Ryan Tannehill

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

LOL......... Let me know when Seattle produces a borderline top 10 pass blocking line...... I'm sure Wilson's sacks will plummet....

You are not walking away from that one. It simply proved that you came into the discussion with a preconceived notion of how things were and were proven wrong. It's okay. I'm sure watching the Wilson highlights just gave you the wrong impression. I'm sure the crap on the OL that Miami has fielded for years has clouded your judgement.

Just admit that YOU HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA. I'm serious, it's okay.

I see you wish to completely ignore how hypocritical you're previous post were. Trying very hard to turn this conversation back onto Wilson, hoping I'll engage. I guess if you pretend like nothing happened it makes it easier, but we both know. I mean it's hilarious but surprising I didn't think thats who you were. I can't let you know when Seattle produces a borderline top 10 pass blocking line....theres NO UNIVERSAL RANKING...except ESPN...yeah they have it right but they're only right about Seattle in 2018....they are WRONG about Tennessee being 4th in 2019!! Lol oh god pure comedy gold.

"mooseguts wrote:

I see you wish to completely ignore how hypocritical you're previous post were. Trying very hard to turn this conversation back onto Wilson, hoping I'll engage. I guess if you pretend like nothing happened it makes it easier, but we both know. I mean it's hilarious but surprising I didn't think thats who you were. I can't let you know when Seattle produces a borderline top 10 pass blocking line....theres NO UNIVERSAL RANKING...except ESPN...yeah they have it right but they're only right about Seattle in 2018....they are WRONG about Tennessee being 4th in 2019!! Lol oh god pure comedy gold.

Pathetic....... You respond to claims of me being hypocritical by being MORE hypocritical? LOL. I'm embarrassed for you.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Pathetic....... I'm embarrassed for you.

LMAO okay man sure. I guess I was the one that disavowed OL rankings and then proceeded to use OL rankings once I found one that worked in my favor. Can't make this stuff up.

"mooseguts wrote:

LMAO okay man sure. I guess I was the one that disavowed OL rankings and then proceeded to use OL rankings once I found one that worked in my favor. Can't make this stuff up.

Stop being a spaz for a moment and take me out of it.

Use a common OL ranking system (PBWR) or none at all and NOTHING about the 2018 and 2019 seasons change. Nothing. Tannehill's sack %, TD %, passer rating, etc. etc. etc. all remain the same and incredibly similar to Wilson's in 2018. My rationale for why the sack % remained relatively high for both Tannehill in 2019 and Wilson in 2018 stays exactly the same. Nothing inconsistent.

Not all sacks are the same. Quick sacks are different than long sacks. Sacks in max protect are different than sacks with only 5 blockers. Long sacks for a team that attacks successfully down field are different than long sack for teams that are dinking and dunking.

Can you admit you were wrong?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Pathetic....... You respond to claims of me being hypocritical by being MORE hypocritical? LOL. I'm embarrassed for you.

No my response is to throw your own words back at you. Claims?? LOL...it's not claims buddy it's facts.

"mooseguts wrote:

No my response is to throw your own words back at you. Claims?? LOL...it's not claims buddy it's facts.

But you can switch to ignoring OL rankings when it suits you, right?

"mooseguts wrote:

LMAO okay man sure. I guess I was the one that disavowed OL rankings and then proceeded to use OL rankings once I found one that worked in my favor. Can't make this stuff up.

No, you were the one that advocated using OL rankings and now won't touch them because I found one that blows up your whole argument. Can't make that stuff up.

"mooseguts wrote:

We're talking about Tannehill having the 2nd highest sack% in the NFL despite having the 11th best pass blocking OL. We're also talking about his lack of pocket awareness...are you caught up?

In a total breakdown yes protect the ball and take the sack, was he sacked 31 times last year because of 31 breakdowns? I doubt it so why even bring this up? Because the faithful simply can't say...Tannehill takes too many sacks and it's his fault or Tannehill struggles with pocket awareness. There's always an excuse in this case yours.

4th highest QB rating in the history of the NFL lead the league in yards per pass... Completed more than 70% of his passes...#1 red zone QB in football last year and ran the #2 scoring offense in football AND also had the 2nd highest sack% in the NFL.

I never said his sack% kept him from being a top 10 QB last year, hell I said if he keeps up his play he's probably top 5 but good attempt at trying to prove a point no one is arguing.

