Ryan Tannehill

"resnor wrote:

I've been arguing this for years.

Me too. I argued it with that guy who has been banned numerous times for causing trouble....what was his name again.....oh shouright. I wonder what happened to him?????:cool2:

"The Guy wrote:

But that happens all the time. Think of how many different configurations of players have been around Drew Brees for example throughout his career.

Remember Marques Colston? Brees hasn't played with him in four years now. And that's just one of a multitude of examples, at wide receiver, tight end, running back, offensive line, etc.

When these other players can come and go throughout a very long career and the QB's performance remains high, it becomes safe to say the QB has great ability.

Well that doesnt necessarily contradict what I said. I did mention there are outliers (maybe it was a different post? It's hard to check on mobile sonetimes)

There are certain players you know are great. There are more borderline type players though than elite ones though.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Well that doesnt necessarily contradict what I said. I did mention there are outliers (maybe it was a different post? It's hard to check on mobile sonetimes)

There are certain players you know are great. There are more borderline type players though than elite ones though.

But that applies to every QB who has a long enough career for a substantial amount of surrounding players to come and go.

The issue is not that there is a small percentage of elite QBs; it's that it's possible to tease apart the ability of the QB, regardless of his ability level, from his surrounding players once he's been in the league long enough and those surrounding players have changed substantially.

Instead of using Drew Brees, I could've used Andy Dalton for example. He's been in the league nine years and has had numerous configurations of surrounding players, yet his performance overall has been average. It's safe to say he's an average QB at this point, without attributing any of that to his surrounding players.

In other words, the difference between Drew Brees and Andy Dalton isn't their surroundings, and we know that because their surroundings have changed substantially and one of them has performed at the elite level overall and the other one average.

"The Guy wrote:

But that applies to every QB who has a long enough career for a substantial amount of surrounding players to come and go.

The issue is not that there is a small percentage of elite QBs; it's that it's possible to tease apart the ability of the QB, regardless of his ability level, from his surrounding players once he's been in the league long enough and those surrounding players have changed substantially.

Instead of using Drew Brees, I could've used Andy Dalton for example. He's been in the league nine years and has had numerous configurations of surrounding players, yet his performance overall has been average. It's safe to say he's an average QB at this point, without attributing any of that to his surrounding players.

Is it really relevant though what we know after a player has been in the league X years though? I think we can probably all agree that, yes, at some point we can come to a consensus in most cases.

By that time though you dont have a chance at the QB in question. He's already been drafted, signed, and is rostered. If hes clearly elite he probably isnt changing teams after all.

What we should be talking about that none of us are, myself included, is how we can identify a potential target without X amount of years of data that isnt available because it hasn't occurred yet.

Tannehill is our past regardless of his future success or failures.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Is it really relevant though what we know after a player has been in the league X years though? I think we can probably all agree that, yes, at some point we can come to a consensus in most cases.

By that time though you dont have a chance at the QB in question. He's already been drafted, signed, and is rostered. If hes clearly elite he probably isnt changing teams after all.

What we should be talking about that none of us are, myself included, is how we can identify a potential target without X amount of years of data that isnt available because it hasn't occurred yet.

Tannehill is our past regardless of his future success or failures.

OK my fault -- I thought your point was that it's impossible to determine the ability level of a QB at any point because we can't tease it apart from his surroundings.

Here's an interesting article about the point you made in the quote above, which speaks to what you said about the difficulty in projecting how these players will perform in the NFL:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-nfl-is-drafting-quarterbacks-all-wrong/

When we make these adjustments, and then subtract expected completion percentage from a QB’s actual completion percentage, we get a new metric: completion percentage over expected, or CPOE. An example: In 2011 at Wisconsin, Russell Wilson had a raw completion percentage of 73 percent. We would expect an average QB in the same conference who attempted the same number of passes at the same depths that Wilson attempted to have a completion percentage of just 57 percent. So Wilson posted an incredible CPOE of +16 percentage points in his last year of college. CPOE translates slightly less to the NFL than either raw completion percentage or average depth of target, but it does a substantially better job of predicting on-field production. In stat nerd parlance, we’ve traded a little stability for increased relevance.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Is it really relevant though what we know after a player has been in the league X years though? I think we can probably all agree that, yes, at some point we can come to a consensus in most cases.

