Where does Tannehill rank among quarterbacks today?

I wouldn't argue with anybody that wants to say Flacco is elite. Nor would I argue with anybody that says he isn't. Personally I have him slightly above, or at the very least at the same level as Matt Ryan and Eli Manning. I don't know what to call the guys in that group, calling them elite doesn't feel right but they are certainly a level above guys like Andy Dalton and Alex Smith (and Tannehill).

 

Sure...but how are you judging? You're not basing it on actual numbers, because if you are, for their careers to this point, Tannehill and Flacco are almost identical.

 

Elite, is the best of the best. Rarified. No argument HOF'er. I have Brady Manning and Rodgers in here. I didn't even have Brees in here for a while. Maybe he doesn't belong still. Big Ben isn't in here.

Next is the very very good. The maybe in the HOF, maybe not, but very very close. Brees maybe belongs here. Big Ben definitely at the top of this group. Romo just added after his last 3 years.

After that is the pretty good. More than enough to win the superbowl with the right team and right circumstances. Matt Ryan, Flaccos, Eli's.

After this is good. Need a good strong supporting cast to win it all. Alex Smith. Kaapernick. Hell Andy Dalton if things click right.

 

The word is "sought."

And you didn't understand.

 

Their passer ratings may be similar but Flacco trumps Tannehill (and a lot of QBs) in a few different statistical categories. I already touched on two of them in this thread.

 

Which were they? Forgive me if I've forgotten. They are very similar for rating, td%, and int%, even very close in ypa.

 

I wonder how many qbs in history actually have four postseason games with over a 100 qbr?

 

I wonder also. If it's as rare as I think it is, then that would be even more reason to not weight it in an evaluation as much.

 

I think part of the difference of opinion is that I can take 4 postseason games as individual performances not just '' a run'' or ''one postseason'' when I evaluate the player...to me its four separate games that he posted a qbr of over 100 in the playoffs, like I keep saying I'm not sure there are that many qbs that can say the same..take the same season out of the equation.

 

I absolutely agree that what Flacco did was incredible. I just don't think it likely that it will happen again, which is why I don't think it really offsets his other rather average stats. If it is as rare as we think, then that means it would be even more unlikely to happen again, so when judging him, why elevate him based on something that isn't likely to happen again?

 

Not to mention, Rafael has done a good job explaining why those weren't really "individual performances" on the post of Flacco.

 

some of us do not consider a ball that travels 20 yards a deep ball, I believe that where those average statistics come from..I do not think ryan struggles throwing 20 yard passes...''deep ball'' has a different connotation to me, and in that context he's not been good..

I'm thinking that the deep ball comes last in a qb's evolution, because it requires the game to be slow down in the ab's mind..because of ryans lack of inexperience relative to others, its probably the last thing to come.

 

hmm, thats weird, I absolutely believe Flacco had it in him so pardon me for going against what your stats show, and once someone reaches a level of play its more likely they achieve it again...I believe there is some philosophical phrase out there that says the same lol.

 

huh..there is something fundamentally wrong here as it pertains to evaluating a football player.

 

will he post another 4 games that average over 115 qbr, probably not, but those games don't get left on the table when evaluating a qb, I think its more of a probability that he will get closer to that number than the average number qbs have in postseason.

 

so res, If you have seen flacco play four games at a level where you use the word ''incredible'' can you say the same about Ryan?

 

They're not my stats, they're his stats. And they're more concrete than your belief in some "individual performances."

 

For me it just comes down to this. When I watch Tannehill play, and compare him to others - both objectively and subjectively, I like his style, his strengths, and the direction that he seems to be heading. I am also the least concerned with what have been his weaknesses, such as the deep ball, which I don't put much concern into. I think that we still have a ways to go before he hits his ceiling, and that's very exciting. To me, he seems at worst a similar player on a lower tier to Aaron Rodgers. A Pro Bowler when he peeks, even if he doesn't reach that trancendent level that A Rod has gotten to. I simply like what RT17 has to offer, both on and off the field, moreso than players such as Flacco, Kapernick or Wilson.

What others have done, either statistically or athletically, can be awesome or better in others eyes and I'm cool with that, but it will not change my personal views. Personally, I think that Flacco has hit his ceiling (which to me is a QB in the 10-15 range of the league) and will never be any better looking at it on a big picture, season by season view. Added to that, I just don't like him. His style of play isn't my choice, and his best trait, the deep pass, is the one I put at the bottom of my list.

We can all agree to disagree.

 

so first what you saw was ''incredible'' but it really doesn't have to do with him after Rafs said his 115 qbr was based on his receivers catching some jump balls?.....i couldn't disagree more, those balls were calculated touch throws, you sure are quick to agree...

saying that 4 postseason games played at that level and Super Bowl mvp was caused by some jump balls is about as incomplete an evaluation as there is.

this is getting frustrating.

 

No. Of course, when I say what he did, it by default involves other players. For instance, one of those games in 2012, the Ravens scored 30 points, but Flacco only had two tds, and a great rating.

Also, Flacco has a few years under his belt. Further, just because Tannehill hasn't done it, doesn't mean he won't, or doesn't mean he doesn't have the potential. I mean, we've seen Tannehill post some really high ratings, so clearly if we play the probability have like we have with Flacco, then Tannehill could do it too. So could probably every starting QB in the league.

 

If Ryan Tannehill had done it you best believe the "groupies" would be validating it like a mofo.

That's the problem, even more agenda based discussion meant to serve a personal need and not logic. It's obvious to me why they feel this way.

 

could you explain why you used the word ''certainly'' better when some folks have shown that their about at an equal level considering their numbers are similar in the regular season and that your not supposed to count the postseason?

