Ryan Tannehill

"cbrad wrote:

What about pass blocking? Are you deliberately not showing that given that we're talking about the effect on the QB?

This is the exact statement I was responding to - "Seattle won a SB and has been in the playoffs many times with a bad OL."

I am showing what the OL did to contribute to winning the SB in 2013 and getting to the SB in 2014. You claimed that Seattle won the SB and got to another with a bad OL. I disagree, especially for the style of offense they played those two years.

What was the single biggest take away from the 2014 SB? Why the hell didn't then run the ball at the end of the game??????

"The Guy wrote:

No the problem is Tannehill and QBs like him, in that when your QB is that caliber in today's NFL, you have an extremely small margin of error in building the rest of your team to Super Bowl-caliber.

Said differently, when your QB is that caliber, your probability of building a Super Bowl-caliber team is far lower, because you're likely to make errors in assembling the other personnel, and your QB doesn't leave you room for as many of those errors.

The top-notch QB allows you far greater room for error in building the rest of your team. This is why these guys are clamored for with such desperation in each and every draft.

No-one is disputing that a top QB gives you more room for error. The debate is how much room for error is necessary.

I dont think it's nearly as hard to build a team as you're suggesting with a competent GM. The issue is that many teams dont have that, they are screwed from the start regardless of QB.

"The Guy wrote:

No the problem is Tannehill and QBs like him, in that when your QB is that caliber in today's NFL, you have an extremely small margin of error in building the rest of your team to Super Bowl-caliber.

Said differently, when your QB is that caliber, your probability of building a Super Bowl-caliber team is far lower, because you're likely to make errors in assembling the other personnel, and your QB doesn't leave you room for as many of those errors.

The top-notch QB allows you far greater room for error in building the rest of your team. This is why these guys are clamored for with such desperation in each and every draft.

Well damn, then he better get that QB rating up then......

You were the one touting passer rating differential as the be all end all for a long time. LOL. What happened to that line of argument?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

This is the exact statement I was responding to - "Seattle won a SB and has been in the playoffs many times with a bad OL."

I am showing what the OL did to contribute to winning the SB in 2013 and getting to the SB in 2014. You claimed that Seattle won the SB and got to another with a bad OL. I disagree, especially for the style of offense they played those two years.

What was the single biggest take away from the 2014 SB? Why the hell didn't then run the ball at the end of the game??????

You can't play the game without the OL, so obviously the OL "contributed". That's beside the point. The majority view was that Seattle's OL was bad, and even football outsiders says that when you take both run blocking and pass blocking into account.

Seriously, you just need to look at the games to see Wilson was running around in large part because of bad protection.

"cbrad wrote:

Strawman again? Are you arguing that pass blocking doesn't affect the QB more than run blocking?

Football Outsiders ranked Seattle 32nd in pass blocking:
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/offensive-line/2013

FinFaninBuffalo deliberately didn't show that. I wonder why...

I actually wasn't arguing anything. I was asking a question.

I think good run blocking affects different QBs to a different extent. However, all QBs benefit from a strong run game (now I'm sure someone is going to find some outlier to disprove that).

"cbrad wrote:

You can't play the game without the OL, so obviously the OL "contributed". That's beside the point. The majority view was that Seattle's OL was bad, and even football outsiders says that when you take both run blocking and pass blocking into account.

Seriously, you just need to look at the games to see Wilson was running around in large part because of bad protection.

Then won the SB with a dominant running game and defense. Period.

Yeah, I mean, I know it was like 8 years ago, but we absolutely should not be disregarding that Seattle defense that was holding teams to 16 points a game.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Then won the SB with a dominant running game and defense. Period.

AND with an elite QB but without a very good OL.

"resnor wrote:

Yards don't win games. Points do. Tannehill scored points.

You can't score points if you're not moving the ball.

Imagine being Derrick Henry who was responsible for 2 TDs and 409 yards on 68 touches and being told you didn't carry the workload vs the guy who had 184 yds 4td and 1int (3 of which came inside the 12 after the Henry and co carried them there).

That's like giving more credit to the goal line back because he has more TD's than the primary HB who has more than double the yds and is the primary reason the offense is moving up and down the field.

"cbrad wrote:

Strawman again? Are you arguing that pass blocking doesn't affect the QB more than run blocking?

Football Outsiders ranked Seattle 32nd in pass blocking:
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/offensive-line/2013

FinFaninBuffalo deliberately didn't show that. I wonder why...

they were last in pass blocking in large part due to a QB and offense design that relied on hanging onto the ball and running around trying to hit the big play. Combine that with the league’s best running game and an elite defense and you win the SB.

"resnor wrote:

Yeah, I mean, I know it was like 8 years ago, but we absolutely should not be disregarding that Seattle defense that was holding teams to 16 points a game.

No other defense in NFL history was that dominant over a 5 year period. Four #1 rankings followed by a #3 ranking in points allowed.

"mooseguts wrote:

You can't score points if you're not moving the ball.

Imagine being Derrick Henry who was responsible for 2 TDs and 409 yards on 68 touches and being told you didn't carry the workload vs the guy who had 184 yds 4td and 1int (3 of which came inside the 12 after the Henry and co carried them there).

That's like giving more credit to the goal line back because he has more TD's than the primary HB who has more than double the yds and is the primary reason the offense is moving up and down the field.

That's true.

But it's also not Tannehill's fault that they didn't call plays for Henry down there. It's not a knock on Tannehill. Know what I mean?

"cbrad wrote:

AND with an elite QB but without a very good OL.

He was nowhere near elite in 2013 or 2014.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Well damn, then he better get that QB rating up then......

