1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Other NFL' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

Ryan Tannehill is...

  1. A terrible QB

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. A below average QB

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  3. An average QB

    7 vote(s)
    10.0%
  4. An above average QB

    39 vote(s)
    55.7%
  5. An elite QB

    16 vote(s)
    22.9%
  6. The GOAT.

    4 vote(s)
    5.7%
  1. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    In terms of straight statistical reasoning and without taking any further look at what happened in the game (which I know is possible to do -- I'm just not doing it in this post), Tannehill played an average game, which, considering the relationship between passer rating differential and winning, means he gave his team roughly a 50% chance of winning the game. He didn't win the game and he didn't lose it.

    And that, by the way, is how he played overall in Miami.
     
  2. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    They have a top 10 defense and one of the best RB's in the league and a QB that's been playing at an elite level. No team is perfect. And it's not like their WR's are crap (like Brady has) either. So yes they're "all round" a good team.

    And that INT early on was nowhere near as big of a difference maker as Watson's INT that kept the Titans in the game. Like I said, Tannehill played well but not better than Watson. We'll get a better idea of how he plays in must-win games in the 2 games coming up.
     
  3. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I will say that at this point, on some level, it has become a circular debate where we all say the same thing but in a different way each time.

    At the same time though I've learned a lot about many different things in this thread.

    From CBrad and TheGuy basically giving rudimentary classes in statistics to just some interesting thoughts on team building from others.

    Hopefully we have something more team related to talk about ad nauseam soon lol but it's hard to get too excited or discouraged yet.

    I think next season the forum will be a little more on point with more excitement and some new members hopefully as we enter season 2 of this rebuild.
     
    resnor, The Guy and Bumrush like this.
  4. Bumrush

    Bumrush Stable Genius Club Member

    29,473
    34,332
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    As it relates to the Titans they are clearly on cloud nine with Ryan but if they sign him to a massive contract and he reverts back to being a JAG they will be in a load of trouble.

    I'd be weary if I was a Titans fan. He may continue at this torrid pace or he may decline next year and if that happens they'll be stuck much like Miami has been in a hamster wheel.

    He's shown this level of ability before. Even in his rookie year before Phibo the Clown toned him down. In 2014 before the final collapse he was on the verge of throwing 30 TD's. 2016 before the cheap shot.

    Be weary Titan fans.
     
    resnor and AGuyNamedAlex like this.
  5. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    If I'm the Titans, assuming he keeps up his play to end the year, I probably try and put the Franchise Tag on him for a year.

    It's probably a massive salary, but it's far less damaging than signing him long term and him reverting back to being inconsistent.
     
    resnor, The Guy and Bumrush like this.
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I would consider that as well. Realize however that in 2019 that would've equaled a cap hit of nearly $25M, or about 13% of a team's salary cap. Believe it or not his cap hit with the Titans this year is a mere $1.875M, well below the average starting quarterback in the NFL.

    So the Titans' ability to maintain or increase the talent around Tannehill would take quite a hit if his cap hit increased from just under $2M to somewhere around $25M.

    This is again why it's so important that QBs who make that kind of money actually produce at that level as well, because it becomes all but impossible under the salary cap to surround them with a great deal of talent. They basically have to carry their teams to a large degree.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  7. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I mean, if Tannehill's TD pass wasn't fumbled, it's a 14 point swing for the Titans and they win the game. That one play decided the outcome more than anything.
     
  8. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    What?? Tannehill's INT occurred early in the 2nd quarter and the Titans would have been up 7-0 had it been a TD. Hardly anything "determined" based on that. Compare that to Watson's INT at the end of the 3rd quarter in the endzone. That would have allowed Houston to go up by 14 with one quarter to go. No question which was more important: Watson's INT.
     
    Bumrush likes this.
  9. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    Watson didnt play better than Tannehill. You are crazy, lmao.

    Titans K cost them 3 points off the bat.
     
    Mcduffie81 and PhinFan1968 like this.
  10. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Yep, it's basically going to have to be a 1 year trial of being the presumed Franchise QB with quite possibly less talent around him if they go that route.

    It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you dont type scenario right now.

    If you shell out a longer contract you can probably save a decent amount of money but you'll also be hurting the team long term if you end up with a bunch of dead cap space and no QB to show for it.

