1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Other NFL' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

Ryan Tannehill is...

  1. A terrible QB

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. A below average QB

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  3. An average QB

    7 vote(s)
    10.0%
  4. An above average QB

    39 vote(s)
    55.7%
  5. An elite QB

    16 vote(s)
    22.9%
  6. The GOAT.

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  1. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    That would be a very bad idea and a poor strategy.
     
  2. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    573
    532
    93
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    Sounds good, but in reality, the time pressure on NFL QB's would require an adequate throw all the time with excellent touch throws some of the time. In this scenario, touch is good to have, but not at the expense of throwing time.

    This means that the effectiveness of the offensive line is part of the consideration since that is where throwing time usually comes from!
     
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So perhaps not the best game to choose for that reason. Take the Carolina game last year instead. The Titans had 21 rushes for 121 yards and 5.6 yards a carry. Tannehill's passer rating was 80.1. The Titans lose 30-20. The Houston game last year was similar -- 28 rushes for 163 yards and 5.8 yards per carry, Tannehill's passer rating 88.7. Titans lose 24-21.

    Now take the flipside. Tampa Bay game last year. 21 rushes for 72 yards and 3.4 yards a carry. Tannehill's passer rating 107.4. Titans win 27-23.
     
    Two Tacos likes this.
  4. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It's the best possible one to implement. Multiple regression with points scored by the Titans during Tannehill's starts (including the playoffs) as the dependent variable and 1) passer rating, 2) rushing attempts, and 3) rushing yards as the independent variables indicates that passer rating is by far the strongest predictor of points scored by them during those games. The model predicts 83% of the variance in points scored, and the effect size for passer rating is far bigger than the effect size for the other two variables. Diminish Tannehill's passer rating and you stand the strongest chance of limiting the Titans' scoring, regardless of what Henry does within the range of what he's already done.

    Change the model so that points differential is the dependent variable, to account for the effect of those variables on other teams' scoring, and the same outcome is found but to a lesser degree. Passer rating has the largest effect size, followed by rushing attempts. These findings are especially noteworthy given that rushing attempts increase late in games when teams are ahead. The Titans' passer rating is a stronger predictor of their success nonetheless.

    This is the same strategy Bill Belichick used in the playoffs last year to limit the Titans' scoring to 20 points, despite that the Titans ran the ball 40 times for 201 yards and 5 yards a carry in the game. So either Belichick is an idiot and the above statistics are useless, or the approach is an intelligent one.
     
  5. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    You are saying the best possible scenario for stopping them is letting them execute their primary Offensive strategy... Something isn't right with that setup. This is one of those cases that you have to look past the numbers. Running the ball is going to make it a lower scoring game, but it makes it lower scoring across the board cause both teams lose possible offensive possessions.

    You are also ignoring any psychological advantage that its going to give you forcing CB and S to bring Henry down all game long.

    If you have an elite level D line that can potentially neutralize Henry as a runner, you might be able to contain Henry while still using a large amount of defensive capital to stop Tannehill. But it wouldn't be because you chose your strategy, it would be because you are putting your strengths against their strengths.
     
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What if their primary offensive strategy is inherently limiting?
     
  7. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    I had to read your post several times. This is a football forum, not a mathematic symposium. I almost felt as if I was listening to a John Nash lecture on economics reading your post...and that's the issue. Now to discuss this in terms of the actual game itself, you're "theory" to stop the Titans just doesn't work for several reasons.

    -You assume the Titans are going to handcuff Tannehill and not allow him to throw the ball period.
    -You assume opposing defenses will drop back into soft run defense to contain Tannehill's passing game and disregard Henry.
    -You assume that a higher rushing volume by Henry will produce lower points.

    In 2019, Henry had only 3 games in which he rushed 30 or more times.
    12/29 @ Hou; 32 att, 211 yards, 3 TDs, longest run 53 yards; 35-14 Titans win
    01/04 @ NE; 34 att, 184 yards, 1 TD; longest run 29 yards; 20-17 Titans win
    01/11 @ Bal; 30 att, 195 yards, 0 TD; longest run 66 yards; 35-12 Titans win

    In each of those games, Tannehill had a VERY low number of passes completed.
    12/29 @ Hou; 13/20, 198 yds, 2 TDs, 0 Int
    01/04 @ NE; 8/15, 72 yds, 1 TD, 1 Int
    01/11 @ Bal; 7/14, 88 yds, 2 TDs, 0 Int

    In these games listed above, 2 of them playoff games where its winner moves on and loser goes home the opposing defenses did all they could to contain Henry and he still ran all over them. They were unable to stop him. Tannehill had anything but spectacular production stats and still the Titans scored 35 points in 2 games and 20 against the Patriots number 1 ranked defense.