Once more all I'm saying is he lacks pocket awareness. If you don't agree with me cool.

Sacks here are like strikeouts in baseball used to be for some people.... It used to be regarded that strikeouts were the worst thing ever... They are far from the worst thing. Hitting into a double play is much worse than a strikeout. Hitting into a fielder's choice where a fast baserunner is replaced by a slow baserunner is much worse. A Strikeout is just an out...

A sack is a negative play no queston, but it is far from the worst outcome. Fumbles are worse... Turnovers are worse.... Turnovers that result in the other team scoring are worse...

So yes there are a few more sacks ideally than you would like to see. But to argue he has no pocket awareness? How can you be the #1 red zone QB in football and run the #2 scoring offense in football with no pocket awareness?

And furthermore.... You still did not address the point made where Fitzmagic had less sacks, but His QB rating was 32 points lower... He threw for less yards per pass... Lower completion percentage Turned the ball over more and his TD to INT ratio was worse.

But hey, I guess you can congratulate yourself on the fact that he had a couple less sacks.

"Etrius24 wrote:

Sacks here are like strikeouts in baseball used to be for some people.... It used to be regarded that strikeouts were the worst thing ever... They are far from the worst thing. Hitting into a double play is much worse than a strikeout. Hitting into a fielder's choice where a fast baserunner is replaced by a slow baserunner is much worse. A Strikeout is just an out...

A sack is a negative play no queston, but it is far from the worst outcome. Fumbles are worse... Turnovers are worse.... Turnovers that result in the other team scoring are worse...

So yes there are a few more sacks ideally than you would like to see. But to argue he has no pocket awareness? How can you be the #1 red zone QB in football and run the #2 scoring offense in football with no pocket awareness?

And furthermore.... You still did not address the point made where Fitzmagic had less sacks, but His QB rating was 32 points lower... He threw for less yards per pass... Lower completion percentage Turned the ball over more and his TD to INT ratio was worse.

But hey, I guess you can congratulate yourself on the fact that he had a couple less sacks.

I don't know how they can be the #2 scoring offense in football with no pocket awareness last I checked the Titans weren't the #2 scoring offense in football. Is this some kind of riddle?

I addressed all the points in your post that I quoted, why would I address something you didn't bring up? But the easy answer is sacks do not effect QB rating whatsoever. Sacks don't bring the QB rating down. He threw for less y/a, completion%, etc etc....is there a point here? Did I say Fitz had a better year?

As long as you congratulate yourself on being a fan of the Tannehill Titans.

"Etrius24 wrote:

Sacks here are like strikeouts in baseball used to be for some people.... It used to be regarded that strikeouts were the worst thing ever... They are far from the worst thing. Hitting into a double play is much worse than a strikeout. Hitting into a fielder's choice where a fast baserunner is replaced by a slow baserunner is much worse. A Strikeout is just an out...

A sack is a negative play no queston, but it is far from the worst outcome. Fumbles are worse... Turnovers are worse.... Turnovers that result in the other team scoring are worse...

So yes there are a few more sacks ideally than you would like to see. But to argue he has no pocket awareness? How can you be the #1 red zone QB in football and run the #2 scoring offense in football with no pocket awareness?

And furthermore.... You still did not address the point made where Fitzmagic had less sacks, but His QB rating was 32 points lower... He threw for less yards per pass... Lower completion percentage Turned the ball over more and his TD to INT ratio was worse.

But hey, I guess you can congratulate yourself on the fact that he had a couple less sacks.

Tell him you love OL rankings then ask what he thinks of the sacks that Wilson takes.... LOL

"mooseguts wrote:

I don't know how they can be the #2 scoring offense in football with no pocket awareness last I checked the Titans weren't the #2 scoring offense in football. Is this some kind of riddle?

I addressed all the points in your post that I quoted, why would I address something you didn't bring up? But the easy answer is sacks do not effect QB rating whatsoever. Sacks don't bring the QB rating down. He threw for less y/a, completion%, etc etc....is there a point here? Did I say Fitz had a better year?

As long as you congratulate yourself on being a fan of the Tannehill Titans.

From the moment Tannehill took over as the starter the Titans were the #2 scoring offense in football behind the Ravens. This has been discussed at length in this thread... but catching up on the last page I see where you say you did not start reading at the beginning.

Cheers.

"Etrius24 wrote:

From the moment Tannehill took over as the starter the Titans were the #2 scoring offense in football behind the Ravens. This has been discussed at length in this thread... but catching up on the last page I see where you say you did not start reading at the beginning.

