Ryan Tannehill

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

You know, you mind me of this guy I knew when I was in Iraq back in 97/08 I believe it was. His game was basketball and he had a massive Viagra induced erection for Kobe Bryant, always spouting off these incredible numbers that Bryant put up during a game and yet...the Lakers would lose said particular game.

You're looking for Tannehill to be Kobe Bryant, regardless whether or not the Titans actually WIN the game. Against the Patriots, the TITANS had a tried and trued game plan against the Patriots and because that game plan was executed to near perfection, you still doubt Tannehill.

Listening to you, you make it sound as if the Titans (and Tannehill by proxy) lost that game and Tom Brady and the Patriots won.

If Tannehill would’ve had a good game himself, I would’ve said he had a good game, regardless of who won, and I would’ve said he demonstrated the ability to play in the playoffs in a way associated with winning.

"The Guy wrote:

If Tannehill would’ve had a good game himself, I would’ve said he had a good game, regardless of who won, and I would’ve said he demonstrated the ability to play in the playoffs in a way associated with winning.

Thill has numerous good games, you've never said it before.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Your last paragraph is basically exactly my opinion too.

I do think there is a base level of play based on talent, but is it shocking the best year Brady had was tossing it to Moss?

Yes, it was his best year...throwing to Moss...AND Wes Welker! Both receivers broke the single season reception record that year...Moss just ended up with a few more catches than Welker did but the point being, Brady had GREAT receivers to throw the ball to. It wasn't JUST Brady and that goes to my point concerning Tannehill.

It's never JUST the quarterback...it's the TEAM. Brady had GREAT receivers that allowed him to put up staggering numbers. Tannehill has had the benefit of a great running game to be able to put up great numbers.

"Fin D wrote:

There is no scenario where a team could win with me at QB.

I'm 4'2", 353 lbs, I have 6 inch hands and I'm 67 years old.

I got winded typing that.

Don't worry. We would have you take a knee every play. We wouldn't need the offense to score one point. The defense and special teams were enough in that game to score enough points to win

"adamprez2003 wrote:

Don't worry. We would have you take a knee every play. We wouldn't need the offense to score one point. The defense and special teams were enough in that game to score enough points to win

Kneel??!?!?!?

How the hell am I getting back up to do it again without a delay of game penalty?

"Fin D wrote:

Kneel??!?!?!?

How the hell am I getting back up to do it again without a delay of game penalty?

Lol. I hadn't thought of that. Ok forget FIN D, we'll use Boik instead

"Fin D wrote:

Kneel??!?!?!?

How the hell am I getting back up to do it again without a delay of game penalty?

Two lineman pick you up after every play. Dont worry, team has your back in this scenario lol

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Your last paragraph is basically exactly my opinion too.

I do think there is a base level of play based on talent, but is it shocking the best year Brady had was tossing it to Moss?

We went over this earlier:

"The Guy wrote:

All QBs definitely don't fall into that category, and what we find is that those QBs vary in their performance from season to season just like other QBs, but at a level significantly higher than those other QBs.

Here's the way to think about what you're saying in my opinion. Consider the following three groups of QBs that map onto your categories. This is just a rough sketch with very little precision.

Generational talents:
Average passer rating with good surroundings: 115
Average passer rating with bad surroundings: 95

Average QBs:
Average passer rating with good surroundings: 105
Average passer rating with bad surroundings: 85

Bad QBs:
Average passer rating with good surroundings: 95
Average passer rating with bad surroundings: 75

So you can see there is overlap there in how those groups of QBs perform, based on their surroundings, but the degree to which those groups of QBs depend on their surroundings to play well enough to help a team be highly competitive also varies. The generational talents are far less dependent on their surroundings, whereas the bad QBs need the stars to align just to get to the average level of individual performance.

The mistake I see some people making in their thinking is in assuming that the generational talents play as well as they do because of their surroundings. That isn't the case. Those QBs' vary in their performance at a higher level regardless.

