Ryan Tannehill

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

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.

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.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

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.

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!

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

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.

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?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

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.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

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.

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.

"smahtaz wrote:

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.

Wait, who?

Charlie Ward?

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

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.

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 yet?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

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 yet?

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

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

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.

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......

"adamprez2003 wrote:

Those of you who bad mouth Tannehill how would you feel if Belichik brings him to New England next year to replace Brady

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.

"adamprez2003 wrote:

Those of you who bad mouth Tannehill how would you feel if Belichik brings him to New England next year to replace Brady

I would HATE IT.

"KeyFin wrote:

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 mean, I'd hate it because the Patriots would continue to dominate. But I'd get some evil pleasure from watching Tannehill dominate in the AFC East.

"adamprez2003 wrote:

Those of you who bad mouth Tannehill how would you feel if Belichik brings him to New England next year to replace Brady

I’d be good with it. It would be a good fit for tannehills game and who knows maybe beli could take the ceiling even higher. There’s a lot of similarities in Brady and tannehill in terms of style of offense and fit. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not.

but if I’m Ryan before I sign I’d be trying to coax gronk out of retirement so I have a stud in line tight end that can also still make plays in tbe passing game: that dude in his prime gave dcs nightmares. I don’t know if people understand how much of a mismatch Gronk was. How much he could dictate to the opposition gameplan wise. He could handle des as a blocker and was murder in the run game and then he’d hulk smash dbs like kindle wood as a ball carrier after the catch. Win flex win split win from in line.

An assassin. There was years there where he was absolutely a top 5 league wide mvp

nobody talked about the pats lack of a difference maker on the boundary when that guy was there. They didn’t need it

People totally ignore Brady's stat difference with and without Gronk. I've been telling my pats fan friends all year is the biggest difference is no Gronk.

"resnor wrote:

People totally ignore Brady's stat difference with and without Gronk. I've been telling my pats fan friends all year is the biggest difference is no Gronk.

absolutely. Last year he looked like attrition was catching up witb him somewhat but man was that guy the goods.

I never seen a tight end press a de with one arm extended and have the other free and just vapor lock him.

he did that stuff to ziggy ansah in ansahs prime and I was like this kids absurd. He can eliminate guys with one arm lol

This year teams just doubled Edelman situationally and Brady either stayed on him too long or didn’t trust anyone else to make a play/didn’t have a win option

"Mcduffie81 wrote:

He doesn’t have to be high on Tannehill. But the lengths he goes to, to dispute how good Tannehill has been is borderline trolling.

Which side of that border is he on?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

You sure went out on a limb to predict that Tannehill wouldn't outperform two of the best QBs in the league, on the road, in the playoffs.... without help from his defense...... you should do this for a living.

Maybe he does. Possibly as a prediction analysis for election results for CNN.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

I give TheGuy the benefit of the doubt. I dont think hes malicious necessarily against Tannehill.

I dont think its absurd to question whether a QB can keep it up. There are QB I feel that way about honestly in the league, so I get it.

I get more frustrated with using a single game to determine the value of a player. I dont think its unique to him though, a lot of people judge a college QB on his Bowl game for example when it's just one of many games. That isnt fair to me.

Are you saying a lot of posters determine their judgments based on a bowl? Isn't that similar to reading tea leaves, but using turds?

"Irishman wrote:

Are you saying a lot of posters determine their judgments based on a bowl? Isn't that similar to reading tea leaves, but using turds?

I dont think it's a lot I guess, but I've definitely seen comments like Herbert or Hurts will fail because look at their Bowl game.

They may fail but it wont be because of something we see in that one game alone. There is an entire season plus of tape of both.

"Pauly wrote:

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.

I agree with all of the above.

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.

With regard to the highlighted portion above, there is a sound way of determining the win probability added (or subtracted) associated with a play. Clutch situations can be defined as ones in which plays have the ability to change win probability by comparatively large amounts. For example, Tannehill's pass to Firsker on 3rd and 8 the other night, which put the nail in New England's coffin, was associated with a jump in win probability from 67.1% to 75.4%. That's quite a jump, and people intuitively remarked about it in this thread for that reason. That was a clutch play.

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.

This is true, but I'd also say that the degree to which that further exploration is necessary is a function of the quarterback's statistical performance. If a quarterback performs statistically either extremely well or extremely poorly in a single game, it becomes less likely that surrounding factors (i.e., drops, etc.) are responsible for the bulk of that kind of performance.

In other words, a quarterback who posts a passer rating of let's say 55 in a game was probably not drops or other surrounding factors away from having a good game, or even an average game. The same can be said for a quarterback who posts a passer rating of let's say 135 -- he probably wasn't the beneficiary of surrounding factors in terms of the bulk of his performance.