I am a Tannehill defender. There. I said it. He is easily the best QB we have had since #13 and has even broken some of his records. IMO he can be great with a good supporting cast. But I see countless posts degrading him and comparing with lesser QBs (Kap???? Really????) Now I realize that some of this is just pure, blind hate and I dismiss those posts. But I thought I would point out things that people are saying and relate it to other QBs in the NFL. OK. The first point that people make is on third and long they just dump it off. But guess what?? I watch all the games every Sunday and it happens on 95% of the third downs in EVERY game. So it's not a Tannehill thing, it's a football thing. Think back to Thursday's game. Pats have 3rd and 16 on first drive and how deep did Brady throw it? About 10 feet. Maybe less. Difference is our defense can't tackle and they pick up the first down. When we dump it off like that, it's a stupid decision by Tannehill, when Brady does it, great play for a first down. Deep passes are exciting, but a very low percentage are completed. Our offense isn't built that way. But this Madden generation loves the deep ball. Point 2. YAC. Last year we had none. This year we have more. But when Joe Montana would throw a 5 yard slant to Rice and he took it 60 yards for the score, it was a great play. When Tannehill threw it 17 yards to Juice, it was a lucky play and he was bailed out by Juice. I see PLENTY of short passes turned into long plays every week. It's a weakness when Tannehill does it, and a great play when Rodgers does it. Point 3. Wins are NOT solely on the QB. If that were the case Dan Marino would have 7 or 8 rings. It's a team effort. When the defense can't stop JACKSONVILLE, or BUFFALO. Who's fault is it? Well, evidently it's on the QB, every time. But I see other teams lose with lesser QBs and you don't hear anybody crying. Point 4. You want to complain about the QB but have NO other ideas. So what good does it do? Like him or not he is our QB and he is better than most. Certainly better than Moore. So if you must complain, incessantly, offer up a solution. Otherwise you are just whining. Watch the other games once. It really will open your eyes.
What you saw Thursday was a very skilled head coach who knows Tannehill's limitations and exploited them to the tune of a blowout. It would've been different had the game been close, but the margin of victory for the Patriots, and the Dolphins' ineptitude on offense, really suggests the Dolphins have a major weakness at QB. Essentially the Dolphins can compete against lesser teams, but when they face good head coaches who have very good quarterbacks of their own, they're overmatched.
I didn't compare him to Kaep in his throwing ability. I said he's not an athlete like him or a monster like Newton or elusive like Wilson. I said he's a poor man's Luck. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nice read. No where did you say elite, no where did you say no weaknesses. . Just common sense football. I noticed you said supporter instead of lover.. That's the way I look at it also. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like the effort, but, I'm afraid to say, it will do no good. These things have been explained for three seasons, with no success, as you can see with the stuff said in different threads.
The only reason these people who post this stuff is because their posts are given energy. Do like most do to me and ignore their posts. If no one listens their opinions become mute. Tannehill is a servicable QB playing in a hybrid West Coast offense that 70 % of the rest of the league plays in. The dink and dunks as some refer to them as are the short "Roger Craig" type passes that are designed to get backs like Jarvis out into space. I will bet on Landry making the defender miss the tackle 85% of the time. That is a no brainer if instead of running the ball for 2 or 3 you can get 5 or 6. Especially when you have a line like we got. I believe it is the main reason they did very little about the line this year because they thought we could win with the short high percentage passes. there definitely in this fan base exists a double standard when it comes to QB play.
This misrepresentation seriously needs to go. I don't recall seeing anyone post wins are solely on the QB. Tannehill defenders often go to this strawman when someone says the QB is partially responsible for the final outcome (which should be obvious).
Dude, it's used all the time. Like this: Poster 1: Tannehill sucks, he doesn't put the team on his back like Luck. Poster 2: Luck is struggling this year. Poster 1: Andrew Luck took his team to the playoffs and AFC Championship game. Now, tell me that isn't about wins. And there are many more examples.
Yes.. but that doesn't mean one should misrepresent the other side's argument does it? Just admit the QB is partially responsible for the win/loss record in such a debate but point out it's arguable the defense as a whole is probably on average more responsible. Not difficult to do at all, regardless of where the win/loss argument came from.
No, you're wrong it happens all the time. People on these boards are very frequently citing team record as a QB stat. This literally just happened:
No one but no one has EVER said the QB has no impact on winning and losing. NO ONE. You are chastising us because you believe we're misrepresenting other's arguments when that is exactly what you are doing.
No, citing the record does not imply that ALL the responsibility for the record is on the QB. They're just (correctly) pointing out that win/loss matters in the evaluation of any person who has influence on the win/loss record. That doesn't mean that they're subjectively weighting the degree to which the QB influences the record correctly (whatever "correct" really is), and maybe you can glean that from other statements they make, but I do not recall anyone explicitly stating or logically implying that the QB is completely responsible for the win/loss record.
The OP did.. in the post I quoted. And many times I hear this "Wins are a QB stat" implying that wins are solely on the QB. Yes, it has happened a lot.
lol, ok. Then since you're such a stickler for what people say and don't say....please quote where anyone has said the QB has no impact on winning and losing like you implied above.
