I'm good with the ranting for now. The difference between being the Captain and "Number One" is exponential. Rodgers carried on and got better after Philbert left. Philbert did not contribute significantly to Rodgers success then or now I don't think.
Philbin was not your traditional OC. He was a secretary to the head coach/OC McCarthy. He admitted he didn't have much to do with Rodgers at all. He didn't call plays. He didn't even come up with the game plan alone. He was essentially spell checker and game plan coordinator. His words. True story.
Yeah I think that's mostly right, though all reports I've read say he had a major role in game planning. And if you have a major role in game planning it's hard to argue you weren't important in how the offense performed, including how Rodgers performed, at least to some degree. Anyway, not trying to defend Philbin too much here, just defending my claim that I doubt even he'd be so stupid to restrict Russell Wilson from using his mobility as HC. And I've got to see more evidence than that he wasn't calling plays to believe otherwise. I mean until Miami he had a pretty impressive career. He got promoted repeatedly even when many other assistant coaches were fired, and I think he's the only McCarthy era assistant to land a HC job? He's not THAT incompetent IMO.
I think he would be that stupid. Throwing on the run was one of Tannehill's strengths in college and Philbin was very stubborn. Very, very stubborn. And petty.
Yeah I get what you're saying, But he was that bad, and stubborn, so who knows. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports...ge-impact-the-offense/VnnHpUFCjk0eGJf5eWglxL/ So there are doubts of your previous role, and you're asked, since you didn't call plays. What did you do? This is his answer, and it's pathetic
To use an historical analogy, I view Philbin as being similar to General McLellan of the Army of the Potomac. Really good at organizing, training and getting the army ready to fight, but hopeless at making battlefield decisions.
Two words: Cleo Lemon And I said that Lucas was worse than Fiedler. It's just that Fiedler wasn't much better. lol
That's like bragging about being the tallest midget in the room. We're arguing about a career 65 passer rating vs a career 75 career passer rating. Lucas was worse, but not that much worse.
In Miami, Lucas (2 seasons) had a 70 passer rating and Fiedler(5 seasons) had a 75 passer rating. Not that big of a difference. For their careers, Lucas had a 74 and Fiedler had a 77 passer rating.
Yeah, my bad, I looked at the wrong numbers, but it doesn't change anything, Lucas was bad, he has 280 completions in his entire NFL career bad, Fiedler completed 900+ passes just as a Dolphin. We lost when Lucas came in, we were 7-3, he went 2-4, Fiedler was 36-23 as a Dolphin QB, we were a winning team until Lucas started.
Again, Lucas was worse. However, we didn't go from good to terrible because he came in. There were many other factors.
While it's true that overall Fiedler and Lucas weren't that different, I think there's a strong case to make that if Fiedler didn't get injured we make the playoffs in 2002. Remember we tied 2 other teams at 9-7 and lost the tiebreaker. First of all, 2 of the 4 losses by Ray Lucas are directly attributable to him, namely the first two games he started against Buffalo and GB where he had a 26.3 and 48.9 rating. He threw 4 INT's vs. 1 TD against Buffalo and was 0-2 in TD-INT against GB. He also threw a pick 6 in both games! All other games he started where we went 2-2 he played more than well enough to win so it's not his fault: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LucaRa00/gamelog/2002/ Fiedler on the other hand only had one game (out of 11) where he played utter crap with a 54.9 rating against KC where just like Ray Lucas he threw 4 INT's vs. 1 TD. Other than that there's nothing bad that stands out and 7 out of 10 games started were above average (which was 78.6 in 2002). Note that the 21.3 rating against Buffalo was a game he didn't start.. came in to relieve Lucas: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FiedJa00/gamelog/2002/ So once Fiedler came back, he averaged an 86.2 rating (well above average) over 4 games. We only needed to win 1 of the 2 games Ray Lucas lost for us to get in the playoffs. And before you say we lost those two games (vs. Buffalo and GB) 10-23 and 10-24 so it's not so clear.. please note that in BOTH games Ray Lucas threw a PICK 6!! lol So I agree they weren't overall that different, but without Fiedler getting injured mid-season I think it's highly probable we make the playoffs in 2002.
We didn't go from good to terrible, but we went from above avg to below avg. Lucas' career pretty much speaks for itself though, it never even got going, that's how bad Lucas was.
I watched a ton of Seattle b/c I live on the west coast and what I saw was that the type of pressure they faced was very different. B/c of the play calling (roll outs and screens, etc.) and balance in Seattle's offense, Wilson rarely faced defenses that just pinned their ears back like Tannehill faced. It happened sometimes and when it did Wilson almost always went down just like Tannehill did. I find the "they both had poor OLs" argument simplistic and wrong.
I agree with much of this except your conclusion that Tannehill can't be elite. I don't see any such limitations. And I believe that if he'd been in a different situation he may have already been considered elite. I don't mean that as a guarantee that he'll be an elite QB. That's a lofty title that most don't achieve. But I have no doubt that Tannehill is more than capable of putting up top 5 numbers for multiple years and of winning a championship. Obviously those take luck and health for any team, but if that were to occur than I suspect that he would be considered elite by many.
Interesting.. that means Stephen Ross is Abraham Lincoln, you know a highly divisive commander in chief who took WAY too long to realize how incompetent the general of his army (Philblin/McLellan) was before finally firing him lol. And that would make Jim Harbaugh into Robert E. Lee, the guy Lincoln originally wanted to be the general-in-chief but declined. A brilliant tactician that came close to winning the war but couldn't, just like Harbaugh went to but lost the SB. And they both fought against their brothers so to say lol. Let's see.. this means Adam Gase is Ulysses S. Grant, the guy who ultimately leads us to victory. I wonder who Tannehill becomes? Maybe William Tecumseh Sherman with his "scorched earth" policy? haha I'll tell you one thing though: we the fans are the slaves waiting to be freed.
