lol played like a top 3? played like a top 10? you're saying there were games where he looked better than Brees/Brady/Wentz? I'm not talking a drive or a play, I'm talking a whole game.
Last year alone he had 2 games with a 130 passer rating and a 124 passer rating. Those are top 3 level games
Tannehill's clock is ticking. I take comfort knowing this. Miami's biggest issue was qb this year (close 2nd was OL). They won't go into camp a Tannehill injury away from 6-10, when they would have gone 9-7. It is time to have an ins policy and an eventual takeover. Gase's job is on the line
Year prior he had a 158 and 112...Top 3 games Year before that 125, 123,118 120 in the year before 123 in the year before. That's at least 10 top 3 games out of what, 75? And there are probably more because I just skimmed.
posted that already. Brees/Brady/Rodgers/Ben/Rus You draft until you get one. otherwise you are wasting time
You compulsively post the same things daily but can't be bothered to repeat yourself when called out and then make a half of a point about drafting until you get one? So one quarterback a year? Draft one? Or every round?
His last 8 games. For years I've said thill was handicapped by a terrible oline, no commitment to the run game and not being allowed to audible. No QB has ever been able to succeed under those circumstances. As soon as those things are all addressed, thill produced at a Top 10 rate. This all happened, this is all fact. And now, he's not playing and virtually the same team is doing terrible. We can spin it. We can pretend it didn't happen. But all of this is fact.
It's so hard to win with a QB like Rodgers and Big Ben and Drew Brees, it's that much harder to win with someone not as good. It can happen (yes, Eli Manning, Flacco). Go back 30-40 years and the winning QB is dominated by the elites. Future HOF'ers. So: You don't dump Tannehill, but you realize it's an uphill battle to win with an elite QB, it's even steeper with a lesser QB. Everything needs to be that much better. I don't see any reason not to double up on QB now. Tanny's been here a while. Years 1-3/4 maybe not. Year 6 with a knee injury spread over two seasons, yes, it's time. You see a Russell Wilson in round 3, etc. you go for it. Think you got Kirk Cousins in round 4, you do it. If you don't think you have one of those, you don't.
Brady has 1/4 of those things. they took away Blount. He won a SB w/o Gronk. give me a qb like that. keep searching
I will add, that based on his best stretch last year, his role was reduced and he turned into a pre-Mahomes Alex Smith essentially (except throwing more INTs). If that's top 10 then that's top 10
Look at the top 10 QB ratings over the last 3 years. You will see a lot of QBs aren't "consistent" top 10. So even if Tannehill was performing at a top 10 level it doesn't necessarily mean he is going to be top 10 in QB rating every year. 2015 russel wilson Andy Dalton Carson Palmer Tom Brady Kirk Cousins Dre Brees Cam Newton Tyrod Taylor Matthew Stafford Alex Smith 2016 Matt Ryan Tom Brady Dak Prescott Aaron Rodgers Drew Brees Sam Bradford Kirk Cousins Derek Carr Andrew Luck Marcus Mariota 2017 Alex Smith Tom Brady Drew Brees Deshaun Watson Carson Wentz Matthew Stafford Case Keenum Jared Goff Kirk Cousins Aaron Rodgers 1 time appearances in the last 3 years: 14 with Watson being a rookie this year so we will give it 13. That's nearly 1/2 of the spots. russel wilson Andy Dalton Carson Palmer Cam Newton Tyrod Taylor Matt Ryan Dak Prescott Sam Bradford Andrew Luck Marcus Mariota Deshaun Watson (rookie) Carson Wentz Case Keenum Jared Goff
He didn't need a running game. He needed a commitment to the running game. Something Brady has. He needed to be allowed to audible. Something Brady was allowed to do. So not the same thing at all. Also, Brady was under constant pressure last time we played them....how'd he look that game? I'll ask you what I've asked everyone else that wants to pretend this isn't an issue. Name all the QB's that had a crap oline, weren't allowed to audible and the team was in the last 5 spots in the league of rushing attempts...and still produced at a high level. You can't, because there's never been one. The problem is, a commitment to the running game and being able to audible are tools to handle a terrible oline. Tools, Thill wasn't given. And before you vomit all over the screen with your insanity, explain why he performed at a Top 10 level AFTER we got rid of Thomas & Turner, committed tot he run game and not only let him audible but included him in game planning.
Yes all of that happened. The problem is, you're basing your list on an opinion. A poor, uninformed opinion that is clearly rooted in hot takes and anger. I challenge you to take Thill's QB ratings from the Pitt game till he got hurt and find out is QB rating over those games as a whole. Then compare that rating versus the rest of the league. I know you think that is cherry picking. But what happened between the Pitt game and the previous game? Anything significant?
