The Talent Surrounding Ryan Tannehill: Part II

basically if it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you don't care what it says. That's not something to say proudly IMO.

 

WADR,

Wrong. Just wrong. The talent around Matt Ryan allows him to have more productive games and more consistently productive games, not to mention some of those high QBR games by Matt Ryan are due to his receivers actually making plays for him. Atlanta = 7 games over 24 points. Miami = 1 game over 24 points. The offense is a reflection of the sum of its parts, not QB rating. Atlanta has playmakers who help their offense score, PERIOD. The fact that half our games are 20 points or less is a direct reflection of inferior talent surrounding Tannehill, and the fact we've scored 24 pts the past 2 games WITHOUT Bess while having more talented but inexperienced players on the field like Matthews & Binns shows you just how important talent is and just how lacking & restricted we were at WR with Bess & Hartline as a starting duo.

 

You have a QBR based study but you don't understand what a QBR measures.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one Shou. Is Ryan Tannehill still raw in some aspects? Yes. Does the play of the quarterback determine a great deal of the offense's success? Absolutely. But does the supporting cast help or hurt the ability for a quarterback to succeed or fail? Without a doubt.

Of course the team would be scoring and winning more if Tannehill were playing better, but I think most people who are around the game will tell you that he would be playing better with better players around him, and I don't think these statistics prove otherwise. I am a WR coach at the HS level so I watch what's going on with the recievers and the simple fact is, there aren't a whole lot of options out there for him on many plays. When you are having to send someone like Bess downfield trying (almost always unsuccessfully) to get over the top it's going to be tough sledding. I think Mike Mayock put it best when he said the Dolphins have to essentially play red zone offense the whole way down the field. That's dictated by talent around your QB, and is not a recipe for success.

 

That's not what we're saying at all.

If you concede that QBR is not SOLELY about the QB, but that in fact, there are other factors that influence the rating positively or negatively, like surrounding offensive talented for instance; then your original analysis is flawed

Ill explain again.

You argued that higher QBR correlated higher scoring, and therefore, Tannehill not playing as good as other QBs was the reason for our low scoring, and not his surrounding talent.
I tell you that is flawed and inaccurate because a QBs QBR is NOT affected only by the QB. It is also influenced by the entire offense and even the defense. More talent in those units directly and proportionally impacts QBR.

 

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]QBR[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]TD[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]TD%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]INT[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]INT%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]yards[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]completion%[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]y/a[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Marino's 3 year avg w/ Duper, Clayton, Moore[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]95.1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]41[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]7.0[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]20[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4656[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]61.3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]8.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Marino's 11 year avg w/o the NFL Network's all-time Top 10 Receiving Corps[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]84.2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]23[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4.5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]15[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2.9[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3774[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]59.1[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]7.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

** Only used 12+ games seasons to ensure proper context.

 

Does this data infer the Falcons would be just as successful if Bess, Hartline, Fasano and Bush replaced White, Jones, Gonzalez and Turner?

 

those receivers played there long then just 3 years. So I'm not sure what your point is other then to cherry pick stats.

 

has nothing to do with looking down on you, as much as, you aren't really making much sense.

 

Wrong. The trio that formed one of NFL Networks top 10 all time receiving corps only played together for 3 years, the 3 years I listed.

 

wrong what? so you are saying tanny needs one of the greatest wr trios to be successful? And the marx brothers were here for longer then those 3 years. Nat moore was here since what the 70s? Don't say I'm wrong. Just realize you are wrong, and walk away.

 

sure. My beef isn't with that. My beef is with your insinuation that unless his methodology told you one thing you already believed, it was unbelievable.

 

QBR is an invalid way to rank/rate a QB.

A QB who is good but also has a strong supporting cast will almost ALWAYS have a better QB rating than an equally good QB with a bad cast.

What you're saying is this:

A) It isnt easier to complete passes to talented WR's who make plays on the ball and create separation.

B) A WR who can create yards after catch doesn't impact a QB rating.

Honestly I'm stopping here but I'm 99% sure I could go to Z and then start all over again at A with more examples.

