Where does Tannehill rank among quarterbacks today?

I get what you're saying, DJ, but I'm just pointing out, the stats don't lie. They are playing at pretty much the same level, regardless of what your eyes are telling you. We'll see what Tannehill looks like this year with a receving corp that actually fits Tannehill.

"djphinfan wrote:

what!!! I don't disagree with Rafs very much at all, but I vehemently disagree with both of you on this, I've seen him make plays that ryan has yet to make, let alone on the road, in playoff conditions, I believe the majority of the time, unless you have an all time great at something, it takes individual playmaking ability by the qb to sustain and win a championship at this level, Have I seen Ryan makes some very good throws, yes, have I seen him make critical 3rd down conversions late in games when pressure breaks down, not nearly enough, have I seen it with flacco, absolutely consistent at it..Deeks, jukes, pump fakes, sidestepping, anticipation of pressure, quick movements, last second arm angle changes, pure escapability...bottom line.. playmaking ability...I certainly don't look at it as a diss to our qb when i have Flacco as a very good qb and top 8 qb..

Flacco is not consistent at it. That's why despite making some big plays his overall numbers are lower. If he made just big plays all the time then his numbers would be higher. They're not b/c they're balanced out by the times he's much worse. That's kind of a mathematical requirement that people so enamored with the big plays are ignoring. You get caught up on escapability and play-making so much that you don't see how important the other 99% of the plays are. That's why you get all hot and bothered by a Johnny Manziel and don't notice that he's a bad QB.

"resnor wrote:

I get what you're saying, DJ, but I'm just pointing out, the stats don't lie. They are playing at pretty much the same level, regardless of what your eyes are telling you. We'll see what Tannehill looks like this year with a receving corp that actually fits Tannehill.

Exactly! The stats show that Flacco after 7 years in the league is playing at the same level as Tannehill after only 3 years even though every body understood that Tannehill was coming in more raw than most. And that's with a far better supporting cast and a far better organization behind Flacco. And if you claim that Flacco is making so many more plays then he also has to be playing at a far lower level enough of the time to balance those numbers out. If you don't see that then you can't trust your eyes.

"rafael wrote:

Exactly! The stats show that Flacco after 7 years in the league is playing at the same level as Tannehill after only 3 years even though every body understood that Tannehill was coming in more raw than most. And that's with a far better supporting cast and a far better organization behind Flacco. And if you claim that Flacco is making so many more plays then he also has to be playing at a far lower level enough of the time to balance those numbers out. If you don't see that then you can't trust your eyes.

Going into last year, my goal/expectation for Tannehill was for him to play at a Flacco-like level, and he not only did that, but outplayed Flacco himself in the process. Now that he's achieved that, I think its very reasonable to think he can climb the ladder higher and into the next level, leaving Joe behind. Flacco is what he is, but RT17 is going up.

"rafael wrote:

Flacco is not consistent at it. That's why despite making some big plays his overall numbers are lower. If he made just big plays all the time then his numbers would be higher. They're not b/c they're balanced out by the times he's much worse. That's kind of a mathematical requirement that people so enamored with the big plays are ignoring. You get caught up on escapability and play-making so much that you don't see how important the other 99% of the plays are. That's why you get all hot and bothered by a Johnny Manziel and don't notice that he's a bad QB.

hes consistent when he wants to be, which come in timely fashion...rest of the time he's trying to figure out how to beat you..

"resnor wrote:

I get what you're saying, DJ, but I'm just pointing out, the stats don't lie. They are playing at pretty much the same level, regardless of what your eyes are telling you. We'll see what Tannehill looks like this year with a receving corp that actually fits Tannehill.

I expect ryans numbers to improve as well.

"djphinfan wrote:

hes consistent when he wants to be, which come in timely fashion...rest of the time he's trying to figure out how to beat you..

LOL

DJ, that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't a professional QB want to be consistent all the time?

"rafael wrote:

Exactly! The stats show that Flacco after 7 years in the league is playing at the same level as Tannehill after only 3 years even though every body understood that Tannehill was coming in more raw than most. And that's with a far better supporting cast and a far better organization behind Flacco. And if you claim that Flacco is making so many more plays then he also has to be playing at a far lower level enough of the time to balance those numbers out. If you don't see that then you can't trust your eyes.

my qb record has been pretty damn good..dual threat or pure pocket, me saying that I think manziel will succeed doesn't mean much at this point, evaluation is still in play..

I have Flacco above Ryan, I have Matt Ryan above Ryan...do another ranking order next year and it might be different.