Cheers.

I thought the same thing. It is possible that I read it before the end of the regular season. It is possible that it is offense points and excludes defensive and special teams scores. I don't feel like trying to figure it out. I did find this in a Boston Globe article before the playoff game against the Patriots (Tom Brady's LAST game as a Patriot!!!).

In the first six games with Mariota, the Titans went 2-4 and were 28th in the NFL in scoring (16.3 points per game).

And since Tannehill took over in Week 7, the Titans . . .

■ have gone 7-3.

■ are fourth in the NFL in points (30.4 per game) and second in touchdowns (42).

■ are first in yards per pass attempt (9.64) and quarterback rating (119.5).

■ are first in rushing yards per attempt (5.64) and rushing touchdowns (17), and second in rushing yards per game (160.6).

■ are first in yards per play (6.94) and third in yards per game (406.2).

■ and are first in red zone touchdown percentage (86.7).

So, maybe not second in offensive points per game, but damn.....

"Etrius24 wrote:

From the moment Tannehill took over as the starter the Titans were the #2 scoring offense in football behind the Ravens. This has been discussed at length in this thread... but catching up on the last page I see where you say you did not start reading at the beginning.

Cheers.

Sorry dude but that is incorrect information, and I definitely saw that being discussed in the last few pages which is why I looked it up since I'm not gonna believe everything I read on the internet.

From week 6-17 the Titans are 5th in scoring offense. Week 6 being when Tannehill replaced Mariota in the 3rd or 4th QTR.
From week 7-17 the Titans are 4th in scoring offense. Week 7 being when he became the official starter.
Either way not #2 as has been spread around here.

On page 172 post #6874 I said the Titans were 5th in scoring offense, but I guess I'm not the only one who didn't read the whole thread.

Mazel tov.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

I thought the same thing. It is possible that I read it before the end of the regular season. It is possible that it is offense points and excludes defensive and special teams scores. I don't feel like trying to figure it out. I did find this in a Boston Globe article before the playoff game against the Patriots (Tom Brady's LAST game as a Patriot!!!).

In the first six games with Mariota, the Titans went 2-4 and were 28th in the NFL in scoring (16.3 points per game).

And since Tannehill took over in Week 7, the Titans . . .

■ have gone 7-3.

■ are fourth in the NFL in points (30.4 per game) and second in touchdowns (42).

■ are first in yards per pass attempt (9.64) and quarterback rating (119.5).

■ are first in rushing yards per attempt (5.64) and rushing touchdowns (17), and second in rushing yards per game (160.6).

■ are first in yards per play (6.94) and third in yards per game (406.2).

■ and are first in red zone touchdown percentage (86.7).

So, maybe not second in offensive points per game, but damn.....

I would like @7089 to weigh in on the following, if he's willing and able, regarding the statistical portion.

The correlation between adjusted (to 2019) season passer rating and points scored per game for every team in the league between 2015 and 2019 is 0.77, with the following regression equation:

y = 0.3078x + 5.1514

Based on that equation and Ryan Tannehill's regular season passer rating of 119.65 (excluding the Cleveland and Denver games), the 2019 Titans, in the regular season games in which Tannehill played, would've been expected to score 41.98 points per game. They scored 30.4 points per game in those games, however.

"The Guy wrote:

I would like @7089 to weigh in on the following, if he's willing and able, regarding the statistical portion.

The correlation between adjusted (to 2019) season passer rating and points scored per game for every team in the league between 2015 and 2019 is 0.77, with the following regression equation:

y = 0.3078x + 5.1514

Based on that equation and Ryan Tannehill's regular season passer rating of 119.65 (excluding the Cleveland and Denver games), the 2019 Titans, in the regular season games in which Tannehill played, would've been expected to score 41.98 points per game. They scored 30.4 points per game in those games, however.

That makes no sense. If you adjusted to 2019 where the average passer rating was 90.4, then you should get the 2019 average ppg of 22.8 out of that equation by plugging in x = 90.4 but you don't. Instead you get 33, so that equation can't be correct.

I'm guessing that's a -5.1514 not a +5.1514 in which case the result is 31.7 which is just about right if you use 119.65.

"cbrad wrote:

That makes no sense. If you adjusted to 2019 where the average passer rating was 90.4, then you should get the 2019 average ppg of 22.8 out of that equation by plugging in x = 90.4 but you don't. Instead you get 33, so that equation can't be correct.

