Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other NFL' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.
And I don't need stats to predict that the Guy will not respond to your post.
I gave benefit of the doubt too...many moons ago...but when one criteria gets met, the criteria shifts. The only way a player could beat that transient standard would be the hands-down GOAT, or top 5 all-time'ish...and that's about as sustainable as winning the lottery.
Much was made about his passer rating years ago, on this very board, from some of the exact same people. It was predicated that because he came in around 85'ish in rating for a couple years, that it was nearly impossible he'd ever have an stellar rating. Crushed. The same with the arguments about he can't play in December, can't will a team back in the 4th quarter, etc. He can't string together multiple 100+ games, and on and on. Everything has been met, with the exception of winning a Super Bowl.
One of the main arguments his supporters have made over the years, is you put him on a team with at least decent to good talent and OL, he'd do very well. Proven. Even the game Henry didn't play, Tannehill played very well. I'd put the Titans at overall "pretty good," Their defense is missing some of it's most crucial players in the secondary, so they're not world-beaters at the moment either...they dropped off pretty hard once those injuries hit, not to mention Cam Wake was basically their only edge QB pressure. Tannehill never had the luxury of coming up in a system with elite D and rushing like some QBs have, so pretty good will just have to do, and he hasn't disappointed.
Now the argument is can he keep it going in the future. No way of knowing, but what is there to show that he won't, is my point. Nothing is constant 100% of the time. Will he have a bad game against the Ratbirds? Will his rating drop under 100 next year? I haven't the foggiest, neither does ANYBODY ELSE, but I have every faith that if he's in at least the same situation he is now, it won't. His year was consistent. And the Ravens, at home, in the divisional round, may not be the most normal playoff situation...that team is the single best team, overall, I've seen in many years...easily top 3 since I've been watching football. Marino beat the '85 Bears, in the regular season, but couldn't beat the Niners in the Super Bowl, showing a 66 passer rating...does that mean he's a post-season scrub?
I mean, it could have been argued that Marino doesn't have what it takes to win a Super Bowl, based on that one game, 'cuz he couldn't do it on the biggest stage...the fact he never did is nothing to do with him as a QB, and doesn't detract from his level as a QB.
You can't come at me with, "he'll never do this," and when he does, shift it to, "ya, but he'll never do this." Zero credibility.
Fair enough, but counter point:
It takes two sides to argue. So what if he doesnt like Tannehill? We all kind of keep feeding into it by replying to someone we "know" isnt having a fair discussion.
So even if I take everything people say about him at face value I cant say hes entirely to blame.
I'm still not sold on Jackson personally. I realize that's a very controversial statement, but for that reason I do recognize his desire to see sustained success from Tannehill before changing his mind.
If Tannehill plays lights out next year he wont be able to deny it. At the same time, if he fails I'm just not going to be set up for the big "I told you so" because on some level I recognize that what he is saying, most of the time, is based off logic.
Its logic I dont share, but I do see his angle.
Good...I hope he doesn't respond to any of my posts....goes in one eye and out the other anyway.
We wouldn't be on page 85 if that were true. Sadly, more two-faced, passive aggressive responses are coming for at least the next 13 years...I figure that's for the 5-6 years Tannehill continues to play and about 7 years after his retirement.
It comes down to whether you are debating honestly and he is not. Never has. My biggest issue is that he refuses to address what happens on the field. You could have a game with 50 dropped passes. He would write "Tannehill went 0 for 50"........ On the other hand if Tannehill goes 50 for 50, he'd scour the Internet for some stat that diminished the accomplishment. At a minimum, he'd make the bold statement that "it isn't sustainable".
Search your feelings Luke... you know this to be true.....
He does not respond to specific on the field plays or performances.
I'm not either...long-term. He's a bucket of lightening this year though...this Ravens team is disgusting. Favored by 10 opening line...and I think that was being a little too conservative.
I've also seem him acknowledge other peoples good posts and agree to disagree though at times.
DJ is a well respected poster here and he hasn't believed in Tannehill. He basically also predicted in the playoffs Tannehill would falter against good defense, but since he hasn't been vocal about it here he doesnt get as much crap about it.
Btw I'm not saying anyone give DJ crap about it. Hes a good dude. I'm just saying some people do legitimately doubt Tannehill even after his great year.
I just want to see what he can do against tighter passing windows if teams are able to shut his legs down. That or see him prove next year that teams CANT shut his legs down.
Right now it looks like his receivers are always pretty wide open due to the scheme. Obviously not always so dont take that literal anyone and show me a tight pass lol
My reason, illogical it may be, is that I don't want this site to have people saying erroneous things, and no one contradicts it, and people start to believe what he's saying. I know it doesn't matter...but it's the principle of it all. Lol
I challenge anybody to prove where he faltered against the Pats...aside from 2 bad plays, which I don't think is an abnormally high % of bad plays out of 57. He was great outside those 2 plays, if you watch the game and pay attention w/o the stat line in your face. Even threw a ball away to avoid a sack...something he RARELY does...and it was the right decision.
