Assuming that a person's evaluation is based on the level that he's currently playing then he's already a top 10 QB. After those first three games during the install where his stats were substantially lower and obviously an anomaly, he posted a 97.7 rating with a 7.3 YPA. That would have been good for 5th best in the league last season. It would make sense to include those first three games if you thought it was a condition that still existed. But obviously it doesn't. So if someone is evaluating the QB's current level of play or where he's at going forward then you have to eliminate factors that no longer affect his production. Things like new targets or new linemen are a constant in a league with personnel turnover, but you don't install a drastically new offensive system every season. That is a factor that is no longer in play so it makes no sense to include it's impact in any forward looking projection. We can speculate whether he'll continue his pattern of improving each season or hit a plateau or even regress, but that's mostly based on your level of optimism or pessimism. An objective assessment of where he's at right now is between 5 and 10. That's where his production is at most recently and not factoring in any progression or regression or any impact from roster changes.
I understand what you're saying but the first place someone might rip into you is your casual declaration that Tannehill's lesser performances are "obviously" behind him. Instead of telling a story that reflects someone's personal intuition, what they hope is true, or just what seems logical, it would be better if "obvious" things were stated quantitatively. Then there's the whole issue of removing bad data points from one sample without doing it to all the samples. That's just blatantly tampering with the evidence.
Then by all means enlighten me. Explain how actual real production in hard numbers is less of an indicator then some nebulous non defined characteristic you can divine the degree of with precisely zero person to person interaction.
All of us have done a great job of not steering this conversation in a personal direction but flat out, I’m not going to waste my time with anyone who uses words like “hater” to avoid addressing the points other posters are making which involve real facts and stats. This is a public (adult) forum. If you’re not open to discussing topics in a mature way and learning from what the facts say, then leave. There is no environment in this world where that kind of contribution—a personal airing of grievances—is going to be of any value whatsoever. It’s selfish, hostile and downright disrespectful. Plain and simple, that’s a level to which no poster need sink because it hurts everyone. So please don’t do that…in any circumstance…in any medium. To the point, I think what DJ describes is certainly a part of how Aaron Rodgers progressed so noticeably from 2008 to 2009. Rodgers went from being an almost exclusively pocket-based (often overwhelmed) QB in 2008 who utilized play-action for easier throws downfield as well as short throws from spread formations to completely running the show and being the focal point of a Green Bay offense which had the ability to be much more vertical in 2009. During the second year he displayed an amazing ability to get outside the pocket and use his mobility both for running and for avoiding pressure which led to numerous big plays. That last element is really what’s been missing in Miami. The short throws from the spread are there. We saw a ton of those last year. The capability for play-action is there. We saw Tannehill do that quite a bit during Sherman’s tenure as OC. What are not there are the throws which involve Tannehill using his mobility and pushing the ball downfield to create big plays. I don’t know what percentage those should play but there aren’t many highlights of Tannehill even attempting these types of plays. Disturbing is that there is consistently a desire amongst Dolphins fans to shift the blame off Miami’s QB on the premise that Miami’s WRs lack the appropriate skills. However, we cannot debate that Mike Wallace had been highly successful in doing exactly that type of thing while working with Ben Roethlisberger in Pittsburgh. Wallace’s drop in production over the last two seasons seems to have been caused by the role he played in Miami. If we dig a little deeper into what DJ is asking for we see several kinds of things a QB could do. When I watch Stafford, Luck and Brees, those three do a wonderful job of side-stepping pressure in order to stay in the pocket and still push the ball deep downfield. All 3 of those QBs love to throw deep from inside the pocket. Roethlisberger and Rodgers throw deep but do it much more often from outside the pocket. It’s incorrect to say that Tannehill hasn’t learned to side-step oncoming pressure in order to stay in the pocket. He routinely does so and has shown great ability to deliver the ball into the intermediate areas of the field with appreciable velocity and accuracy. What he hasn’t done is thrown the ball deep down the field in such instances. We should be asking why there wasn’t more of that when Mike Wallace was on the team. When it comes to getting outside the pocket, Tannehill is much less impressive. His resume does not boast a large amount of big throws from outside the pocket. He seems to make all attempts at avoiding that kind of QB’ing.
