That was a generalized comment That was for any qb or any team or any coach 2 interceptions that lead to a teams failure to win will ALWAYS be worse than two non interceptions
We've played 22 minutes !!!! And ppl are making WILD assumptions of players and the team. sounds like carry over from last year. Is this week 18?
Sigh. It never ends. I'm trying to get you to see the flaw in your logic. You said the mark of a franchise QB is their ability to win the game in the 4th quarter. I'll try this one more time. Forget, Tannehill, the Dolphins, GB & Detroit for a second. Let's pretend there's a QB John Doe who plays for the Anytown Someteam. It was a hard fought battle but Doe marches his team down the field and goes up in the fourth quarter. The other team's offense takes the ball and scores for the lead with too little time to counter. So with that scenario in mind, according to this logic: John Doe is not a franchise QB.... ...and that makes no sense. This is also why everyone arguing against you guys is saying you all want perfection. ALL QBs make mistakes throughout a game, even Rodgers. All you can ask of them, is that when they sit down for the day the team has the lead, but you guys expect perfection because all you're doing is nitpicking to validate the last invented benchmark (4th quarter wins = franchise QB) because its been shown that, that is a poor logic.
And if the defense held, you guys would say Tannehill won that game in the 4th and the only difference would have been the defense. If you can't see the staggering ignorance in that, I can't help you.
I totally agree with what you are saying. Now let's look at this last game what Tannehill and the offense did to close out the game was JUST as important as marching down to take the lead at the end of the game. See from their logic, if Tannehill would have done it vs Detroit or GB(held the ball at the end by sustaining first downs and milking out the clock) he would be considered a great QB BUT for some reason what he did this past Sunday just wasn't good enough and he played terrible all game. The way ppl move the goal posts to make an argument around here is extremely frustrating
But lets back it up...so I make my point clear...and its not lose on the few IF he WOULD have done that vs GB and Detroit as well then I would definitely consider that great. My point is that same thing should be just as good vs them as Washington. thus making his play on Sunday not as bas as some would make it
You want to keep looking at a snap shot, even your analogy is a snap shot, if Tanne was leading TD drives late in games with regularity then there would be no discussion, he isn't, in fact he's leaving more points on the field in those situations than he is scoring, it's not the defenses fault that he did not score on the plays I mentioned. It's about developing a pattern, a pattern on playing well in the 4th, if he played in the 4th like he did against GB with regularity, we would have won more games and his 4th quarter rating wouldn't have been 79.9.
Patterns are made up of a series of snapshots. The defense let us down more than Tannehill did last year.
Again, his fourth quarter rating, when down by 7 or less, is like a 90. You keep throwing the lower rating for 4th quarter because it better supports your narrative. You are acting like the oline issues didn't severely impact fourth quarter play, as a whole.
...and if the line was able to hold up...and if we were able to sustain a sold running game in the 4th...and...and...and. THAT is also a pattern that needs to be factored in. All these play a factor in the success of a QB, and overall as an offense,team. Tannehill has his issues, and he's been clearly working on making them better. Of which he STILL has some to work on. The defense collapsing in the 4th has also been a pattern here. Something that should also be factored in. 4th qrtr rating..QBR all that stuff are just stats that can be used for an against but ultimately don't always SHOW The play on the field(isn't that what most ppl were saying about this past game?)
The two throws that Tannehill made that should have been intercepted are exactly the same as if they were picked off when evaluating QB play. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to see.
in the context of a game they DO NOT mean the same thing. IN the context of correcting those faults, making adjustments and coaching after the game they DEFINITELY DO mean the same thing its all about context. And ppl here do not seem to know how to seperate the two.
Incorrect. All we are saying, is that when evaluating how Tannehill played, you treat those as picks. You keep saying, "But they weren't picked!" So, when you evaluate how Tannehill played, you give him, at best, a C rating. You are correct, IN THE GAME, a dropped pick is far better than an actual pick, and a win is a win. But we aren't talking about the IN THE GAME now, other than to say that Tannehill was extremely lucky that those weren't actually picked.
how can youtreat those as picks though? because we don't know the end result or how the game would have changed creating some kind of butterfly effect. If one of those was picked he could have completely turned it around and tossed two TD's and the game plan could have changed. He could have also crumbled even further and threw another game ending interceptioin that caused the team to lose. You CANNOT weight those 'near' interceptions as interceptions because the results would/could have been drastically different. you can only take them for what they were. BAD throws and Bad decision making. which CAN be honestly evaluated looking back at his play. so yes he mad some really bad throws...and he made some really bad decisions in that game. but the results are what they are. we can't hypothetically change those results.
The main issue with those almost interceptions being counted is that almost interceptions happen to every QB. That means if we count them for Tannehill we have to go back and count them for every QB. The reason we do that is because if we don't then we're grading Tannehill on a different scale then we're grading other QBs. I mean what if we find out that almost ints are a lot more common then we're thinking they are? If they are, then our baseline of what is and what isn't acceptable is different. Also, if we count dropped ints, then we also have to count dropped completions/and TDs. We also have to count missed opportunities to run or running when a pass would have been better. It doesn't stop there either, we'd have to count the times a QB could have completed a longer pass then he did on a given play. And we'd have to do all of that for EVERY QB, because it would change what we consider a good or bad outing. There's a neat line already drawn on many of these things, there's no need to go back and reinvent the benchmarks.