So you can't plug Andy Dalton into the 2007 New England Patriots for example and expect him to play as well as Tom Brady did in those surroundings. That very likely won't happen. You certainly can't plug John Beck for example into the 2007 Patriots and expect a Tom Brady performance.

"The Guy wrote:

We went over this earlier:

Nothing I said contradicts any of that. Though I dont necessarily believe there is a cap to the rating of any level of QB on the high side. Only the amount of effort necessary to achieve it.

"adamprez2003 wrote:

This will never die. The detractors can hide behind their statement of can't win in playoffs. Tannehill is taking a hugely inferior team to Baltimore (10 point underdogs) and they're going to pretend that the has to beat them singlehandedly for them to be proven wrong. The titans are going to lose this game 9 out of 10 times. It's a joke. Tannehill has already proven them wrong. Whether they admit it is irrelevant

No, he just has to play well himself. Whether his team wins or loses is immaterial.

"The Guy wrote:

The question is this: do you believe there are individual differences among quarterbacks with regard to how dependent they are on their surroundings for their own individual performance, or do you believe that all quarterbacks are exactly the same as each other in that regard?

Is Drew Brees for example just as dependent on his surroundings for his individual performance as is Josh Rosen?

You're trying to compare a 41 year old veteran who's been a starting quarterback with 18 years experience with a 24 year old kid with 2 years experience, one who's played on good TEAMS and the other who's been on two dumpster fire of teams. Great analogy :pity: but to answer your question directly...the answer is YES!

If Josh Rosen had a Marty Schottenheimer for a head coach and a surrounding cast that included LaDainian Tomlinson and a powerhouse offensive line...or a Sean Payton and a surrounding cast that included Deuce McAllister and a powerhouse offensive line then yes, Rosen could very well be just as successful. But Rosen has had...what?

Steve Wilks as head coach and Mike McCoy as an OC (who was fired in mid October)? No running game to speak of...no offensive line to speak of? Then traded to a team in Miami that completely gutted its roster of every starting caliber player it had under a first year head coach?

You're going to make THAT comparison?

You OFTEN point to quarterbacks you label as "elite"...Brady, Rodgers, Brees but what you often omit, because it fails to fit your narrative is that these quarterbacks basically walked onto teams that were already set in every other position that set these quarterbacks up for success...not to mention the head coaches they've had to mentor them to the greatness they've achieved.

And we've not even discussed the great defenses these quarterbacks were privileged to have that allowed them even more opportunities on the field.

Until you realize these other significant facts, you're NEVER going to understand the game of football. You're going to be stuck the fantasy football world and falsely believe THAT is the game of football.

"The Guy wrote:

The question is this: do you believe there are individual differences among quarterbacks with regard to how dependent they are on their surroundings for their own individual performance, or do you believe that all quarterbacks are exactly the same as each other in that regard?

Is Drew Brees for example just as dependent on his surroundings for his individual performance as is Josh Rosen?

For the love of Christ, it's BOTH the QB and the surroundings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And because of that, your little collection of stats is NEVER going to tell the full story. At some point, you'll just need to watch a football game or two......

THE BOX SCORE IS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE QB AND THE SURROUNDINGS WHETHER YOU WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

You're trying to compare a 41 year old veteran who's been a starting quarterback with 18 years experience with a 24 year old kid with 2 years experience, one who's played on good TEAMS and the other who's been on two dumpster fire of teams. Great analogy :pity: but to answer your question directly...the answer is YES!

If you think Drew Brees is just as dependent on his surroundings for his individual performance as is Josh Rosen, then we should agree to disagree about the topic. The position you're taking is that there are no differences in individual ability among NFL quarterbacks, and that is a position I will never agree with, so we should just end this here. Appreciate the discussion however.

"The Guy wrote:

If you think Drew Brees is just as dependent on his surroundings for his individual performance as is Josh Rosen, then we should agree to disagree about the topic. The position you're taking is that there are no differences in individual ability among NFL quarterbacks, and that is a position I will never agree with, so we should just end this here. Appreciate the discussion however.

