Ryan Tannehill

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Are you saying you were WRONG or LYING about defenses not trying to stop Tannehill in the playoffs? Just want to be sure.

What I said was this:

"The Guy wrote:

And Tannehill's 2019 performance apparently did nothing to dissuade teams from stacking the box to stop Henry, even as far into the season as the Divisional round playoff game, when the Ravens stacked the box on 64% of the Titans' offensive plays.

If you want to argue that then I'll concede it to you. We do know of one game in which a team didn't stack the box as often.

However, the fact that Tannehill played poorly in that game, primarily against non-stacked boxes, is far more important a finding, in terms of what we're discussing here, than the fact that the opposing team didn't stack the box.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Irrelevant. Cannot possibly infer the causation that you are implying....

I'm just responding to the causation you were implying here:

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Other QBs that benefit from running games:

Wilson, Cousins, Garappolo, Jackson, Prescott, Watson, Brady, Wentz, Roethlisberger, Goff, etc, etc, etc

So Theguy if tennesee run game continues to play at a high level . Are you going hold that against Tannehill and keep telling us how his only good beacause of the run game?

"The Guy wrote:

I'm just responding to the causation you were implying here:

And I was responding to your implication while ignoring all the other QBs in the league. And also ignoring the dramatic improvement in Henry's performance since Tannehill took over.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Average passer rating allowed by pats defense in 2019.

[ATTACH:full]

So, Tannehill played average against the best pass defense in the league, despite their attempts to focus on him. Okay.

Yet this was Lamar Jackson's day against them last year, on November 3rd:

17 for 23, 163 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs, passer rating 107.7

A similarly low-volume game, with a far better performance.

Ryan Fitzpatrick's day against them on December 29, the week prior to Tannehill's game against them, when the Patriots were trying to secure a first-round bye in the playoffs:

28 for 41, 320 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs, passer rating 99.6

"The Guy wrote:

What I said was this:

If you want to argue that then I'll concede it to you. We do know of one game in which a team didn't stack the box as often.

Lying or wrong.... just want to be clear.

"The Guy wrote:

However, the fact that Tannehill played poorly in that game, primarily against non-stacked boxes, is far more important a finding, in terms of what we're discussing here, than the fact that the opposing team didn't stack the box.

Already showed he didn't play poorly. He played average against the best pass defense in the league. Get it straight.

"The Guy wrote:

Yet this was Lamar Jackson's day against them last year, on November 3rd:

17 for 23, 163 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs, passer rating 107.7

A similarly low-volume game, with a far better performance.

Ryan Fitzpatrick's day against them on December 29, the week prior to Tannehill's game against them, when the Patriots were trying to secure a first-round bye in the playoffs:

28 for 41, 320 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs, passer rating 99.6

Is cherry picking your first resort or last resort?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Already showed he didn't play poorly. He played average against the best pass defense in the league. Get it straight.

So why didn't he play like Jackson or Fitzpatrick, against the same defense? Clearly it was possible for a QB to play against them in that manner.

"Cashvillesent wrote:

So Theguy if tennesee run game continues to play at a high level . Are you going hold that against Tannehill and keep telling us how his only good beacause of the run game?

It depends on the relationship that exists between the run game and Tannehill.

Clearly there is more going on here than just "the run game." There are the following considerations:

1) the run game inspires a high degree of stacked boxes against Tennessee,

2) Henry runs well anyway against those stacked boxes, which likely inspires even more attention to their run game (and consequently less toward the passing game),

3) the volume of the run game allows Tannehill to have predominantly low-volume passing games,

4) Tannehill's performance is fairly strongly correlated with Henry's, and

5) under those circumstances, Tannehill experiences a high degree of luck with regard to downfield passing.

Sure, if that sort of "perfect storm" exists once again, it'll be likewise tough not to attribute Tannehill's performance to those variables, if it's anywhere near as good.

If on the other hand Tannehill can achieve some independence from the run game in terms of his own performance, well then of course it'll start making sense to talk about how his own ability is driving the bus.

"The Guy wrote:

So why didn't he play like Jackson or Fitzpatrick, against the same defense? Clearly it was possible for a QB to play against them in that manner.

Why didn't Jackson or Fitzpatrick finish the season with a 117 passer rating?

"The Guy wrote:

It depends on the relationship that exists between the run game and Tannehill.

