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)
    6.0%
  3. An average QB

    7 vote(s)
    10.4%
  4. An above average QB

    36 vote(s)
    53.7%
  5. An elite QB

    16 vote(s)
    23.9%
  6. The GOAT.

    4 vote(s)
    6.0%
  1. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,489
    3,252
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And if for every one of those there are let's say 10 other Super Bowls that were won by teams with elite QBs, where are we in terms of the likelihood of winning a Super Bowl with a Nick Foles (or a Tannehill)?

    This is why the teams with the Tannehills of the world have a far stronger likelihood of getting beaten in the playoffs (like Tennessee has the past two years) than of winning a Super Bowl.
     
    mlb1399 and JJ_79 like this.
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I'm by no means anti-Tua. I hope, HOPE, I'm wrong about him.

    But there is nothing that I've seen from Tua, in college or NFL, that gives me any amount of hope that he will ever be an elite QB.

    To me, if you weren't happy with Tannehill, then Tua is even less exciting. At least Tannehill was big, strong, and extremely durable, with an elite arm.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  3. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    381
    505
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    You have to quit jumping from direct statements to over arching theories, its literally just a way so you don't have to answer any real questions.

    So you are saying that its a moral victory for Rodgers as long as someone like him wins? I strongly doubt it.

    To make the outlandish claims that you are trying to make you would First have to make a clear and accurate distinction of what Tannehill is, to determine what his chances are of winning a super bowl, and you have clearly shown you aren't capable of doing that. Like it or not he has been so far ahead of where you thought he EVER should have been, that you should honestly be looking at your process to find what caused the blind spot.

    You would then also need to look at what Aaron Rodgers has had and determine why he isn't winning if he needs so much less then Tannehill and at times has had so much more then Tannehill has had.

    The equation would probably be pretty complicated and drawn out, but the answer would always be the same. You are wrong on your take. Tannehill proved he can do a lot more then you suspected, and he is doing it with a lot less then you claim he would have needed. Rodger's on the other hand has proven he is great, but shows that he needs most of the same things in place that Tannehill would need. Tannehill needs those things to be a little bit better, but that's why he is being paid less, so the team can go out and get those extra things.

    Your analysis always ignores the business side of it. If a QB is giving you top 5 production, and you are paying him at a top 10 level, you are banking more money to improve your team and have a decent chance of winning. In fact of the 10 QB that make a higher average salary then Tannehill only 2 of them are still alive in the playoffs. Patrick Mahomes and Aaron Rodgers. Both of them have a better rated Defense and a better Offensive line then Tannehill... that should tell you something.

    You have continued to back track and attempt to redraw the battlefield, in an attempt to save face in a clear loss. You are now to the point that you are making a crazy argument that unless Tannehill wins a Super Bowl it demonstrates he is average. Which should get the fan base coming after you thanks to a certain golden armed superhero name Dan Marino.

    AND WHATS EVEN CRAZIER, is you have already built in the next argument. If he wins you will then point to that same equation and say its not that big of a feat cause there was a 10% chance someone like Tannehill was going to win...
     
    resnor likes this.
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Well it's also crazy because only a page or two ago, he admitted that Tannehill is a top 10 QB.
     
    Hiruma78, KeyFin and Phins_to_Win like this.
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,489
    3,252
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm not sold either that he will become an elite QB, but if you watch the drive he engineered in the fourth quarter against Arizona this year, that might give you some hope about where his ceiling might be. And if that's indeed his ceiling, it's higher than Tannehill's.
     
    JJ_79 likes this.
  6. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't believe that Tua's ceiling is higher than Tannehill's. I believe his floor was higher.
     
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,489
    3,252
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What you don't seem to be getting here is that there isn't just one "Aaron Rodgers." There are multiple QBs who play at that level, and if the Super Bowl-winner simply rotates among them almost every year, the players who aren't at that level are far less likely to win it.

    Here are your 17 SB-winning QBs since 2004:

    Tom Brady (5)
    Ben Roethlisberger (2)
    Eli Manning (2)
    Peyton Manning (2)
    Drew Brees
    Patrick Mahomes
    Russell Wilson
    Aaron Rodgers
    Nick Foles
    Joe Flacco

    In my opinion 13 of those were won by elite QBs (at the time they won them), which means there is about a 77% probability that an elite QB will win a SB in this era.
     