"djphinfan wrote:

hes consistent when he wants to be, which come in timely fashion...rest of the time he's trying to figure out how to beat you..

IIRC, the Ravens switched OC right before the playoffs, right? Nobody had tape on what the Ravens were doing that post-season, did that have anything to do with it?

It just seems sensible they'd have a decent advantage in that aspect...Harbaugh sure looked like a genius when they did that.

"resnor wrote:

LOL

DJ, that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't a professional QB want to be consistent all the time?

sure, but sometimes qbs take chances even though they know their numbers will suffer.

"djphinfan wrote:

my qb record has been pretty damn good..dual threat or pure pocket, me saying that I think manziel will succeed doesn't mean much at this point, evaluation is still in play..

I have Flacco above Ryan, I have Matt Ryan above Ryan...do another ranking order next year and it might be different.

I'm not saying you're poor at QB evaluation. I'm saying that you're either over-emphasizing Flacco's play-making prowess or you're under-emphasizing his inconsistency. The numbers bear that out. If Flacco is making so many more plays than Tannehill and being just as consistent his numbers would be higher. The fact is that they're not. I do see Flacco make some big plays. More than Tannehill. And even though I believe long passes are largely dependent on WR adjustments and many other factors outside of QB skill, his numbers get the benefit. So if his overall numbers are still about the same as Tannehills then logically he has to have other plays that bring his numbers down.

"rafael wrote:

I'm not saying you're poor at QB evaluation. I'm saying that you're either over-emphasizing Flacco's play-making prowess or you're under-emphasizing his inconsistency. The numbers bear that out. If Flacco is making so many more plays than Tannehill and being just as consistent his numbers would be higher. The fact is that they're not. I do see Flacco make some big plays. More than Tannehill. And even though I believe long passes are largely dependent on WR adjustments and many other factors outside of QB skill, his numbers get the benefit. So if his overall numbers are still about the same as Tannehills then logically he has to have other plays that bring his numbers down.

so your telling me that you have ryan tannehill above joe flacco in a qb ranking? your just gonna take his postseason away from him?..being proven means nothing to you?

"djphinfan wrote:

so your telling me that you have ryan tannehill above joe flacco in a qb ranking? your just gonna take his postseason away from him?..being proven means nothing to you?

How he plays in the postseason does not equal "proven". How he plays overall, is what makes a player proven.

Just from a logic standpoint you are making post season performance more important than everything. If its that important, then you cannot compare Flacco to Tannehill since Tannehill hasn't been in the post season yet. And you cannot hold that against Tannehill, else you'd have to hold Flacco's regular season numbers against him.

I for one would rather have Tannehill > Flacco > Ryan.

I like to see how many "good" games a QB has in a season. Those are games thats QBs team should, and usually does, win. You can use other stats such as Y/A or ANY/a but in this case I'm using a passer rating of 88+ as the cutoff for what constitutes a good game. So here is the ranking based solely off this analysis for 2014:

Aaron Rodgers
14


Tony Romo
13


Ben Roethlisberger
11


Joe Flacco
11


Andrew Luck
11


Drew Brees
11


Tom Brady
11


Alex Smith
10


Russell Wilson
10


Phillip Rivers
9


Matt Ryan
9


Peyton Manning
9


Colin Kaepernick
9


Eli Manning
8


Andy Dalton
8


Kyle Orton
7


Jay Cutler
7


Ryan Tannehill
7


Matthew Stafford
6


Cam Newton
5


Geno smith
5

1. Flacco's postseason averages are very close to his regular season averages. This idea that Flacco is completely different in the playoffs stems from one season: 2012.

2. Flacco career average for past rating is 84.8. So what if one season he had 11 games over 88? He also ended last season with a lower overall rating average than Tannehill...so what does that tell you?

3. Last year Flacco had several games with a rating in the 40s. Tannehill never went below a 70.

"resnor wrote:

3. Last year Flacco had several games with a rating in the 40s. Tannehill never went below a 70.

That's one of my favorite things about Tannehill. Aside from a few games during his rookie season (including his very first game, when JJ Watt used something he saw on hard knocks to embarass the OL), he's rarely had any "bust" games, where his play sinks the team's chances. He's up, or sometimes just ok, but never in the gutter.

"Fin D wrote:

How he plays in the postseason does not equal "proven". How he plays overall, is what makes a player proven.

