ESPN BLOG: Is Ryan Tannehill Better Than Andrew Luck?

That doesn't really address why Luck isn't better than Tannehill? Is your argument that Tannehill is better than Luck because he had worse teammates (which isn't true IMO).

 

While I do believe Luck is better than Tannehill, however I have been saying for years that they are not as far apart as people like to make them out to be.

Switch them and the Colts are still making the playoffs and the Dolphins are still missing the playoffs.

I think both of them are going to have long careers.

 

That only matters if the talent across various teams' olines is exactly the same or even comparable. The talent on our oline sucked after Albert went down. That is not on Tannehill.

Luck had WAAAAAAAAAAAY more talent around him. His line was better and on no planet do you take Hartline, Wallace & an injured Charles Clay over Hilton, Brooks & Fleener.

 

WRs were comparable IMO. The Colts offensive line was not good. The Miami defense was much better than Indianapolis'. Bill Lazor is far better than Pep Hamilton IMO.

But either way, if the argument is that Tannehill is better because he has worse teammates, then have at it.

 

No.

You don't get to say Colt's line was no good and leave it at that and put none of it on Luck, when the Dolphin's line was objectively worse and you but it all on Tannehill.

You cannot have it both ways.

 

Colts line was better.

Dolphins running game was better.

Colts receivers were better.

Dolphins offensive coaches were better.

Dolphins defense was better.

Also, when you say objectively better, you know you can't use PFF ratings as objective evidence?

 

I think it is just interesting that the gap is not as big as some people think, that's all.... and if you think about all the stuff about redshirting one year for RT, when he was picked - gerrard or moore.... - and the fact he has played much less QB plays at college level.... Well, we should be freaking happy, like crying for joy happy, about our present situation, the Ryan's trajectory... I mean, Luck, for somebody here, is like a football god, already almost perfect.... the simple fact that RT is near him in some deep analytical stats for me it is a big thing as it is the fact that apparently he make bad decisions very rarely.

we should just be happy, instead of celebrating how much Luck is better and how much anyone that don't see that is just a moron


btw, I don't know if someone already posted this here, but it is an interesting read (thanks to BPK that posted originally) http://nflbreakdowns.com/ryan-tannehills-12-ints-in-2014/?singlepage=1 .



PS - I don't know if it is easy to compare OL with simple stats, because Luck is so good at extending plays and lickely he is, in some way, hiding the deficencies of his teammates


pps sorry for the English

 

4th quarter rating

AL-91.7
RT-79.9

This debate is beyond ridiculous, if you can't tell in 10 minutes watching these guys, you have no clue.

 

8 above avg games 8 below avg games...unless you want to credit him for every above average game then divert blame for the under par games, the proof is staring you in the face.

Ofcourse I'm pretty confident that's what you will do.

 

Put me down in the group that agrees there shouldn't be any question that Luck is the better Qb at this point, but the difference is closer than thought. The biggest gap to me is the clutch aspect between the two. Andrew Luck has been better in crunch time than Ryan Tannehill thus far. The 4th Qtr numbers bear that out.

We should have made the playoffs last year but the team got the injury bug last season worse than I can ever remember. The injury to Albert was a killer and the oline was never the same without him, but the lions share was on the defense. It's no wonder the defense collapsed at the end of the season last year the secondary was a mess, though it does not explain how we were suddenly getting gashed up the middle in the run game.

I really hope that we have better luck on the injuries this year, because outside of the Defensive line and Receivers I have little faith in our backups.

 

Yeah in the 4th quarter within 7 points 2014:

AL: 79.3
RT: 99.3

In fact, based on stats, Tannehill was a much better QB when his team was behind in any quarter last year, oddly enough.

 

Before you give me crap about what criteria I may or may not be using, maybe you should check up on yours, like....

- What criteria are you even using for saying our OC is better than their OC?
- Indys defense allowed less point than ours.


And you still haven't accounted for why Tannehill is more responsible for when his line played lousy, but you don't hold Luck responsible for when his line played lousy.

 

Half this board or more wanted to "suck for Luck" at one point in time and another point in time had daily/weekly/monthly threads from half the board on Matt Ryan and what we missed out on. Now we have a guy that is ranked right in the range with these two guys by an objective source who actually watches tape (whether you agree with their methods or not)...we should at least be a little bit happy about it.

 

Does division play into it?

They had 6 games against Texans, Jags & Titans.

 

The massive problem, and I do mean massive, is that nearly all our games, 13 of the 16, were decided in the 4th quarter, 11 of those games we actually HAD THE LEAD in the 4th quarter, the other 2 we were tied and trailing by 1.
The game we were trailing by 1 was the Ravens game, the game where Tanne missed a wide open Wallace from the 11, which should have actually given us the lead in the 4th, a gimmy TD, no excuse for that.

 

Doesn't that tell you the problem was defense, though?

 

PFF stats are interesting, but the system is flawed. I agree with Walker on all of his points except he is mistaken about Tannehill not elevating the team. The Dolphins might have won 4 games without RT. The value of last year's receiving corp was overstated. Ryan's running ability and its impact on games was undervalued.

 

Here's a thought: PERHAPS, and I know this is hard to follow, but PERHAPS when your oline sucks and your receivers underperform, it's hard for a third year QB who's still maturing to carry a team. PERHAPS it's hard for a QB to actually make a receiver catch a ball, or to make an olineman hold his block. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy. See, you act like I'm some blind Tannehill homer, but all I really do is try to balance out the hardline stance you take. You want to hold Tannehill solely responsible for the team's record, and the lack of deepish throws. I prefer to hold the whole team accountable.