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,489
    3,252
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    His ceiling could be higher than Tannehill's in my opinion simply because as that Arizona game showed, he has the ability to evade pressure and throw accurately and play well on the move. He can be playmaker in the face of pressure, whereas Tannehill is sharply limited in that regard.

    Opposing teams are getting their money's worth by paying pressure players what they do when they face the Titans, whereas that may not be the case against the Dolphins next year or the one after. And that would be a huge difference.
     
    JJ_79 likes this.
  9. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    381
    505
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    Again I'm not missing your points, you are spinning new points instead of having the discussion at hand. Tannehill this year did not have a solid enough surrounding cast to go further in the playoffs. You said its clear that him not going further is because he is a limited QB. I point out that Aaron Rodgers having more talent around him in other years has also failed to make it further. That was the argument at hand.

    Everything else that you are throwing out doesn't add to this discussion. Not that it couldn't be a good other topic for a discussion, but you have to get past the current issue. IF Tannehill failing with current talent is proof he isn't a good enough QB, then explain how Aaron Rodger's losing with better talent isn't proof that he isn't good enough as well.

    This is a clear case of the obvious answer is the correct answer. IT DOESN"T! Tannehill failing with a lack of supporting talent doesn't prove anything. Aaron Rodger's failing with greater talent only proves that even Great QBs fail if they don't have the right complimentary parts.
     
    resnor likes this.
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I just don't agree. Again, you're attempting to compare response to pressure, which means you're saying that all pressure is the same, the only difference is the QBs response. The reason I backed Tannehill for years is because I saw things that told me Tannehill wasn't the problem. I don't have the same feeling about Tua.
     
  11. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,489
    3,252
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm not disagreeing with that. What I'm saying is that the Super Bowl in any given year is very likely to be won by some elite QB with a sufficient supporting cast, and that that's far more likely to happen than a non-elite QB's winning the Super Bowl.

    The point is that the supporting cast necessary for an elite QB to win the SB is far more likely to be assembled and maintained than the supporting cast necessary for a non-elite QB to win the SB.

    The non-elite QB simply needs more help, and that help is less likely to be assembled than the help an elite QB needs.

    If the following QBs need a "surrounding help quotient" of let's say 40 (ranging from 0 to 100) to win a SB:

    Mahomes
    Brees
    Wilson
    Rodgers
    Watson
    Allen

    ...whereas QBs like Tannehil need a "surrounding help quotient" of let's say 70, obviously the SB stands a far greater chance of being won in any single year by somebody in the group listed above, who simply need less help!
     
  12. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    381
    505
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    Again you are missing that there is an entirely different equation that you keep ignoring. Let's go with your equation above. BUT lets not put Tannehill at 70 cause that's a little ridiculous considering what Tannehill has accomplished in his short time as a Titan. If Tannehill needs a quotient of 50 then the actual math that needs to be done is what is the financial cost associated with that extra 10 points. If Tannehill getting paid outside of the top 10 gives them enough capital to reach that quotient then Tannehill is in a position to win.

    Titan's were not financially capped, they just had bad/unlucky decisions in the offseason.

    Clowney played 8 games then lost for the season
    Vic Beasley released for being awful
    Ty Sambrailo 10 games then lost for the season

    These were easily the top 3 free agent pick ups, throw on that a bad 1st rd pick in Isaiah Wilson and you can see that Titan's just didn't have a good offseason.

    Now if your argument is that Tannehill making the money he makes does require the team to have a better front office, we can agree on that, but so does having an elite QB that eats up a portion of the salary cap that makes reaching the quotient of 40 harder.

    The most important thing a team can do is not OVER PAY their QB.

    Hate on this fact all you want but Tom Brady not being a top paid QB is why he has the SB wins and makes it look like elite QB are the secret ingredient. Without Tom in the picture it becomes a lot more obviously balanced between building a great team around a solid QB and paying an elite QB to win it all for you.
     
    resnor likes this.
  13. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,200
    6,471
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    I think Ryan Tannehill is in the 7-14 range and probably closer to 7 than 14. But I think that's kind of where we've always seem him--as a guy whose abilities place him behind the elites yet still offer potential to crack into the top-10 when things go well.