The pocket presence thing is overused in regards to Tannehill. The pressure Tannehill faces is unlike pressure Bres and whoever feels. I want people to start acknowledging that the pressure is not consistent between teams. One guy rushing in is wholly different than 3 guys rushing in. 3 guys rushing in at the same time is different then 3 guys rushing in staggered. Tannehill very rarely has any place to go. These other QBs don't create something from nothing. There must be space for them to run into. That space has to exist before they can "escape" or "buy time".
Then don't read them. I'm happy to let lazy people be lazy, just don't think for a second I feel bad for actually doing some homework. If you want to hear facts it's going to be more than a few lines. I make attempts to contribute actual quantitative information within my posts so when a few people complain I am not bothered in the slightest. I know that I am reaching my target audience, even if that's only 2-3 people whose perspective I value. I'm sorry you're so used to living in a world in which that usually doesn't happen. I invite everyone to put more effort into their contributions. Just stating opinions is not actually that helpful although I'm sure it makes many people feel good. Stating their own opinion over and over is what leads many people in this world to think they are so correct when in reality it's a fools mistake that only digs the hole deeper. It's also why you won't see me deliver a lot of subjective content when the information available is often so nebulous. Logic isn't always correct if it misinterprets the data but it's damn sure better than subjective BS.
If you want people to acknowledge something you think is true then you have to prove it's true. As soon as you do, no one can disagree with you. So go do it. Firstly, there are plenty of instances of Tannehill side-stepping pressure and stepping up in the pocket so he definitely can and does which goes against your argument. Secondly, how are going to back up this claim that other QBs don't face pressure in the same volume or severity as Tannehill?
It's already been pointed out through various threads, but as a quick summary, during those first three games his average YPA was 5.08. Two were under 5.0, none were over 6.0. After those first three games, he had one YPA attempt below 6.00. His average YPA over the last 13 games was 7.35. His average rating during those first three games was 74.6. 100% of his ratings in those first three games were under 80. During the last 13 games his average rating was 97.9. There were just three ratings under 80 (23%).
How are people backing up their claim that Tannehill is facing the same pressure as other QBs? I mean if he is being judged by their pressure evasion then surely they he is being judged on equal footing, no?
Has anyone made that claim? I don't think they have so you might be putting words in people's mouths so be careful. Let's go back to the beginning here, whose point exactly are you attempting to refute? I'm not clear what you're disagreeing with or if you're just making a general statement in reminding us that Tannehill has a lot of sacks to his name.
If we are saying Tannehill's pocket presence is poor because other QBs do a better job evading pressure, then the pressure they are facing should be similar else the point is without merit.
This logic is correct. However, the important question here is the utility of questioning the assumption that the pressure Tannehill faces is different. On one hand, every situation is different in some way (in basically everything in life), so the assumption Tannehill faces different pressure is technically correct. On the other hand, every stat assumes for convenience that something is the same across conditions. You either give up the ability to compare across conditions by saying every condition is different and should be handled differently, or you assume at least something is the same (statistically speaking) and come up with a summary stat allowing comparison. I'm in the camp saying Tannehill's pocket presence isn't that great (this includes evading pressure as well as not knowing when to roll out or run). Stats like those pff stats resnor posted in another thread show that when controlling for time to throw and time to pressure (as measured by pff), Tannehill is worse than average when it comes to responding to pressure in non-blitz situations. Eyeball arguments suggesting Tannehill faces more pressure through the guards and not from his blind side than other QB's actually suggest his pocket presence is worse than it would be had the opposite been true (because he sees the pressure). So, yes the pressure Tannehill faces in some way must be different (same with every QB), but I still think stats are worthwhile in showing that his pocket presence is worse than average in certain important situations, specifically when there's no blitz and he needs a bit extra time before making a pass.
