1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Titans to start Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.

  1. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,041
    681
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That doesn’t fit with the fact that when Tannehill experienced no pressure, he played no better than did the average quarterback under those circumstances, whereas when Wilson experienced no pressure, he played significantly better than Tannehill and significantly better than the average quarterback in the league under those circumstances.

    If in fact their surroundings were responsible for their performance, you wouldn’t expect such a significant difference in their performance when a key element of their surroundings was performing equally well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    12,965
    7,058
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I’m sorry that reality doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions and precious stats.
     
  3. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,041
    681
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You’re presenting yourself as omniscient with regard to a reality about which there is widespread disagreement among people.
     
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    12,965
    7,058
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You love to dispute things without presenting facts. You disagree that Wilson was on a team with great coaching, all time great defense, and a stud running game while he was developing?
     
    Fin D likes this.
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,041
    681
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What I don’t necessarily agree about is whether there is some sensitive developmental period that quarterbacks experience that determine their performances throughout their careers. What evidence is there of that?

    And if there is evidence of that, how do we distinguish the quarterbacks whose careers were derailed by deleterious surroundings during their developmental periods, from those who were simply inadequate individually?

    Essentially you’re making an unfalsifiable argument, where any quarterback who doesn’t reach his potential can be argued to have been unduly influenced throughout his career by his deleterious surroundings early in his career. How do we know that didn’t happen for JaMarcus Russell, for example?
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  6. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,257
    1,053
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    The fact that something cant be pinpointed doesnt mean it doesnt exist. There is an element in human interaction that doesnt show in numbers. Like I've said this isnt physics....its football at the end of the day, a human sport.

    I'm not saying every QB needs perfect development....but if coaching matters at all youd think it would indeed impact the most important position on the field.
     
    resnor, The Guy and Fin D like this.
  7. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,041
    681
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    I didn’t say it doesn’t exist. I asked what evidence of it there is.

    Again just to reiterate the issue: Ryan Tannehill and Russell Wilson have both played seven-plus years now, with lots of variation in their surroundings. Wilson has outplayed Tannehill significantly despite that variation.

    The argument above as I understand it is that there was a difference between Tannehill and Wilson in how they developed that was determined by their surroundings early in their careers, and that has in turn strongly influenced the entirety of their careers.

    The reason why evidence of such a phenomenon is important is because, without it, there is an unfalsifiable argument that can be applied to any quarterback in history who didn't reach his potential -- his development was simply derailed by his early-career surroundings. Give him better surroundings during his supposedly all-important developmental period, and you'd have a different quarterback even years later. You could apply that argument to Ryan Leaf, JaMarcus Russell, John Beck, Chad Henne, anyone.

    If the person espousing that position can't or doesn't want to supply evidence of that, that's sure fine, but realize that unfalsifiable arguments are inherently weak because they can be neither proven nor disproven. They're akin to religion.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  8. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    12,965
    7,058
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yet WITHIN the variation, the Seahawks provided Wilson with a stability generated from a great run game, and all time great defensive play for at least the first 3 years. Yes, QBs need development, especially a guy like Tannehill. He was incredibly raw. So what do we do? We throw the kid out there with no oline, no run game, and a defense that despite some gaudy stats in one year, were still terrible defenses that couldn't cover a tight end or get off the field on third down. Oh, and we had him throw the ball like 25 or more times a game. And then we gave him Zack Taylor (WTF) as a QB coach, and changed coaches and OCs almost every year.

    Sounds like a recipe for success, if you ask me.
     
    PhinFan1968 and The_Dark_Knight like this.
  9. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    10,740
    8,919
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    This cracks me up... Lol...

     
  10. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,063
    2,884
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    We know that bad coaches can impede the development of QBs. There are examples of QBs getting away from bad coaches and their careers taking off. However the number of times it has happened is small. Rich Gannon comes to mind, but I don’t know whether it was coaching or a change in how he prepared for games. Jim Plunkett definitely turned his career around in good surroundings. Trent Dilfer and Alex Smith went from trash to sort of adequate. Steve Young and Jared Goff had bad first years then blossomed when connected with a good coach.