I'm guessing that's a -5.1514 not a +5.1514 in which case the result is 31.7 which is just about right if you use 119.65.

Yes indeed -- appreciate your feedback. The minus sign in the equation was sitting right on a gridline in the scatterplot, making it look like a plus sign.

"cbrad wrote:

That makes no sense. If you adjusted to 2019 where the average passer rating was 90.4, then you should get the 2019 average ppg of 22.8 out of that equation by plugging in x = 90.4 but you don't. Instead you get 33, so that equation can't be correct.

I'm guessing that's a -5.1514 not a +5.1514 in which case the result is 31.7 which is just about right if you use 119.65.

Damn, another attempt at making Tannehill's passer rating seem less impressive foiled......

"mooseguts wrote:

Sorry dude but that is incorrect information, and I definitely saw that being discussed in the last few pages which is why I looked it up since I'm not gonna believe everything I read on the internet.

From week 6-17 the Titans are 5th in scoring offense. Week 6 being when Tannehill replaced Mariota in the 3rd or 4th QTR.
From week 7-17 the Titans are 4th in scoring offense. Week 7 being when he became the official starter.
Either way not #2 as has been spread around here.

On page 172 post #6874 I said the Titans were 5th in scoring offense, but I guess I'm not the only one who didn't read the whole thread.

Mazel tov.

Moose

This was taken from an article on ESPN... So it may have been worked ambiguously...

Perhaps they looked at total points scored and did not factor in points scored by the defense or special teams? Maybe that is the difference from being the #2 offense in football and the #4

You mentioned #5... but Tannehill did not become the starter until week 7.

So we are arguing over scoring offense and points scored

Congrats your bias against Tannehill has you holding onto these split hairs and loose straws at the edge of a cliff for dear life.

I hope you survive.

"Etrius24 wrote:

Moose

This was taken from an article on ESPN... So it may have been worked ambiguously...

Perhaps they looked at total points scored and did not factor in points scored by the defense or special teams? Maybe that is the difference from being the #2 offense in football and the #4

You mentioned #5... but Tannehill did not become the starter until week 7.

So we are arguing over scoring offense and points scored

Congrats your bias against Tannehill has you holding onto these split hairs and loose straws at the edge of a cliff for dear life.

I hope you survive.

I know he didn't become the starter until week 7 but I don't see any one using his season stats starting from week 7 so I didn't think it mattered if I started from week 6, but thats also why I posted the ranking from week 7 as well.

No, no one is arguing scoring offense, I was merely telling him he was incorrect. There's no argument because it's not up for debate.

No my preference for facts when using numbers has me correcting false information. If we were talking about anything else and I saw incorrect information I would look it up and correct it if needed, that's just who I am as a person.

My bias against Tennehill?? I said he had a great season, I also said if he repeats it he's probably a top 5 QB next year. Yes the Tannefaithful are so non-biased they definitely look at things balanced and fair just like Fox News.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Damn, another attempt at making Tannehill's passer rating seem less impressive foiled......

Serious question... why do you only show up to defend Thill?

"Losferwords wrote:

Serious question... why do you only show up to defend Thill?

I hadn't visited this message board in years until this thread started. Spent most of my time on a different message board. Ran into a poster that I debated with years ago. Just resumed.

The real question you should be asking is, After last season, why the hell should Tannehill have to be defended at all?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

The real question you should be asking is, After last season, why the hell should Tannehill have to be defended at all?

That’s like saying any debate about Andy Dalton after 2015 or Nick Foles after 2013 shouldn’t have occurred.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

I hadn't visited this message board in years until this thread started. Spent most of my time on a different message board. Ran into a poster that I debated with years ago. Just resumed.

The real question you should be asking is, After last season, why the hell should Tannehill have to be defended at all?

You seem overly invested in a player that no longer plays here. Shouldn't you take to this to a Titans message board?

"Losferwords wrote:

You seem overly invested in a player that no longer plays here. Shouldn't you take to this to a Titans message board?

I didn't create the thread, nor am I the only poster in the thread.

"The Guy wrote:

That’s like saying any debate about Andy Dalton after 2015 or Nick Foles after 2013 shouldn’t have occurred.

Not to me. If you understood what was happening in Miami, you could have seen the same potential many of us did. Put away the stats package and watch some games.