TANNEHILL VERSUS THE WORLD: THE IN-DEPTH COMPARISON TANNEHILL’S CRITICS DON’T WANT YOU TO READ

"cbrad wrote:

Or Russell Wilson.

100.0 passer rating in his rookie year 2012 (9 regular season games with 100+ rating that year). And it wasn't a fluke either. 101.2 in 2013, 95.0 in 2014, 110.1 in 2015 and 92.6 in 2016. Played great right out of the gate:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00.htm

Not every QB needs development time.

So, we're going to ignore his run game and great defense in this analysis?

Those two things are crucial for development. Also, the exception doesn't disprove anything. One other thing, without looking it up, wasn't he throwing it significantly fewer times than Tannehill?

Splendid writeup that took a boatload of time and thought. Looking forward to our win record visually representing how much he's improved. Even more looking forward to people that only see the Dolphins in highlights not looking at me like I've lost my mind when I tell them how much I like Tannehill. We can't seem to all get on the same page about him on this site let alone the general public.

"resnor wrote:

So, we're going to ignore his run game and great defense in this analysis?

Those two things are crucial for development. Also, the exception doesn't disprove anything. One other thing, without looking it up, wasn't he throwing it significantly fewer times than Tannehill?

It disproves what you said twice, namely that EVERY QB takes time to develop. That's simply wrong. You need to modify your argument there.

And there's no analysis anyone here can come up with that will show a QB that goes to a team with a great defense and running game is expected to produce RW numbers in his first 5 years.

To your question.. yes RW threw less than RT, but once you get past ~150 attempts the variance in passer rating starts to level off meaning the efficiency (which passer rating measures) is reliable enough for direct comparison. In every one of the 5 years RW played he had at least 393 attempts, and he averaged 456.2 attempts per year so that's not an issue.

"cbrad wrote:

It disproves what you said twice, namely that EVERY QB takes time to develop. That's simply wrong. You need to modify your argument there.

And there's no analysis anyone here can come up with that will show a QB that goes to a team with a great defense and running game is expected to produce RW numbers in his first 5 years.

To your question.. yes RW threw less than RT, but once you get past ~150 attempts the variance in passer rating starts to level off meaning the efficiency (which passer rating measures) is reliable enough for direct comparison. In every one of the 5 years RW played he had at least 393 attempts, and he averaged 456.2 attempts per year so that's not an issue.

No, you're playing a bit of semantics here. You know exactly what I'm saying, but you don't want to admit it, so instead, you'll argue the word "every," as if that somehow bolsters the opposite of my argument. Any rookie QB will benefit from having an awesome run game, limited throws per game, and a defense that gives up only 16ppg, and often holds teams to single digit scores for games. Is it easier to compete one pass, or 10 passes in a row? 20 passes in a row?

Of course, you know all this because it's been discussed ad nauseum. People complain when we "detract" from guys like Wilson, but its silly comparisons, like the one you made, that cause us to become "detractors." You completely ignore the entire situation in Seattle that Wilson went to. You ignore the consistent coaching, you ignore that he wasn't forbidden to scramble, you ignore everything, and then try to compare the two. It's stupid, it's lazy, and its wrong.

"resnor wrote:

No, you're playing a bit of semantics here. You know exactly what I'm saying, but you don't want to admit it, so instead, you'll argue the word "every," as if that somehow bolsters the opposite of my argument. Any rookie QB will benefit from having an awesome run game, limited throws per game, and a defense that gives up only 16ppg, and often holds teams to single digit scores for games. Is it easier to compete one pass, or 10 passes in a row? 20 passes in a row?

Of course, you know all this because it's been discussed ad nauseum. People complain when we "detract" from guys like Wilson, but its silly comparisons, like the one you made, that cause us to become "detractors." You completely ignore the entire situation in Seattle that Wilson went to. You ignore the consistent coaching, you ignore that he wasn't forbidden to scramble, you ignore everything, and then try to compare the two. It's stupid, it's lazy, and its wrong.

OK this just tells me you're not willing to admit when you're wrong. No need to continue the discussion.