    However that list pretty well covers most of the known examples. The fact it has happened shows it might be possible with Tannehill (or any other QB not reaching the desired level of performance). The fact it happens rarely suggests that the set of circumstances required for it to happen are very uncommon, and it should not be the first hypothesis seized upon.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  11. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,257
    1,053
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I totally get where you are coming from.

    My question is more how do you pinpoint something with data that cant be pinpointed?

    As far as I'm concerned and know, there isnt really a way to quantify the impact coaching has on a player. Yet we do know it has some form of impact.

    I will say, it isnt turning Jamarcus Russel into Peyton Manning. I think the impact is far less than that and most would agree I'd hope.

    I think coaching has more potential to ruin a QB than to build him honestly but that's just my two cents.

    That said, you are right it cant be quantified which makes it something annoying that we know, or at least I feel, impacts something but you cant tell exactly where or what exactly.

    Measuring a player and the impact of coaching is like the uncertainty principle in physics measuring particles kind of joking here.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,041
    681
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    It doesn’t necessarily have to be quantified. There can be a study of it like the one done in the post above yours.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  13. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,257
    1,053
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Youd also have to quantify how much bad coaching instills bad habits and whether those habits are easily overturned or removed.

    In other words...if Coach A drills bad habits into you can Coach B drill them out and how long does that take? It still wouldnt provide much insight into the development cycle without knowing that, because you are sort of looking at a damaged product already by the time the QB moves to coach B.

    I'm not sure it can be easily figured out just by looking at players who had success with new coaches. Though it's a start.
     
    resnor likes this.
  14. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,061
    8,076
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Of course you can quantify it, at least in principle. The only question is whether the necessary data exists – whether you have sufficient examples of the different possibilities you are interested in comparing.

    For example, if you had enough examples of coaches with rookie QB's that started most games their first 2 years, you could look at the distribution of the increase in era-adjusted passing stats from year 1 to year 2 as a function of their stats in year 1 (conditioning on different starting points) and determine whether that coach is above average or not with respect to the average rate of improvement, and whether that's statistically significant. Same approach can be taken for anything, whether it's rate of improvement from year X to Y or whether it's rate of improvement when you start with a QB that already played X years with a different coach etc...

    So all this is quantifiable in principle. Whether you have the data to do this in practice I have no idea because it's really hard to find out who the coaches of different QB's are from publicly available football databases (they usually never list the QB and coach together) so you'd have to write a separate program to match them based on who knows what databases out there and that's just a lot of work. I still don't think there will be enough cases where the same coach works with different rookie QB's that start most games their first few years to answer the type of question that was posed earlier, but it's definitely quantifiable.
     
    The Guy and AGuyNamedAlex like this.
  15. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,731
    42,769
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    That wouldn't be an accurate measurement because humans don't; all respond and learn the same. Some people do better being thrown into he fire, some need time to learn the ins and outs.

    I don't know that there is sufficient data to accurately measure it. I think some examples you could potentially glean some things from are:

    - Gannon in Minny, Wash, KC then Oak
    - Brees in SD then NO.
    - Young in TB then SF
    - The Pats the times Brady wasn't available
    - Warner in the Arena then Rams
     
    resnor likes this.
  16. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,061
    8,076
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That's why you look at distributions of data – you know, where not every person responds the same way to the (statistically) same condition. The approach I described works. It's how everything is done in statistics.
     
    The Guy likes this.
  17. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,731
    42,769
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ok.

    There's too many variables and room for non-constants. Doing it that way only gives an indication of what may be possibly likely, not what is or isn't. Which is almost always the problem with a pure statistical view.
     
  18. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,061
    8,076
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    What statistical analysis does is quantify probabilities of events or likelihoods of hypotheses. So it will tell you whether some hypothesis is less than 5% likely to be true for example. Of course, just because it's less than 5% likely to be true doesn't mean it can't be true (it's estimated to be true one in 20 times in this case), but being able to quantify probabilities and likelihoods is FAR better than not being able to.