Just from a logic standpoint you are making post season performance more important than everything. If its that important, then you cannot compare Flacco to Tannehill since Tannehill hasn't been in the post season yet. And you cannot hold that against Tannehill, else you'd have to hold Flacco's regular season numbers against him.

how he has played in the postseason is part of his overall eval.. It's complete.i like knowing what I have when stakes and conditions are at their highest... If you wanna change the way you propose the ranking then I can see why folks would want their future to be with Ryan instead of flacco. But at this very time because of what we do know flacco comes first imo

"resnor wrote:

1. Flacco's postseason averages are very close to his regular season averages. This idea that Flacco is completely different in the playoffs stems from one season: 2012.

2. Flacco career average for past rating is 84.8. So what if one season he had 11 games over 88? He also ended last season with a lower overall rating average than Tannehill...so what does that tell you?

3. Last year Flacco had several games with a rating in the 40s. Tannehill never went below a 70.

I don't think that's telling the story right. Look at this link:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FlacJo00.htm

The passer ratings there are "combined" ratings, not averages of ratings across all games, so it's not the best stat, but the trend will be the similar.

This is what you see from 2008-2014 when comparing regular season to post-season "combined" passer ratings:

2008: reg = 80.3, post = 50.8
2009: reg = 88.9, post = 39.4
2010: reg = 93.6, post = 90
2011: reg = 80.9, post = 96.1
2012: reg = 87.7, post = 117.2
2013: reg = 73.1, missed post-season
2014: reg = 91, post = 100.7

So, the last three post-seasons, Flacco was way better in the playoffs than in the regular season. He just wasn't good in the post-season early in his career.

Right his combined average for the postseason, is right in line with his combined average for regular season...correct? Look, I'm not saying that Flacco is bad. One could argue that based on his last three postseasons, that the first couple were aberrations. However, then I would say, look at his regular season averages. I would also say, 2012 is a huge aberration, and really pumps up his postseason average.

"resnor wrote:

Right his combined average for the postseason, is right in line with his combined average for regular season...correct? Look, I'm not saying that Flacco is bad. One could argue that based on his last three postseasons, that the first couple were aberrations. However, then I would say, look at his regular season averages. I would also say, 2012 is a huge aberration, and really pumps up his postseason average.

I'm saying it's not just one year that is the reason people are saying he's better in the post-season.

"resnor wrote:

Right his combined average for the postseason, is right in line with his combined average for regular season...correct? Look, I'm not saying that Flacco is bad. One could argue that based on his last three postseasons, that the first couple were aberrations. However, then I would say, look at his regular season averages. I would also say, 2012 is a huge aberration, and really pumps up his postseason average.

what school of thought takes away one incredible post season run ( which constitutes 4 great postseason games) and chalks it up as an aberration... To me thats bogus, four great games in a row is not a 80 yard run boosting up a yards per carry average by a running back..

"djphinfan wrote:

what school of thought takes away one incredible post season run ( which constitutes 4 great postseason games) and chalks it up as an aberration... To me thats bogus, four great games in a row is not a 80 yard run boosting up a yards per carry average by a running back..

Anything can be considered an aberration if it occurred during a condition different than normal. So, if you saw one great post-season run vs. 10 bad ones, it could still be considered an aberration because it's possible that something was unique in that post-season (could be other players the QB played with, could be the mental state of the QB, etc..). So, it's not theoretically impossible to say an entire post-season run was an aberration.

But that's a moot point here because the composition of the team didn't drastically change and the QB performed well in years before and after that one great run. So in this case, it's really hard to argue it's an aberration.

I'm saying, that 2012 saw four games above a 100 rating for Flacco. That is not normal for him. He has had other postseason games above 100, but he's never done it for an entire postseason. His combined averages are still in line with his regular season combined averages. You want to tell me that his averages are wrong, but that his games above those averages are his normal.

Bear in mind, we're only discussing this to this length, in my case, because DJ is saying that he "hopes" Tannehill gets to Flacco's level, when they averages say he's already there. Flacco is being held up as a top 8 QB, whereas Tannehill is supposedly not there.

"cbrad wrote:

Anything can be considered an aberration if it occurred during a condition different than normal. So, if you saw one great post-season run vs. 10 bad ones, it could still be considered an aberration because it's possible that something was unique in that post-season (could be other players the QB played with, could be the mental state of the QB, etc..). So, it's not theoretically impossible to say an entire post-season run was an aberration.

But that's a moot point here because the composition of the team didn't drastically change and the QB performed well in years before and after that one great run. So in this case, it's really hard to argue it's an aberration.

Flacco performed well the year before and after? Really? Are we talking regular season or postseason? Because the year after he posted his worst statistical year in the regular season. And the year before was below his average (for rating).