The Talent Surrounding Ryan Tannehill: Part II

The only disconnect is between you and reality.

 

I agree with you on people are a bit too eager on putting him up on a pedestal. He hasnt even proved himself to be in Flacco's class yet. He could be Jay Feidler II or worse, John Beck Jr.

 

Nice foolish argument. Was Marino here since the 70's? No, I'm saying, just as history has shown time and time again, the more talent around the QB the better he can play. The talented trio of Duper, Clayton, and Moore only played together with Marino from '84-86, and it was that trio that formed NFLN's all time Top 10, not the duo of the Marks Bros alone. Duper & Clayton were great, but you can obviously see how big of a bump Marino had in his stats when there was a 3rd talented receiver in the mix making it extremely difficult for defenses to defend them as a whole.


So tell me then, why was Marino the MOST productive during his first 4 years even though he should've been playing BETTER & WISER as he aged?

 

.... and you've yet to make one.

 

So... the true intention of this thread is to piss in everyone's breakfast cereal that has hopes of Ryan Tannehill actually becoming our franchise QB? I have those hopes, however, I am not yet convinced he will be our savior.

 

I agree with this, for us to become Super Bowl contenders a lot of the burden falls to Tannehill. In the mean time I believe that our talent surrounding him can certainly improve to help make his growing pains a little less painful.

 

I didnt notice I try to avoid threads that I see your posting in. All your math hurts my brain

I do get your point. Why rain on their parade though. Fans have been desperate for good QB play since Marino retired. Hope is the only thing that gets us through these painfull seasons. I have been a fan since 77 and let me tell you its been tough for me and I at least can remember when we were always in the hunt. Some fans here never even got to see Marino play. We are long overdue. I think JJ and Wayne cursed us by the way they handled replacing Shula and even how poorly JJ worked with Marino. I think we may have to wait till Shula is in his grave before we allowed to be winners again. I hoping when WH sold the team it broke the curse.

 

Shula sold the franchise's soul for the perfect season, I tell ya!

 

Quantifiable? How about- the more efficient the passing game [which is a reflection of the QB and his surrounding cast], the higher the passer rating will be, and the greater the likelihood of more points being scored. That's about the only thing you can come away with from the opening post involving QBR and points scored, as well as the more weapons and talent at skill positions around the QB the easier it is for a QB to play well. If you don't believe me, look at Brady's last 5 games WITHOUT GRONKOWSKI. 3 of those 5 games are BELOW a 75.0 QBR and contain 5 of his season's 8 INTs.

 

This is an old link but if you have not seen it you should check it out. Its a parody of Shula talking about the 72 Dolphins and the Patriots cheating.

[video]http://www.bangcartoon.com/2007/shulahula.htm[/video]

 

We've had this discussion before so I won't boor you with what I've already said. But no, I don't think QBR correlates with anything other than the effectiveness of the overall passing game.

 

I love bang cartoons! I have been a fan since it's inception. I can watch them all over and over again. It's a shame there hasn't been anything new since the beginning of 2011, cartoon wise.

 

Stop feeding the troll people.

Shou creates a stat by conflating two other stats. He says its about judging the effectiveness of the Qb and his supporting cast, then denies its about either.

That means he literally made up numbers and changes the reason behind those numbers.

There's nothing left to discuss about this, other than why is he doing it.....I believe he clearly has a post count fetish. Thoughts?

 

Who says Tanne is playing great? From what I've seen people are giving him credit for exceeding expectations and getting excited about what he could do if he had an NFL caliber WR unit, which he does not.

 

Yeah I wish he was still putting them out like he use too. Anyhow Shula Hula is my favorite. I think we are hated because of that record and champagin toast lol.

True Stroy that 2007? season when the Giants beat them in the SB. I was at a bar watching it and the Bartender is a big NE fan. The whole family showed up at the bar and decorated the place with NE gear. They even had a cardboard cutout of Brady complete with a bettery operated mechanical arm. They are the most obnoxious fans you could ever imagine.

Well now that I painted you the picture. I have acess to the backroom where the booze is kept. They had left a left over bottle of champagin and glasses from New Years. I had all set to go if the Giants won. As soon as the Giants scored I popped the top set the glasses down on their table and announced:

Who would like to joing me in toasting the 72 Dolphins. The only undefeated team in NFL history

They litteraly got so mad that they all left with smoke coming out of their ears.

I futher salted the wound the next day by posting the Pats 19-1 record on the roadside sign of the bar so that everyone driving by could see it.

 

Shou...

You of all people should know that this correlation is flawed...

Many of times a QB would have a good QBR and not produced a lot of points (passing TDs or other)... but a Defensive performance, where they stop opponets from scoring is being overlooked...

Take for instance 3 games this year... the 1st Jets scoring 20 points with a 50 QBR... the Bengals scoring 17 points with a 92 QBR... and the ST Louis game scoring also 17 points with a 112 QBR...

If you notice the most points score game had a 50 QBR while the lower scores had a +50-60 point swing... why???


This is where I see the flaw to you argument... A higher QBR does not always mean more points scored...

 

Now this I can agree with. Tannehill can absolutely be judged fairly regardless of who he has at WR, OL, or anywhere else. And I'm all aboard with him being a rookie, making mistakes, it's not all on his WRs, etc.

But if you're going to compare him to other QBs, as QBR inherently does, and if QBR is a team stat, as it certainly is, then you have to take the respective supporting casts into account in order to get an accurate read.