By that time though you dont have a chance at the QB in question. He's already been drafted, signed, and is rostered. If hes clearly elite he probably isnt changing teams after all.

What we should be talking about that none of us are, myself included, is how we can identify a potential target without X amount of years of data that isnt available because it hasn't occurred yet.

Tannehill is our past regardless of his future success or failures.

Yes and no...clearly this thread has legs because some of us identified early on that Tannehill was the real deal. We didn’t need years of data.

"Fin-O wrote:

I have a weird feeling he ends up moving on to Navy at some point and ending his career where his father coached.

This is just a guess, of course.

I've thought that same thing FO. And now that the academy grads can go to the NFL first, they may start getting better talent.

Belichick reprogrammed the Navy's defense this year too...helped them into top 25 and to a bowl game win.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2019/12/13/navy-defense-behind-resurgence-heading-into-army-game/2622401001/

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Is it really relevant though what we know after a player has been in the league X years though? I think we can probably all agree that, yes, at some point we can come to a consensus in most cases.

By that time though you dont have a chance at the QB in question. He's already been drafted, signed, and is rostered. If hes clearly elite he probably isnt changing teams after all.

What we should be talking about that none of us are, myself included, is how we can identify a potential target without X amount of years of data that isnt available because it hasn't occurred yet.

Tannehill is our past regardless of his future success or failures.

You've continuously beat this drum of needing "more data" on Tannehill before granting him "elite" status. I'm curious, when would you have officially granted Brees "elite" status?

His 2006 season with the Saints, taking them from 3-13 to 10-6 and all the way to the NFC Championship Game?
The 2007 season in which the Saints finished 7-9 and didn't make the playoffs?
The 2008 season in which the Saints finished 8-8 and didn't make the playoffs?
The 2009 season in which the Saints went 13-3 and won the Super Bowl?

I'm just curious because you keep calling for "more data, more data". At what point is enough enough?

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Is it really relevant though what we know after a player has been in the league X years though? I think we can probably all agree that, yes, at some point we can come to a consensus in most cases.

By that time though you dont have a chance at the QB in question. He's already been drafted, signed, and is rostered. If hes clearly elite he probably isnt changing teams after all.

What we should be talking about that none of us are, myself included, is how we can identify a potential target without X amount of years of data that isnt available because it hasn't occurred yet.

Tannehill is our past regardless of his future success or failures.

There's only one answer and that's the GM recognizing that talent and the coaching being able to develop a team around that talent. For instance, we like to think that if Rodgers or Wilson played in Miami then they'd have the exact same career trajectory, but the truth is that either one of them could have washed out of the NFL completely. There are so many factors involved and a lot of them have nothing to do with the player himself.

I mean, look at a guy like Matt Moore...played hurt in Carolina with concussions, got benched and never really got a 2nd chance as a legit starter, even when he led Miami through some really good games. He lands in KC and again looks great off the bench...only to return to the bench once someone else is healthy again. Over his past 4-5 years his limited on-field production has consistently been top-10 numbers, but it doesn't matter because he's already been labeled as a great backup, but DEFINITELY not the guy.

The question is why- he's outplaying 20+ starters across the league. Why can't he get a chance while we see someone like Fitzpatrick start for 11 total teams? And the answer is simple...too simple really. Fitz was an easy "plug and play" solution for our current offense (which if we're being honest is a hot steaming mess). Rosen is not and neither is Matt Moore or Ryan Tannehill.

Does that mean Fitz is better than Rosen, Moore or RT? Not at all...but we have a coach and a GM that wants to develop around Fitzpatrick short-term because he's so versatile. Blocking is optional. Receivers getting open doesn't really matter. Fitz is a Jack of all trades and a master of none, so he's our guy. Everyone else requires too much effort in a complete rebuild.

And don't get me wrong, I absolutely LOVE Fitzpatrick! But he might be the least talented out of all the QB's mentioned so far.

