LMAO Now Tannehill is the recipient of "unsustainable luck" Dude I love you... You are almost trolling and it is fantastic in a funny sort of way. Tannehill has for years improved his accuracy on longer throws even in Miami where he had become one of the most accurate passers in the NFL on longer throws. So no this argument that it was luck...Is Hogwash... He showed the ability to make a high percentage of longer throws in the past. We just did not see Tannehill have the chance to show it often due to the plague that is known as Adam Gase... Gase never saw a three yard completion he did not love... ugh
And stop with the whole run game relationship argument with Tannehill. Every NFL QB in the league benefits if the Run game is successful. Lots of other Good/Great QB's have strong run games. They run the ball very well in KC... But you are not calling Mahomes trash. Green Bay has a pair of incredibly talented running backs that are a huge part of that offense... But you say nothing bad about Aaron Rodgers. You are moving the goal posts, then you cherry pick one thing.. When called out on it you run away from that argument and run back to something else. It is getting ridiculous.
So you're simply ignoring the data below: And that's fine -- you have the freedom to do whatever you want. But we need to underscore what you're doing here.
Like I said above, do the correlations between passer rating and running game yards per rush for the other QBs in the league, game-by-game, and see if they approach anywhere near 0.65. We're obviously approaching this in two different ways. Mine is data-driven, and yours is purely theoretical/speculative. And then when you receive data that refute your theory/speculation, you simply ignore them.
What is the point? Guy when others have taken the time to construct or post charts and graphs with data and break down the analysis you ignore it. Convenient for you to then just go around and state others are ignoring evidence or facts... That is rich
It sounds like we're done here folks, until there's more data to go on from next year. Moral of the story here is, don't say the guy needs better surroundings to play better, and then when he plays better try to refute solid, data-driven explanations for his performance that center on his surroundings. That's hardly consistent.
Your last sentence is where I disagree. As I said, Jay Fiedler/Our QBs faced a lot of 8 man boxes with Ricky and had an amazing defense. The Vikings had Peterson. They never put up Tannehill like numbers. What i am saying is this.... YES, 100% YES his surroundings helped him. However, it's not because any QB would succeed with those same surroundings. It's that those surroundings match up with his particular skill set. Let's take a QB like Culpepper. If I removed Moss and Carter at WR but gave him Henry at HB, he would not have the same season as Tannehill in that scenario. However, in Minnesota he was able to be a top QB in the league, because the catch radius of Carter and the insane big play ability of Moss covered his accuracy issues and played to his best strengths. I dont think it's wrong to question what a QB needs to be successful and how easy that is to build, but consider this: Last year the Titans were not built around Tannehill. He walked into what was there, they now have a chance to add specific pieces to help him further.
It is not either/or. Not binary. It is a continuum with both the QB talent AND the supporting cast. Way more nuanced than you seem willing to admit. This is true for every QB that has ever played or ever will play.
LOL at the "data-driven explanations" and "hardly consistent" comments, from the person regularly ignoring data and regularly changing their arguments. You argued for years that there was no reason to beleive that Tannehill would be better in better circumstances. You even tried to claim that his circumstances in Miami weren't bad...... now, it is all about the circumstances. You have the balls to claim people aren't consistent??? LOL
Try, for once, to understand what is happening on the field. https://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-room/2019/film-room-ryan-tannehill Tannehill has proven himself capable of reading and accurately throwing a number of different intermediate concepts in his handful of starts. Tannehill's arm talent and boldness have permeated throughout the rest of his game as well. Per Next Gen Stats, Tannehill throws into tight windows 21% of the time, which is significantly higher than Mariota's 15.1%. Likewise, Tannehill's average depth of target (8.9) is more than a full yard deeper than Mariota's (7.2). Most reasonable people would expect Mariota to have the higher completion percentage given those numbers, but Tannehill's completion percentage is more than 10 points higher. https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-best-q...jaff&cjevent=18f72300704c11ea835c00a30a24060f In one of the biggest breakout seasons in history, Tannehill became one of the league’s best passers, dominating at all levels of the field. He more than doubled his percentage of positively graded throws from a year ago, which is a ridiculous feat, even in small sample sizes. Tannehill was accurate to all levels of the field and was the league’s best on 10-plus yard throws.
Addressed as in you did reply.... Okay maybe... But you mostly dismissed replies that disproved your initial claim and or assumption. Then you ran to the next argument and or attack on Tannehill.