    To disregard Henry and just place focus on Tannehill is the silliest thing a team could do. To beat the Titans, you have to do what Carolina and Houston did during the regular season. You have to have YOUR running back rush 20+ times a game, gain over 100 yards and win the time of possession battle. In virtually every win the Titans had last season after Tannehill was named the starter, the opposing team's running back rushed less than 20 times a game and ran for less than 100 yards.

    As it stands right now, this very minute you're not going to stop Derrick Henry and Ryan Tannehill. The ONLY way you're going to stop them is to keep them on the sideline and that comes with opposing teams maintaining long drives that result in scores and winning the time of possession battle.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That's only an "issue" because you apparently lack the ability to understand it and its relevance, and you're neither seeking information that will help you understand it better nor asking for it from anyone here. You could easily be doing either of those, yet you stop with whatever understanding you already have and call the information an "issue." Well it isn't an issue for people who can understand it -- for them it's informative and relevant.
     
  9. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    With the rest of the above post, you're disregarding 1) that teams run the ball more when ahead to run out the clock and run the ball less when trailing, and 2) passing efficiency.

    The strategy I'm recommending is to limit passing efficiency, not passing volume. In fact I would encourage passing volume with Tannehill because it would inherently limit his passing efficiency.
     
  10. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    Its a good question, but I don't think Titan's are making a fundamental mistake that lucked into success.

    I think they are attempting to see the big picture when they approach each game. They are an extremely efficient team, so they do a lot with fewer possessions. So the strategy is make another team beat you in efficiency. However, you(or any team in the NFL) better have a plan B. I think its fair to claim that Titan's are a little slow to adjust to plan B, and it will potentially cost them a few games.

    However, here is a question. If averages across the NFL shows Titan's should be losing a higher # of games due to close games, but the actual stats when looking at Titans shows them have a solid and sustained show of success. What do you do as the Titan's coach?

    I think you have to assume its either dumb luck, or they know what they are doing. Its HARD to win in the NFL, few people know this more then Dolphin fans. Dumb luck can account for a few wins here and there, but Titans are giving a pretty solid sustained success rate.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  11. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yeah I'm not proposing a strategy here that I think will shut them down completely. I'm proposing a strategy that I believe is the best possible option of many, that would very likely diminish their scoring when all else is equal. It won't turn them into the New York Giants -- it'd very likely make them more beatable, however.
     
  12. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    But what's your plan B and when do you implement it? If Henry breaks a 50 yd TD? What if he is killing your star CB who is having to bring him down again and again when he already has a full head of steam? What if Henry has 2 TD and 130 yds by half time? As a fan theorizing about what they would do I see your point. But as a Coach who has to explain why he didn't commit more defensive capital into the box play after painful play it is a world of difference.

    You will not convince any fans or media that you deserve to keep your job cause you implemented a strategy that should help reduce their average point differential on a per year basis. :)
     
    The_Dark_Knight and resnor like this.
  13. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    BTW the above findings are analogous when using YPA instead of passer rating, to eliminate passing touchdowns from the equation, and using rushing attempts, rushing yards, yards per carry, and/or touchdowns per rush.
     
  14. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Not sure where the poll came from, but of course I voted that he was the GOAT! Can we do a poll on Matt Moore now? LOL
     
    Irishman likes this.
  15. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Obviously there would have to be the ability to adjust on the fly, and that would depend on a whole host of factors. For example, if Henry is gashing my defense and I'm scoring through the air at a highly efficient clip, I continue to let Henry gash my defense and focus on stopping the Titans' passing game, because it'll be highly unlikely they muster enough offensive possessions to overcome with their run game what I'm doing offensively. But yes, there needs to be a plan B. Plan A, however, would be stopping the Titans' passing game.

    The above scenario BTW is where they're always going to have trouble, i.e., when facing the Patrick Mahomeses and Drew Breeses of the world, who can score quickly and frequently through the air. That reduces Henry's role and puts the game on Tannehill's shoulders, and neither of those is comfortable for the Titans.
     
  16. Two Tacos

    Two Tacos Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    11,121
    5,828
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    I think the question would be why was Tannehill less effective in those games. I don't know, and am not going to rewatch. So, this might not be an useful post.

