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. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Seems like an odd way to rank QBs to me. Why would you prefer to change the meanings of words in order to try to make a point? "Average" means "average". It does not mean very good.

    I have seen many many rankings of QBs that use tiers. I have never seen one that uses only three tiers, ever. Seems to me that the middle tier would be so large as to be useless when discussing QBs.

    BTW, every single poster that has argued with you has already acknowledged that Tannehill isn't elite. Your claim of that being your only point is disingenuous.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  2. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I could actually accommodate four tiers. 1) an elite tier that consists of QBs who almost always have seasons in which they perform at that level, 2) an above-average tier that consists of QBs who have the ability to perform at the elite level when surroundings are especially favorable, 3) an average tier that consists of QBs who don't have that ability and who usually perform in the average range, and 4) a below average tier.

    I would say Tannehill is on the border of the second and third tiers -- the bottom of the second tier or the top of the third one.
    I must have missed that. I thought the sentiment by many was that his 2019 performance was at the elite level, and so he's now established himself as an elite QB.
     
  3. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007

    I put him at the top of the second tier. We won't agree, so we're done. Cool.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  4. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I would move him up there if he has another season in the neighborhood of last year (passer rating 105-110), and it can be done without so many of the same favorable conditions.

    Right now the QBs I would have at that level are Kirk Cousins and Russell Wilson.
     
  5. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    This is getting silly.

    The bottom line is any team in the NFL would have been happy with his performance last year.

    Yes there are better QB and yes having a better QB means a better chance of success, but if your entire team building strategy is just "get a top 6 QB" you are screwed.

    There is no reason you cant have a top 10 QB and win a superbowl. Any recent statistics that indicate that isnt true are skewed by the Patriots dynasty and to a lesser degree, Peyton and Brees.

    Once you remove these guys, who are ALL all time greats in this league we were lucky to see play at the same time, you are left with a lot more parity.

    Brady is at his end. Manning is retired. Brees is getting older and probably done soon.

    Point being, there dont appear to be any players of that level replacing them. There will always be top QB, but we are going to see more equality at the position going forward.

    After all Jimmy G. made it to the Superbowl. Hes pretty...average but good I guess. Yes he didnt win, but getting there shows it's possible. Same with Flacco.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  6. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Agree to disagree.

    /thread
     
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    But that implies that any team in the NFL could've gotten his performance last year, and that likely isn't the case. The Titans had especially favorable circumstances in which a powerhouse running back shouldered the load and thereby eliminated a source of diminished performance on Tannehill's part, historically speaking (high-volume games). Not every team in the league could've done that, and in fact very few could have.
    That isn't only viable strategy. Another viable, though perhaps equally unlikely to be accomplished, strategy is to acquire an average QB and pair him with one of the league's best pass defenses.
    I'm afraid not, unfortunately. Now we have Patrick Mahomes, who could very well enjoy a "Michael Jordan-like" dominance of the league for some time. And more are coming -- i.e., Joe Burrow.
     
  8. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I honestly think it's more Andy Reid being a genius than Maholmes himself.

    That said, I dont think he will be that dominant. Personally.
     
  9. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    There are QB's that are better than Tannehill... But Even Aaron Rodgers does not make it to the superbowl very often and he might be the best QB of his generation... He is better than Brady... and what 8 years younger?

    Point is that without other great pieces in place not even Russel Wilson or Aaron Rodgers get to the superbowl.

    So why so much negativity with Tannehill? All quarterbacks suffer when they do not have talent on the line or at the skill positions.

    Nobody said Tannehill was the GOAT... They just pointed out That tannehill played on some of the worst teams in football for the worst head coaches in football while he was in Miami. Getting out of here and getting average coaching with average talent around him means he has a chance at more success... And he found it.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The question isn't the likelihood of any one quarterback to win the Super Bowl -- the question is the likelihood of any one team's winning one without an elite one. Those are distinctly different questions.
     
  11. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    It is very likely. It has happened 13 out of the last 20 SBs.
     
  12. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Or acquire a very good QB and surround him with good to very good talent and coaching.
     
  13. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Guy

    Every team uses their best players... If you have Kelce you throw him the football. If you have Henry you let him run with it. This is not rocket science and it does not change or take away from Tannehill's performance. You have created multiple arguments to discredit Tannehill. When they get proven to be false you switch to something else. This latest is he cannot play in a high volume passing offense.

