23.4 (standard deviation = 29.9) in their 46 playoff games. The teams that did not win Super Bowls during that period had an average passer rating differential of -3.8 (standard deviation = 38.8) in their 284 playoff games.

Now, what's the best way to obtain a highly positive passer rating differential in the playoffs consistent with that of the Super Bowl winners above? Of course that's by 1) having one of the league's best QBs, and/or 2) having one of the league's best pass defenses.

If you don't have #1, you'd better have #2 (and vice-versa), or you're left praying to be an exception to the rule.

And that's essentially the upshot from the game Sunday between Tennessee and Kansas City. Tannehill isn't #1 (one of the league's best QBs), and so Tennessee needs #2 (one of the league's best pass defenses).

Of course they can pray they become an exception to the rule, but again that shouldn't be what teams base their personnel strategies on. They should go with what's probable, not improbable.

(As always I invite @7089 to critique the work above and point us in a different direction statistically speaking, if he's willing and has the time, if I've erred in my approach.)

I think the issue is you cant just run through QB until you have an absolutely elite player.

Not many of those guys exist. How many have even been drafted in the last 20 years that reached a level so elite they can single handedly carry a team?

The reality is you kind of have to attempt to build with what you have. NFL GM didnt get their jobs because they are idiots.

There has to be some reason teams tend to stick with "above average" for a good while before starting over.