    I guess the other options would be an incentive based contract...but I doubt hed accept that honestly or to back load the contract to keep the core together and hope he plays this well going forward.
     
  11. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I'm not crazy. You just think I am because I don't agree with you. And what does a blocked FG have to do with QB's?

    Tannehill wasn't that good in the 1st half even if he played well in the 2nd. Watson had 2 damaging INT's that allowed the Titans to come back and tie it but he recovered and led the team to a 10 point lead. That's playing well when it matters most. Yeah overall I'd rather have Watson's play in that game than Tannehill's play in that game, even if I'd be happy with Tannehill's play in a vacuum.

    So yeah Watson > Tannehill today (and it's not a crazy opinion either.. I bet more neutral observers who aren't fans of either team would agree with me instead of you).
     
    Pauly and Irishman like this.
  12. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    You know damn well that football can be a big momentum/flow game...they had ALL the momentum up until that point, and it deflated them. Not to mention the 14 point swing. Throw in the field goal and you have Titans up at the half at least a touchdown, probably 2.
     
  13. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    Isn't it passer rating differential that's the predictor? If that's the case, Tannehill slight edge...VERY slight.
     
    resnor likes this.
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    How do you argue momentum was larger for the Titans early in the 2nd when it was 0-0 than when Houston was about to put the nail in the coffin. It wasn't. Watson's INT was MUCH more important because that made it a ballgame in the 4th quarter.
     
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Statistically yes. You need large sample size of course. I've already shown that one should only start quoting passer ratings once they hit a minimum of 150+ consecutive passing attempts because statistical tests will show almost any (realistic) set of passer ratings from one QB is still too likely to be produced by another QB with less than 150 passing attempts. It's why I personally only started to talk about Tannehill's passer rating with the Titans as "statistically significant" after it hit that mark.

    So for a single game passer rating really doesn't matter.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  16. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Honestly I dont see how you can say either is more important.

    If you erase both you end up with the exact same result. If you erase only one, you end up with a different result in either direction.

    They seemed equally important looking at the game as a whole.
     
    PhinFan1968 likes this.
  17. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I don't have the win probability graph for the game, but to 99% probability the Watson INT will have caused a bigger change in win probability because of its timing. Even if the momentum shift or the change in expected points added (EPA) was identical (not saying they are.. this is just a hypothetical) the timing alone makes the one late in the game far more important – fewer chances to undo the damage.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  18. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    OMG

    Now passer rating in a game is meaningless? Stop. You've been arguing for years that X passer rating =Y wins. A season long passer rating is simply an average of each games passer rating. So, passer rating in individual games would have to matter.
     
  19. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    And this is exactly why stats are not good for determining outcomes.
     
  20. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    OMG.. you've either ignored or not understood something I've said countless times. That passer rating shouldn't be used unless you have 150+ passing attempts. And the "X passer rating = Y wins" is assuming you have large enough sample size.

    So which is it? Can't understand that or refuse to acknowledge I've been saying that for years?
     
  21. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    If Tannehill stat is negative, then it's the answer.
    If Tannehill stat is positive, then it's either an anomaly or inconclusive.
    The tape is always, apparently, irrelevant.

    At some point, the odds of the above have to be out of skew.
     
  22. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Titans team has been to the playoffs and won playoff games. They are solid and very well coached.
     
  23. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    6,053
    5,608
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    Amazing how you find a way to credit Watson and discredit Tannehill when reviewing 1st and 2nd half performances.

    Tannehill SHOULD have had 4 TDS on the day. Watson had 2 red zone ints that should have cost them the game.

    The Texans would have lost that game if it weren’t for a missed FG and red zone fumble (perfect pass from Tannehill) for the Titans.
     
    KeyFin and PhinFan1968 like this.
  24. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    The extremists partaking in the Tannehill debates have really damaged the main forum in my opinion.

    That’s both sides also.
     
    Bumrush likes this.
  25. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Did you just post that because it sounded cool to you because it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the current discussion. We're talking (mostly) here about what happened on "tape". At least I watched the entire game and am basing what I'm saying on that.