    No coach wants their QB to have to throw 40+ times a game to win... If you have the best wide receiver and tight end combo in football like the chiefs you are going to use those players more.

    Tomorrow if the Chiefs lost Kelce and Hill for the season you would see them run the football more. It would have nothing to do with Mahomes talent or performance either.
     
  14. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    We're just doing two different levels of analysis here. The analysis I'm doing is akin to putting myself in the position of the Titans' GM and asking myself 1) how more or less likely than the average team am I to win a Super Bowl with Ryan Tannehill at QB, 2) what accounted for the change in Tannehill's performance in 2019, and how likely is it to be replicated, and 3) what is the change in his salary likely to do to my ability to have a Super Bowl-winning team with him at QB?

    It's certainly fine if the analysis you're doing isn't of that nature. I just suspect that the discussion between us has the flavor of disagreement because I'm putting the situation under that kind of microscope, and you're not. If either of us did the kind of analysis the other person is doing, we'd probably be agreeing.
     
  15. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020

    Again wrong...

    The Titans GM evaluated Tannehill and decided that their best path forward was with him... So you are not putting yourself in the shoes of the Titans GM at all.

    Tannehill was limited in Miami due to terrible coaching and no help. He had made great strides at reading defenses and improving accuracy in Miami... It was all for naught due to the incompetence of idiots like Adam Gase.

    The Titans are a decent team... Humphries is a solid slot receiver.. Davis is adequate as a #2 and Brown has the potential to be a star at receiver...

    The titans lost Conklin... But they have a chance to address need at the O line in the draft in the second round. This draft is deep in receivers and running backs and I would not be shocked to see the Titans take one of each through their first 4 picks.

    Moving forward they are a complete team without glaring weaknesses. ( Providing they can replace Conklin ) They were the #2 scoring offense in football with Tannehill as their starting QB... They are going to win more than 10 games and likely win their division in 2020.

    Which puts them in position to maybe host a playoff game... Something they have not done in since forever.

    Other NFL QB's that have not won playoff games or gotten to division championships are currently negotiating for new contracts in the 40 million per season range. To think that Tannehill has not earned the right to be paid 29 million is insanity.

    I hate the numbers... I am just a working stiff... 29 million dollars is more than I will make in my lifetime. But when you look at prescott wanting 40 ( and he will likely get it. ) Tannehill was a solid value at 29

    They were not going to get more QB for less money.

    As for trying to draft a QB... It will be extra ordinary if Burrow, love, Tua, or Herbert end up better than Tannehill is now. Not that Tannehill is amazing or Hall of fame worthy... Just that every year there are 3 or 4 QB's that come into the draft with big hype. Two years ago we had Allen, Darnold, Mayfield, Rosen, and Jackson... Only Jackson shows the potential to be elite. None of the others are currently showing that they can be as good as Ryan Tannehill is now.

    1 out of 5.... So going all in to draft a QB is nothing more than playing Russian Roulette. You have a 20% chance to pick the right QB from a draft class and even if you pick the best QB from the draft there is no guarantee that their best is going to be better than the level Tannehill is playing at now.

    Titan fans are glad you are not their GM
     
  16. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    We are also acting like it takes tons of money to build a top defense. It really doesnt.

    If you have a lot of solid players and one standout at each position group, you should be able to have a very strong defense.

    The thing is, at the core I dont think anyone here disagrees you want a great QB and great pass defense.

    You're allowed to draft defensive players who make big impacts on rookie deals too.
     
  17. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Alex.... Of course every team wants a great QB..

    There are only so many... There is only one Rodgers one Wilson one Mahomes.

    In the Rosen draft there were 5 Qb's taken at the top of the draft... So far only one of them has lived upto their potential...

    Every year several teams go all in trying to get the next great QB... It almost never works out.


    Goff, Wentz, Prescott... are not better than Tannehill...( Not clearly. )
     
  18. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I think Tannehill is plenty fine to build around personally. The first goal of a team isnt to win the Superbowl.

    It's to give your chance to win a Superbowl by being a perennial playoff contender. The more you get there, the better chance you have of making a run.

    I think it's silly to say QB X cant win a Superbowl when Brady/The Patriots in general have kept the numbers skewed.

    It's like me saying we should draft a QB named Tom Brady, because the statistics show that a QB with that name wins a lot of AFC Championships and Superbowls.
     
    PhinFan1968 and FinFaninBuffalo like this.
  19. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Appreciate the discussion everybody.