You are over complicating this. QB X is pressured after 1 second from the snap by 1 player. QB Y is pressured after 1 second from the snap by 1 player, at 1.5 seconds by a different player and at 1.75 seconds by still another player. QB Z is pressured after 1 second from the snap by 3 players at the same time. PFF and their ilk, will tell you that all three QBs faced pressure at 1 second and record them as the same in the charts. Yet, QB Z had it way worse than QBs X & Y and he should be judged accordingly.
Right, like I said every stat assumes something is the same statistically speaking even if it's technically not. You gave a hypothetical example of that. To however argue that the inference from such a stat is wrong, the onus would be on you to show it's wrong in that specific case. And that's where it's difficult: no one here has shown relatively clear evidence that the type of pressure Tannehill had to deal with is the primary reason for the difference in the stats.
Then neither option should be believed since neither have been proven, yet you and many others have reached a conclusion already.
That's what that post you said was overcomplicating things was addressing: the real question is the utility of the stats vs. not having stats at all. The stats assume something that is technically incorrect (which means I don't make the assumption pressure is truly identical across situations), but it tells you something very useful if you make that assumption: Tannehill does worse than average in non-blitz + pressure situations. This same approach is used whenever any stat is used, and statistics is one of the most useful mathematics ever developed, so you don't need to be perfectly accurate in your assumptions to get useful (and statistically speaking accurate) information.
It's also been widely talked about how Wallace's prediction dropped in Pitt when they switched to a running based offense, similar to Miami's. So, to use Wallace's success in a sandlot style offense to compare to timing based, to support the idea that out was all Tannehill's fault, it's not really being honest.
The only thing that stat tells us definitively is that our line as a group is deficient. The stat is not useful for rating the QB.
Right. Because stats of this type are only correct in a probabilistic way, they are open to being refuted by additional evidence or more accurate stats. In the case of Tannehill's pocket presence, I haven't seen that evidence. In the case of the Tannehill-Wallace deep ball argument, you at least have the comparison of Tannehill vs. receivers other than Wallace to compare to relatively easily (because it wasn't just the system that changed, it was the QB).
He's in the groupings of people you'd consider top 10'ish. There really are two scales, and they conflate a little. QB for one year, or QB for your franchise (which takes into consideration age). QBs who are absolutely better: Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Rivers, Romo, Ben, Wilson, Luck. Those are guys I would take absolutely over Tannehill to run my franchise. Wouldn't even question it. Then you have guys that some will like better than Tanny. Flacco, Eli Manning, Matt Ryan, Stafford. So you can have Tanny anywhere from 9 to 14 depending on what you like. You do have a few other guys who can make the leap too. The last month of the season Geno Smith outplayed Tannehill, if we're talking trends ... Teddy B played better than Tanny's 2nd year, in his first. It'll be interesting to see.
Technically no. Any stat that is the result of two or more actors cannot on its own tell you which is more responsible for the stat. There are very good reasons for arguing our line is deficient (primarily the guard positions), but the stat on its own doesn't tell you that because the QB has some influence on whether he is sacked or not. Oh, and keep in mind I fully agree that it's mostly our line that's the problem.
Yeah, this is getting technical, but the QB could theoretically be so good at scrambling that there is never pressure. So, yeah at a very technical level that stat alone doesn't tell you the line is deficient. I do agree that's absurd of course.
Well, we have Wallace with the same QB going to a timing offense, and production dropping. We then have Wallace with lower production in a timing offense with a new QB, and that same QB having better success on "deep" balls with other receivers than he did with Wallace. Yet the narrative has become that Tannehill is bad at the deep ball, based pretty much solely on his connection to Wallace.
Yeah, not sure who believes what, but my position is that Tannehill had a deep ball problem mostly with Wallace. The only thing I've seen with other receivers is the occasional blatant miss that probably sticks in memory better than other deep throws he made, which were on average no better or worse than most other QB's. I still think he has a problem with high arching throws that are deep though, but that's based possibly on selective memory.