    He's never going to be elite simply based on who else is out there. My definition of elite is someone who can throughout his career post top-5 passer rating numbers. Ryan Tannehill has simply done this for 1.5 seasons. There's actually quite a few QBs who pop up and rank at the top for some period (e.g. Matthew Stafford, Kirk Cousins, Matt Ryan, Derek Carr). It's always a question of how long it can be sustained. Peyton Manning sustained it. These days Russell Wilson, Patrick Mahomes and Aaron Rodgers all appear to be able to sustain it. And there's a few guys behind them that look remarkable similar (e.g. Deshaun Watson).

    That's not a bad way to evaluate it. Who would you prefer to rebuild around? I'd rather have (1) Aaron Rodgers, (2) Patrick Mahomes, (3) Russell Wilson, (4) Deshaun Watson, (5) Lamar Jackson or (6) Josh Allen. All seem like better QBs to build around either based on their efficiency or general unstoppable-ness. With Kyler Murray and Justin Herbert coming on hot and Trevor Lawrence coming into the fray I think there's going to be more competition among the top-10 as well.

    I think Ryan Tannehill is in that 2nd/3rd tier of guys behind the 3 or 4 purely unstoppable dudes like Mahomes, Rodgers and now Allen. If those few right at the tippy top are the elites, it's no offense to say Ryan Tannehill ranks behind them. He's smart. He's reliable. He's tough. He's got a big arm. I don't think he's got special movement abilities the way so many QBs do these days: Wilson, Allen, Watson, Murray, Jackson, etc. So, I don't even know that he's really 2nd tier either. But he's certain as good as Derek Carr, Kirk Cousins, Matt Ryan, etc. who all get into the top-10 quite regularly.

    Did the Dolphins get Ryan Tannehill wrong? Eh, maybe. I think Joe Philbin and Adam Gase were two of the worst HC/OCs you could have. Neither helped Ryan, although he did get to #14 under Philbin and #12 under Gase so they certainly didn't ruin him.

    In reality though, I was in favor of moving on from Tannehill. I think it's ultimately helped both sides. I think the Dolphins are better today than they were 3 years ago and I think Ryan Tannehill is happier and more successful, too.

    When you look at what's made Tannehill successful in Tennessee it's his low INT% and his abnormally high Y/A. While I credit Tannehill with not throwing INT% (something I think is indicative of a QB's "football IQ"), I think the Y/A is largely driven by having a relative strong offense. In my mind, there's definitely some correlation between a strong run game and the ability to threaten the intermediate and deep areas of the field which is really where a QB drives up his Y/A. In that situation (and with reliable WRs), you can put up a lot of yardage. And unsurprisingly that's exactly what's driving Tannehill's passer rating up so high.

    Nobody was ever fooled by this. Most of us begged for that type of football in Miami but the HC/GM never gave us that.

    I don't see any reason to go back and claim we were wrong about Tannehill. He is pretty much exactly who we always thought he was. I think you're lying if you claim he's an "elite" QB (i.e. one that can reliably be among the top-5 over a decade's time) but we certainly did have a few games in Miami where we got great production/efficiency when the offense as a whole clicked. Unfortunately we couldn't sustain it. Tennessee has, but it's also not hard to understand why.


    EDIT

    I'm also really happy to see this thread is getting moved.

    While I agree it's fine that it exists and I think it's a great topic, it hasn't been Dolphins-related in over a year and I think it's been a stain on the Dolphins Forum personally. It's a bad look and even somewhat shameful that there's a 280+ page thread in a Miami Dolphins message board with people discussing a player that's now spent almost 800 days in another team's uniform.

    I don't fault anyone for having an opinion and wanting to discuss Ryan Tannehill but quite frankly, I think this is one particular thread that makes this Main Forum look bad. It's a blemish and has nothing to offer in the way of Miami Dolphins discussion at this time.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2021
    Phins_to_Win and JJ_79 like this.
  14. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    381
    505
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    I actually don't have much to disagree with on this post. I don't think he potentially falls into tier 3 category, in fact I would argue he at least has earned the nod to be considered top end tier 2 guy, but I understand there is a reasonable level where you can place a guy without it being wrong or disrespectful.

