Well, your stats still need explanation. So far, as I've explained, it's really difficult to fault the O-line instead of Tannehill when you control for pressure (hard to understand the causal mechanism there), and it's hard to fault Tannehill's ability to find an open target in the same conditions other QB's are facing. So far, I still think the explanation I offered of him just not sensing pressure as well when not expecting it already is the best fit.
It's not difficult in the least to fault the oline. When the oline doesn't do it's job, and gets beat like a red-headed stepchild, it's on them. Also, look at some of the QBs graded worse than him...Wilson, Brady, Romo, Flacco, RGIII, Brees.
You do understand that "no blitz + pressure" means that these are cases where the QB experienced pressure, right? How that pressure came to be is not important (you can blame it all on the O-line and that's still irrelevant for this question). The question is how did the QB perform in that condition relative to his peers. For some reason, when under pressure (and no blitz) Tannehill had a far worse overall PFF ranking relative to his peers than when not under pressure. To blame the O-line, you'd have to show that the type of pressure was consistently worse for Tannehill. Can you show that? I don't see how you can show that, and I see no other way to bring the O-line into this debate because they are controlling for pressure in that stat.
I gave you six QBs that most would argue are better than Tannehill who graded worse. Not sure why you are trying to take the oline out. Their job is to keep the defense off Tannehill, and if they aren't doing their job, how is it not their fault?
Anyway, getting off track with the rating. We were disputing pocket presence. When you start looking through those numbers, for guys in both charts who experience similar amounts of pressure with no blitz, Tannehill sack numbers are relatively the same as most of theirs. So, that tells me his pocket presence isn't really any worse. Now, he seems to need improve the quality of throws when he's under that pressure with no blitz, that I can agree with.
Yeah, that QB list is interesting, but that's a separate (and interesting) discussion. Point is, Tannehill's relative ranking dropped, and if they're controlling for pressure, what led to the pressure isn't important in this particular discussion (as long as "pressure" = "pressure"). Remember, this is a separate discussion from how much of Tannehill's sacks are due to the O-line.
Yes, your stats were very helpful in establishing that. I'd just add (again) that my opinion on why his performance isn't so good is he doesn't sense pressure as well when he's not expecting it.
The other interesting thing is, that the scrambling quarterbacks, who have similar times pressured numbers, even though though have two our three times as many scrambles as Tannehill, don't have drastically fewer sacks, in this same situations. So is this idea that scrambling would have avoided many of these sacks even valid?
Or is he just not as good at throwing into tight windows? Yet. When the blitz comes, he recognizes, and finds the weak spot. When there is no blitz, but pressure comes, he's seemingly not good at fitting the ball into the tighter spaces. That may also account for his slightly elevated sack rate in comparison to others with similar pressure+ no blitz numbers.
Yeah, I think Tannehill wouldn't make a good "scrambling" QB. I think dj and I were just saying when the opportunity arises, he should use his feet. The other idea was to incorporate a few more roll-outs to the game plan to mix up the threats. Scrambling QB's of course increase the chances of getting caught in the backfield in the hopes of finding a hole to exploit, so maybe that's why the sack total is high for them.
One of the things I remember from Tannehill's first year is the many times he actually threw into tight windows. He had his flaws, but the ability to throw into tight windows I don't think was one of them. He hasn't had to do that as much lately though as he's gotten better and more comfortable in Lazor's system.
Some of you guys forget that sacks are also on TEs and backs, as well as the OL and QB... Per PFF... in 2013, 12 sacks were by unblocked defenders. In 2014, it was only 6. Overall, the OL last year gave up 31 sacks, 45 hits, and 131 hurries. However, in the first 9 games, we gave up 14 sacks, 19 hits, and 54 hurries. Conversely, Tannehill dropped back 644 times and took a total of 46 sacks. Tony Romo dropped back 474 times and took 30 sacks. Adjust the drop backs to even, and Romo would have taken 40 sacks with his beefier OL. This seems to prove out Raf's assertions about the Cowboys' change of offensive philosophy was as much a reason for Romo taking less sacks as beefing up their OL did last season. YMMV.
He has none. He's the Mary Poppins of NFL quarterbacks. Practically perfect in every way. Of course, he could get better at the deep ball. He could reduce the number of sacks that were his fault (although I don't think those happened as often as others on this site). I would like to see a little more mobility, but I question whether he plays as he does because of coaching. In essence, I don't really disagree with some of the criticisms, but I disagree with the extent of the criticism, or the conclusions some come to in regards to the criticisms.
I'd add game management in the last minutes of the game to the list. I often feel like he wastes more time than necessary.
No, I don't disagree with the criticism. I disagree with the conclusions drawn. I guess that concept is over your head. I agree his deep ball could be better. I disagree with the conclusion that he is a terrible deep ball thrower, or that the problems connecting with Wallace were all on Tannehill.