Oh and what's "stupid, lazy and wrong" is asserting things are true without gathering the data and doing the necessary analysis to prove your claims.

Yeah Tannehill was forbidden to scramble, just like he was forbidden to throw an accurate deep pass.

"cbrad wrote:

OK this just tells me you're not willing to admit when you're wrong. No need to continue the discussion.

Oh and what's "stupid, lazy and wrong" is asserting things are true without gathering the data and doing the necessary analysis to prove your claims.

No, dude. You're picking at one word, "every," and trying to discount the gist of the post.

But just for you...99.9999999999999% of all QBs require time to develop. Or, almost every QB needs time to develop.

Happy? It doesn't change a thing about my first post. Further, TANNEHILL needed time to develop, which many here weren't willing to give him. But, if you expect that the vast majority of rookie QBs, regardless of the situation around them, are going to be elite their first year, then you should probably stop watching football.

"roy_miami wrote:

Yeah Tannehill was forbidden to scramble, just like he was forbidden to throw an accurate deep pass.

Thill doesn;t have problems with the deep pass. Never has.

"resnor wrote:

But just for you...99.9999999999999% of all QBs require time to develop. Or, almost every QB needs time to develop.

Happy? It doesn't change a thing about my first post. Further, TANNEHILL needed time to develop, which many here weren't willing to give him. But, if you expect that the vast majority of rookie QBs, regardless of the situation around them, are going to be elite their first year, then you should probably stop watching football.

OK, just took a look at starting QB's in 2016. There are 3 QB's that were great as rookies: Wilson, Roethlisberger, Prescott. Wilson had a 100 rating, Roethlisberger a 98.1 rating (in 2004 so it means more) and Prescott a 104.9 rating though we'll have to see if that's for real or just a 1-year wonder.

So it's more like 90% that need development time.

btw.. the average number of years the QB's I looked at that eventually performed consistently above average for several years was 3.5 years development time. And some rare ones like Alex Smith needed 7 years before they broke out. So yes Tannehill needs the time, but it's getting close to the latter end of the period where you expect the QB to finally prove themselves.

Actually in Tannehill's case one could make an argument he already reached that last year in which case he did it in year 5. But that only counts if he's consistently above average from here on out.

"cbrad wrote:

OK, just took a look at starting QB's in 2016. There are 3 QB's that were great as rookies: Wilson, Roethlisberger, Prescott. Wilson had a 100 rating, Roethlisberger a 98.1 rating (in 2004 so it means more) and Prescott a 104.9 rating though we'll have to see if that's for real or just a 1-year wonder.

So it's more like 90% that need development time.

btw.. the average number of years the QB's I looked at that eventually performed consistently above average for several years was 3.5 years development time. And some rare ones like Alex Smith needed 7 years before they broke out. So yes Tannehill needs the time, but it's getting close to the latter end of the period where you expect the QB to finally prove themselves.

Actually in Tannehill's case one could make an argument he already reached that last year in which case he did it in year 5. But that only counts if he's consistently above average from here on out.

On the bolded part, I don't think there's any way to make an argument that RT was above avg last year, 19-12 TD/INT ratio is way below avg and is way more critical to winning than any other QB stat.

So with RT, we are looking at "potential", yet again, because what he did in "stretches" last year, which has an all too familiar ring to it, lol, my point is just that it's year 6 and we're still waiting, he hasn't yet "arrived", so to speak.

"Finster wrote:

On the bolded part, I don't think there's any way to make an argument that RT was above avg last year, 19-12 TD/INT ratio is way below avg and is way more critical to winning than any other QB stat.

So with RT, we are looking at "potential", yet again, because what he did in "stretches" last year, which has an all too familiar ring to it, lol, my point is just that it's year 6 and we're still waiting, he hasn't yet "arrived", so to speak.

I was looking at passer rating. Let me explain my reasoning not just for the bolded part but the sentence after that one where I qualified it by saying we could make the argument he arrived in year 5 ONLY if he's consistently above average from here on out (there was thought behind that statement btw.. haha).