    The only other point I would argue is that the true anti Tannehill crowd were a bit more down on him then you are recognizing. To be clear, this isn't including you at all, what you stated is completely reasonable. however, some were stating that Tannehill would not get another chance as a starter, or that he was incapable of winning a big game, or leading a team to a playoff. Those were what a lot of the debates were about.

    I felt it was probably time for the two to part ways as well. I hated it, cause I knew there was something we never got to see, and he kept showing those flashes that promised he was so much better then just another guy. I just didn't think he was going to get a chance to show off his talent if he stayed. I do wonder now if coach Flores could have gotten the same production that Vrabel did, but hindsight is always 20/20.
     
    FinFaninBuffalo likes this.
  15. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,200
    6,471
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    To be 100% clear, when I suggest that Tannehill could be considered tier 2/3 QB that's contingent on how you break down the top-10.

    For me, there's a tier 1a and a tier 1b, with 1a being reserved for the absolute best in class. That would be Rodgers and Mahomes. Tier 1b would be those otherwise outstanding or even elite QBs who offer Ryan Tannehill type QB'ing but ALSO offer better-than-Tannehill movement, rushing or elusiveness. Those are Russell Wilson, Deshaun Watson, Lamar Jackson, and Josh Allen types.

    If we're saying there's 1a, 1b and then 2 I'm fine putting Tannehill into that 2 category. If we're saying there is Mahomes & Rodgers at 1, then Wilson, Watson, Jackson and Allen at 2, then I think Tannehill has to sit behind them in what would then be the 3rd tier. It's all contingent on how you sort it.

    Either way, it's all semantics. It doesn't change where I'd put him overall. That's my personal view. As I said before, I think there at 6-7 guys who I'd rather build around because I think they're just as good as passers and yet offer more in other places skill-wise.


    Unfortunately, I don't see Tannehill as the type of rare QB that sparks an offense the same way Patrick Mahomes or Aaron Rodgers can. That requires you literally be the best at your position. We've seen Deshaun Watson, Matt Ryan, Matthew Stafford all throw up top-5 numbers and yet we've also seen them on horrible teams that don't win. We've heard that the Lions and Falcons might want to move on from Stafford and Ryan, respectively. Carson Wentz was NFL MVP and had a stupendous year and yet his reputation took a nosedive this year. The Texans are potentially thinking about moving Watson, which is crazy to think.

    Truth is, the QB position is really demanding and unless you're winning (or you've proven the ability to do so) which is kind of hard to do by yourself, your job is probably in jeopardy.

    I was okay moving Tannehill because I just lost faith the Miami Dolphins were going to try (or were capable of) doing what was necessary to build the right team around him. That said, without the right team, we've seen Tannehill fall towards the back of that same group of QBs he's in. We had may years where he ranked in the middle. There's no doubt he can fall to that if the team around him and the coaching isn't very good.

    Whatever Ryan Tannehill is, it's definitely above average and in the right situation I think it can be really incredible. Still, he's got to stay in Tennessee and basically continue doing what he has been doing for another 3 years for me to think he's really elite. That title requires some longevity (to me), otherwise we may as well just use the year-to-year rankings.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2021
    Phins_to_Win likes this.
  16. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    381
    505
    93
    Nov 16, 2013
    I actually try to avoid the word elite when talking about Tannehill. For me (just like you) it has a different meaning then a lot of other people. Ranking doesn't matter. It is possible (though it hasn't happened since I started watching football) that you could have a season without any elite QB, cause it isn't about ranking for me. It's about that next level that makes other QBs (including the QB starting on your own team) look average, and by comparison not good enough.

    If however I'm given a poll like "Is Tannehill elite or above average", I get into a bit of difficult spot cause Tannehill is squarely in the middle of those 2 options for me. Tannehill is a really good solid QB. I think where he falls depends largely on your criteria for ranking him. If you admire toughness and willingness to take a hit to deliver the throw he is probably a few spots higher then on other lists. But if you rank that agile footwork that gets him out of the pocket untouched, then he probably ranks a little bit lower.
     
    resnor likes this.
  17. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,200
    6,471
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    To me, elite simply means "on par with the best" or "not exceeded."