Clearly there is more going on here than just "the run game." There are the following considerations:

1) the run game inspires a high degree of stacked boxes against Tennessee,

2) Henry runs well anyway against those stacked boxes, which likely inspires even more attention to their run game (and consequently less toward the passing game),

3) the volume of the run game allows Tannehill to have predominantly low-volume passing games,

4) Tannehill's performance is fairly strongly correlated with Henry's, and

5) under those circumstances, Tannehill experiences a high degree of luck with regard to downfield passing.

Sure, if that sort of "perfect storm" exists once again, it'll be likewise tough not to attribute Tannehill's performance to those variables, if it's anywhere near as good.

If on the other hand Tannehill can achieve some independence from the run game in terms of his own performance, well then of course it'll start making sense to talk about how his own ability is driving the bus.

LOL at your new reference to luck.....

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Lying or wrong.... just want to be clear.

I'm going with lying since
(A) you were aware of the stat from the Pats game
(B) you refuse to answer the question

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Why didn't Jackson or Fitzpatrick finish the season with a 117 passer rating?

Likely in part because they didn't enjoy the following circumstances:

"The Guy wrote:

1) the run game inspires a high degree of stacked boxes against Tennessee,

2) Henry runs well anyway against those stacked boxes, which likely inspires even more attention to their run game (and consequently less toward the passing game),

3) the volume of the run game allows Tannehill to have predominantly low-volume passing games,

4) Tannehill's performance is fairly strongly correlated with Henry's, and

5) under those circumstances, Tannehill experiences a high degree of luck with regard to downfield passing.

According to many folks here, you've believed for years that Tannehill just needed to be on a better team to play better.

You were right!

This is so silly. It's become an argument where if Tannehill succeeds, hes still a failure and if he fails you were right. You're creating an argument where you can claim to be right either way now, IMO.

Way back in this thread, it was impossible to get doubters to admit circumstances impact a QB. Now it's gone so far to the other side that the argument is hes successful only because of his circumstances.

At the end of the day, I have no idea what numbers Tannehill will put up in 2020. I just know in 2019 he was as good as just about anyone.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

This is so silly. It's become an argument where if Tannehill succeeds, hes still a failure and if he fails you were right. You're creating an argument where you can claim to be right either way now, IMO.

No, that's not true. If he succeeds in a way that indicates far greater independence from surrounding factors, then we can more definitively adjust previous appraisals of his individual ability.

Like I said, the people who've believed Tannehill needed to be on a better team to play better were right. I suppose it's now difficult however to swallow the idea that his performance under those conditions has to be attributed to those improved surroundings.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the guy needs better surroundings, or he doesn't. When he gets the better surroundings and then performs better, then you have to attribute his performance to the surroundings. You can't attribute it to him.

LMAO

Now Tannehill is the recipient of "unsustainable luck"

Dude I love you... You are almost trolling and it is fantastic in a funny sort of way.

Tannehill has for years improved his accuracy on longer throws even in Miami where he had become one of the most accurate passers in the NFL on longer throws. So no this argument that it was luck...Is Hogwash... He showed the ability to make a high percentage of longer throws in the past.

We just did not see Tannehill have the chance to show it often due to the plague that is known as Adam Gase... Gase never saw a three yard completion he did not love... ugh

And stop with the whole run game relationship argument with Tannehill.

Every NFL QB in the league benefits if the Run game is successful. Lots of other Good/Great QB's have strong run games.

They run the ball very well in KC... But you are not calling Mahomes trash. Green Bay has a pair of incredibly talented running backs that are a huge part of that offense... But you say nothing bad about Aaron Rodgers.

You are moving the goal posts, then you cherry pick one thing.. When called out on it you run away from that argument and run back to something else.

It is getting ridiculous.

"Etrius24 wrote:

LMAO

Now Tannehill is the recipient of "unsustainable luck"

Dude I love you... You are almost trolling and it is fantastic in a funny sort of way.

Tannehill has for years improved his accuracy on longer throws even in Miami where he had become one of the most accurate passers in the NFL on longer throws. So no this argument that it was luck...Is Hogwash... He showed the ability to make a high percentage of longer throws in the past.