Yeah, and that can also be a result of the head coach, who is notoriously bad with his game management. And by result, I mean his lack of improvement there.
Actually his biggest flaw imo is one that didn't show up on the stat sheets. He had a propensity to throw interceptable balls last year on passes where the receiver ran the sideline and turned in instead of out. He's fine with the sideline out throw but on the inside throws he sometimes loses track of safeties and linebackers. He had alot of dropped ints last yr. Part of it is the heat he puts on it but if he doesn't improve on the recognition of inside coverage it will bite him. What's fascinating to me is that was his biggest flaw yet not one poster brought it up all yr.guess if it isn't a stat it doesn't exist It's why I say stats lie often times. His biggest flaw didn't show up on the stat sheets and the things he gets blamed for sacks and long ball I completes were more often the fault of the oline or Wallace. He is a QB with good pocket presence and decent long ball accuracy who needs to work on being aware of where all the defenders are in coverage
You keep saying that pressure is the same between QBs. Its not and stats dont differentiate which is why they are flawed. Our problems were mainly Guard to Guard. That is not the same as QBs facing pressure from outside. Coaches are far more forgiving of QBs taking sacks when the pressure comes up the middle and with good reason. Its almost impossible to avoid. Unless you can provide stats that breakdown where the pressure comes from you cant compare the QBs
I've also been arguing the pressure is n not all equal thing for months, with little progress on that front.
It's not enough to say the pressure isn't the same. You have to show the pressure was on average significantly worse for Tannehill compared to other QB's in those cases where the QB was pressured and there was no blitz. I don't think you can provide good evidence that was true. Keep in mind that PFF stats page shows Tannehill had average numbers for "time to throw" and "time to pressure", so basically you're having to argue that he got pressure through the guards, but had as much time as others getting pressure from the outside, and he did worse even though he could see the pressure coming. I think that would suggest Tannehill has even worse pocket presence than if he was getting hit blind, meaning it's really hard to excuse Tannehill in the scenario you're proposing (arguably harder than if the pressure was mostly from the outside).
The passing game isn't all about the QB and WRs. If we don't have the threat of a consistent running game, the pass rush will be unrelenting. Last year defenses killed us because we were so one dimensional. Hopefully Ajayi can give us an inside running game but without better play from the guards it just isn't likely.
the point of this thread is, is our qb going to become multidimensional, because outside a couple read option carries a game, he's one dimensional, and it doesn't have to be such.
I just read the original post and the title so I took a general stance. Tannehill doesn't seem to have much touch. It seems like everything he throws is a dart which is why I believe he's had problems with his passes being batted down and not completing deep passes. That being said I believe we can win a Super Bowl with him as long as our offense as a whole is multidimensional. I don't believe Tannehill will carry us the way Brady or Rodgers can so I wouldn't worry about the passing game too much.
That isn't the point of this thread. The op only talked about the passing game and five passes he wanted tannehill to throw. You brought in tannehill running not the op
Can you post the stats showing all 32 teams and how much pressure they give up and how quickly. Then we can debate it
PFF doesn't indicate how many defensive players are applying pressure on a given play. Even you have to admit, that pressure applied by 1 person is wholly different than pressure applied by 3 people at the same time. Escaping from pressure requires more than ability, it requires open space to escape to. The more people pressuring, the less open space.
When we had a healthy line Tannehill was fine. When he was getting a lineman pushed into his face in 1 second he wasn't fine. The line was the major issue, Tannehill needs to do better but the line was garbage last year.
Right, this has been stated by you and I numerous times, I'm just not sure that we can actually find stats that show how many people were applying pressure on given plays. We can see stats for how long it took pressure to start being applied, and we can see how many snaps he was under pressure...But I haven't seen any stats that differentiate between pressure coming from one defender vs mouse than one defender. That's unfortunate, because pressure coming from multiple people is more disruptive than from one person.
I will be happy when Tanny becomes like Griese..Tanny has more overall talent..Griese had a much better line..but one thing I could always count on for the most part is that Griese was always going to lead us to victory.
I'm just going by what can be inferred from the PFF stats resnor posted. Those stats on their own don't support your argument. Maybe more informative stats would, but since you're making the claim I'll let you get the evidence.
Yeah, not saying other hypotheses can't be correct. Just saying that so far I think the one I posited (Tannehill not sensing pressure as well as some others when he's not expecting it) is the best fit to those PFF stats.
I'm so confused on as to the narrative of this thread. I think most of us would call Ryan a top 10-12 QB as of right now yet so many disagreements surface. Very odd situation.
I think most of the disagreements are in terms of the degree to which something matters. Haven't really seen a serious disagreement here, at least in the debates I've been in (didn't look through the first parts of the thread).
It's funny, Fin-omenal, I wouldn't have thought you thought that highly of Tannehill, given the stuff we've argued about concerning him. I'll try to keep that in mind from now on, When I read your posts.
