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. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    Guy

    The stacked line argument only shows Tannehill's maturity and development... Meaning that when he has an open man downfield he does not miss! He reads the defense... identifies the right receiver for a big play and then makes accurate throws to the next level.

    He showed an uncanny knack of making the most of these few chances a game... When teams let him he burned them badly deep.

    You are making the case for Tannehill being a top QB
     
    Irishman likes this.
  2. Etrius24

    Etrius24 Well-Known Member

    682
    685
    93
    Mar 4, 2020
    And nobody has ever refuted that Henry is not a good running back... Nobody
     
  3. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    I guess The guy hasnt seen the Marcus Mariota Titans in 2019.

    The guy, go watch the titans in their first 3 games under Mariota under center and look how much better they were since week 6, when Tanny took over.
     
    Pauly and Etrius24 like this.
  4. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    The fact that QB B had such a difference in QB rating at 60% passes than either 55 or 65 indicates an abnormality within the set of numbers.

    It isnt logical, aside from pure luck, a QB would have better numbers at 60% passes but not at 55 or 65. It shows its random data with no meaning.

    You're using numbers that have absolutely no meaning or value and assigning your own to them now.

    Also both QB play on different teams built different ways that impact numbers. So again..invalid.
     
    resnor likes this.
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Consider the following, which stands in direct contrast to your statements above (especially the part colored yellow below):

    https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/12/ryan-tannehill-titans-franchise-qb-new-contract
     
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The numbers you're referring to were posted to illustrate a weakness of the correlational approach. Nothing more.

    See post #6197 (the quote of me and the response) for how that was resolved.

    Do you have any comment about post #6184, which refuted something you said earlier, or are we just focusing on what I'm willing to put myself out there to say say here, while keeping no tally of when other people's points about Tannehill are refuted by solid data?

    We'll see if the fellow in the post just above this one makes any mention about how his post was refuted by solid data. I suspect that won't be forthcoming, and we'll simply continue to attempt to take potshots at whatever I post instead.
     
  7. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    As has already been stated, a team isnt going to NOT run their best player to prove a point to you about their QB.

    It also says nothing as to why his numbers got better with Tannehill. Part of being a QB is getting those around you to step their game up.

    If the Titans didnt have a strong appraisal of Tannehill they wouldnt have resigned him to a large deal.

    Also, their running tells me they wanted to cut the game short and limit the ability of Lamar Jackson by keeping the ball from his hands.

    It doesnt matter how many guys are in the box, if your run game is successful enough to continue the gameplan you are going to stick to it.

    Also they dont have great WR, TE, or pass catching from the backfield. By not running they would be taking away their only other offensive asset.

    Would you not run Henry to try and prove a point? That's ridiculous.


    Also also, by not just dropping back and throwing you are making sure they stay in the 8 man box so when you do decide to throw, you maintain that advantage.
     
    resnor likes this.
  8. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You're ignoring the forest for the trees. There are eight men in the box because of Henry, not Tannehill.

    To the degree Tannehill benefits from that situation -- and he did, heavily -- the relationship is parasitic, not symbiotic.
     
  9. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    So is your argument Tannehill needs the easiest position to acquire in football to be effective? If that is the case, I dont really see an issue even if you were right.

    Like I said, Maholmes himself is about 50% Andy Reid genius and 50% his own ability.

    QB perform different in different situations and each has individual strengths and weaknesses.

    Yeah there are QB I'd take before Tannehill, but it isnt relevant, because the QB matchup alone doesnt determine a game or Manning would have curb stomped Brady every year.

    The relevant issue isnt whether Tannehill is the best QB ever which is how I feel like you're judging him.

    His year was great. Mariota had Henry and sucked. Many Vikings QB had Peterson and sucked. We had Ricky William's and sucked at QB.

    Having a great HB in no way alone boosts the QB to the level he played at.
     
    resnor likes this.
  10. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007

    You are clearly the most biased poster ever. Why did you ignore this -

    They only stacked the box (at least 8 men in the box) on 23% of the Titans’ offensive plays, one of the lower percentages Tennessee saw over the course of the season.