    I think at this point for the discussion to be productive in terms of telling us how Tannehill and the league function, we’re going to need the additional information to be gained from the forthcoming NFL season.

    I don’t think there is any more to be gained from our continuing to tell each other that between now and then.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  20. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I think that is true. Also, we all have different barometers of what successful means.

    For me as I said, it's making the playoffs consistently. For others its Superbowl or bust. For others its individual numbers. Noone is really "wrong".
     
    The Guy likes this.
  21. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Guy if Tannehill once again is a top QB and the Titans make the playoffs will you keep insisting that he only looks good because of Henry?
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  22. PhinFan1968

    PhinFan1968 To 2020, and BEYOND! Club Member

    I'm glad he doesn't watch football.
     
    resnor, Irishman and Etrius24 like this.
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That depends on whether Henry’s performance again facilitates Tannehill’s playing predominantly low-volume passing games, and whether there is the same pattern of performance in which he plays well in those games but far more poorly in high-volume passing games. At that point the evidence would be even more convincing that he is simply benefiting from the presence of Derrick Henry and the fact that Henry is the centerpiece of the offense.

    What would be quite interesting, although I’m not wishing it on him, is if Henry is injured and has to sit out for a significant period of time.
     
  24. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I dont necessarily think that's unfair, but Henry played better with Tannehill too.

    Their relationship is symbiotic, not parasitic.
     
    M1NDCRlME, xphinfanx, Pauly and 2 others like this.
  25. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Henry was much different and far more effective and consistent playing with Tannehill than he ever was playing without Tannehill.
     
    xphinfanx and Irishman like this.
  26. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Consider the following:
    All of the above sounds pretty darn parasitic. Henry does all the work, and Tannehill gets to exploit eight-man boxes for big plays in a low-volume manner.

    And Tannehill's 2019 performance apparently did nothing to dissuade teams from stacking the box to stop Henry, even as far into the season as the Divisional round playoff game, when the Ravens stacked the box on 64% of the Titans' offensive plays.

    And ironically enough that was a low-volume game for Tannehill -- despite the Ravens' stacking the box 64% of the time, Tannehill dropped back to pass on only 28% of the Titans' offensive plays. What does that tell you?

    It tells me that the Titans' coaches have far less a glowing appraisal of Tannehill than many of the folks here.

    https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/slow-down-derrick-henry-titans-stacked-box/
     
  27. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    How ridiculous is this....

    Every player benefits from playing with other talented players. I mean come on aim higher... You just basically cast a net so safe and wide... And made a general comment like : Yeah well water is wet.... When you are in it... You are wet.

    Come on man
     
    resnor likes this.
  28. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Slow down and read better.

    This is the key:

    While the Titans ranked as only the 15th best offense in the regular season against non-stacked boxes, averaging a little below zero EPA per play, that number jumped to 0.07 when facing stacked boxes, the second-best mark in the league. Most of this value stems from the passing game. When passing against a stacked box, Tennessee averaged 0.44 EPA/P in the regular season and had a Positive% of 63%, both of which were top in the league.

    The Titans were also particularly good at generating big plays against a stacked box. Against a stacked box the Titans had a Boom% (plays with an EPA greater than 1) of around 14%. On pass plays only, that rate jumped to 33%, which again was the best in the league.


    So, you couple the advantage gained from 1) having a running back teams have to stack the box against, with 2) making that running back the centerpiece of the offense, which all but eliminates a source of poor performance for Tannehill, historically speaking (i.e., high-volume games), and no wonder Tannehill played well.

    Duh.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2020
  29. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    The guy.

    Why are you obsessed about high volume passing?

    History shows that passing efficiency is correlated with winning, not volume.
    History shows that all QBs lose efficiency the more they are asked to pass. Which is obvious since high volume passing is often the result of being behind on the scoreboard and having to take more risks in the passing game. Even if the team isn’t behind high volume passing means that you, logically, are making more passes in unfavorable down and distance situations such as 2nd and long and 3rd and long, which history shows that all QBs have lower passing ratings.
     
    resnor likes this.
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And you think there is no variation among QBs in that regard? All of them lose efficiency to the same degree?
     
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    As I said before.. we already went through this. The statistical evidence shows Tannehill is around average in that regard.
     