So.. average passer rating in 2016 was 87.6. Generally, the standard deviation for league passer rating will be around ~10-11 or so depending on how you calculate it (did you calculate it for teams or for starting QB's, etc..). Tannehill's rating was 93.5 in 2016. So Tannehill was about 0.5 Std. Dev above the mean.

That means that while technically it's clear Tannehill was above average passer rating wise, he didn't even get 1 Std. Dev above the mean. It's basically right at the point where you could argue either way.. he just had a better year by chance as an average QB, or had a worse year by chance as an above average QB.

Only way to argue it was a worse year by chance is IF he is consistently an above average QB from here on out. That's why I stated things the way I did.

In any case, you're right his TD/INT ratio is below average, but then again some other key stats like Y/A are above average. I think passer rating actually captures where Tannehill should be ranked fairly well so I made the argument based on that.

"cbrad wrote:

OK, just took a look at starting QB's in 2016. There are 3 QB's that were great as rookies: Wilson, Roethlisberger, Prescott. Wilson had a 100 rating, Roethlisberger a 98.1 rating (in 2004 so it means more) and Prescott a 104.9 rating though we'll have to see if that's for real or just a 1-year wonder.

So it's more like 90% that need development time.

btw.. the average number of years the QB's I looked at that eventually performed consistently above average for several years was 3.5 years development time. And some rare ones like Alex Smith needed 7 years before they broke out. So yes Tannehill needs the time, but it's getting close to the latter end of the period where you expect the QB to finally prove themselves.

Actually in Tannehill's case one could make an argument he already reached that last year in which case he did it in year 5. But that only counts if he's consistently above average from here on out.

Tannehill would have needed more time, given his limited college experience. Then you have the conundrum that Tannehill developed, albeit with almost zero help from a coaching staff that handcuffed him before basically washing out of the league, and provided him no support via the run game, nor with a legitimate tight end. There's a reason why most teams with young QBs want a good run game, and why tight ends are considered a QBs best friend.

You guy's are judging Tannehill, without acknowledging that he really didn't have the tools necessary to be successful.

Congrats on getting me balls deep into this conversation again.

"cbrad wrote:

OK, just took a look at starting QB's in 2016. There are 3 QB's that were great as rookies: Wilson, Roethlisberger, Prescott. Wilson had a 100 rating, Roethlisberger a 98.1 rating (in 2004 so it means more) and Prescott a 104.9 rating though we'll have to see if that's for real or just a 1-year wonder.

So it's more like 90% that need development time.

btw.. the average number of years the QB's I looked at that eventually performed consistently above average for several years was 3.5 years development time. And some rare ones like Alex Smith needed 7 years before they broke out. So yes Tannehill needs the time, but it's getting close to the latter end of the period where you expect the QB to finally prove themselves.

Actually in Tannehill's case one could make an argument he already reached that last year in which case he did it in year 5. But that only counts if he's consistently above average from here on out.

Interestingly all 3 QBs mentioned were thought of as development projects when drafted.
The 'NFL ready' QBs like Luck have never starred as rookies. Even Dan Marino slid to us because of concerns about smarts/discipline, ans many experts thought he would struggle.

With Tannehill I want to apply discounts of Sherman's sub par offense and Lazor's sub par playcalling. However if you start doing that you have to do the same exercise for all QBs.

In 2 pof the ladt 3 years Tannehill has been above average, and in the down year there was a collapse in the D putting him in bad game situations. Since there is a correlation between passer rating and win probability it is arguable that 2014 is the outlier.
However as cbrad says time will tell.

"resnor wrote:

I don't get the "there's no more excuses" stuff. Injuries can always change what the end result could have been.

Barring injuries, yes, I expect Tannehill to do well. However, there are a myriad of reasons why the team could do worse than last year, that have literally nothing to do with Tannehill.

Agreed.

But their are also a myriad of reasons why this team could still be good and Tannehill NOT get better.

The reason the excuses aren't valid anymore are...he has a playoff roster surrounding him.