    So there's no "problem" with a pure statistical point of view as long as you understand what the statistical analysis is saying.


    As an aside.. it's actually possible for something to be 0% likely and still be possible as long as there are an infinite number of possibilities (probability is 1 divided by the number of possibilities, and if the number of possibilities is infinite you get 0% probability for something that can actually occur – example: probability of randomly selecting the number "5" from all possible numbers is 0% but it's certainly possible).
     
    Pauly and The Guy like this.
  19. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,100
    7,876
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    The problem here is that RT has had 4 head coaches over the past 7 years, 5 QB coaches and 4 offensive coordinators. We know HC # 1 and 3 asked him to do polar opposite things (one said stay in the pocket, the other said run freely). He's also been in 4 different offenses with 4 different routes and alignments, with a turnstile of linemen in front of him. I don't see where you'd ever have enough data to pinpoint benefits/problems surrounding Tannehill...especially when we haven't been able to say across 7 years how much of his struggles have been self-inflicted vs. problems at line, receiver, etc.

    But you know what- it's okay that we don't know. In my opinion, his performance next Sunday will always be more important than the last seven years anyway....that's why we turn on our TV's each week. Judging by your analysis the past six seasons, Tannehill is going to crash and burn in December as defenses dial up the pressure and force him into uncomfortable situations. If we're all being 100% honest though- is that what each of us are rooting for? Or do we want to see him overcome that lousy pocket presence and finally get that playoff berth?

    I ask that because if a person is rooting for him to succeed, the stat logs of the past six seasons are irrelevant...they can't predict his future growth or achievements. They only matter if someone is hoping he will continue the trend of disappointing Decembers.
     
    Tin Indian and resnor like this.
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,041
    681
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    If he were to overcome the lousy pocket presence you mentioned, chances are what he does downfield would suffer, because what he’s been able to do downfield has been made possible in part by the attention he takes away from the pocket and puts downfield.

    If he were to take that same attention away from downfield and put it toward the pocket, we’d likely see a drop-off in his passing performance. Of course he would likely take fewer sacks, but he would also likely have a decrease in his passing statistics.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2019
  21. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,257
    1,053
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I dont think that is an argument you want to make or an example to use.

    You're implying they are somehow linked in a way that one can't be improved without hurting the other. That isnt necessarily true because there are QB that do both.

    His skill in one area doesnt need to decline to improve another.
     
    resnor likes this.
  22. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,041
    681
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Certainly there are quarterbacks who do both, but he isn’t one who does them simultaneously. He has to do one or the other at a time, and that’s why I wrote what I did.

    What’s unlikely at this point is that you’re going to get an improvement in his performance whereby he has pocket presence and downfield awareness simultaneously. What you’re more likely to get is his robbing from one to pay the other.

    In fact the reason why his passing statistics have been so good over the past several games is because he’s probably doing that now. Note for example that he has the highest sack percentage of his career during those games.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2019
  23. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,061
    8,076
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    So.. an update on Tannehill: he played real well today and his 2019 rating is now a whopping 111.39 (today's rating was 155.8) compared to a league average so far of 91.5.

    And that's with 154 passing attempts so it's passed that minimum 150+ passing attempt reliability threshold I tend to set before using stats like passer rating in a discussion. He still has 5 games more to go, and unlike the past 6 games where 5 of the 6 were against teams with (so far) losing records he's now going to face 5 teams with winning records.

    This will be interesting..
     
    Tin Indian, xphinfanx, KeyFin and 3 others like this.
  24. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,063
    2,884
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Well the Titans are using him the way many posters here advocated using him. Asking him to be Bob Griese, i.e. low volume, high quality passing while a strong ground attack grinds the defense. We’ll see what happens if they start asking him be Dan Marino and carry the team with his arm, but based on his history here I would expect that approach to be just as successful for the Titans as it was for the phins.
     