    Like you, I believe multiple QBs can be elite in a given year. However, I tend to believe that it's all based on rankings so someone has to be at the top. So in my view, yes, someone always has to win the award for being among the year's "elite" QBs.

    The simplest way for me to quantify this is passer rating over time. For me to call someone elite as a player, they have to have been among the top players at their position for an appreciable duration. It's much like the HoF. A single outstanding burst of production is not enough. It has to be sustained.

    Examples of guys who've sustained their play are Drew Brees in NO and Aaron Rodgers with GB. If you go back and look at passer ratings over the last decade you'll find those QBs ranking among the top-5 more often than not.

    That's how I look at it. The "flaw" in my view of things is that someone like Tannehill who's only played for his team for 1.5 years really can't earn the title of elite. Which is why I say that IMHO he's got to keep doing what he's doing for another 3 years or so.

    It may seem like a high standard, but to me, we can't go around calling everyone elite just because they had a great year once or twice in their career. We've seen half the NFL's QBs get into the top-5 at some point in their careers. It has to be more than just making an appearance.

    Likewise, if a QB isn't "elite" by my definition above (e.g. Josh Allen, Deshaun Watson, etc.), I can still consider that player as being as good or better than their peers based on what skills they have. And again, I'd put Watson, Wilson, Jackson and Allen above Tannehill based on what they can do with mobility, elusiveness and rushing. Even though we think of Ryan Tannehill as being athletic, he's not really as good as those guys above when moving around. Some may disagree but the standards for this stuff in the NFL are pretty dang high.
     
  18. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,642
    2,367
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I agree with almost everything you've written in the last couple of posts except your opinion of Jackson. All world runner? Yes. NBut, he is a below average passer of the football. When a team is behind and needs to go to full time passing, Jackson is the last QB I'd want of any of the top 10 - 15 QBs. So I'd take Tannehill over Jackson for that reason alone.

    Mahomes, Rodgers, Watson, Allen, Wilson.... then a group of a few that includes Tannehill? No argument with that. I also agree that if the offense requires a lot of off script stuff, then there are probably a few others that would move ahead of Tannehill.

    But, make no mistake, Tannehill is an elite thrower of the football. IMO, better than Watson, Wilson, and more consistent than Allen. His bad throw % is really low. He was 3rd best in the league in 2019 and 2020. The top 3 both years were Brees, Carr, and Tannehill. The difference is that Tannehill averages much longer throws. In 2020, he was top 3 in bad throw % AND average air yards per completion. No other QB can say that. To prove is was no fluke, he was 3rd in bad throw % and 4th in average air yards per completion in 2019. No other QB was tops in both categories in 2019 either.
     
  19. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,200
    6,471
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    Re: Lamar Jackson

    The thing is, you can't separate his running and passing. He's one guy who's obviously special. You aren't ever going to face Lamar Jackson the pocket passer. He's always going to be running for ~80-yds/gm on you no matter what. And besides, isn't the 'Lamar Jackson can't pass' thing a dull narrative at this point? You tell me.

    The guy's rating was 113 (#3) last year and was 99.3 (#11) this year. He's been top-4 in TD% both years. He was top-10 in INT% last year. That took a dip this year as did his Y/A which explain why the rating fell some.

    I mean, he seems pretty legit to me by those numbers. Then you factor in that passing is kind of his side hussle, LOL.

    And that's the thing. He can be slightly less than Ryan Tannehill and still ultimately be the better weapon....potentially. I'm not saying you have to buy that he really is. But I think for me, yeah, I'd probably rather take Lamar Jackson assuming my coaching staff was solid like Baltimore's is.
     
    resnor likes this.
  20. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    What you CAN notice is all the busted coverage stuff he takes advantage of. A good chunk of that is probably from his run threat.

    What you can also notice is his glaring lack of accuracy. Very rarely is he throwing precision, tough NFL throws...but he doesn't need to.