I can tell you the "Butterfly Effect" if those passes were intercepted. We would have lost the game by a wide margin.
how do you know this? what happened after the fumble? did Washington march down and get a td? or did they go 3 and out? you are just making wild assumptions with no bearing
Well, in an effort to maintain consistency, I am treating near picks as inflating rating just as I treated gimme drops by receivers last year as negatively impacting Tannehill's rating.
No one is saying to change the result. I'm saying, That when coaches are going over film, they're not glossing over gimme picks. I also guarantee that no Redskins coaches are chastising Cousins for the crazy McCain pick, or probably Eben the Grimes pick. They might be for the JT dropped pick. When a defender makes a crazy play and picks one off, you look past it. When the QB throws easily catchall balls to defenders, you don't overlook then, caught or not.
Right, but it can't stop there or you're picking and choosing what's relevant. And you don't that. Again, you have to go through and do this for EVERY QB or you're grading Tanny on a different curve then everyone else. Don't get me wrong, we can call them bad throws because they were, but we can't call them interceptions because they weren't. IMO, the McCain pick took awesome physical ability to snatch, but it was still a jump ball, which is not the best throw in that situation.
even those are unfairly rated. an Interception directly impacts the game as it gives the ball to the opposing team automatically. a Dropped pass doesn't necessarily have that same impact.
And I totally agree with this, and have...in this very thread. The coaches should be looing at those throws and trying to fix why they happened and how to make them not happen again. But you can't change the fact that even as bad as those throws were they were NOT interceptions. they didn't impact the game the same way an interception would, and because they didn't you can't pretend that they did
I really think you're not understanding my point. I know there was no pick, and I understand a drop doesn't affect the game, but in evaluating Tannehill, after the game you treat those like ints, as more times than not, those would be picks. That's all I'm saying.
I get that. after the game you look at those throws as something that could have cost the game. SOmething that NEEDS to be fixed immediately. that is what the coaches and Tannehill should be working on right now. that is for moving forward not looking back. Looking back we can only go by what actually happened. and you can only judge based on things that actually happened, and thoise intercetpions did NOT happen.
YOU can go by only the results if that's what you choose. I, on the other hand, will evaluate based on what I saw with my own two eyes.
LOL, so you saw two intercepotions that led to the team losing? results are the only thing that matters man
just like you KNOW FOR A FACT that is they were interceptions we would have lost by a large margin. Go cry somewhere else
So it sounds like you have a couple of positions: 1) We can't count almost interceptions against Tannehill because they didn't actually happen and then we would have to do that for every QB in order to compare them. However, we are looking Tannehill's quality of play (sucks, doesn't suck) and throwing balls to players on the opposing team that normally lead to "easy" interceptions certainly would go into that evaluation regardless of what other QBs are or aren't doing. Throwing other QBs into the equation is simply a red herring. 2) We should count almost 4th quarter victories (like GB) for Tannehill even though they didn't actually happen and wouldn't we then need to do that for every QB if we were to compare them? Do you think there is a fallacy in holding these two positions?
First of all, I said the almost interceptions were bad throws. I'm not saying they were good. I'm saying that IF you count them, you better go back and count all the other almosts (ints, incs, etc.) for all QBs to see how bad they actually are. For all any of us know, almost ints are fairly common and would change the baseline gauge. Secondly, I never once said they should count as 4th quarter comebacks. I said using 4th quarter comebacks shouldn't be used to measure a QB's greatness and that was an example of why that's a bad practice. But nice try.
They BOTH had opportunities to win the game. The offense and defense. BOTH failed. Although the defense were close to succeeding with a fair shot before Queasy.
The thing is, Fin, I'm not comparing Tannehill to anyone. I'm not saying, well, Tannehill almost had 2 picks, so he's on the level of Cousins. I'm simply saying, that Tannehill looked better than he maybe should have, due to defenders dropping gimmes. Just like, last season, I said that Tannehill looked worse than he should have, especially through the first 3 or 4 games, because his receivers dropped easily catchable balls, that were often long and for tds. But, I wasn't adding tds to his record, to try to say he really threw more tds than other QBs.
If the defense held, we'd say the defense held the lead after Tannehill and the offense did not capitalize on the chance to extend their drives to keep Aaron Rodgers off the field.
Just stop. You know the point I'm making and you know its accurate which is why you're trying to change things. The offense did enough to win. Tannehill sat down with the lead. The defense dropped the ball.
He did his job on the FG drive...no, nothing magical, but I didn't say he carried the team, so magical shouldn't even enter the equation. And for the millionth time in this and other threads, I EXPECTED BETTER too. Why does the discussion on him have to be extreme either direction, and if it's not, those who also take note of the good along with the bad get branded as wearing RT blinders? I've said numerous times that I thought he had a bad game overall...how does that repeatedly get ignored? AH! Hater shades, that's how...that's fair right? Since I'm wearing RT blinders and all.
Again, in all fairness, despite the offense not closing the game out with their last drive...the game was still turned over to the defense with the lead...and an opposing team with what, one timeout, and like 60 yards to drive for a td to win it? Green Bay or not, you expect the defense to be able to close that game out.
Yeah. So both sides failed. Both had opportunities in their hands, and they both failed. It's very fair. Pinning it one or the other is very unfair. GB normally scores 30 pts a game. They didn't give up 27 points to someone like Derek Carr or something.