I think he will step up, but if he doesn't? He will be the reason, not the coaching, guards or anything else.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Pauly wrote:

Interestingly all 3 QBs mentioned were thought of as development projects when drafted.
The 'NFL ready' QBs like Luck have never starred as rookies. Even Dan Marino slid to us because of concerns about smarts/discipline, ans many experts thought he would struggle.

Good observation.

RG3 is the last QB drafted really high that was considered can't miss and NFL ready and actually lived up to (or arguably even exceeded) the hype his first year with a 102.4 rating. Guy was great until the freak injury.

He wasn't included in post #61 because PFR excluded him from the "starting QB" category and he also didn't consistently produce above average after his rookie season.. because of that injury.

Otherwise, some highly touted QB's like Peyton did really well (at least 1 Std. Dev. above the mean) in their 2nd year.

"resnor wrote:

You guy's are judging Tannehill, without acknowledging that he really didn't have the tools necessary to be successful.

You can't judge Tannehill because he doesn't have enough tools to be successful AND you can't judge Wilson because he has too many tools...

"roy_miami wrote:

You can't judge Tannehill because he doesn't have enough tools to be successful AND you can't judge Wilson because he has too many tools...

No credit for the run game being even more effective because of the threat Wilson himself poses ...

"cbrad wrote:

Good observation.

RG3 is the last QB drafted really high that was considered can't miss and NFL ready and actually lived up to (or arguably even exceeded) the hype his first year with a 102.4 rating. Guy was great until the freak injury.

He wasn't included in post #61 because PFR excluded him from the "starting QB" category and he also didn't consistently produce above average after his rookie season.. because of that injury.

Otherwise, some highly touted QB's like Peyton did really well (at least 1 Std. Dev. above the mean) in their 2nd year.

With RG3 he was thought of as a Michael Vick type athlete/QB more than an NFL type pocket passer. Also as we've seen with Colin Kaepernick's career defenses caught yp to that style of offense, so maybe RGIII would have flamed out like CKap.
Also given RGIIIs runnng style I am not so sure you could call it a freak accident. Yes that particular incident was a freak, but he was racking up so many incidents the freak incident became inevitable.

"smahtaz wrote:

Ryan Tannehill Is the NFL’s Most Underrated Quarterback

https://brickwallblitz.wordpress.com/2017/06/17/ryan-tannehill-is-the-nfls-most-underrated-quarterback/

Wow that's another great one.

"Brasfin wrote:

IMO, a lot of fans negative perceptions of Tannehill are due to the media's influence. Most of the media (national and some local) is not high on Tannehill, that, in turn, makes some people think Tannehill isn't good which leads to the debates.

Tannehill is like the anti-Luck in that sense, IMO. Luck and Tannehill have had a very similar career so far stats-wise (sans playoff appearences) as has been proven in prior threads/discussions, yet one is put on a pedestal and the other is spit on... again, most of it is due to media spin.

Totally agree. But if he lights up the league he can't be ignored. So far, he hasn't regardless how much deep diving we want to do to figure out how great he can be.

"danmarino wrote:

Being up here in GB country I can tell you that they LOVE Rodgers. However, at times I do hear and read criticism about him from GB fans. I got into a debate with a Packers fan I work with at the beginning of last season. Just to be clear, he's a very informed and smart guy (he's a cardiologist) and has been a Packers fan his entire life. He was saying that he thought the Packers should trade Rodgers "soon" because he's fading.

Anyhow, and to save space because that debate was pretty long, I think fans get emotional over their teams and a lot of times don't use critical thinking. It's mostly knee-jerk comments and opinions based upon the "right now". Rodgers has a string of bad games and some fans want him gone. I've seen it with Pats fans and even with Dolphins fans when Marino was playing. Currently we see it with RT. Fans get tunnel vision because they believe the "QB's win Super Bowls" mantra that the media puts out there and think they need a QB who is Rodgers or Marino in order to win a Super Bowl. In reality you need a good team to win a Super Bowl.