How many bad plays did the GOAT have?
I think I just give him the benefit because hes never been outright rude to me in replying, even times I was wrong.
His mind may be set, he may be bias, he may hate Tannehill but he does it in a civil way and will go back and forth all day with us if we want.
I honestly think the site would be pretty boring if we all agreed. "Yes" "I concur" "Indeed" lol
No I agree...I've seen tons of clips of broken coverage, dudes running wide open, having to turn around and come back to catch the ball, and defenders STILL not close. They definitely feast there.
But there's also that 13 and 12 stuff they run. With the attention you HAVE to give him and their RB, it's almost child's play. I don't think any defense has a prayer when they're clicking.
I'm not saying he had the worst game ever.
His stat line was unimpressive, but there are factors behind that like the weather, gameplan, defense and situation generally.
I dont have a problem with anyone saying he didnt play great, more using the one game as a point against him.
He did make the plays he had to though to help win the game, even if the day could have been better I'll take a sloppy win over a pretty loss any day.
I have no issue with disagreement. I have a massive issue with just constantly rotating arguments to try to prove your point, instead of actually having a discussion. Constantly reinterpreting stats to fit your viewpoint is tiresome.
It is, but I at least think he genuinely believes it.
I dont think hes a troll that gets sick kicks out of digging through stats to mislead people, wasting his time lol that would be pretty sad right? I'd like to believe he has better things to do with his brain in life.
He puts effort into his argument at the very least.
Ya those two plays hurt his overall performance for sure. I just really dislike the lazy analysis per the stat line, when there were countless factors playing into it, some of which you mentioned above.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe he argues in good faith.
Based on statistics it is fair to say
- Tannehill’s 2019 season may be a flash in the pan, and we should wait to see if he can continue at a similar level in 2020 before saying his career has turned the corner.
- Tannehill and Brady had similar passing efficiency in the WC round, and both QBs had statistically poor games.
- Tannehill’s rushing contribution was much more positive than Brady’s.
what I do not think is fair to say based on statistics.
- Tannehill performs poorly in high pressure situations. For 2 reasons (1) getting a robust and clear definition that most people can agree on of what is or isn’t “high pressure” that generates sufficient data to be reliable has yet to be achieved and (2) How do you separate bad playcalling/offense design from QB issues? Lazor abandoned the run and let everyone know Tannehill couldn’t audible, Gase kept calling plays that relied on throwing short of the sticks on 3rd down and relying on YAC to get the 1sr down.
what statistics can’t tell you
- Whether the process of a QB to reach their outcome was good or bad. That involves reviewing the tape to look at drops, accuracy of passes, whether the QB made good or bad decisions. In big enough samples this should even out, but not in single games.
It just disproves is assertion that you can describe a single game based on stats alone. It is an absurd assertion.
Well, much like his view Tannehill we will have to see what he does next year LOL
If Tanny plays lights out and hes still denying it I'll definitely agree with you. On the other hand if he admits he was wrong (if he is) maybe others will agree with me a tiny bit more than they do now.
I could be 100% wrong after all. Wouldnt be he first time in my life or anyone elses really.
Though when I've pressed him before hes never said Tannehill will fail. Hes only said hes not sure its sustainable going forward based off his past.
Specific example of this - Tannehill hasn't shown he can perform in clutch situations. 1968 brought up the KC game. I brought up the 4th quarter performance and the fact that they were already 2-4 with the season slipping away when he was thrown into the starting lineup.
Same thing with playing against better pass defenses. You have to willfully ignore games to make that claim.
I agree with you to a point, but several of us argued for 7 years that Tannehill's performance in Miami was diminished because of the supporting cast and coaching. We were told by these very same people that there was no statistical evidence to show this to be true. We argued look at the tape. They argued, look at the stats.
In the first opportunity with a better supporting cast and coaching, Tannehill not only plays better but is the most efficient QB in the league. Suddenly the supporting cast is the issue and is somehow creating falsely efficient performances by the passing game......
They have had to completely change their supporting argument from "it is all about the QB" to "it is all about the supporting cast", overnight. We have said it is both ALL ALONG.
Personally I dont think it's all the QB or all the supporting cast.
I think every QB probably has a "floor" level of play even with bad talent around them. It's probably not an elite level in most cases but in others it could be. Guys like Peyton for example. Even in the worst conditions I cant see him failing to perform at a high level in his prime.
That said, once you have a QB with a decent "floor" level of play, you still need to build the house, the offense in this case, around their talent to maximize their play.
Peyton and Brady (like him or not is irrelevant here) threw the same routes for over a decade effectively. They recognized what they were good at and had their teams built those capabilities.