    Ya he's special...but when the running threat diminishes or he gets an ugly injury or two from running, then what? Maybe he can improve his passing a lot by then and it won't matter...remains to be seen.
     
    mlb1399 and FinFaninBuffalo like this.
  21. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,642
    2,367
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    How does "below average passer" translate to "Lamar Jackson can't pass"?

    IMO, he IS a below average passer. This supported is by the stats. He has a negative completion % above expected (CPOE) per Next Gen Stats. Per Pro Football Reference advanced passing stats, he is below average in both bad throw % and accuracy %.

    We can agree to disagree on Jackson. I see a Cam Newton type career for him unless he improves his ability to play from the pocket.
     
    Irishman and PhinFan1968 like this.
  22. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    501
    492
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    Actually you can.

    Playing on a different team changes a lot of the dynamics an offense can offer based on the differences in the current and the previous teams:
    1) Play calling
    2) Offensive weapons other than the QB

    None of which seems to part of your calculations. Remember, averaging numbers can both clarify some aspects of performance and cloud or misrepresent performance, depending on how:
    1) Comprehensive the variables are
    2) The accuracy of the numbers being averaged.

    A major point was made by Tannehill himself when he answered a reporters question of what made his performance with the Titans so good. He said he owed it to what he learned from Adam Gase. I wish I had saved that quote so I could give you a reference for it.
     
  23. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,687
    10,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    So? You can't ignore what Tannehill did in Miami when evaluating him as a QB, even specifically regarding how he responds to pressure. I mean you have 6 years of how Tannehill responded to pressure that is informative. To say you can just ignore that to understand how he responds to pressure is the very definition of cherry picking.
     
  24. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    8,423
    10,612
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I think that's the whole point though. He handles pressure a lot differently today than he did for six years in Miami. Why? How? Considering he handled pressure in Tenn. differently starting with his very first few games, that tells me that the pressure must have been the part that was different.
     
    resnor likes this.
  25. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It's the age old disagreement.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  26. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,687
    10,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Well.. if you take the belief by so many here (not me) that Tannehill himself hasn't changed at all, then he obviously isn't handling pressure differently (that would be contradictory to that belief). ALL the change would be in the nature of the pressure itself. So there's no argument for ignoring what he did in Miami from that point of view.

    Unless you think Tannehill is 100% a different QB with no similarity in how he responds to the exact same pressure situations as in Miami (i.e., if you transplanted him back in Miami you would find no similarity at all), then it's simply logically untenable to suggest one can ignore what he did in Miami to evaluate his response to pressure.

    I can't believe this is even being suggested. The ONLY way you can ignore past data points is if there is literally NO link from the past to the present. I hope this doesn't become a debate because it would be one of the stupidest ever, and not just on this forum, in which case I'm bowing out. There is NO question you have to include the Miami years to evaluate Tannehill as a QB. Any other suggestion is precisely what I said: cherry picking data.
     
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,489
    3,252
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That makes sense conceptually, but I have to say that if pay cuts for an elite QB result in an extraordinary 7 SB appearances and 5 SB wins in 17 years, the active ingredient remains the elite QB and not the pay cuts. Consider that pay cuts for lesser QBs would've very likely resulted in nothing of the sort.
     
  28. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    8,423
    10,612
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I'm not saying that at all- I'm saying your Miami and Tennessee data is incomplete because you're only looking at one of several factors- the QB. Neither QB rating or QBR tells the full story here, nor does any other metric out there except maybe "time to pressure". But even there, what does that really mean? There's a big difference between an edge rusher pushing the tackle back versus a linebacker coming through the A-gap untouched. One is avoidable by scrambling/stepping up...the other often leads to a QB being carried off on a stretcher.

    It does no justice to this conversation to say, "all QB's are pressured" or that "all pressure is the same." That's an outright lie that any athlete at any level can attest to. I mean, the dumbest seven year old backup pee-wee QB in the nation can tell you that's not true.

    Additionally, I'm not saying RT hasn't evolved/progressed in a different offense...he clearly has. But to me, the real question is whether or not he could have made that progression five years ago if the pressure he faced had changed. He clearly had elite arm strength and elite ball placement very early on, and I'd also argue that he was close to elite at processing the pre-snap reads. So the good stuff we're seeing from him, we've always seen that in spurts. It's the lack of the bad stuff that's suddenly missing and that's letting him play to his true potential.
     