    It tells me that you feel free to pick and choose games, stats, and situations, simply to support a narrative that you started YEARS AGO and cannot let go.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  11. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL........

    Completely ignore Tannehill's accuracy, ability to challenge all parts of the field, ability to change plays at the LOS, quick release, running ability, etc, etc, etc......

    I have never seen anyone write so much about quarterbacks without ever discussing actual play of quarterbacks....
     
    Irishman, resnor and Cashvillesent like this.
  12. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL......
     
    Irishman likes this.
  13. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I think I warned you about this months ago.......
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  14. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007

    LOL........ wow, just wow.....
     
    Irishman likes this.
  15. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Henry had the same situation with Mariota at QB. How'd that work out in weeks 1 - 6?
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  16. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Derrick Henry had 5 100 yard games in 51 career regular season games before Tannehill. He had 5 in 10 after Tannehill. That is FIVE TIMES MORE OFTEN. You were saying?

    Derrick Henry is going to get PAID because of Tannehill. Period.
     
    Two Tacos, Irishman and resnor like this.
  17. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No I'm arguing that Tannehill's performance in 2019 was a byproduct of having an extremely good running back, which is not easy to acquire.

    It's not that alone. It's a "perfect storm" of circumstances in which 1) Henry causes opposing defenses to stack the box, 2) Henry runs extremely well despite facing a high percentage of stacked boxes, 3) Tannehill benefits from that in terms of play-action and downfield passing in a way that isn't likely to be replicated (see the article in post #6203), and 4) Henry's being the centerpiece of the offense and carrying the load all but eliminates a significant historical weakness in Tannehill's game, i.e., high-volume games.

    Consider simply the following: there was a 0.65 correlation between Tannehill's passer rating and Henry's number of yards per rush on a game-by-game basis in 2019. Of course a correlation doesn't imply the direction of causation (if there is any), but in this case we know Derrick Henry faced a high percentage of stacked boxes, and so it suggests Tannehill was benefiting from Henry primarily, and not vice-versa.

    It's not like opposing defenses were playing primarily to defend the pass out of respect for Tannehill, and Henry was running wild as a result of it. In fact it was the opposite -- defenses were playing to defend the run, and Henry was running well anyway! And the kind of game Tannehill enjoyed as a result of that featured not only predominantly low-volume games, but a high degree of luck with regard to downfield passing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2020
  18. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What point exactly are you making on the basis of that? Tannehill's passer rating was 61 in that game.
     
  19. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    It directly refutes your claim that opposing teams were only worried about Henry. The best defensive mind in the history of the game decided that it was more important to stop Tannehill.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    And Tannehill responded to that with a 61 passer rating, which only further supports the point that Tannehill was benefiting from Henry primarily, and not vice-versa.

    The example suggests that when defenses stacked the box to stop Henry, Tannehill played well, and when they backed off and defended the pass, Tannehill played poorly.
     
  21. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL..... Jesus......

    Other QBs that benefit from running games:

    Wilson, Cousins, Garappolo, Jackson, Prescott, Watson, Brady, Wentz, Roethlisberger, Goff, etc, etc, etc
     
    resnor likes this.
  22. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Are you saying you were WRONG or LYING about defenses not trying to stop Tannehill in the playoffs? Just want to be sure.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  23. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Average passer rating allowed by pats defense in 2019.


    upload_2020-3-27_11-1-11.png


    So, Tannehill played average against the best pass defense in the league, despite their attempts to focus on him. Okay.
     
    resnor and Cashvillesent like this.
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Do the correlations for those guys game-by-game in 2019 -- passer rating and yards per rush of their running backs. See if they approach anywhere near 0.65.

    Here -- I'll do Russell Wilson for you:

    -0.22

    The better Henry ran, the higher Tannehill's passer rating was. The better Seattle's running game was, the worse Russell Wilson's passer rating was.
     
  25. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Irrelevant. Cannot possibly infer the causation that you are implying....
     
