https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/04/qbs-in-focus-drop-back-rollout-scramble/ Three different sets. Dropback, Scramble & Rollout. Tannehill rates really well. 12th, 4th & 3rd, respectively. I'm not one to treat their stats as gospel, but they're interesting non the less. I think that these should at lesst help quiet the Tannehill bashers. Looking at all the numbers they've posted, his only area where he fared poorly was 3rd and long.
Chad Henne is last in Standard dropback passer. One of the many reasons I don't like it when people compare Tannehill to Henne Also Omar has been touting his love for Nick Foles. In all three categories Tannehill is higher than Nick Foles.
Yeah, good luck w/ that. I like him and think he can do things in this league. I'm not sure he will be a consistently top 5 like a Rodgers or Brees or Manning or he who shall remain un-named, but I think he can be quite good. Better coaching, better tools, more time, some running game and a chip here or there and an outlet back and he can be damn good.
Ryan showed his best attribute when rolling out to either side according to the report... You'd think that Sherman would feature the skills....nope. But it cuts off half the field...wa wa waaaaaa.. You freakin roll that mother left and right at the least 4 times a game..it's called a weapon from the Qb position, and when you have not great skill talent, you use the damn Qb to help.
Interestingly, he had a 5-0 td/int ratio when taking the ball from center, as opposed to shotgun, where he was 19-17. Will we see even more shotgun with Lazor though?
It seems to belie to a degree the idea that Tannehill was coached to stick in the pocket when pressured rather than to scramble, but there's some missing information. It doesn't put the scrambling % in the context of how much Tannehill was pressured(pretty average), or how often he was sacked(highest overall and %). It also doesn't appear to really consider the "running" element, where he pulled down the ball and advanced it himself. I've been of the opinion that the "best" fit for Tannehill in terms of offense is along the line of what Gary Kubiak ran- Increase the play action and the rollout elements. Which I think someone caught on to, hence them interviewing Kubiak and Shanahan Jr. as offensive coordinators this off-season.
It is pretty impressive from a strict PFF perspective that he graded out that high with what he was working with on all levels ( run game, oline, skill players, o coordinator) Hmmm.
He can if he gets the same tools that those other guys have ALWAYS had. They all play in attacking offensive systems using multiple weapons with specialized skill sets. I think Tannehill can be that if Lazor's system is what we think it is, and especially if we surround him with the the level of talent that top 5 QBs always seem to have.
that's the one area where I'm hoping a revamped Oline (once it settles down and the rookies catch up) will make the biggest difference. on 3rd and long, opposing defenses knew if they brought the heat that they could get to Tannehill behind that awful Oline.
So let me try to understand Sherman's mind. We had a middle of the pack dropback quarterback who was one of the best at scrambling and rolling out. Does anyone remember David Woodley, who had a limited dropback skill set, and Shula put in a bunch of plays to take advantage of the scrambling and rollout skills he did have? They called the plays "Woodlies."
Keep in mind that while the breakdowns offer really neat (and new) statistics and metrics for the quarterbacks, they're still sorted by the subjective PFF grades. Dupree mentioned that Nick Foles graded lower than Tannehill in all three categories. I've watched a lot of Nick Foles work from 2013 and particularly his work against pressure and in scrambling situations. His grade being lower than Tannehill's in all three categories including and especially scrambles tells me more about the grading than it does about Foles and Tannehill.
He had 28 designed rollouts, which isn't really a low number. The guys with significantly higher rollouts both had much better running games than Miami.
I think DJ might mean a low number for his athletic ability and it seemingly being a huge strength of his.
His PFF grade is significantly higher on standard dropbacks than rollouts. Either way, he's pretty much of the same athletic ability as Andrew Luck, and they're both rolling out at the same rate. If anything, I think the proclivity to use QBs on rollouts is tied to functions of the running game as much as anything. But again, he was much better on standard dropbacks than rollouts, which is a pretty big point here.