    Surfs Up 99 likes this.
  25. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,337
    6,466
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    That's just it though Pauly, you're not going to see Tennessee ask him to be a gunslinger like Marino. That's not who the Titans are. They are a run heavy team. The football they are playing the type of football I have been advocating for...run the ball.

    Derrick Henry has had a great season, over 900 yards rushing and projected to top 1400+ by the end of the season, barring anything catastrophic. When you're effectively running the ball like Henry is, it opens the playbook for Tannehill. Play action pass becomes a nightmare for defenses as they HAVE to keep 7 or 8 in the box to stop the run. With a quarterback like Tannehill, he's going to tear you apart.

    Tennessee's coaching staff understands this and are ecstatic to have Tannehill under center.

    I said it previously but I believe it warrants repeating...Tennessee is going to make the playoffs and Ryan Tannehill is going to be voted Comeback Player of the Year.
     
    PhinFan1968, Tin Indian and KeyFin like this.
  26. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,257
    1,053
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I dont disagree with the need to run the ball to keep defenses off balance.

    I also wonder though if losing his job and not being "The Guy" anymore also lit a bit of a fire in him. Hes playing the way he was pre knee injury, which he wasnt here even on good days where the rest of the team stepped up.
     
  27. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity Staff Member

    11,748
    7,254
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    If he keeps it up it just shows one more way we've sucked.

    The Miami Dolphins just haven't known how to play football or build a team.

    Here's to hoping that's changed.
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  28. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    1,257
    1,053
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I mean to be fair he is playing the wag he was for us until he was hurt, you know...when we thought he was the guy.

    He never really looked as good afterwards and I dont believe it's just his surrounding cast. I feel like taking those weeks to sit, a fresh start and some other factors also helped.

    In other words, I dont know if he reaches that level here again regardless.

    That said, you can make a case that our staffs may have hindered him.
     
    PhinFan1968 and resnor like this.
  29. Hoops

    Hoops Well-Known Member

    894
    965
    93
    Dec 11, 2016
    Fully back to pre injury form. And the titans are loving it.

    he’s throwing decisive strikes and showing more off script than he ever did in Miami.

    don’t be surprised if he gets a long term extension in Tennessee.

    miamis plan? Who tbe hell knows lol
     
    Tin Indian and resnor like this.
  30. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    41,086
    14,414
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    Yeah, that game he played yesterday was damn impressive.
     
    Tin Indian and resnor like this.
  31. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    261
    320
    63
    Nov 16, 2013
    I think it did more then light a fire under him. I think he got to let go of some of the pressure, I think he is playing loose and is letting his instincts come out a little bit. That was something that (I feel like) was frowned upon by his coaching staff here.

    The Titans are also complimenting his skill set, and giving him a well rounded game plan.

    He is having fun out there and it shows. I feel like he lost that here the last couple of years.

    IF this continues Titans made the best offseason move we have seen in a long time.

    As for making the playoffs... the 2 and 4 start hurts a lot, but I see them being in every game this year, so its not out of the question.
     
    KeyFin and resnor like this.
  32. Hoops

    Hoops Well-Known Member

    894
    965
    93
    Dec 11, 2016
    I just think he’s finally healthy and has gotten his timing back in terms of speed of the game and ball out of hand.

    you miss essentially 2.5 years it can effect your timing.
     
    KeyFin and resnor like this.
  33. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,041
    681
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Note that people are attributing Tannehill‘s recent performance to a mixture of internal and external variables, and so even if he continues his performance to the degree that it represents a significant difference from what he did in Miami, the question will still remain whether his performance in Miami was attributable to internal or external variables.
     
  34. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,100
    7,876
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Not really- the "why" is not as important as the actual results he's producing on the field. He's playing better, his surrounding cast is better and his coaches are letting him be Ryan Tannehill. Good for him.
     