How does any of that speak to the possibility that his performance in that regard was facilitated by opposing teams' attention to Derrick Henry? The information focuses on Tannehill exclusively. When we're looking at a correlation between passer rating and yards per rush of 0.65, a high frequency of stacked boxes by opposing teams, and 5.1 yards per rush on the season by the running back in question, we need to consider that possibility. Again, if you've believed he needed better surroundings to play better, then there they are!
This coming season will tell us a great deal more about what sense to make of all this, once there has (likely) been variation in Tannehill's surroundings on his new team.
Guy Every NFL QB benefits from having a run game. Several top NFL QB's play on teams that feature strong running games. Address please ?
That's his M.O. Once he's been proven wrong, he will just start some other asinine argument. Rinse and repeat. Eventually he dredges up the first argument he used, and the whole thing starts again. I mean, he's making the same arguments today that he had months or years ago, and been proved wrong numerous times. But he trots them out as if he's never brought them up, or that he's never been shown they're wrong. It's why he's a bad faith poster. You're just wasting your time arguing with him.
The degree to which a quarterback's performance is related to that of his run game can be measured -- that's called a correlation. The correlation between Ryan Tannehill's passer rating and Derrick Henry's number of yards per rush, on a game-by-game basis in 2019, was a fairly strong 0.65, meaning that as Henry rushed for more yards per carry in a game, Tannehill's passer rating went up. On the other hand, when Henry rushed for fewer yards per carry in a game, Tannehill's passer rating went down. Certainly there is some degree of a relationship between the run game and quarterback play that exists on all teams, but I suspect that for the average team that relationship involves a correlation nowhere near 0.65. For example, the correlation between the number of yards per rush for the Seahawks' run game and Russell Wilson's passer rating, game-by-game in 2019, was -0.22, meaning that the relationship was considerably weaker, and as the Seahawks ran for more yards per rush in 2019, Wilson's passer rating actually went down. When they ran for fewer yards per carry in 2019, his passer rating went up. What that indicates is that Russell Wilson's performance in 2019 was far more independent of his team's run game. Tannehill's performance on the other hand was far more dependent on his team's run game. Did I address your point?
Had to log out to see his posts, he blocked me months ago. I'll say this, trying to say that Henry is why Tannehill was successful is ridiculous. Henry was a completely different back with Tannehill throwing the ball than he was at any other point in his career. He matched his career total for 100 yards games pre-Tannehill, playing 10 games with Tannehill. Seem as though Henry benefited greatly from playing with Tannehill. Tannehill did what he's always done: be freaking lethal on play action and intermediate and deep balls.
HE HAS TO STILL MAKE THE THROWS!!!!! That is the part that you are missing. He still threw a large number of passes into tight windows. BTW, his arm talent was evident in Miami. The improved surroundings simply allowed him to show it more often. Not sure why you think that is a negative.
What his surroundings did was allow his entire game to function around arm talent. Let's see how often that can be replicated, if ever.
OK, so how else should we measure the fellow above's point that: Or are you just saying we should take him at his word, without measuring anything?
Opposing defenses stacked the box to stop Henry because Tennessee has been a running team about 5 years straight now [post Mularkey era], they stacked the box because we have a very good run game and an oline that abuses dlines. Defenses stacking the box isnt always a sign of a QBs inability to pass. Its because they have a game plan, and more likely not, if you stop the run you can win the game in this league.
Couldnt I just as easily word it that when Tannehill has a better passer rating, Henry has more yards?
If opposing teams weren't stacking the box so frequently, and Henry weren't running so well against them despite that, then yes.
Defenses stack the box for many reasons. One is offensive personnel. The Titans play a high percentage of 2 TE sets. 2 TE sets often cause the defense to add players to the box. https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/titans-have-tight-end-combinations-stress-patriots-defense 8 in the box against 12 personnel is not the same as 8 in the box against 10 or 11 personnel. Add to that variation of down and distance and you have far more to consider than your simplistic approach.
Of course. You could also say that the Tennessee offense was very efficient in some games and less so in others.
I never said they were stacking the box because of Tannehill's inability to pass. The point I made was that it's easier to pass against a stacked box. That point was supported two pages ago by this article: https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/slow-down-derrick-henry-titans-stacked-box/
Dak Prescott has played his entire NFL Career with Ezekiel Elliot and the best O line in the NFL Does that mean he is garbage? Guy?
And the difference in the Titans' passing game when facing stacked versus non-stacked boxes (i.e., the article in my post above this one) is due to?
It is easier to pass against a defense focusing on the run, whether they stack the box or not. That is why most of the top ranking QBs (in terms of passer rating) had good running games and ran the ball so often. They were also well represented in the playoffs.