EVERYBODY's production dropped under Haley. Don't point that as a Wallace issue. Big Ben and Haley were taking swipes at each other in the media. Antonio Brown's numbers dropped. Took them 3 years to figure it out. Wallace with a 114 rating this past year when thrown to. 4th best in the league. That's a gigantic improvement from his first year here, and that's with the 4th offense Wallace was in, in 4 years.
Hmmm... How about not being embarrassed in front of your home crowd two seasons in a row at the hands of the Jets? How about Geno Smith having a perfect passer rating and completely out dueling you? How about playing your best when the playoffs are on the line?
At least you're being honest. So it's perfectly legitimate for me to say that Tannehill is an average starter. See guys?
Personally, I would list Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Romo, Ben, Peyton and Luck as better, but considering age I would only take Rodgers and Luck over Tannehill. (And Peyton had a big drop off at the end of the season at an age where a big drop off can happen quickly, so who knows where stands now). I'm a big Wilson fan, but I see he and Tannehill as close. I believe that if you'd switched them on draft day that Seattle still wins the SB and Miami still misses the playoffs. I would also rank Flacco above Tannehill for the moment. Flacco is more inconsistent, but he's come up big in big spots too. I think Tannehill has more upside, but hasn't passed Flacco yet. I would rank Rivers, Eli, Ryan and Stafford behind Tannehill. So subjectively I have Tannehill 9th or 10th. Objectively, the relevant stats actually had him a bit higher. For the vast majority of the season his stats were undeniably top 10. And for about a 5 game stretch he was statistically playing at a top 5 level. While that's not the same as doing it year in and year out, anybody claiming that Tannehill can't play at a top 5 level has already been proven wrong.
I find it.....interesting...you would rank Ryan over Eli, Matt, Stafford and ecspecially Rivers. I guess I just wish I could be that confident.
Saying a QB is in the talk for top 10 is not in any way the same as saying he's average. Unless you believe average QBs are in the top 10. And, at least season, the embarrassment at home was on the defense. Tannehill was not terrible.
"In the talk for top 10". You cannot seriously place him in the top 10. It's already been established in this thread. He's more like 12-15, which makes him an average starting QB. Does anybody else get tired of all the excuses everybody makes for Tannehill? The OL is bad, the WRs were a poor fit, the defense gave up too many points, the GM was fired, the OC was fired, new system, bad HC, bad DC, wah, wah, wah. Luck, Wilson and RG3 have all accomplished more than Tannehill so far despite a host of obstacles. And of course a bunch of more veteran QBs have done more with less. At a certain point you need to realize that maybe Tannehill isn't that great. Just average (for now). We have a solid QB with POTENTIAL, not a top 10 QB.
1. The OL was bad. Like, historical bad. It's not an excuse. It's a fact. 2. The defense did give away games. Last year Tannehill played well enough to make the playoffs, and the defense let a couple teams score with next to no time left, and lost the game. That's a fact. You can ignore Tannehill's play last year if you want, but for the majority of the season he played at a top 10 level, and for a nice stretch, played at a top 5 level. He's shown much more than an average QB. Given that he came into the league with limited college play time, and being very raw, I'm not sure why anyone takes the stance that he's hit his ceiling and is simply average.
O Historical bad is a fact? They weren't even the worst 3-4 in the league in 2014?? How does historic come in? I mean, yes...we saw the struggle...but let's not get too nuts with historically bad. He had 8 games with a rating of 83 or worse, which is below average. 6 of those games was a rating in the 70's which is bad. Not really a coincidence that you end up 8-8 when your QB almost to a tee had 8 good games and 8 bad games.
This is a solid assessment, you described what Ryan is CURRENTLY and yet included "potential top 10 QB".. All sounds spot on, and it's puzzling that some will take that as an insult.