Tannehill has steadily improved over the years, despite having a revolving door at HC/OC and QB coach. His best one season was under Gase as well, so I think the odds are pretty favorable that he will be AT LEAST as good as he was in the final 8 games. And remember, we were 7-1 in that stretch. Personally, I could care less if Tannehill is top 10, top five or bottom 30...I don't see the point in debating that aspect AT ALL. The only metric that matters to me is wins- can we win with Ryan Tannehill or not? Based on last season alone, I think the answer is yes. But you also have to remember that we're not comparing apples to apples here when talking about 2016 vs 2018. Our defense will be worlds better next season because of the emergence of Howard, Tank, McDonald, etc. and we will also be adding McMillian to that mix in 2018....plus any rookie pass rushers and linebackers we pick up. Then you have the whole Ajayi vs Drake debate...it's hard to say that we're not better off today at RB than we were a season ago. Weekly all-purpose yards trumps an occasional huge breakout game any day of the week. These are all indications that Tannehill doesn't need to evolve further as a QB like some people are saying, but simply deliver what we saw in that 8-game stretch. With a low-90's baseline as a typical performance and a crushing defense that shuts down the scoreboard in the 2nd half, we simply need a leader who's consistent. You can look at five games this year alone where Cutler/Moore struggled in the 4th and handed away a victory up for the taking- would you really care what Cutler's QBR was if we were 11-4 right now? I wouldn't. My only focus would be winning the AFC. That's what consistency gives you as a fan base, you don't have to argue over the passing metrics and try to dissect every single play. Again, I could care less where Tannehill ranks in the grand scheme of things as long as we're winning. Don't get too caught up in that "top 10" argument because we see multiple top 10 QB each year that fizzle out in Wild Card games or don't even make the post-season. If we are generating wins with Tannehill next season, then he's clearly good enough.
The interesting thing is that once the old timers retire (brees,brady,roethlisberger,rodgers) there really aren' any "elite" QBs playing. There are some good QBs but none you can put in that category. Not sure we need tannehill to be elite just good
I think we first have to define the meaning "top-10 QB" has, before we can determine the meaning of Tannehill's being a top-10 QB (or not). It could be that the top 6 or 8 QBs in the league, for example, cluster into a group that's distinct in terms of their performance from the next 10 or 12 QBs, and then Tannehill's being top-10 would have meaning only if he were also top-6 or top-8. In other words, the cart is before the horse here. First we have to determine how many QBs comprise the upper echelon, and then determine whether Tannehill is in it. It's entirely possible that the 10th-best QB in the league isn't meaningfully distinct in terms of his performance from the 18th-best QB in the league, for example. We may have to get to top 6 or 8 before there is a meaningful difference from "average" to "upper echelon" (or whatever terms one wants to apply to make meaning of these groups).
Rogers isn't as old as Brady/Brees tier. Newton, Wilson, Wentz, Goff, Ryan (Matt). Any of the rookies this year or next that pan out. Young guys on the cusp like Prescott and Watson. Then there are the next tier guys like Dalton, Flacco, Cousins, Carr, Stafford ... I'd put THill well into that second category more than the first. You need a helluva strong unit (generally defense) to get through with a second tier QB. The Giants, the Ravens. And keeping those team together more than 2-3 years is nearly impossible. Gotta have that QB to have sustained success.
He actually was last year, after the purge of Thomas and turner. And it wasn't just Top 10 qb rating wise, but tape wise too.
I agree with that. He also played in a way that wasn't meaningfully distinct from that during the final 13 games of 2014, Bill Lazor's second year.
And a lip-reader in the booth that told him what the defense was doing every freaking play! Let's not forget those small details....
Yeah the proper way to do all this is to take all the games every QB has started, adjusted the ratings to a given year, then use a t-test to estimate how similar they are, then use something called multi-dimensional scaling to put that NxN dimensional matrix (where N = number of QB's) onto a 1-dimensional scale. That would give you on a single dimension estimates of how similar different QB's are. It would also give you a way of estimating the probability one QB would have a rating higher than another QB in any given game. I should actually do that sometime just to see where all kinds of QB's rank historically, but that takes some time so until you have something like that I'd just suggest setting a threshold at X standard deviations above the mean for each year. Example: let's say the threshold is 1 standard deviation above the mean for all starting QB's and we use passer rating. OK.. you do NOT want to use league averages now, you want to use starting QB averages for each year, which you can get from here after sorting by passer rating (sorting also removes all QB's that didn't qualify to be "starting" QB's): https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/passing.htm Find the mean and standard deviation of those starting QB passer ratings for each season, which are: Mean: 2012: 85.63 2013: 86.96 2014: 89.44 2015: 90.35 2016: 91.03 2017: 88.41 Standard deviation: 2012: 10.92 2013: 12.96 2014: 10.25 2015: 10.23 2016: 11.06 2017: 11.23 And now your cut-off is at the mean+standard_deviation: Cutoff passer rating: 2012: 96.55 2013: 99.92 2014: 99.69 2015: 100.58 2016: 102.09 2017: 99.64 In 2012 and 2013 there were 7 QB's above the cutoff, in 2014 there were only 4, in 2015 there were 6, in 2016 there were only 4, and in 2017 so far there are 5. If that cutoff is too high, then just choose a different threshold like 0.8 standard deviations or so. In any case, the units are always the same so it's just a matter of choosing the threshold you want.
Yeah but Wilson isn't retiring. I'm never going to let go of the fact you said Wilson would be cut (or was it, out of this league) if he was drafted by the Dolphins.
How does that contribute to the conversation? Superman is better than Aquaman. FACT. That doesn't have anything to do with Tannehill in 2018 either.
That's great work -- thank you. My next question would be the number of QBs who fell between a standard deviation above and a standard deviation below the mean. That would tell us the "middle group" in the league, who don't vary meaningfully from each other. And then of course there would be a bottom group (below a standard deviation from the mean). At any rate, what we're finding out here is that "top-10" doesn't have meaning unless it's also "top 4" or "top 5." The 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best QBs in the league don't vary meaningfully from probably the next worst 10 or so. So we should be asking ourselves, "is Ryan Tannehill a top-4 or top-5 QB?" Not a top-10 one. If we agree that he's top-10 (and not also top-4 or top-5), we're agreeing that he's average.
seriously, listen to people. Stop posting stupid *** new threads on the same topics. The admins should really prevent you from starting new threads.