You were the one touting passer rating differential as the be all end all for a long time. LOL. What happened to that line of argument?

Out of exceptions to the rule comes the potential for the discovery of better measurement.

"resnor wrote:

That's true.

But it's also not Tannehill's fault that they didn't call played for Henry down there. Know what I mean?

Not saying it's anyones fault was simply saying Henry carried the workload.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

He was nowhere near elite in 2013 or 2014.

Dude.. he had a 101.2 rating when the league average was 86. Ended up #7. That was a major reason for their SB run.

"cbrad wrote:

No other defense in NFL history was that dominant over a 5 year period. Four #1 rankings followed by a #3 ranking in points allowed.

Right. Compare what Tannehill was being expected to overcome vs what a Wilson was expected to overcome. We're not talking about individual talent, just what the QBs were being asked to do.

I remember looking at how many games Tannehill was asked to throw 25+ times, and looking at the opposing teams yards and points vs Wilson. It wasn't even close.

It's easier to win games when you have a strong run game, and aren't asking your QB to throw 30 times and score 5 tds.

"mooseguts wrote:

Not saying it's anyones fault was simply saying Henry carried the workload.

Yeah. I think all people are saying is that when Tannehill was asked to do things, he did it in spades for Tennessee.

"cbrad wrote:

Dude.. he had a 101.2 rating when the league average was 86. Ended up #7. That was a major reason for their SB run.

Efficient, not elite. Not the first QB to do that. See Roethlisberger and Brady early in their careers as well.

Ask yourself this question - If Wilson were considered an elite QB in 2014, does anyone question the play call at the end of the SB? Does ANYONE question that play call if it was Brady, Manning, Rodgers, or Brees in their prime? Come on......

"The Guy wrote:

Out of exceptions to the rule comes the potential for the discovery of better measurement.

LOL..... Must. find. stat. that. discredits. Tannehill.

"resnor wrote:

I think good run blocking affects different QBs to a different extent. However, all QBs benefit from a strong run game (now I'm sure someone is going to find some outlier to disprove that).

There is no need for an outlier. The average correlation between passer rating and yards per rush, game-by-game, for the teams in the league in 2019 was a mere -0.06.

Ironically, the outlier is the QB whose performance is associated with his run game, i.e., Tannehill in 2019, whose passer rating's correlation with Derrick Henry's yards per rush, game-by-game, was an astronomical 0.64, which was 2.2 standard deviations above the league average.

In other words the correct understanding of what you're saying is precisely the opposite of how you're understanding it. Tannehill's performance was uniquely associated with that of his run game, far and away beyond that of the average QB.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Efficient, not elite. Not the first QB to do that. See Roethlisberger and Brady early in their careers as well.

Ask yourself this question - If Wilson were considered an elite QB in 2014, does anyone question the play call at the end of the SB? Does ANYONE question that play call if it was Brady, Manning, Rodgers, or Brees in their prime? Come on......

Point is.. it wasn't just the defense and running game, Wilson was an equally important contributor to that SB and you left him out.

And that stupid call at the end of the SB is no evidence of how good/bad a QB Wilson was. It was just one of the stupidest calls in NFL history (possibly THE stupidest if you take into account the importance). I mean you have Marshawn Lynch running really well, have one time out left, and don't run the ball at the 1 yard line. That says nothing about Wilson.. it says something about Carroll.

"resnor wrote:

Right. Compare what Tannehill was being expected to overcome vs what a Wilson was expected to overcome. We're not talking about individual talent, just what the QBs were being asked to do.

I remember looking at how many games Tannehill was asked to throw 25+ times, and looking at the opposing teams yards and points vs Wilson. It wasn't even close.

It's easier to win games when you have a strong run game, and aren't asking your QB to throw 30 times and score 5 tds.

Like I've said, if you are built to be a passing offense and your gameplan going in is to throw 25+ times, your chance of a high QB rating and success at those numbers goes way up.

It's not logical to compare two QB with entirely different offenses to one another. Especially when the team wasnt even built with Tannehill in mind.

Put Tannehill with Andy Reid in KC and I'd guarantee his numbers and the perception of him are Mahomes like.

The man made Alex Smith a legitimate QB threat with his offensive genius, yet we are only allowed to compare two QB and none of their circumstances?

"The Guy wrote:

There is no need for an outlier. The average correlation between passer rating and yards per rush, game-by-game, for the teams in the league in 2019 was a mere -0.06.

Ironically, the outlier is the QB who does benefit from a strong run game, i.e., Tannehill in 2019, whose correlation with Derrick Henry's yards per rush, game-by-game, was an astronomical 0.64, which was 2.2 standard deviations above the league average.

In other words the correct understanding of what you're saying is precisely the opposite of how you're understanding it.

Again, rushing, in general, does not correlate to winning very well. What I am talking about, which I don't think stats show, is that without a solid run game, is how the QB is hindered. Not having a solid run game affects many things in regards to how the defense plays.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Like I've said, if you are built to be a passing offense and your gameplan going in is to throw 25+ times, your chance of a high QB rating and success at those numbers goes way up.

It's not logical to compare two QB with entirely different offenses to one another. Especially when the team wasnt even built with Tannehill in mind.

Put Tannehill with Andy Reid in KC and I'd guarantee his numbers and the perception of him are Mahomes like.

The man made Alex Smith a legitimate QB threat with his offensive genius, yet we are only allowed to compare two QB and none of their circumstances?

I agree. I also don't think what you wrote is opposite of what I was saying. Tannehill was in a situation where he was being asked to throw a ton, in an offense not designed for that. Like, I don't think the gameplan was to abandon the run and throw a million times. Seattle was able to hold to their gameplan because their defense stifled opposing offenses.