I'm still waiting for this magical list of under-appreciated QB's who's career starting record is near .500 or worse. At any rate, my opinion of Tannehill has always been he's a tough SOB (probably elite in that one regard) who can throw some absolute lasers to the short-intermediate areas of the field (particularly comebacks and curls) ..... he'll also flash some amazing athleticism from time to time and generally speaking he doesn't ever puke all over himself out there so I don't get nervous watching him. But that's where it begins and ends. I don't see the nuances of the game's better QB's. I don't see the "cerebral" elements of them either. He's a game manager who every now and then can flash something to keep people hoping that one day there could be more. In lieu of the previous QB's we've had since Marino, that is what keeps the die-hards clinging to him. I don't fall for singular plays though ...... I pay specific attention to the overall body of work, his affect on the players around him, and how he performs in big spots. If we had a consistent power running game and a play-action style offense, I think he could perform a little better. This west-coast finesse stuff that highly relies on the QB is not going to get us anywhere anytime soon.
Thank you! While I don't agree with all you wrote, I can agree with most of it. I'm not trying to be condescending when I say that is the best post I have ever seen by you...thank you . While you might not care about my opinion, I thought you should know. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think my opinion of him gets misconstrued because I tend to hold the position to a higher standard than some others.
Never heard that argument either. But it's irrelevant to the argument I made. Incorrectly implying the QB is fully responsible isn't the same thing as saying the QB has no responsibility.
When comparing different QBs, and how people perceive them, to Tannehill, and the argument about getting to the playoffs, or how far said QB had gone in the playoffs, is used, it IS attributing wins and success solely to the QB. None of us have ever said that the QB doesn't play a part. We've argued that other QBs get more help from other parts than Tannehill does. And that is accurate.
No I didn't. I said one should "just admit the QB is partially responsible". That doesn't imply resnor or anyone else actually thinks the QB is not at all responsible. It means he should just acknowledge something that I'm pretty sure he believes is true anyway.
Of course the QB bears SOME responsibility, about 10%. He didn't let Denver score, or Green Bay score or Carolina score or.... All of those games he gave us the lead late and the defense crapped the bed. 10%. Tops.
Yeah that's within the range of what's realistic. The only statistical approach I can (mostly) justify for estimating the degree to which the QB is responsible takes the correlation between Y/A and wins, and computes the "variance explained" from Y/A. That gets you to 18.5%, but of course Y/A depends on QB and WR not just QB. So I think anywhere from 10-20% can be realistic.. anything above that I'd be hesitant to accept too.
I'll even split the difference and say 15%. The line has been horrible. The WRs are average. That's all I am willing to put on Tannehill. He is not put in a situation to succeed. And THAT is on the GM and coaches.
Well we've given him 3.5 years to show that he's capable of being great...what's another 3? Lol. Don't be surprised if we continue to hover in mediocrity. How much more evidence do you need? Tannehill is who he is at this point. An accurate, conservative game manager who isn't capable of winning with deficiencies around him. I wouldn't call him a franchise qb, personally. You can win a Super Bowl with him with all the right pieces in place, but he's not a guy who can take any decent roster and make it a consistent contender. Go back to his senior year at A+M and you'll find the same qb: nice volume stats, excellent at throwing comebacks and out-breaking routes, just okay as a vertical and touch passer, poor per-play efficiency/ypa, meh leadership, meh 4th Q production, and an underachieving team that lost big games. Sure he'll tease you with the occasional wow play, but in the end his efficiency and tendencies are Alex Smith plus.
When he has a semi-decent supporting cast, I will then cast judgement. Till then, it's incomplete. I can tell you NOBODY succeeds with this line. Nobody.
I'm just wondering how many years the excuses can go before people realize how much the qb matters. We're going on year 4 here. Never seen this kind of blame-shifting away from the quarterback position for such a long period of time. I just think it's misguided to expect greatness from a player who, in five+ years, has never been great.
And I wonder how many years of abominable oline play we have to see, before people realize how important that is. We've had bad oline play going back into Sparano days.
Using playoff record in an argument about which QB is greater also doesn't imply the QB is solely responsible. Once again, they're just pointing out a stat that they think matters.
We've said before that Tannehill has blame. I've explained countless times that my issue is with the criticism of Tannehill that isn't given to any other QB. My issue is holding Tannehill up as THE PROBLEM, when there are many other problems on the team that are bigger than he is.
Why do they think record matters? You cannot say that in a discussion about QBs, that pulling out the win/loss record isn't using that as a barometer of how good the QB is. In fact, if you believe that the QB is 10-15% responsible for win/loss, then it's hardly relevant what his win/loss record is.
I know.. I didn't accuse you of never admitting to that. I just suggested how to respond in the type of debate you said often led to win/loss record being quoted. My only accusation was you or others acting like the other side is saying win/loss record is ONLY due to the QB, and that's a misrepresentation of their position.
Ultimately what matters for a team is wins. We have to start there. That means that for ANY player what you really want to calculate is change in win % due to that person being on the team vs. any other alternative. That is the ideal measure for any player on any team. Obviously, we don't understand the cause-effect relationships that lead to a given outcome anywhere near well enough so that you can calculate change in win % due to a player. So you use proxies. You can use whatever you want: Y/A, total yards passing, etc.. The question is how much do you weight each metric? In principle you weight them directly proportional to how much they affect the final outcome. THAT is why saying the QB is responsible for 10-15% of the outcome is important: it tells you how much to weight that stat relative to all other stats.
Yes it is resnor.. you can ask them all yourself and see if they all agree that win/loss record is not SOLELY determined by the QB. Every one of them will agree the QB is partially but not solely responsible. I doubt they all think it's 10-15%, but that's another story.
Buuuuut not if the person uses record as a QB stat. Got it. When someone quotes W/L record as THE way to quantify how good a QB is, they aren't saying anything specifically. When you imply, people aren't "admitting" that QBs have anything to do with W/L record, you're not implying anything. Sigh. All makes perfect sense. Carry on.