 

Where did I say that Luck ISN'T better than Tannehill?? Or, clarifying a bit, that Luck doesn't have the potential to be better than Tannehill?

 

If only that were true....all you have done is make excuses for even the most minor flaws in his game, you want to give him 120% credit when they win and 1/52 credit when they lose. You have taken homerism to much higher heights.

 

"Luck doesn't have the potential to be as good as Tannehill" is as backwards of a statement as i have ever seen. Do i think there is a big gap between the two?? Not really as much as it used to be, Luck peaked to the point where he can only get so much better, Ryan has improved at a very nice rate and the gap looks to have been bridged. But make no mistake, there is still a gap.

 

Incorrect. It only seems that way, since I've been arguing with you for so long. When someone takes an extreme position, which so many have with Tannehill over the years, when you argue those positions, it colors the narrative. Instead of me coming off as objective, I get labeled a homer. I've criticized parts of Tannehill's game over the seasons, but I get labeled a homer because I try to give a balanced view to some of the struggles. I don't give Tannehill 120% of anything, whether they win or lose. Just more obfuscation to try to marginalize what I say.

 

Maybe you need to try to understand what I was saying. Statistically, Luck and Tannehill may not be far apart, and in some categories, Tannehill may be better. Hence, I asked where I have ever said that Luck wasn't better, or that Luck doesn't have the potential to be better than Tannehill.

Key words, which you misquoted, "potential TO BE BETTER than Tannehill." Not "to be as good as" like you misquoted me. The two statements are worlds apart.

 

Whether Luck is better or not, the defense that writer gives is woefully inadequate. How the hell does that appear on a major site, much less a halfway serious blog?

Here's a post on QB production last year: http://www.footballperspective.com/2014-rearview-adjusted-net-yards-per-attempt/#more-26200. If you're too lazy to click the link, it's comparing each QB's adjusted net yards per attempt to the rest of the league. Taking out QBs who had less than 3000 attempts (because I think the small sample size is skewing those QBs with less) , Luck ranks 5th and Tanny ranks 17th. That sounds about right. I could argue Tanny should be higher because he's playing being a crap Oline. But he's about average to a bit above average while Luck is at least fairly above average. I could easily see Tanny joining Luck's ranks though.

 

I have no opinion on the PFF grades, but the irony of this thread is people saying PFF is bunk and substituting it with their definitively unqualified opinion.

 

I think Andrew Luck is better than Ryan Tannehill, but the margin isn't that wide. I think Luck and Tannehill BOTH have a ways to go in terms of being as good as someone like Aaron Rodgers, for example. I'd give the nod to Luck based on his pocket presence/ability to extend plays and passing efficiency. I do think those are areas that Ryan can certainly improve on, and he, Lazor and Philbin have said as much several times this offseason and training camp.

 

This list is obviously bogus. If all the teams in the NFL had a choice today and they could take Luck or Tannehill, every single team in the league would take Luck and that includes the Dolphins.

Tannehill is is certainly in the top half of the starters in the NFL at this time. Probably in the 12-14 range, but Luck is in the top 3-4 of all the QB's in the NFL.

Tannehill has a chance to become a top ten QB if he continues to develop, but I expect Luck to be the top QB in the entire NFL within the next two to three years.

I need some of what the guy was smoking when he listed Tannehill over Luck. It must be good stuff but it certainly screws up your ability to reason properly.

 

I think Luck/Tannehill has the chance to be one of the next great QB rivalries in the game if the Colts can stay on top of the pitiful AFC South and the Dolphins can become a consistent playoff team. Both are extremely talented and the games have been close and entertaining that they have played against each other. Luck is a gunslinger QB, which means he probably will turn the ball over more than Tannehill who plays a more calculated style. Despite that, Luck gets the edge over Tanny at this point in their careers.

 

How do you quantify something that by definition is not concrete?

 

I know exactly what would of happened. Because it did happen to Cam Newton. In 2012, Carolina went 7-9 and had the 18th ranked offense and 18 ranked defense. In 2013, Carolina had the 18th ranked offense but a top 3 defense. Despite little statistical difference in Cam Newton's play, Carolina went 12-4. Suddenly, the narrative was "Cam has arrived!" He's mature now and stuff... Cam got all the credit in the world for his defenses improvement,12-4 record, and division title.

Same thing will hppaen to Tannehill at the end of this season. Book it.

 

You can't qualify intangibles, else they would be tangible.

Wait, lemme guess, I'm spinning that too, right?

 

Okay I can't be the only one who laughed hysterically at this line can I?

 

First, I agree that having some background material to defend his position would improve the validity of his statement. Further, you present a reasonable position that I support. My problem is with using these stats as anything but a starting position. They are just stats, and the value of the statistic is its objectivity.

Some of the problems with this statistic is there is not an adjustment for scheme, the match of the oline to the scheme, the match of the receivers to the scheme, the ability of the receivers to adjust to deep balls, and probably some other attributes of Ryan's skill set.

 

He "believes" he will win because he's always playing the Jaguars and Titans. He doesn't seem to have strong beliefs when he's facing the Patriots though.

Luck came into the league light years ahead of Tannehill, the talent gap has been closing ever since but the perception gap lags far behind.

 

You did see luck at the deflate bowl, RT never looked that bad playing the Pats.

 

So a QB can't be good in a loss? Gotcha. This is why we can't have these discussions. One side just can't stop themselves from making completely ridiculous statements. and conclusions.