So you're simply ignoring the data below:

That chart shows that Tannehill has been the least accurate quarterback in the league on deep throws, but Titans receivers have caught EVERY catchable pass he’s thrown. As you can see with all the red on the chart … that’s not normal. That chart was made before the Raiders game, but Tennessee’s receivers continued to be perfect on deep targets, hauling in all three of Tannehill’s catchable deep targets.

Like Tannehill’s play under pressure or in the play-action passing game, this is not going to continue.

And that's fine -- you have the freedom to do whatever you want. But we need to underscore what you're doing here.

"Etrius24 wrote:

And stop with the whole run game relationship argument with Tannehill.

Every NFL QB in the league benefits if the Run game is successful. Lots of other Good/Great QB's have strong run games.

Like I said above, do the correlations between passer rating and running game yards per rush for the other QBs in the league, game-by-game, and see if they approach anywhere near 0.65.

We're obviously approaching this in two different ways. Mine is data-driven, and yours is purely theoretical/speculative.

And then when you receive data that refute your theory/speculation, you simply ignore them.

What is the point?

Guy when others have taken the time to construct or post charts and graphs with data and break down the analysis you ignore it.

Convenient for you to then just go around and state others are ignoring evidence or facts...

That is rich

"Etrius24 wrote:

What is the point?

Guy when others have taken the time to construct or post charts and graphs with data and break down the analysis you ignore it.

Convenient for you to then just go around and state others are ignoring evidence or facts...

That is rich

Wrong. I addressed that with substantive discussion. Hardly ignored it.

It sounds like we're done here folks, until there's more data to go on from next year.

Moral of the story here is, don't say the guy needs better surroundings to play better, and then when he plays better try to refute solid, data-driven explanations for his performance that center on his surroundings.

That's hardly consistent.

"The Guy wrote:

No, that's not true. If he succeeds in a way that indicates far greater independence from surrounding factors, then we can more definitively adjust previous appraisals of his individual ability.

Like I said, the people who've believed Tannehill needed to be on a better team to play better were right. I suppose it's now difficult however to swallow the idea that his performance under those conditions has to be attributed to those improved surroundings.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the guy needs better surroundings, or he doesn't. When he gets the better surroundings and then performs better, then you have to attribute his performance to the surroundings. You can't attribute it to him.

Your last sentence is where I disagree.

As I said, Jay Fiedler/Our QBs faced a lot of 8 man boxes with Ricky and had an amazing defense. The Vikings had Peterson.

They never put up Tannehill like numbers.

What i am saying is this....

YES, 100% YES his surroundings helped him. However, it's not because any QB would succeed with those same surroundings. It's that those surroundings match up with his particular skill set.

Let's take a QB like Culpepper. If I removed Moss and Carter at WR but gave him Henry at HB, he would not have the same season as Tannehill in that scenario.

However, in Minnesota he was able to be a top QB in the league, because the catch radius of Carter and the insane big play ability of Moss covered his accuracy issues and played to his best strengths.

I dont think it's wrong to question what a QB needs to be successful and how easy that is to build, but consider this:

Last year the Titans were not built around Tannehill. He walked into what was there, they now have a chance to add specific pieces to help him further.

"The Guy wrote:

No, that's not true. If he succeeds in a way that indicates far greater independence from surrounding factors, then we can more definitively adjust previous appraisals of his individual ability.

Like I said, the people who've believed Tannehill needed to be on a better team to play better were right. I suppose it's now difficult however to swallow the idea that his performance under those conditions has to be attributed to those improved surroundings.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the guy needs better surroundings, or he doesn't. When he gets the better surroundings and then performs better, then you have to attribute his performance to the surroundings. You can't attribute it to him.

It is not either/or. Not binary. It is a continuum with both the QB talent AND the supporting cast. Way more nuanced than you seem willing to admit. This is true for every QB that has ever played or ever will play.

"The Guy wrote:

It sounds like we're done here folks, until there's more data to go on from next year.

Moral of the story here is, don't say the guy needs better surroundings to play better, and then when he plays better try to refute solid, data-driven explanations for his performance that center on his surroundings.

That's hardly consistent.

LOL at the "data-driven explanations" and "hardly consistent" comments, from the person regularly ignoring data and regularly changing their arguments.

You argued for years that there was no reason to beleive that Tannehill would be better in better circumstances. You even tried to claim that his circumstances in Miami weren't bad...... now, it is all about the circumstances. You have the balls to claim people aren't consistent??? LOL