    PhinFan1968 and resnor like this.
  35. Phins_to_Win

    Phins_to_Win Well-Known Member

    261
    320
    63
    Nov 16, 2013
    That sounds a little bit like back peddling... Its ok you can start liking Tannehill we won't hold it against you :)

    The problem is the internal and external aren't independent. The external greatly impacts the internal. He is playing with more confidence because he has more faith in the surrounding team/coaches. He is playing better with a fresh start, because the environment here was toxic.

    He needed the fresh start, and we need to be better than the crazy ex-girlfriend and recognize and appreciate the football that he is playing for the Titans. Honestly he is one of the most entertaining QBs to watch right now in the entire NFL, and that's saying a lot. He will have another bad game, most likely before the season ends, but its just not worth taking any satisfaction or glee in that bad game when it finally comes.
     
    resnor likes this.
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    1,041
    681
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The why is exactly what’s important in determining what sense to make of his performance in Miami. That’s the only relevance there is for the future of any Miami Dolphins fan whose primary concern can be whether the external variables that were possibly hindering Tannehill‘s performance in Miami could still be present and could potentially hinder the performance of present or future Dolphins quarterbacks.

    I suspect this thread has the number of replies it does not because anybody is inherently interested in Ryan Tannehill’s future, but because they are inherently interested in the future of the Miami Dolphins.
     
  37. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,100
    7,876
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Remember all the arguments about if we could only have a top-10 QB again in Miami...or if Ryan Tannehill could ever be a top-10 quarterback? Well guess what? As of this week, Tannehill is #3 overall and Matt Moore is #10 (w/ 91 attempts).

    We let not one but two top-10 QB's walk out the door!
     
  38. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    6,100
    7,876
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    First off, almost half this thread was you and others arguing about something else entirely off-topic.

    Second, Tannehill was hurt all three seasons under Gase. Some here argued that you can't judge a QB playing hurt with a garbage offensive line, but the front office decided to ignore that factor and move on. That's on them. Gase absolutely insisted that most of RT's shortcomings were on surrounding talent and not him...yet very few listened.

    Third, Tannehill has been strip-sacked in every game I've watched this season. His pocket presence is still lacking, but that's being off-set by a strong run game, better blocking and freedom to freelance whenever needed. It's like comparing apples to oranges from his time in Miami.

    To understand why Tannehill is playing better this season, people first need to realize why they were wrong about some pre-conceived notions in the past. RT really hasn't changed other than confidence levels in the pocket (where he's still failing from time to time). He's just being asked to do less and when he doesn't have to carry an entire team on his back, he's a pretty darn good QB. But it's not just him- it's Henry, the offensive line, the defense, the receivers, etc. The team makes him better...and in turn he makes the team better. It's a perfect fit for him in that offense.

    I also believe you're wrong about people here being interested in Ryan Tannehill...we watched him struggle for seven years as Miami fans. Of course some here want him to succeed just like we would any former Dolphin player. Tannehill, Wake, Minkah, Miller, Drake, etc....I'll be a fan of those guys for as long as they're in the league.
     
    Tin Indian and resnor like this.
  39. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,337
    6,466
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Melbourne, FL
    Translation...

    Tannehill still sucks
     
  40. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,061
    8,076
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Tannehill is #3 after playing half the games that most other QB's on the starting QB list have played (filter by starting QB's below):
    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2019/passing.htm

    That's the same kind of comparison as in 2016 where people were selectively looking at his "best 8 game stretch" and comparing it to everyone else's entire season. Let's wait till the end of the season before proclaiming Tannehill is somehow better in Tennessee than he was here. He's going to play 5 games against winning teams now where he'll most likely be relied on more than in previous games (except KC).

    Also, Tannehill has been IN the top 10 mid-season many times. I mean.. after the first 3 games last year Tannehill had a whopping 121.85 rating! .. but finished ranked 20. So let's wait to see how the season ends.

    btw.. it IS true that the last 5 games is statistically Tannehill's best 5-game stretch, even using adjusted ratings, but it's not statistically significant. He keeps this up it will be of course. But as I said before I doubt it.
     
    Pauly, The Guy and KeyFin like this.

Share This Page