The real question to ask here is not how to evaluate our next great QB, but who fits best with our team vision and can execute at the highest possible level. We can't answer that though because our team has zero identity on offense; it's just Fitz running for his life and throwing jump balls to covered receivers. We know nothing about that is sustainable and the next QB up will require a lot of fine-tuning around him...which makes it all the more likely that Fitz is our quarterback next season as well.

So this isn't a conversation about who's "the best" QB in the draft- it's who we want to stand behind and build around. For instance, Rosen is plenty capable just like Moore or Tannehill, but making that one commitment eventually ties you into a dozen others as well in terms of blocking, what routes you'll run, what traits you need in receivers and running backs, play design, coaches developing that talent, etc. That's how you end up with Rodgers being one of the all-time greats and Moore being a disposable backup...the talent is just a small part of that equation.

"The Guy wrote:

I'm not sure they are still apportioning credit to different players at this point. Here is the latest explanation:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17653521/how-total-qbr-calculated-explain-our-improved-qb-rating

When they provide the season standings, it looks like all the ingredients are provided as column headers:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/qbr

Your link in the very first sentence says this:

The intent of Total QBR is to isolate each NFL quarterback's contribution to his team's fortunes as accurately as possible with the data available.

There would be no selling point to QBR if they couldn't say they're better at isolating a QB's contribution to a play. Same selling point for DVOA. According to wiki, the formula was modified in 2012 and 2013 but no mention of any modifications after that, and links in 2016 explicitly say they're apportioning credit:
https://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/123701/how-is-total-qbr-calculated-we-explain-our-quarterback-rating

Regardless, no one can reconstruct the formula from any description provided. So again.. best to dismiss due to lack of transparency.

"cbrad wrote:

Your link in the very first sentence says this:

There would be no selling point to QBR if they couldn't say they're better at isolating a QB's contribution to a play. Same selling point for DVOA. According to wiki, the formula was modified in 2012 and 2013 but no mention of any modifications after that, and links in 2016 explicitly say they're apportioning credit:
https://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/123701/how-is-total-qbr-calculated-we-explain-our-quarterback-rating

Regardless, no one can reconstruct the formula from any description provided. So again.. best to dismiss due to lack of transparency.

You’re trying to explain the issues with secretive proprietary metrics with a person who used to or still does try to sell their own secretive proprietary metrics which is why they were originally banned.

"Fin D wrote:

You’re trying to explain the issues with secretive proprietary metrics with a person who used to or still does try to sell their own secretive proprietary metrics which is why they were originally banned.

Is that true??? Wow.. if that's true that explains a lot. I hope you know that for a fact.

"cbrad wrote:

Is that true??? Wow.. if that's true that explains a lot. I hope you know that for a fact.

97.4% sure

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

You've continuously beat this drum of needing "more data" on Tannehill before granting him "elite" status. I'm curious, when would you have officially granted Brees "elite" status?

His 2006 season with the Saints, taking them from 3-13 to 10-6 and all the way to the NFC Championship Game?
The 2007 season in which the Saints finished 7-9 and didn't make the playoffs?
The 2008 season in which the Saints finished 8-8 and didn't make the playoffs?
The 2009 season in which the Saints went 13-3 and won the Super Bowl?

I'm just curious because you keep calling for "more data, more data". At what point is enough enough?

I know you were speaking to the other fellow, but I would've considered Brees elite after his 2009 season, which is when it became clear that his performance had varied around that range for several seasons, including one of his seasons with San Diego. And that doesn't have anything to do with how his teams performed, as you've implied in the post quoted above.

"Fin D wrote:

97.4% sure

Is that adjusted for era? :tongue2::tongue2::crapstrom::crapstrom::crapstrom:

"The Guy wrote:

I know you were speaking to the other fellow, but I would've considered Brees elite after his 2009 season, which is when it became clear that his performance had varied around that range for several seasons, including one of his seasons with San Diego. And that doesn't have anything to do with how his teams performed, as you've implied in the post quoted above.