    Was it an off night for him, drops by his pass catchers, or something that those defenses did? I agree that a QB in general has an easier time when working with an effective running game. I also think Tannehill in particular plays better with one. It plays to his strengths. QB rating is not always great at showing how well a passing game performed in a single game. One dropped TD or interception can swing a single game by a large margin. More so the fewer passes thrown. Which is why a closer examination of those games would be required to really hold them up as a blueprint for stopping the titans.

    You've spent a considerable amount of effort showing that Tannehill was more effective when throwing less and/or Henry was rolling. I agreed with a lot of it. (I just thought that Tannehill is really good as a QB, elite on a team built like the Titans, and average for a team like the Dolphins had been fielding.) I find it interesting that two games into this season your suggested defense is the opposite. Did his play last week convince you then?
     
    resnor likes this.
  17. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    So you are making a determination, that you can dedicate defensive resources to stop Tannehill from having success without dedicating resources to stop the run. I think its a flawed logic and I think most Defensive coordinator would agree. It really comes down to down and distance. Are you more likely to cause Tannehill to have a bad passing day on 3rd and 2 passes all day, or 3rd and long passes? You have to slow the run to put him into bad passing situations.

    But lets assume you are correct and you can make it happen that way. Why wouldn't the defense on the other side implement the same strategy on Mahomes and Brees? And if you did that, opening up very obvious easy running lanes what do you think teams like the Saints and Chiefs will do? They are GREAT football teams, and they wouldn't hesitate to take advantage of the run. Well now the entire game relies on which 4 man front can stop the other teams running backs the best. What if Titans had the better Dline? What if it comes down to Mahone's having to complete 4 3rd and longs to Tannehill's 4 3rd and shorts?

    Of course this is all just fantasy land, no team is going to let themselves get destroyed in the trenches cause on paper it gives them an advantage. Its insanity at its best to believe that. Your Defense will quit on you. Your LB are constantly out of position even though they KNOW where the likely play is time after time after time. Your CB and S are being asked to cover top notch WR all day and are constantly having to come up and make a big hit on a monster RB cause you play called obvious open running holes. Your Defensive line is getting mauled with double teams with no support coming up to exploit holes even IF they do their job and create them.

    This is one of those times statistics is sending you down the wrong path. Their are too many moving parts and you aren't seeing the unintended consequences of what you are suggesting. It's a fun exercise in estimating the logical conclusion, but letting Henry run all over you as a game plan is just a bad idea.
     
    resnor likes this.
  18. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,815
    10,319
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    First off, the Titans rush the ball continuously, whether they are in the lead or trailing....whether its the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th quarters. Look at their games; look at their possessions; look at the play by play. You see a balanced mix of runs and passes, so your notion that teams rush the ball more to run out the clock when having the lead doesn't apply to the Titan. In fact, it doesn't apply to many other teams as i've illustrated in the past.

    Secondly, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You initially stated you wouldn't focus on Henry and wouldn't mind if he ran 30+ times and rushed for 150+ yards. Now you say you would actually encourage MORE passing from Tannehill. WHAT???

    If Henry is rushing 30 times a game and is averaging 5.2 yards a carry, that's 156 yards on the ground. You're NOT going to see Tannehill throwing the ball 40-45 times. He will probably only be throwing the ball 25-30 times and many of them are going to be play action pass that's going to ****BURN**** the defense badly. And if your initial desire of not trying to stop Henry is the case, you're going to see Henry rush for over 200 yards and HE'S going to burn the defense, more than he already does when he gets into the secondary.

    Again, stats and mathematical formulas vs actual football. It doesn't work.
     
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What convinced me was the EPA stats on the previous page, along with Belichick's approach to defending them in the playoffs last year.

    Now, obviously the approach has to result in diminishing Tannehill's performance, or you're in a world of trouble, allowing Henry to run while Tannehill potentially plays well as well.
     
  20. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Titans defense looks like crap the first two games. If this holds true, look out for Tannehill to keep throwing majority of the games.

    Pees departure seems to already affect Titans defense.
     
  21. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    You can change your vote whenever.
     
  22. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    Based on the poll so far, everyone in this thread thinks Tannehill is at least an above average QB.

    Everyone in agreement?
     
    resnor likes this.
  23. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I mean, so far everyone seems to agree with at minimum above average.

    I dont really see what the big deal is if that is the case. Not everyone would feel the same about any QB.