And if you think Brees is unaffected by his surroundings, we should agree to disagree.

"Mcduffie81 wrote:

No. Not only that.

Don’t forget to add guys I had mentioned before like Manziel, Mariota, Alex Smith, Kaepernick, Tyrod Taylor and Fitzpatrick.

Your all time favorite QB is Steve Young. Your favorite offense is an option based power run game.

These are just a few things I can recall off the top of my head being on this forum since it’s inception (or close to).

Im not picking on you or anything. I’m just explaining why I think you can get a bit caught up with QB mobility.

he's been pushing this narrative that the game has changed and mobile QBs are better than non mobile pocket passers since Kaepernick and RGIII came into the league. Its funny but since 2003 the only QBs to make the Super Bowl in the AFC are Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger and Flacco. Only one running QB (Wilson) has won a Super Bowl in the last twenty years and like I said anyone could have won that year on that team

If anything all the data show that being a non mobile pocket passer is infinitely more valuable than a mobile running QB

The reason we are seeing more mobile QBs is not because its an evolution of the sport but a devolution due to high school coaches no longer teaching pocket passing because of pressure to win now. You no longer have time to develop QBs and becoming a good pocket passer takes years. And because high school stopped developing, college had to go to running QBs too because thats what the supply was and because college stopped producing them the NFL is now forced to make due and put these guys in. But pocket passers are the only ones who can dismantle playoff defenses if given the right tools. Running QBs always get contained

This devolution has also spread to offensive linemen who cant block anymore but thats a discussion for another thread

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

For the love of Christ, it's BOTH the QB and the surroundings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And because of that, your little collection of stats is NEVER going to tell the full story. At some point, you'll just need to watch a football game or two......

THE BOX SCORE IS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE QB AND THE SURROUNDINGS WHETHER YOU WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT.

Like I've said my main issue with his stance is it treats football like a coin flip, where if you toss it enough times things roughly even out over time.

Unfortunately the NFL doesnt even out. Even though bad teams generally dont have a good QB, they also tend to have horrible surroundings as well and an overall lack of team talent.

Why? Being a GM is hard. Firing one to hire another often still leads to more failure and a cycle of hiring/firing you cant expect players to be successful in.

So if you're unlucky enough to start off surrounded by crap, it will likely show. Why dont more QB experience resurgence? Once a negative label has been applied to a person its shown that the label is held against them regardless of performance most of the time. Most guys dont really get second chances at QB. They mainly get to go to another bad team willing to risk it, where more crap surrounds them.

Tannehill was lucky he got his second chance with a well run team so he can show what he does well.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

For the love of Christ, it's BOTH the QB and the surroundings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And because of that, your little collection of stats is NEVER going to tell the full story. At some point, you'll just need to watch a football game or two......

THE BOX SCORE IS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE QB AND THE SURROUNDINGS WHETHER YOU WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT.

Argue with a brick wall. A brick wall just won't ever understand your point through no fault of its own, but that brick wall won't actively try to troll you.

"adamprez2003 wrote:

he's been pushing this narrative that the game has changed and mobile QBs are better than non mobile pocket passers since Kaepernick and RGIII came into the league. Its funny but since 2003 the only QBs to make the Super Bowl in the AFC are Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger and Flacco. Only one running QB (Wilson) has won a Super Bowl in the last twenty years and like I said anyone could have won that year on that team

If anything all the data show that being a non mobile pocket passer is infinitely more valuable than a mobile running QB

That Super Bowl featured the only blowout of one team by another (43-8) in recent history, and it was precisely because the winning team had a Hall of Fame caliber quarterback and one of the best pass defenses of all time, which very rarely happens. And strangely enough, the Broncos were a two-point favorite.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

You're trying to compare a 41 year old veteran who's been a starting quarterback with 18 years experience with a 24 year old kid with 2 years experience, one who's played on good TEAMS and the other who's been on two dumpster fire of teams. Great analogy :pity: but to answer your question directly...the answer is YES!