And yet in 2012, 14, 15, 16 the Saints were horrible but Brees still maintained his “elite” status.

For me I don’t need any further data. I know football and know it’s a TEAM sport. You can have the greatest quarterback under center, like we had with Marino and still lose. And until Tannehill throws for 1200 yards a game every game and 17 touchdowns per game, some here are never going to give Tannehill his due

"cbrad wrote:

Is that true??? Wow.. if that's true that explains a lot. I hope you know that for a fact.

Multiple times (don't know anything about selling stuff, but was definitely banned 2 or 3 times that I saw)...at first, I thought you were him when you first started. But it didn't take long to realize you were too knowledgeable and level-headed to be.

Sure, Sherman. You shoulda done something about it, and not let him (Tannehill) get demolished early (read below).

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2020/01/02/given-miami-ryan-tannehill-thriving-tennessee/uyignFKGwsORtIP8ueFeJP/story.html

“It doesn’t surprise me — he always had talent,” said Mike Sherman, who coached Tannehill for four years at Texas A&M, then was his offensive coordinator with the Miami Dolphins for Tannehill’s first two seasons. “That’s the great thing about football — it takes 11 , and the 11 he’s playing with now are probably better than the 11 he was playing with in the past.

If we go back and check the league and check the quarterbacks that had those type of consistent changes, they’ve usually struggled,” Sherman said. “Tom Brady has been in the same scheme since Day 1. You can’t overburden a quarterback with different systems.

He was thrown to the wolves right away and never had a chance to grow as a quarterback,” Sherman said. “It always felt like, ‘We need an offensive line here, we need to be able to protect this kid.’"

"Fin D wrote:

You’re trying to explain the issues with secretive proprietary metrics with a person who used to or still does try to sell their own secretive proprietary metrics which is why they were originally banned.

But if that person wanted to sell secretive proprietary metrics that state Tannehill is horrible, wouldn't they be on Houston or at least an AFC South board? I'd think it would make more sense to try and sell to folks who would agree with what the fake stats are saying...

"KeyFin wrote:

But if that person wanted to sell secretive proprietary metrics that state Tannehill is horrible, wouldn't they be on Houston or at least an AFC South board? I'd think it would make more sense to try and sell to folks who would agree with what the fake stats are saying...

Uh, he was banned for that years ago.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

And yet in 2012, 14, 15, 16 the Saints were horrible but Brees still maintained his “elite” status.

For me I don’t need any further data. I know football and know it’s a TEAM sport. You can have the greatest quarterback under center, like we had with Marino and still lose. And until Tannehill throws for 1200 yards a game every game and 17 touchdowns per game, some here are never going to give Tannehill his due

We're actually agreeing, because apparently neither you nor I measure quarterback play by how much their teams win.

"KeyFin wrote:

But if that person wanted to sell secretive proprietary metrics that state Tannehill is horrible, wouldn't they be on Houston or at least an AFC South board? I'd think it would make more sense to try and sell to folks who would agree with what the fake stats are saying...

Those teams don't have fans that can point out flaws in the system that can be adjusted/corrected.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

I've thought that same thing FO. And now that the academy grads can go to the NFL first, they may start getting better talent.

Belichick reprogrammed the Navy's defense this year too...helped them into top 25 and to a bowl game win.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2019/12/13/navy-defense-behind-resurgence-heading-into-army-game/2622401001/

Thats good stuff. Hopefully he goes sooner than later.

The folks in this thread are doing a GREAAAAT job discussing the post and not the poster.

I also recall a mod saying to lay off the accusations that who is who and the fact that is being ignored and he is mocked with being “banned multiple times” has irony as thick as Zack Thomas’ neck.

Get a life ppl. Sheesh

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001093842/article/nfl-wild-card-weekend-game-picks-titans-dethrone-patriots

Ryan Tannehill was the primary reason the Titans had the NFL's best offense over the second half of the season. That Tannehill and first-year offensive coordinator Arthur Smith could pilot a unit that's been even more efficient than the Ravens' and Chiefs' attacks down the stretch is perhaps this season's most pleasant surprise.