    For instance I think Lamar Jackson eventually crashes down to Earth hard. I think Mahomes is great but I think Reid and staff changing his mechanics is a major reason for it.

    We wouldnt all agree about any QB and especially one we were all tied to for better or worse for so long.
     
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Let's just remember that these stats aren't really the stats you want to make the argument you're making. What you really want on the x-axis is defensive game plan (i.e., the degree to which the defense tries to stop the run vs. the pass) and on the y-axis points scored. I think it's pretty clear that if you went to either extreme on that x-axis (never attempt to stop the pass, or never attempt to stop the run) points scored would be absurdly high.

    In other words, once you sell out too much in either direction, the relation you're suggesting completely breaks down. That's because the stats you're looking at apply ONLY over the range of actual defensive game plans employed in those games.

    The problem with inferring from the statistical relations you describe that teams should try to limit passing efficiency more is that you don't know how much effect that game plan has. It's very possible that the observed relations are due to overall quality of the defensive personnel (and not the game plan itself) or to random variation in Tannehill's play.

    Just pointing out that there's no logical implication here yet. What you're saying is a possibility, and I'm sure teams will test it out if Tannehill keeps burning them, but it's very possible that teams can't do much to change passing efficiency within the range of defensive game plans actually implemented. So your hypothesis should be construed more as something that is suggested by the stats but is in no way implied (a very crucial distinction, since this means the evidence is still lacking).
     
    The Guy likes this.
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm talking about doing nothing different than Bill Belichick did against them, noted here:
    https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/slow-down-derrick-henry-titans-stacked-box/

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-running-the-ball-back/
     
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No. I prefer to make a determination after this year. There's no subjectivity in my process. If adjusted passer ratings for Tannehill with Miami are statistically significant compared to Tannehill with Tennessee, then yes he's an above average QB that was just in a bad situation in Miami. If not, then no I think it's more likely he's an average QB that just had a fantastic run of play that didn't continue (this would have to be the case for statistical significance to not be achieved).

    As stated before the probability the two sets of ratings "come from the same QB" currently lie at an absurdly low 0.018% (even lower than at the end of 2019) so he's well on his way to statistical significance after 2020 (that number just has to stay below 5%). But there are still a lot of games to be played.
     
  27. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, and how do you adjust for the difference in defensive personnel among teams, and random variation? Have to have estimates of those first before we know how much effect the defensive game plan itself has. That's what's missing.

    So sure, I agree the stats suggest coaches should try what you're suggesting (and they probably will given Tannehill's play), but the stats do NOT imply your hypothesis is correct.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  28. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The most effective formula against them, assuming you can pull it off, is to put them behind by a margin that forces them to pass, which 1) takes Henry out of the equation, and 2) makes Tannehill's passing volume increase, which will likely diminish his efficiency.

    Now, that's obviously easier said than done, and the vast majority of QBs would perform similarly under those conditions. However, it is possible to both focus on defending the Titans' passing game while also increasing Tannehill's passing volume. What I meant in the post you responded to is that I certainly wouldn't discourage his passing volume.
     
  29. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    Since you can change your vote at any time, would you consider voting now according to what the stats show at present, in your opinion, and then adjust that vote if and when the stats reveal something different?
     
  30. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I would if the stats actually suggested one or the other was more likely. The problem is that Tannehill is having this fantastic run on a new team. Many other QB's that had a fantastic year (even #1 passer rating) did so on the same team. There the stats suggest an anomaly. I actually made precisely this prediction for Matt Ryan in 2016 even before mid-season. It was clear 2016 was a statistical anomaly, and that turned out to be correct (in his case "elite" was an anomaly from "above average").

    Can't do that here because the conditions have totally changed. At least you have my view on record (hasn't changed).
     
  31. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    Why is it when you start out talking its about team averages and statistical decisions, but when it gets to meat and potatoes you turn to some of the greatest in the game currently to try to make your point? Pats defense was arguably the best defense in the league last year, and Belichick implemented a strategy AND LOST. Your strategy now requires you to have an elite QB (Mahomes or Brees) and the best defense in the league.

    NE was good enough to hold the run game somewhat in check without dedicating too much Defensive capital. The part of the story saying they "let" Henry run all over them is hyperbole. Hell the rest of the quote tells you its hyperbole, 23% of the time they have 8 men in the box... that is not letting anyone do anything.