    Pauly and resnor like this.
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yes we did already go through this, where it was determined that a correlation is the wrong measure to use in this regard, because it'll be artificially deflated for any QB who plays both well and poorly in low-volume games, while playing predominantly poorly in high-volume games. Tannehill's 2019 season is a great example.
     
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    What?? You learned absolutely nothing from our discussion. Go read this post again:
    https://www.thephins.com/threads/titans-to-start-ryan-tannehill.94693/page-154#post-3260833

    Your argument there was wrong from a mathematical point of view. This isn't subject to debate. And the best data we have IS that graph with the game-by-game correlations. You haven't provided any evidence to refute that.

    Listen.. it's very clear that you're not starting with the data and inferring hypothesis from it. You're doing everything possible to keep a hypothesis alive that either doesn't fit the data or just barely would. It's not honest.. to be honest.
     
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Here are 10 games for quarterback A:

    % Pass Dropbacks : Passer Rating
    25 : 140
    30 : 130
    35 : 70
    40 : 110
    45 : 100
    50 : 90
    55 : 80
    60 : 70
    65 : 60
    70 : 50

    Here are 10 games for quarterback B:

    % Pass Dropbacks : Passer Rating
    25 : 140
    30 : 130
    35 : 120
    40 : 110
    45 : 100
    50 : 90
    55 : 80
    60 : 120
    65 : 60
    70 : 50

    The correlation between percentage of pass dropbacks and passer rating for both QBs is -0.86.

    However, quarterback B has demonstrated he can play well in a high-volume game (the boldfaced game above). Quarterback A has not.
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    So? None of that would be statistically significant. Not by any means.

    And what you're missing is that these types of examples are much harder with low correlations. We're talking zero correlation to -0.2 here. Try making up an example with -0.2 correlation. It's not theoretically impossible, but it's damn tough to show that only one of the two QB played well in "high volume" games.

    And as stated before, it wouldn't be statistically significant anyway (especially with lower correlations!).
     
    resnor and Irishman like this.
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, we're talking about a correlation of -0.65 for Tannehill in 2019, if the low-volume game in which he played poorly is excluded. That isn't low.

    The actual correlation, without that game excluded, is low only because he played poorly in a low-volume game. It isn't low because he played well in a high-volume game.
     
  37. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Can't exclude data points like that. That's called cherry picking, and the reason you can't exclude data points like that is because once you allow such practice, you can support ANY hypothesis you want.

    Start from the data and see what hypotheses naturally emerge from it. Right now, the hypothesis best supported by the data is that Tannehill is around average (or over a career maybe slightly below average but nothing statistically significant) when it comes to how much worse he becomes when he's forced to throw more.

    That's the data speaking, and it's the strongest position you can take. I suggest you take it.

    And once again, that doesn't mean your hypothesis about low volume is wrong. It just means you don't have statistical evidence for it (yet).
     
    Pauly and Irishman like this.
  38. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Those data don't tell us whether the correlation is a product of 1) a mixture of good and bad performances in low-volume games, coupled with predominantly poor performances in high-volume games, or 2) a mixture of good and bad performances in high-volume games, coupled with predominantly good performances in low-volume games.

    The correlations representing both of the above possibilities would be roughly equal, yet we're talking about two different types of QBs above -- one of them has the ability to play well in high-volume games, and the other doesn't. A correlation doesn't tell us which of the two QBs we're dealing with.
     
  39. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That's true, but to make any kind of claim there it needs to be statistically significant. Can't just eyeball it. And that kind of demonstration usually requires a much larger sample size because you're talking about comparing two different residual standard errors (standard errors on the y-axis) and showing the difference is statistically significant at two different parts of the scale.

    Not sure what the sample size would be needed normally to show that, but I'm guessing it's more in the 50+ data point range. That's not an easy thing to show. I've done that for certain types of epidemiological data where the goal was harmonizing different data sets (someone changed protocols mid-way through a study and I needed to find a way to put data using the old and new protocols on the same scale), and that one had 3000+ data points.

    So again, you have your hypothesis but it's not supported statistically, just intuitively.
     
    Pauly, The Guy and Irishman like this.
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm satisfied with the intuitive approach here. Post #6186 says it all.

    What's interesting here is that the folks with the opinion that Tannehill needed only better surroundings to play better attempt to refute very simple points about how the team was better (i.e., largely Derrick Henry's impact and performance).

    If you believe he needed only better surroundings to play better, why try to refute simple and convincing points about how the surroundings were indeed better?
     

Share This Page