  26. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What I said was this:

    If you want to argue that then I'll concede it to you. We do know of one game in which a team didn't stack the box as often.

    However, the fact that Tannehill played poorly in that game, primarily against non-stacked boxes, is far more important a finding, in terms of what we're discussing here, than the fact that the opposing team didn't stack the box.
     
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I'm just responding to the causation you were implying here:

     
  28. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent A female Tannehill fan

    770
    641
    93
    Dec 8, 2019
    So Theguy if tennesee run game continues to play at a high level . Are you going hold that against Tannehill and keep telling us how his only good beacause of the run game?
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  29. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    And I was responding to your implication while ignoring all the other QBs in the league. And also ignoring the dramatic improvement in Henry's performance since Tannehill took over.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Yet this was Lamar Jackson's day against them last year, on November 3rd:

    17 for 23, 163 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs, passer rating 107.7

    A similarly low-volume game, with a far better performance.

    Ryan Fitzpatrick's day against them on December 29, the week prior to Tannehill's game against them, when the Patriots were trying to secure a first-round bye in the playoffs:

    28 for 41, 320 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs, passer rating 99.6
     
  31. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Lying or wrong.... just want to be clear.

    Already showed he didn't play poorly. He played average against the best pass defense in the league. Get it straight.
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  32. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Is cherry picking your first resort or last resort?
     
    Irishman and resnor like this.
  33. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So why didn't he play like Jackson or Fitzpatrick, against the same defense? Clearly it was possible for a QB to play against them in that manner.
     
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It depends on the relationship that exists between the run game and Tannehill.

    Clearly there is more going on here than just "the run game." There are the following considerations:

    1) the run game inspires a high degree of stacked boxes against Tennessee,

    2) Henry runs well anyway against those stacked boxes, which likely inspires even more attention to their run game (and consequently less toward the passing game),

    3) the volume of the run game allows Tannehill to have predominantly low-volume passing games,

    4) Tannehill's performance is fairly strongly correlated with Henry's, and

    5) under those circumstances, Tannehill experiences a high degree of luck with regard to downfield passing.

    Sure, if that sort of "perfect storm" exists once again, it'll be likewise tough not to attribute Tannehill's performance to those variables, if it's anywhere near as good.

    If on the other hand Tannehill can achieve some independence from the run game in terms of his own performance, well then of course it'll start making sense to talk about how his own ability is driving the bus.
     
  35. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Why didn't Jackson or Fitzpatrick finish the season with a 117 passer rating?
     
    Irishman likes this.
  36. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    LOL at your new reference to luck.....
     
    Irishman likes this.
  37. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    2,474
    2,954
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    I'm going with lying since
    (A) you were aware of the stat from the Pats game
    (B) you refuse to answer the question
     
    Irishman likes this.
  38. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Likely in part because they didn't enjoy the following circumstances:

    According to many folks here, you've believed for years that Tannehill just needed to be on a better team to play better.

    You were right!
     
  39. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    3,582
    2,579
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    This is so silly. It's become an argument where if Tannehill succeeds, hes still a failure and if he fails you were right. You're creating an argument where you can claim to be right either way now, IMO.

    Way back in this thread, it was impossible to get doubters to admit circumstances impact a QB. Now it's gone so far to the other side that the argument is hes successful only because of his circumstances.

    At the end of the day, I have no idea what numbers Tannehill will put up in 2020. I just know in 2019 he was as good as just about anyone.
     
    Two Tacos, Cashvillesent and resnor like this.
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    6,598
    3,323
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No, that's not true. If he succeeds in a way that indicates far greater independence from surrounding factors, then we can more definitively adjust previous appraisals of his individual ability.

    Like I said, the people who've believed Tannehill needed to be on a better team to play better were right. I suppose it's now difficult however to swallow the idea that his performance under those conditions has to be attributed to those improved surroundings.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the guy needs better surroundings, or he doesn't. When he gets the better surroundings and then performs better, then you have to attribute his performance to the surroundings. You can't attribute it to him.
     

Share This Page