Some people like just new shiny things. They don't realize how difficult it is to replace a Rodgers. Especially GB because before him they had BF. So their levele of being Delusional can only be compared to perhaps the Chargers (Brees then Rivers) or a better comparison is the Niner fans who had Montana then Young. I have a couple buddies one who is a Broncos fan and the other a Saints fan. Told them both that finding a QB like Manning or Brees is not a given. Broncos fan is seeing what I was talking about now. Kept preaching to him that his team needed a succession plan for when Manning retired and am now doing the same to the Saints fan. Not that preaching to my buddy in any way gets his team to actually have a succession plan but does allow me to have a cemented "told ya" on deck that is just never-ending fun.

"Pauly wrote:

With RG3 he was thought of as a Michael Vick type athlete/QB more than an NFL type pocket passer. Also as we've seen with Colin Kaepernick's career defenses caught yp to that style of offense, so maybe RGIII would have flamed out like CKap.
Also given RGIIIs runnng style I am not so sure you could call it a freak accident. Yes that particular incident was a freak, but he was racking up so many incidents the freak incident became inevitable.

RG3 always took too many hits even in college. He got away with it there b/c he was a superior athlete, but it was obvious even then. In fact, I specifically listed the risk of that propensity to get hit as one of the reasons not to draft him. I felt it was a matter of "when" not "if". And long-term success at NFL QB is going to come from the pocket. I loved CKap coming out, but I didn't have an early first round grade on him b/c he hadn't shown the ability to read from the pocket in college. It wasn't his fault b/c the system didn't require it, but it was still a real risk. When CKap was tearing up the league I cautioned that his long term success would still depend on whether he could develop those pocket reading skills. He didn't. Wilson, on the other hand did greatly improve his pocket skills. Reality is that he won a championship b/c of the team that surrounded him (primarily an all-time great level D), but he was not a great QB those first couple of years. He wouldn't of sniffed the playoffs here. But now that his pocket game has developed he is a great QB. People talk about QBs running way too much. The vast majority of the plays they make is from the pocket.

"rafael wrote:

RG3 always took too many hits even in college. He got away with it there b/c he was a superior athlete, but it was obvious even then. In fact, I specifically listed the risk of that propensity to get hit as one of the reasons not to draft him. I felt it was a matter of "when" not "if". And long-term success at NFL QB is going to come from the pocket. I loved CKap coming out, but I didn't have an early first round grade on him b/c he hadn't shown the ability to read from the pocket in college. It wasn't his fault b/c the system didn't require it, but it was still a real risk. When CKap was tearing up the league I cautioned that his long term success would still depend on whether he could develop those pocket reading skills. He didn't. Wilson, on the other hand did greatly improve his pocket skills. Reality is that he won a championship b/c of the team that surrounded him (primarily an all-time great level D), but he was not a great QB those first couple of years. He wouldn't of sniffed the playoffs here. But now that his pocket game has developed he is a great QB. People talk about QBs running way too much. The vast majority of the plays they make is from the pocket.

Raf, you're in the mains, so all QBs not named Thill are allowed to have reasons for anything negative. If Thill has a reason for anything negative it is an excuse. So, RGIII had a freak injury that is in no way due to his running style and Thill finally got injured due to his lack of pocket awareness.

"rafael wrote:

Wilson, on the other hand did greatly improve his pocket skills. Reality is that he won a championship b/c of the team that surrounded him (primarily an all-time great level D), but he was not a great QB those first couple of years. He wouldn't of sniffed the playoffs here. But now that his pocket game has developed he is a great QB. People talk about QBs running way too much. The vast majority of the plays they make is from the pocket.

Wilson was always good from the pocket. Not sure why people keep saying he was only effective when he was out of it.

In 2013, his second year, super bowl winning season, he had a 101.3 rating from within the pocket. 370 passes. On designed rollouts yes he was even better, at 130, but it's not like they had to roll him out. On scrambles he had a 76 rating.

101.3 from within the pocket I would argue, is pretty good.

And his Pressure ratings (same amount of dropbacks pressured as Tanny almost, but with less total pass attempts, so pressured on a greater percentage)