 

which is exactly what I've stated. Think of it this way. I tell you the earth revolves around the sun. You say no, the sun revolves around the earth because thats what you observed. I say look at these stats that state otherwise. you state, no that doesn't fit what you've observed.

 

I think you've run out of argument.

 

I think its fair to say that RT has accuracy issues and even on good days he struggles with consistency. If he improves on those two things it will correlate to a rise in his QBR. That however is not the entire picture.

What the other posters are describing is something akin to the limiting growth factor in botany. In football terms what it means is that your offense is only as good as your weakest unit. You could have an allpro WRs and a HOF QB but if you your line does not give you any time for your receivers to get open and your QB is constantly hurried. His passes are not going to be completed often and his QBR is going to suffer from that. Same can be said about poor recievers or poor QB play.

What I see from them from top to bottom is very average play on offense from all units. The only big play threat they have is Bush and he is inconsistently productive too. He does at least force defenses to respect the run and his presence on the field opens up some passing room. The shame of it is that between RT not hitting his targets in stride and our wrs not being able to make adjustments to get to the ball or pick up yardage after the catch, it makes our passing game easy to defend against.

The net result is a low scoring offense and a low QBR. You cant spread a defense out when your 3 primary targets are Bess, Hartline, and Fasano. Thats why they can do enough to beat teams like the Bills or the Jags but not enough to win against the Pats or the 9ers.

I know you spend a lot of time crunching numbers and I give you kudos for that but on this particular issue I think your data crunching is got you on a wild goose chase.

Question for you: Is it your postion that our current roster is set and that the only thing this offense needs is time for RT to develop before it is playoff caliber?

If so are you hoping that we go primarly defense in the draft and in FA?

 

doesn't really counter that your view of the information is flawed due to your observations.

 

what I'm telling you is you are giving criticism and not offering something quantifiable in return.

 

It's not like Tom Brady has had a better QB rating every year since the Patriots acquired Wes Welker than before....oh wait he has. Sorry what I meant to say was it's not like Brady had the best QBR of his career when they had both Welker and Moss (when Moss was on good behavior).....oh wat he did.

**** well what I meant to say was it's not like Peyton Manning had a better QBR when Marvin Harrison was in his prime (2003-2007) with Wayne coming into his own during those years than he did before or after....F**K

A bad QB will not be made into a great QB by a solid cast. However a solid QB with a great cast can certainly be made to look even better.

 

agreed. I do think you can get some good views though. Personally, I don't think tanny sucks, I think he's a rookie. I do think the system around him needs to be better. I don't think that's just on the wrs or we need a "number one" wr. I think that's a buzzword people throw around. I just think the statistical analysis deserves more then "no way are we as good as the falcons you're wrong". I guess I don't really mean to just call you out, I just used your post as a jump off. Much respect as always.

 

That's precisely what Shou is doing.

Earlier in the year, he backed himself into a corner. He tried to make one of his patented threads where he asks what he thinks is a pertinent and/or clever question and sees where it goes. Somewhere along the way, he started blaming Tannehill, where previously he was all in favor of him. It was an absurd premise that the more people argued against the more he had to run with it, until he it became a thing. His thing. And he's run with this thing all season.

Now, he's conflating different stats to reach his previously held stance.

The simple fact of the matter is that while QB is the single most important position on the field and the level of that play raises the play of WRs, TEs & RBs, its a more symbiotic relationship then he is arguing in favor of. Great QB's can make average WRs better, but they can't make them great. A great WR can make a QB slightly better. But the simple mechanics of throwing and catching make his stats and stance ******ed.

The single most important thing that must happen for a QB stat-wise is for the ball to be caught by his target. If the ball isn't caught, then there's an incomplete, a INT, or certainly not a TD. That catch is reliant on more than just the QB's ability. That's why Shou's stance is dumb...it takes two to make the completion.

 

disagree. Everything I've seen him argue is that tanny isn't playing as great as people say and the wrs are being martyred in the process. I think people are wanting tanny to be the savior so much they aren't willing to look at what is.

 

Yes that is what he's arguing and he is also literally creating stats to prove it. That's him doing what you accused others of.

And you can't really argue about the fact that it takes two people to make a completion, which means it requires two different people to do their job correctly.