    Also.. if you look at the ton of posts over the last few weeks showing all kinds of stats that I pointed out weren't properly adjusted, those were mostly "Tannehill-positive" stats, not negative ones. So I don't think your post is reflecting the nature of the discussion much.
     
    Fin-O likes this.
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    "Should have" or "would have" has to be equally applied to everyone if you go down that path, not just for one QB. So if you don't like drops by WR's, then you have to remove all drops for all WR's for all QB's, not just for one QB and leave the drops for the other QB in place.

    Until you start doing that it's not a fair comparison. Where are the similar "should have/would have's" for Watson?
     
    The Guy likes this.
  27. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Obviously win % chance is going to change the deeper into the game you go, that doesnt mean the points you gajned/lost are more important later at all.

    If the Titans scored 14 points in the first 30 seconds they arent actually worth any more than if they scored 14 points with 30 seconds left.

    You're determining win probability based on the time left in a game which is fine, but every play within a game has equal value in the end.
     
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Except that we're not talking about the value of the points scored. We're talking about the value of the PLAY, which is what win probability captures. The same play could lead to the same points, or even EPA, while having vastly different value based on its timing within the game.
     
  29. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah, I'm very concerned with being cool and liked. That's why my posts are always so sweet and for everyone.

    Also did you just say the positive stats that weren't;t properly adjusted, as if that doesn't prove my point?
     
  30. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    No way- if the receiver held the ball in the endzone....Titans score 7 and take 7 off the board since the red-zone drive didn't happen. Even if Watson missed the INT later and the Texans scored, they still lose the game by 4 points.

    The fumbled TD was CLEARLY the biggest swing play of the game. To put it in math terms, 14 > 7. =)
     
    PhinFan1968 and cuchulainn like this.
  31. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Except you are talking about points, because you are talking about potential point swings in a game caused by interceptions.

    Again, it really doesnt matter when a play happens. Even if you throw an INT in the endzone to lose a game by 6 points, it's no worse than throwing that same INT in the first quarter costing yourself or giving the opponent points.
     
    resnor likes this.
  32. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    6,053
    5,608
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    Feel free to show me a sure thing TD pass dropped/fumbled by one of Watson’s receivers today so we can apply it.
     
    resnor likes this.
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Wait what?? Now you're telling me that even if the Texans scored and went up by either 14 or at worst 10 to start the 4th quarter that the Texans would guarantee lose by 4 points?? Where are you getting this stuff? I think this is all fantasy you're talking about.

    In both cases there was a huge momentum change and a drive that led to a TD by the other team. That part isn't different. What IS different is that one occurred early in the 2nd while the other occurred right before the start of the 4th quarter. HUGE difference in importance, and as I've been telling Alex that will almost certainly show itself in the in-game win probability.
     
  34. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No I'm talking specifically about the value of the play. And the Watson INT is the more important one in terms of which one affects the final outcome more. Remember, that's what this whole discussion is about: which PLAY is more important for determining the outcome.
     
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Not necessarily. If a team is ahead by 30 points with three minutes left to play for example, a touchdown by either team at that point in the game is almost worthless in terms of its change in win probability for either team.

    This is where the term "garbage time" comes from, because plays made during that part of the game are non-impactful.
     
  36. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Looking at the tape again that INT was not a "sure TD pass" by Tannehill. The receiver had the ball knocked out at the 1 yard line, and if you look at the play it looks like if the WR caught it he would probably have been tackled at the 1 yard line.
     
  37. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    There was no score. RT threw a TD pass, which makes it Titans 7-0. However, the receiver fumbled that pass into a waiting defender's arms and it was ran back 90 yards, which ultimately created 7-0 Texans. That one play swung the scoreboard by 14 points...the Titans lost by 3.

    With the red zone INT for the Titans, it prevented 7 points. It did not, however, set the Titans up in the red-zone for an easy score. So I'll say once again, 14 > 7.
     
  38. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Those positive stats were often posted as "the answer" as you put it. They weren't posted as being "inconclusive" or an "anomaly". So yes I don't think what you said accurately characterizes what was posted.
     
  39. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    "Whatever it is
    I think I see
    becomes an indictment of Tannehill to me"
     
    Phins_to_Win and Pauly like this.
  40. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    The "were NOT properly adjusted" stats?
     

Share This Page