Yeah the analogy has to break down somewhere. I mean Lee didn't think that highly of Grant and said McLellan was the superior foe. Not sure who'd ever think that of Philbin vs. Gase. Of course he never beat Grant but beat McLellan.
It's not me benching young QB's...it's head coaches and the league itself. My opinion has no bearing on what coaches decide to do.
Team, yes, but I doubt it was due to one player. Especially a player that played not much better than the one who replaced him.
In 2013 at least (before PFF started taking away a lot of their numbers), the year Wilson won a superbowl, Tannehill did not face a bunch of quick pressure. In fact, he was below the NFL average in quick pressure. Wilson faced a lot more quick pressure. Wilson is at the top of 3+ seconds because of his scrambling ability. https://www.profootballfocus.com/qbs-in-focus-tendencies/2/ Also, an argument that is frequently made (not by rafael in this post) is the number of rushers each QB faced. CK debunked that for 2014: https://thephins.com/threads/jimmy-...d-on-t17s-deep-ball.86104/page-5#post-2607267 Waiting for danmarino to call me a Wilson lover since I keep posting about him (but remember I just respond to what people post about).
Fielder had a je ne sais quoi about him. The team was instantly reinvigorated when he came back in. Yeah they went 2-2 when he came backin, but still better than 2-4. I remember the game he came back in. They lost it, but the ball was being moved. Lucas was a train wreck.
When I say the type of pressure was different, I mean that Tannehill was getting pressured from multiple points simultaneously. That's what happens when a defense can just pin their ears back b/c you're offense is so predictable. Wilson didn't face that often, but when he did he rarely escaped. The stats from PFF are irrelevant and not at all what I was talking about.
I've been saying this for years. Honestly, if anyone doesn't understand the difference between one guy breaking through versus 3 guys breaking through at once versus 3 guys breaking through at different times.....then they don't understand basic common sense or they have an agenda.
That stat addressed your point exactly. In 2014, Tannehill faced less rushers per pressure than Wilson. Look at my quote of Ck's post. There were more rushers providing pressure per pressure event, against Wilson than Tannehill. It directly refutes your assertion. Also the fact that Wilson was pressured on a higher percentage of dropbacks than Tannehill. Comebine that with the fact Wilson faced more quick pressure (less than 2.5 seconds) and it doesn't fit the narrative
The PFF stats directly address that Yes Tanny faced pressure from more than one defender at times. Wilson faced even more
On 10 plays, QB X gets pressured by 1 person each time and gets sacked once, because a good shifty QB can avoid 1 guy more than not. On 10 plays, QB Y gets pressured by 3 people on 3 plays, gets sacked each time because almost no QBs can avoid 3 guys at once. Looking at the stats the way you, CK and PFF presented them: QB X was pressured by 10 people and was sacked only once. QB Y was pressured by 9 people and sacked 3 times. None of this even factors into where the pressure is coming from. As most QBs struggle with interior pressure and have an easier time with edge pressure.
First, sacks aren't even considered here. These are pure pressures. Whatever happened at the end of the play isn't addressed by these stats. Whether sack, throwaway, pass, INT etc. Just pressure. Second, Wilson faced more rushers per pressure than Tanny. I'm not saying Tanny didn't also face it. But an argument used by against Wilson in the past is that Wilson didn't face the same pressure from multiple spots. The stats show, he did. He faced more defenders per pressure, and on a higher percentage of his dropbacks. He also faced more quick pressures. Again, not saying Tanny didn't face jailbreaks. He did. But so did Wilson. Actually worse. That's all. Third, no. The hypothetical you presented is completely off. QB x was pressured 10 times, 1 rusher per pressure. Qb y was pressured 3 times, 3 rushers per pressure. So go back and look at the numbers again. Tanny faced pressure on 248 dropbacks. On those 248, 321 rushers broke through and was applying pressure. Wilson faced pressure on 251 dropbacks (he drops back less remember that). On those 251 dropbacks, 357 defenders broke through. Unless the argument is these numbers are just wrong, there is no credible way to argue Tanny faced more pressure, from More defenders.
Except that for every year from 2012-2016 Wilson had a higher sack% than Tannehill. So while different types of pressure can change the sack rate, there's no evidence from the sack rates to support the claim Tannehill had it worse. It actually supports what jdang is saying. Not sure if there's any source that actually tracks where the pressure came from but you'll need to find those stats if the argument you're trying to make is to be anything more than an assertion that the type of pressure was worse for Tannehill.
Lets not forget the stat that ran on primetime that Wilson was responsible for more sacks than any other QB in the league. Wilson often breaks the pocket very early, and rolls out, which often results in pressure on him, but that's very different than getting pressure because your oline is a joke, and simply can't block.
What? There's nothing wrong with the hypothetical. It still says QB X was pressured more, but the reality is that QB Y had it worse. that directly addresses what you were saying.
That doesn't support jd's point at all as we all know, Wilson ran more than Thill. Anytime a QB is tackled behind the line it is a sack whether he was looking to pass or run. Secondly, I don't need the stats you think to prove my point. Last year proved it for me. Again, stop watching the games through Excel.
IM saying it doesn't address what we are talking about here. Wilson faced more pressure. And by more defenders on each pressure. Wilson had it worst than Tanny.
That was at the beginning of 2015. Then he responded with one of the best runs in NFL history. But my pressure stats arent effected by that. It's just pressure.
He had it worse because he scrambled so often early. First read not there, he takes off, very often. He creates much of the pressures on himself because he gets outside the tackles.
Gah. Pay attention to the hypothetical I posted again. QB Y had it worse and it did more to hurt the outcome of the game even though QB Y was technically pressured more.