  29. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,687
    10,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The question isn't whether statistics are incomplete. That's obvious. The question is whether there is SOME information in the Miami statistics that tells you how he responds to pressure, and clearly there is. So despite pressure statistics not being great stats there is NO justification for ignoring the Miami data when it clearly tells you how Tannehill responded to pressure. That's true even if the pressure was different. It's still telling you how he responds to pressure.

    This is in principle the same argument for why you don't ignore ANY statistics from the past. Passer rating is incomplete. Are you now suggesting we can just ignore all the Miami data to see how good Tannehill is as a QB? Logically, you can use the same argument you and Irishman and others apparently are making for pressure stats to argue that too.

    No. Can't ignore the past when it affects the present. That's true with all stats (all stats are incomplete).
     
  30. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,642
    2,367
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    It should change what you are investigating. You should change from your QB focus to a look at the supporting cast and the situation in which the pressure happened.

    To illustrate my point, let's assume that a QB has difficulty handling pressure when it is generated from four or fewer rushers. Let's further assume that when a defense blitzes to generate pressure, he handles it well.

    QB on Team A:

    100 total pressures
    80 from 4 or fewer rushers. with a passer rating of 85 on those plays
    20 when the defense blitzes, with a passer rating of 110 on those plays.

    Same QB on Team B:

    100 total pressures
    20 from 4 or fewer rushers. with a passer rating of 85 on those plays
    80 when the defense blitzes, with a passer rating of 110 on those plays.

    The QB is reacting to pressure IDENTICALLY.

    Furthermore, if the situation of 80% pressure from 4 or fewer rushers is unusual, you ABSOLUTELY discount (if not totally ignore) the performance of that QB on team A.

    Let me give you another analogy. Pretend a QB suffered an inordinate number of drops in a season, resulting in a very low completion %. Would you continue to consider him an inaccurate QB even after validating the drops? Makes no sense, especially if he produced good completion % numbers in seasons where the drops are at normal levels.

    This very season, many (perhaps even you) want to caveat Tua's struggles because of the supporting cast, especially the receivers he was throwing to and the plays that were called. I agree that the situation should be considered in the evaluation for Tua AND TANNEHILL.
     
  31. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    8,423
    10,612
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I don't think you're getting what some here are trying to say. Let me try to make up a quick example.

    An average fox can run 18 miles per hour. Only, one fox was spotted moving up to 39.7 MPH. Why?

    With nothing else to go on, maybe you'd say that the fox clearly has great genetics and he's a superior runner compared to his fellow foxes. Nothing else can explain such a masterful feat of speed. But that's because you don't have any context.

    Once I tell you that the fast fox was running downhill, with a mountain loin chasing him....then it's a completely different story. That fox isn't special at all, he's just following instincts and letting adrenaline kick in to survive.

    But how do we know that? Maybe the fox is special after all and is the fastest fox in the world. Maybe he was just jogging because he knew that mountain lion didn't have a chance catching him.

    Then I tell you, "Oh, by the way...that mountain was covered in solid ice. And the fox wasn't running...he fell down and he was sliding on his back."

    The lesson here is that the stats do not tell the story.....the story tells the story. Stats can be 100% worthless if they're used to create context that never existed in the first place. To verify, look at the darn story!
     
  32. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,687
    10,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yes this I agree with, but you might not be able to investigate it with available stats.

    Only IF you can show that, but you can't. For that you'd need a much better pressure stat which we don't have. My argument is based only on what we have.

    Whose story do you believe? Point is, IF you're going to use stats you don't cherry pick. There's no valid argument for cherry picking just because a stat is incomplete. All you can say is that stat isn't worth that much, but you NEVER cherry pick.
     
  33. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,642
    2,367
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we look at film......... just like every college and pro team has ever done and continues to do.

    Your argument is admittedly flawed, and now woefully outdated, and yet you stick to it. I wonder why that is.......
     
  34. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,687
    10,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    My argument is not flawed. My argument is that stats being incomplete is no justification for cherry picking.