 

taking four postseason games in the NFL at that position, played at that high of level, on the road, and cementing it with an mvp trophy in the biggest game, out of an overall evaluation of the player and not elevating him above another player that has close to player a's numbers but has never been to the postseason himself doesn't seem like a correct way to do things..

I understand the projection part and elevating your personal choice for the future above a more accomplished player at the position but as it stands now, that was not what that ranking indicated..like i said, thats a different thread.

 

There's one QB that beats them all: Joe Montana. He posted 8 consecutive 100+ ratings in playoff games across 3 years (1988-1990), and he did that in an era where the average rating was more than 10 points less than it is today. Best Marino ever did was 2 consecutive 100+ ratings in playoff games.

Modern QB's? Flacco is the only one that has had 5 consecutive 100+ ratings in playoff games across 2 years (includes the 4 in 2012). Otherwise, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Wilson all have had 3 consecutive 100+ ratings in playoff games. All the other big names (Eli, Big Ben, Luck, Peyton) have had at most two consecutive.

Also.. note this is only looking at consecutive 100+ games, not total number.

 

it didn't have to be consecutive...but thank you.

 

Let me try to come at it from this way, DJ. You look at Flacco, a career 84 rated QB, and say that his better numbers in the playoffs are him upping his game. But is it not just as likely that other players upped their games? I just hesitate to put all the credit on Flacco, who had shown thus far to be a mid-upper 80's QB. In other words, for me, 2012 doesn't erase 7 years of football.

 

Well I have the stats right here, so let me just give you total number, and fraction of total playoff games played.

Montana: 12 out of 23
Marino: 5 out of 18
Brady: 10 out of 29
Rodgers: 6 out of 11
Brees: 5 out of 11
Eli: 5 out of 11
Big Ben: 3 out of 15
Peyton: 6 out of 24
Flacco: 6 out of 15
Wilson: 5 out of 8
Luck: 1 out of 6

 

I think we really need to consider Flacco 2010 and beyond as truly different than 2008-2009 when it comes to how he performed in the playoffs. He went from average ratings in the 30's-50's to 90's-120's in those two periods. So, even if others improved their play (and thus take away some credit from Flacco), Flacco has got to deserve a good deal of credit for the Ravens' success in their most recent 4 trips to the playoffs.

 

I wonder for how many of those other playoff QBs it would also be probable and/or not anomalous that they would post 4 100+ rated games? My guess is that if the STD is 37 rating points or so that it's "probable" for a ton of them.

 

Turns out Flacco's std is by far the highest at 37, but a lot of those guys have std's in the range of high 20's/low 30's. Couple that with the small sample size of 4 (this really hurts when comparing to intuition about what's likely) and you're basically right.

If we really mean 4 consecutive 100+ ratings games in the playoffs, then all the QB's except Luck could do that (once) and one couldn't reject the hypothesis that the ratings came from that QB. If we mean 4 consecutive games in the playoffs where the average rating is 118 (as with Flacco in 2012), then Montana, Rodgers, Eli, Wilson and Brees could do that and it still wouldn't be too unlikely.

Keep in mind this is all for ONE occurrence of 4 consecutive games with such a rating, given what was seen so far. resnor asked an important question before about how frequently one could expect such an occurrence before it's too unlikely, and I don't know, but my intuition would be if it happens more than once in 10 years I bet some stat test would show it's too unlikely.

 

Tannehill is a stud in the most important ability.

 

I'm sorry, wouldn't that make the feat more impressive?

 

looks like his ratio is higher relative to games played.

 

Whether they admit it or not I bet those same folks have a disdain for Dalton specifically because of how he performs in the playoffs and primetime games.

 

And Wilson has the best ratio of them all. Thank god for Lynch...

 

Lauren is that you????



Tannehill has had a few get into the playoffs games, and he's win some but dim sum too.

 

The most important ability is.................




















availability. That boy is tough.

 

So are you saying that it is statistically unlikely that Flacco would ever have such a streak again?

 

OK.. I actually did the calculation. The probability of getting a rating of 118 or higher over 4 consecutive playoff games assuming the QB has the playoff ratings of Flacco is 1 in 13.5. So the short answer is you'd expect a 118+ average rating for 4 games once in 13.5 years.

However.. that's I think clearly an underestimate because of how you have to interpret this. The correct answer is 13.5 years if you actually play 4 playoff games each year. If you don't, then maybe it's better to think of it as once every 54 playoff games (13.5*4) you'd see 4 consecutive with an average of 118+ rating. How many years is 54 playoff games? You decide.. maybe it's more on the order of once every 20 or 25 years?

btw.. if you subscribe to the idea that Flacco is different from 2010 onwards (so you just use playoff stats from 2010 onwards), the answer is 1 in ~6, or 1 in 24 games, so maybe once in 10 years?

 

As I said earlier in this thread, a current ranking is who I'd take right now for this coming season. IMO people are ranking Flacco higher with the idea that he'd produce another magical playoff run. I don't see that as a reasonable expectation. That may not be the same thing in stats terminology as an anomaly, but it's the point I've been trying to convey. The fact that Flacco had a great run (which IMO was mostly the result of WRs making great plays anyways) does not make him "proven", meaning he's likely to do it again. As a law of averages it may actually make it less likely. My expectation for Flacco is that he's more likely to be closer to his overall rating going forward (about 84 or so) than he is to approach 118 again, playoffs or otherwise. I see Tannehill as more likely to continue to ascend and be higher than 88 going forward. So in any current ranking I would logically take the guy with the likely 88+ over the guy with 84.