Is Ryan Tannehill Going to Become a Franchise QB?

Great players make great plays in all situations.

 

I won't lie, I tried to come up with the most "PoFo Stringer" answer I could.

 

I don't see a QB in the draft who fits our offense better then Devlin. Isn't this all predicated on there being a QB available worth a pick or is it just, he's a QB so we take him?

 

If our kicker makes a couple of very make-able kicks then we're saying the exact same thing about RT. Or conversely, if Indy's kicker misses a couple of kicks or a WR fails to make a great play out of a couple of bad Luck passes Indy would have missed the playoffs. And that would be with each QB playing exactly as well as they did. That's the fallacy of being so simplistic as just looking at wins and loses or who made the playoffs.

 

Those kicks were almost 50 yards, those aren't what I would call easy kicks. Tannehill could've gotten the team closer but didn't.

 

I'm merely arguing on principle. I'm not sure about the QBs in the draft, but if the organization likes one in the draft or FA, they shouldn't hesitate IMO. Certainly we shouldn't forget about the times this organization has had QBs not live up to expectations, then stumble around for a few years trying to find a new one.

 

Further, the Colts W/L record outperformed their actual performance by one of the largest margins in NFL history, but a number of different measures.

 

I'm sorry but that makes no sense.

By watching Tannehill play. Seeing his numbers. Seeing his surrounding talents numbers. Watching them play.

They don't mean anything in my numbers other than who is the #1 WR.

 

That's a very defeatist attitude... and I cannot help but agree with it 100%.

 

So did his WRs.

 

Or his line collapsed. Or Hartline ran the wrong route. Or the play was designed to go to anyone but Hartline. Or any number of other things. The main issue however, is that you want me to factor into a score about grading what some does with the ball, with things people do without the ball. It makes no sense. You might as well factor up win/loss records by counting games not played.

No far from it. There's a difference between our approaches. You believe the only viable data is stats. Its all you've argued. You refuse to accept any other data. I don't. I understand observation is a viable data collection source. You've been given ample observational data. I understand numerical data is important. I gave you solid numerical data. I also understand logic plays a part. I've given you sound logic. Based on all that, my conclusion is that Tannehill while a rookie didn't reach his ceiling, because he can play better but was also hampered by poor surrounding talent. You on the other hand, look at nothing other than the numbers (and only yours at that), and declare Tannehill played less than optimal and his surrounding talent had probably nothing to do with it and there's no way to know for sure anyway, but odds are he'll be franchise.

 

There is nothing in the numbers you've posted that says WRs aren't a factor in a QB's WPA, so why do you refuse to accept WR skill can affect a QB's numbers? I legitimately do not understand this categorical denial on your part.

 

Missed opportunities have nothing to do with my score and they are not part of what I was trying to calculate. They are also impossible to calculate accurately. In no way shape or form do missed opportunities tell us what some did with a non missed opportunities. This part of your argument is bizarre. You cannot tell me with enough certainty that any given non-catch by X receiver is his fault, the QBs fault, the coaches fault, the defenses fault, etc.

Think about it. You talk below about observation and how unreliable it is then turn around and want me to not only count a stat that has nothing to do with what I'm looking for, but its a stat that is gained through observation.

In a vacuum you're right. But WADR, you're the only one looking at things in a vacuum. Logic and numbers are backing up the observations that Tannehill needs better help.

This is another point where I don't understand you. You talk about viability and accuracy yet, say,

I showed you the numbers that illustrate a DRAMATIC difference between Tannehill & Luck's 1 & 2 WRs. And the stats I used are clearly more indicative of WR skill than QB skill.....how can you at this point say it matters very little?

 

So basically Omar is telling his readers what Ron Wolf has been doing and saying since 1992.

 

Read title for thread

Answer: Yes

End thread.

 

It is inherent in your stance that WR talent doesn't effect a QB's numbers all that much. And if WPA is the most predictive score of career qb rating which is qb numbers....then...

 

http://www.profootballweekly.com/story/permalink/23497

A few stinkers, a few NFL starting QBs, all drafted with Brett Favre in the first slot. Pick guys who you think are raw but have starter material, you can only win.

 

Yea I agree that 54% completion rating is awesome. 18 picks is also great. By the way, Tebow lead a bunch of 4th quarter comebacks. I dont mind that you call a raw rookie a career medicore qb based on his ROOKIE season., but at least be objective.

 

My formula doesn't account for weather either, but you didn't feel the need to point that out.

I'd like for you to refer to the logic scenario I posted earlier in the thread. A completed pass can happen if the QB screws up but not if the WR does. So that is the jumping off point. Also, I factored every stat against their total catches. That builds in a safe guard, because the more catches you have the harder it is to maintain a high score. So if Tannehill hit Hartline more, and Hartline produced at the same rate his score would be even lower.

But 5 played better? 3 this year?
If BH had put up the same numbers as VJ (since they had virtually the same amount of catches), Tannehill's QB rating would be 83.47. With that rating no one is questioning Tannehill's future.

 

Missed this. No, I didn't.

 

Tell you what, front offices make mistakes on players, bottom line, always keep an eye out for the Qb who doesn't have the prototype size like Russell Wilson, or he's unconventional in some way that scares people like CKap. If you feel like that player would of been a top 5 pick in the draft if he had prototype size, and that guy happens to drops to the 2nd round, take him, that's if you feel you have the position addressed currently, if you don't have the position addressed, then take the guy in the first round..

Lesson..trust your instinct.

 

No you aren't. Not catching the ball is not relevant to how good someone is after they caught the ball.

Because his numbers have been pretty similar. Last year he scored 11.30. This year is 12.76.

None of that explains your absolute refusal to hold his surrounding talent accountable.

 

A humble suggestion for Shou and FinD:

 

I thought this round was going way better and more civil.

 

Only pertains to sharts.

 

Plagiaristic?

 

I don't have any problem with the team drafting a Qb late in the draft, its not a bad idea. Players get hurt and having developmental Qbs on the roster is always a good thing. I think taking one very early isn't smart because Tannehill did show enough, to me at least, that he deserves more time and more weapons before we give up. I got the impression from watching Hard Knocks that Philibin likes Devlin so if hes the backup next year I think we are in decent shape, so drafting or picking up an UDFA developmental Qb seems like a given at this point.

 

Not to get off the subject but Omar seems to be more of a hater than every before.
I noticed it after Garrard got hurt. After he got cut.....Oh boy,it went south really fast.
Does this man have any positive input on the team anymore?

 

Yeah, Matt Moore did have BMarshall last year as his number #1. What I've shown is that BHartline is about the same regardless of who is throwing him the ball. That tells me BHartline doesn't have a Ryan Tannehill problem.