    As to why I base my conclusions on stats when you have large sample size even if there may be compelling reasons to accept a different narrative, I already explained that long ago: it's a reproducible method that tends to work a lot better over the longer term than just going with what you think is right at the moment.
     
  35. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    8,423
    10,612
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    The story is the actual film. It's easy to debate what could be different, but it's even easier to actually look and see what's different.

    For instance, a few years ago everyone loved Jay Ajayi. Yet I said in week 1 that he missed several holes in the B/C gap and bounced outside instead...often running face-first into a linebacker. Then he did it again in weeks 2-3. He had a big game in one of those, but he consistently got tackled at the LOS as well for not following his blocks.

    A few weeks later, we traded him and people went nuts, calling Gase and the front office morons for now knowing what they had. And Ajayi went on to get a Super Bowl ring with Philly, seemingly to validate people's opinions of him. Yet the following year, Philly cut him and he hasn't made a roster since....simply because he wouldn't listen to coaches and run plays as designed.

    I'm not saying Ajayi wasn't mega talented- but I could see he wasn't a team player months or even years before others here. That's because I paid attention to the little stuff and saw the actual story behind the story with my own eyes.

    How does that apply to this discussion? It's EVERYTHING! While some may look at stats to say, "RT was sacked x times in 2018 and y times in 2020," that's a generic, entirely dumbed-down look at very specific events. Numbers just can't trump actual details when you're talking about performance.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  36. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,642
    2,367
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Want proof that it is woefully outdated?

    He didn't just put up better numbers under pressure in Tenn, he was THE BEST IN THE LEAGUE. If this didn't change what you thought you knew about Tannehill, then you are just being obstinate.

    upload_2021-1-13_13-35-36.png
     
    Irishman likes this.
  37. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    501
    492
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    Players can grow and change.

    Tannehill played well for Gase the 1st year after he learned the system.
    Tannehill was out for over 2 years after that.
    Tannehills time before Gase can be ignored, since he showed some dramatic improvement under Gase, seen in the last 5 or so game he played prior to his injury.

    Your position is like saying:
    A boy is 4 feet tall in grade school
    A boy is 5 feet tall in Junior High
    A boy is 6 feet tall as an adult

    Therefore the boy is typically 5 feet tall

    Some improvements in performance are more or less permanent.

    Therefore Tannehills time before he showed some significant improvement can be ignored.
     
  38. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,687
    10,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There is no such thing as "the story is the actual film". People interpret film to create a story and they disagree more often than not. Even the pros don't agree. You see so many different assessments by the people tasked with doing this professionally, especially in player evaluation, but also in who is more important for what, etc.

    No.. you can't just say "look at the film" and act like that means your viewpoint is correct lol. Too many disagreements.
     
    mooseguts and The Guy like this.
  39. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,642
    2,367
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    We can agree to disagree on that one.

    Here is an interesting article that references more complete stats. I do not have a subscription to the site but I found the conclusion at the end of the article interesting.

    https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.c...ata-patrick-mahomes-josh-allen-lamar-jackson/

    upload_2021-1-13_13-50-34.png

    Say this slowly with me ------ PRESSURE THAT COMES FROM OFFENSIVE LINE FAILINGS LEADS TO MUCH WORSE OUTCOMES THAN PRESSURE THAT THE QUARTERBACK HAS SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR.

    Combine this with the WIDELY REPORTED FAILINGS of the Dolphins offensive lines during most of the Tannehill era and this should cause you to question your interpretation of the data.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2021
  40. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,687
    10,228
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Most here are arguing it's the nature of the pressure that changed, not Tannehill himself. I also agree that's the major reason, with less of the difference in pressure stats being due to improvement in Tannehill himself. And if it's mostly the environment, then it is absolutely necessary to include the Miami stats.

    Your argument would hold if it's NOT the environment but it's the player that changed. Again, ONLY if the player is 100% different (or close to it let's say) can you ignore the past. That's an assumption of yours with no evidence, and to apply that to statistical analysis the evidence would have to come from a source independent of the pressure stats themselves. There is no such evidence. So no you can't ignore the Miami data from a pure stats point of view.
     
    Irishman likes this.

Share This Page