One thing I find interesting is that the rollout statistics can be combined with extant play-action statistics to show that on play-action passes that didn't involve a rollout, Tannehill was 37 of 63 for 529 yards, 3 TDs and 0 INTs. That's still a 102 passer rating. So his being good on play-action passes isn't necessarily because of them being rollouts.
The PFF grade is cumulative in nature. He had a +3.7 on 28 dropbacks rolling out and a +10.5 on 605 dropbacks staying in the pocket. If he'd rolled out 605 times he'd have had a +79.9 PFF grade on rollouts.
It's something that doesn't get enough recognition, including by PFF themselves. Their grades are added on top of one another like yardage stats. If a guy has a tendency to make good plays then the more he plays the more his grade goes up and up and up. Yet the grades continue to be cited like they're efficiency metrics.
I don't put much stock in the rankings. Watching the games I could've told you Tannehill hits bigger plays on the move, but that he also turns it over out there as well (3.6 and 3.7 int% on scrambles and rollouts). Want to know why we missed the playoffs? Look at the YPA and the YAC on standard dropbacks...they're awful. Those numbers will never win you 10 games. That red sticks out like a sore thumb in that green region of the chart, looks more like the guys in the bottom 10. His ypa needs to be above 7...then we can start talkin postseason.
1 and a half a game is a ridiculous number for a player that has the skillset Ryan does, ridiculous. Spells losing football..
Yes, it really is. Whenever I analyze PFF ratings I always keep that in mind. I usually standardize into a per 1000 snaps number.
I think you're missing the point of analytics. Yes you could have told us based on having watched the games that Tannehill makes plays on the move. But could you have contextualized the rate at which he makes plays on the move relative to the 30-something other quarterbacks in the NFL? Hence the studies.
Theres one thing that Ryan does better than luck, throw on the run from both sides, that in itself should garner a more creative mindset that allows the player to have more reps doing so.. 1 rollout a game is not enough,he needs to triple that.
and the simple fix is to get on the same page with Wallace. Connect on just a few of those plays and his YPA will jump.
Keep in mind that the top half and botttom half of the rankings are in seperate PDFs. He's "middle of the pack" of the top half in dropbacks. Or, better than about 75% of the QBs on the list. Nothing to sneeze at.
I'd actually say Ryan is far more athletic than Luck even if he doesn't always have equal pocket movements.
Shouldn't more snaps = more fatigue = lower standard of play? Or rather...isn't it actually more impressive for a player with 1000 snaps to be +1000 than a player with 500 snaps to be +500? As a ridiculous example.
I think what Unlucky13 said is more or less how I feel. I think Ryan is faster, probably has better ball carrying instincts and more agility. However Luck just has that Big Ben ability to shrug off sacks, with more speed than Ben but probably less power. My two cents.
I don't see how Tannehill is "far more athletic than Luck." Luck ran a 4.59 at 234 lbs with a 36" vertical and a 10'4" broad jump. That is very athletic. I don't think Tannehill is better on any of those numbers even at roughly 10-15 lbs lighter. He's a good athlete and may be roughly comparable, but "far better" is a stretch.
Stringer's point about the rollouts relative to the success of the run game is pertinent. You have to keep in mind that even though Dolphins fans all complained that Tannehill wasn't running enough, defenses knew all about his athletic ability (former wide receiver and all that) and they regularly structured their blitzes and rushes to shut down the escape routes. If you're in a game and you see the defensive ends or linebackers playing a certain way, you know that if you run a rollout you may be putting a defender right in Tannehill's teeth just as he gets his head turned back up the field. When a defense is playing that way there are things you can do to hurt them in the run game, stuff that could make them think twice. Miami wasn't very good at that stuff. I don't think it a coincidence that all three of the QBs that ran rollouts significantly more often as a percentage than Ryan Tannehill all had more consistent ground games. All were in the top 6.
yeah I don't agree, I don't see the lateral agility with Ryan as I do with luck, luck is def a horse to bring down though and has much better peripheral vision and instincts to get a head start.