If Josh Rosen had a Marty Schottenheimer for a head coach and a surrounding cast that included LaDainian Tomlinson and a powerhouse offensive line...or a Sean Payton and a surrounding cast that included Deuce McAllister and a powerhouse offensive line then yes, Rosen could very well be just as successful. But Rosen has had...what?

Steve Wilks as head coach and Mike McCoy as an OC (who was fired in mid October)? No running game to speak of...no offensive line to speak of? Then traded to a team in Miami that completely gutted its roster of every starting caliber player it had under a first year head coach?

You're going to make THAT comparison?

You OFTEN point to quarterbacks you label as "elite"...Brady, Rodgers, Brees but what you often omit, because it fails to fit your narrative is that these quarterbacks basically walked onto teams that were already set in every other position that set these quarterbacks up for success...not to mention the head coaches they've had to mentor them to the greatness they've achieved.

And we've not even discussed the great defenses these quarterbacks were privileged to have that allowed them even more opportunities on the field.

Until you realize these other significant facts, you're NEVER going to understand the game of football. You're going to be stuck the fantasy football world and falsely believe THAT is the game of football.

that’s called strategy on his part. Brees vs rosen lol age and experience is but a number don’t ya know

As ti surroundings, I dont think the surroundings around Tannehill are hard to replicate.

Their line is awful, they have one stud WR and a stud HB.

So basically the argument boils down to whether or not you find that hard to replicate. I dont.

WR is an easy position to scout and HB is undervalued and not taken early in the draft. If all Tannehill needs are two players to succeed I dont find that a negative.

"Fin-O wrote:

If you are in either of these groups...

A.) Would've discredited Ryan for having a great day statisticaly because he got the loss, then discredit his getting the win while having bad night statistcally??

Or.....

B.) Would've gave him credit for a great day statistically while blaming the loss on the Titans Def/WR/OL/RB's, then give him credit as "leading his team to a playoff win" despite bad numbers??

YOU are the reason this thread and so many before it on RT have become laughable. Because your mind is never changing and you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

I agree with you, but I don't think the Tannehill fans are going out of there way to plaster Tannehill hyperbole in the face of the anti Tanny crowd. The rest of the forums are pretty much Tannehill free. This one thread(IMO) was setup for people that liked Tannehill to keep track of him, and see how he does with a different environment.

If you hated Tannehill why bother jumping in this thread and dragging up the same argument again?

In the end the anti Tannehill crowd won cause Tannehill is no longer with the team. Why does the battle have to continue? Is it really that unspeakable that some of us still like Tannehill and want to chat about his progress with a different team?

By the way this is 100% not directed at you Fin-O, I have always found you to be pretty level headed and fair with your analysis of Tanny. I disagree with it, but I usually see your points.

"Fin D wrote:

There is no scenario where a team could win with me at QB.

I'm 4'2", 353 lbs, I have 6 inch hands and I'm 67 years old.

I got winded typing that.

I’m gonna pass but you could probably hand out water or greet people at the facility

"The Guy wrote:

If Tannehill would’ve had a good game himself, I would’ve said he had a good game, regardless of who won, and I would’ve said he demonstrated the ability to play in the playoffs in a way associated with winning.

It's not how you play the game, it's whether you win or lose. Ask Marino. He's said numerous times he would trade each and every one of his record breaking stats for just ONE Super Bowl Championship.

"Hoops wrote:

I’m gonna pass but you could probably hand out water or greet people at the facility

Can I use a Hoveround and an oxygen bottle?

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

It's not how you play the game, it's whether you win or lose. Ask Marino. He's said numerous times he would trade each and every one of his record breaking stats for just ONE Super Bowl Championship.

So on the one hand you say (above) winning is the criterion on which to judge a quarterback's performance, and on the other hand you say any quarterback needs adequate surroundings to play at a level associated with winning, meaning that team functioning, for you, has a significant impact on whether a quarterback can play at that level. Those positions are incompatible.