In other words, if you find a QB with positive traits and can field a team around him that supports his strengths and minimizes his weakness you will successful.
Probably more successful than an incredibly talented QB on a bad team or a bad QB on an incredible team.
And I think a portion of this year's performance is because the OC gets Tannehill...not the OC gets to try and make Tannehill his vision of what some other QB is.
And while it's true one year is not a 100% predictor of following years (applies to ALL QBs throughout history...not just Tannehill, its never the same guy at the top year after year), his accuracy and ball placement this year has been ridiculous. That's the #1 thing that tells me he'll continue to do very well. Add to that his decisiveness and actually audibling at a high success level, I don't see what's not sustainable.
Yeah, I don't need to see Tannehill do it for anymore time. The fact is, we were told that Tannehill could not play at that level. He's at best a backup QB. The dolphins jettisoning Tannehill was used as proof of him being nothing better than a backup. Then he turns around the Titans season, makes their run game better, doubles their per game point totals, leads the league in the most important stats, makes the playoffs, and advances out of the Wildcard round. Tannehill has shown that he is certainly better than every backup in the league, and has shown the ability to perform at a better level than pretty much every other starting QB in the league. He didn't do that with an elite oline, what some people here argued he needed, he didn't do it with all pro receivers, something that some people on here argued he needed. I understand no one said "elite," but they said he needed great players around him. Myself, Fin D, PhinFan, and others, argued he needed at least average players around him, which he didn't have in Miami. Tennessee's oline isn't great, they're receivers aren't all pros (yet), and his defense isn't great. But yet here he is, in the second round of the playoffs.
I think this is something fans are guilty of too.
We want to be like team X or Y, have a QB like a certain player.
Whoever we end up with is going to be a unique individual with strengths and weaknesses for example.
So what if Tannehill does better with a strong running game? Some people see that as a weakness.
A running game is valuable on it's own. Running back is probably the most undervalued position in the league. If you can build a strong line you can churn out consistent 1000+ yard rushing seasons for a back and keep drafting to replace them cheaply until you find another stud like Henry when hes done.
If that run game is what it takes for your QB to maximize his success, what is wrong with building that way? It's not flashy but I'd call it maximizing your talent!
What would you say to someone who claimed weather doesn't matter and he didn't make enough plays needed to win the game and that the game plan of running the ball against 2 high safeties is an indication of lack of trust in the QB?
To be fair, what I saw him say was that the weather did have an impact but not enough, in his opinion, to turn it from a bad to good game. If this is his official opinion I'd disagree but I dont think its outlandish.
The second one I didnt see him say but I'll take your word he did if you're bringing it up since you seem like you wouldn't be petty and lie about that - I'd tell that person they probably dont entirely understand footballs intricacies if they are being genuine. If they are lying I think that's a really dumb angle to take honestly because there are better trees to bark up.
Theres an old strategy everyone seems to agree with but doesnt take seriously anymore. The idea that we are going to keep running these same few plays until you can stop them. If something is successful you stick to it. In that game they were run plays.
Couldn't agree more. The best college QB I've ever seen ended up playing in the NBA because no NFL club knew what to do with to do with him.
He wrote this as his first post after the game ended:
Tannehill still hasn't "won" in the playoffs. He had a passer rating of 61 today. Teams have lost 22 of the 33 playoff games (67%) since 2004 in which they had a passer rating between 55 and 67.
So his performance gave his team more of a chance of losing than of winning. Obviously the rest of his team compensated today, however.
Then this when people tried to point out the key plays made by Tannehill late:
The point I responded to was that Tannehill won in the playoffs. That isn't altogether true. His performance today would result in 67 losses in every 100 games in the playoffs.
So, even though he won, he didn't really win..... He spent multiple posts trying to argue that Tannehill didn't contribute to the win.
Finally he wrote this:
Once again, I don't think he helped them win.
Convinced he's incorrect in his assessment of the game, very much so.
I cant say any of those stats themselves are wrong. Just not applied correctly to the situation at all.
Those of you who bad mouth Tannehill how would you feel if Belichik brings him to New England next year to replace Brady
“Flash in the pan” with a pocket progression qb?
I think it’s fair to say the expectation for tannehill going forward should be a 100 plus rating. But I do think it’s important they maintain those offensive tackles.
and if I’m ryan I’d want the titans to sign Henry back. Nothing wrong with having some actual plus grade play around the qb. Foreign concept in Miami I know
So, which do you believe is true? - I'd tell that person they probably dont entirely understand footballs intricacies if they are being genuine.
Either way, they are not worth debating, and, IMO, aren't interested in debating football, either because they don't understand or aren't being genuine......
Sadly, I've expected that for a couple of years now. Tannehill would thrive in New England and I really hope that doesn't happen...at least his current situation makes that less likely than a year prior.
I would HATE IT.