    Now take a team with a more average Defense. Do you suspect they will get the same results with the strategy? I can point out what the 2002 Bucs Defense did to shutdown teams too... but I doubt any other team that year would have been able to implement that Defense with anywhere near the same success.
     
  32. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    What does "The Guy" think?
     
  33. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Right, this was more of an exploratory “how are they winning” versus a confirmatory “this is how they’ve been defended.” We do know however that they faced a high number of stacked boxes defensively.
     
  34. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I don't think very many people are expecting Tannehill to stay 'elite', whatever that means. I think even them most ardent Tannehill supporter is expecting him to stay very good. At the end of his time in Miami, people were ranking him the mid-20s or lower. I think he settles in at 5 - 10. Maybe not elite, but a far cry from 27th.

    After week 1, he was 7th on the NFL.com QB index, he will likely be higher this week.

    He still remains one of the most polarizing QBs. CBS sports has him at 19 (although, they make no effort to hide their bias).

    upload_2020-9-23_13-45-56.png

    No, actually, it wouldn't surprise me. The fact that it appears to surprise you means you shouldn't be writing this column. He was first last season you twit.

    Meanwile:

    upload_2020-9-23_13-49-42.png
     
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Of course variation in the quality of the defense will affect the outcome, but that variation would have to be greater than the difference between the Titans' efficiency in the run game and their efficiency in the passing game. That difference is what I've underscored with the statistics I've presented. If a team is defending the Titans' run game at the expense of their passing game, they're already encouraging a more efficient way for the Titans to move down the field and score. To justify that defensive approach, whatever they stand to lose by focusing on the Titans' passing game would have to be bigger than what they're already losing by allowing a more efficient offensive approach. That doesn't seem likely, when the Titans are so much more efficient passing than they are running.

    What I'm suggesting here is nothing different than what we've seen league-wide in recent years, with lots of nickel and dime defensive formations, smaller and faster linebackers, and sub packages designed to rush the passer along the defensive line. The league as a whole defends the pass more than it does the run anyway. I think what's happened against the Titans, however, is that teams have done the opposite and overfocused on Derrick Henry at the expense of Tannehill. They need to get back to doing what they normally do in my opinion -- defending the pass predominantly.
     
  36. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    382
    507
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    That would only be true if they arbitrarily switched to defend against Henry. Teams were getting destroyed by him and they had to put resources to keep them in the game.

    Titans WANT to run the ball, in no way is making it easier for them to run a good solution. The flaw comes in, when you believe that they wouldn't run near 100% of the time if a team refuses to respect their run game.

    The vast majority of Defenses aren't good enough to fully dictate what a offense runs against them, at least not without decimating the defense of an entire other aspect of the game. If you are lucky you can have a stud Lineman that makes it harder to run to the middle and so teams have to adjust WHERE they run NOT IF they run. Passing is no different, You have a shutdown corner you might force a QB to throw away from that side of the field but its again adjusting where they throw not IF they throw.

    Now think about it, you are advocating that you force Tannehill to throw more dangerous throws to your defense sitting back waiting for passes by "Letting Henry run all over the defense". There is no logical way to get to that conclusion.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  37. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    They could run 100% of the time and still lose. There is nothing guaranteeing a win by running 100% of the time, even when running is successful.

    Again, EPA per run play is far smaller than EPA per passing play. Are you following the statistics in that regard?
     
  38. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Miami's problem with RT is that we couldn't establish the run in recent years behind our carousel of linemen, which meant that defenses got to do exactly what you just described. Honestly, it's a small miracle we were close to .500 each season in a completely one-dimensional offense. I mean, every time a RB started to shine a little bit, we traded him away the next season.
     
    resnor likes this.
  39. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I think what cbrad does about this -- we don't know yet.
     
  40. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    To me, #5 is elite and it's possible #10 can be close to elite if you have some really good QB's in the league. But honestly, who cares how some sites rank him in the grand scheme of things when you know their ranking processes are glorified popular opinions?

    All I care about is wins and losses, and how much the QB contributes to those two metrics. Tannehill was nearly perfect last season in that regard and he's off to a great start this year. Everything else on the subject is just noise, in my opinion. If you think Henry is why he's playing so well, great....give all the credit to Henry for all I care. If you think it's the line, the receivers, the coaching....that's wonderful too. I mean, even if someone thinks RT is the worst QB in the league, that's fine and dandy as long as they keep winning and he keeps throwing TD passes.

    The "why" or the "how" just isn't as important in the grand scheme of things.
     

Share This Page