 

No, he really couldn't. Mentioning John Beck is an insult to Tanne, he's bigger, stronger, faster, more talented than Jay Fiedler ever was. I suppose Flacco's "class" would be "above average-good", and maybe Tanne isn't quite there yet. But if you want to be objective about it you'd have to compare Tanne the rookie to Flacco the rookie.

 

I agree and I would suspect Flaccos rookie year was also better the RTs has been. Flacco was plugged into a solid Offense. I think Sanchez would be another rookie season that might be worth using as a comparison

 

Can anyone correlate these numbers??? comparing apples to apples... rookie vs rookie... Thill and Luck...

1)-70 QBR... scoring 20 Offensive points per game on average over the last 6 games...

2)-83 QBR...scoring 18 Offensive points per game on average over the last 6 games...







1)= Luck... (4-2 record)...
2)= Thill... (3-3 record)...

 

Well done! That is awesome! I also like when the NFL played along with it, that whole perfectville population 1 commercial with Eli sending them the game ball was funny as hell, also. All those 19-0 t-shirts... nothing more than oil rags and butt wipes now. *snickers*

 

I think it'd be close. Flacco and Sanchez are much easier to compare though b/c they were both asked to do the same thing, hand off, hand off, play action, don't screw up, etc.

Meanwhile, Tanne has spent most of the season running a faster paced, sometimes no huddle offense and he's been asked to be a catalyst for the offense in ways that Flacco and Sanchez were not. He has a decent run game and a good defense, not a dominant run game and dominant defense like Flanchez had. I'd also say that Flanchez had better OL play and better options to throw to. Overall, I think he's miles ahead of where Sanchez was and in the same neighborhood as Flacco. Gotta get some some weapons for the kid so we can see what he's capable of.

 

I think that joe flacco is a great comparison their stats are fairly similar. Obviously joe was on a better team and was asked to do less, but I think that his rookie quarterback rating of 80.3 shows the difference in what the two rookies were asked to do, not in talent. Mark Sanchez had a 63.0 rating his rookie season so any comparison between the two would probably stop there. Sam Bradford's 76.5 rating does seem eerily familiar to me, but I do believe that Tannehill out played him when they were on the same field earlier this year.

EDIT

i do think its worth pointing out that in the rams games Tannehills 112 rating got us all of 17 points...

 

So we have a rookie, who despite lacking surrounding talent, is able to put the team on his back and deliver 7-8 wins. I like this stat...unless that's not what we were trying to prove?

 

I do think there is a legit concern about making excuses for Ryan, at least on this forum.

Both points are right. The cast is not that great and Ryan needs to play better. The answer of who is more to blame is somewhere in the middle and you won't find it on a spreadsheet imo. I don't mind the effort to try though

People were wondering who Ryan was going to throw to without Bess. Reggie Bush apparently. And Hartline was quiet. That is Ryan stepping up.

There is something to be said for your own eyes though. The conversation won't be settled until there are more skilled players around him.

 

You spinning it to something you want to see doesn't make it so. Nice try.
I don't understand how you can't see any correlation between qbr and points.

 

I've always been a statistics guy, so no. Nice try.

You tell me. Why is it everyone wants to believe the skill players are overmatched but not tannehill?

skill positions like qb?

You being this type of defensive sounds foolish. Stop with the petty insults. Come correct. Otherwise shut up. Thanks.

 

because it doesn't fit what you think you know. so, yes.

 

You really have no idea what you are arguing do you? Are you saying the marks bros sucked? Again you are pretty convulated on your argument. But hey you can post a smilie so I guess there is that.

 

Again you don't know what you are arguing. Read the convo again. I am asking for something quantifiable as in what his eyes see.

 

right. People are saying tanny would be much better with a better wr core. Without you know, acknowledging his own flaws. Which is what shou is saying. Here I'll repeat that for everyone, shou is saying, tanny is making rookie mistakes and that is leading to some bad plays. HE IS NOT SAYING TANNY SUCKS LIKE EVERYONE WANTS TO PROJECT. One more time or is that enough?

 

It is so parallel to the Henne stuff it is amazing that people forget about it so quickly.

THill is playing well since they are moving him out of the pocket more often and to be objective he has a cast off like Binns looking like an answer at Wr.

 

If I said HEY ASSFACES, our rookie QB will keep us alive for a playoff spot until week 16, throw for 3250 yards and only 12 ints, youd all be like yes please.

If I said BRIAN HARTLINE, DAVONE BESS and SOME GUYS FROM THE LOCAL Y were his wide receivers, you'd genuflect before him.

 

and it seems you are missing what is happening when the football is leaving the QB's hand

 

Proposition 1) Great Quarterbacks improve the performance of the players around them

Proposition 2) Before this season, everyone agreed our starting wide receivers were among the least talented in the league.

Thus, when the season ends and both have performed well... why are we not ascribing it to Tannehill making them look better than they are (compared to Henne)?

Why are we suddenly convinced they were always great and that Tannehill may be holding back the offense from scoring more TDs?

Don't understand the turnabout. The view sure looks different from the top of the hill once the climb is done, I suppose.

 

We should not be on the Tannehill is the final answer train just yet, but he looks extrememly promising.

We also shouldn;t be on the 'Tannehill is the problem' train.

Here's a question, Shou. You've spend a good amount of time setting out your position on Tannehill and where he is at as a rookie, and how it impacts our offense. I don;t think I've ever asked what you want to do about that. I'm actually curious (and not doing it to bait you, be sarcastic or anything).

Let's say for a moment that we, or Jeff ireland himself, was listening and agreed with your viewpoint. What would you want to do about it?