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_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,758
    7,212
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    And again as I pointed out in vivid detail, 7 of the top 10 highest volume passing teams failed to make the playoffs and 6 of those teams had losing records.

    I don’t care what the league average is. It’s irrelevant. What is relevant is the teams records at the end of the season. You’re either going to the playoffs to play for the championship or you’re not.

    Dan Marino in an interview once said he would trade every record he had for a Super Bowl championship.

    It doesn’t matter how many times you throw the ball...
    It doesn’t matter how many yards you throw for...
    It doesn’t matter how many first downs you throw...
    It doesn’t matter how many touchdowns you throw...

    If at the end of the game, your opponent scores more points than you did, then you lost...and there are a number of “high volume” passing teams that did just that, they lost!
     
  2. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You're missing the point. The point is not that high passing volume causes winning. The point is that your quarterback offers you considerable more likelihood of winning if he has the ability to play well in high-volume passing games, given that they are prevalent in the league.
     
  3. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,758
    7,212
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    No it’s not. Unfortunately you’ve hitched your wagon on a numbers game while ignoring the most important number...wins and losses.

    Successful teams, to include those manned by Brady, Brees and Rodgers ALL incorporate the run in their game and not some silly motioned scheme to run out the clock.

    I watched the Patriots last season come out after halftime and ran the ball 10 straight times, marching down the field to score a touchdown.

    New England’s passing game softened up the opponents run defense which after their next series adjustment weakened their pass defense.

    I suggest learning the actual game and not just chasing numbers.
     
    FinFaninBuffalo and resnor like this.
  4. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    8,758
    7,212
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Again, learn the game and quit chasing numbers
     
  5. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You're talking about the correlation between the run game and winning. I'm talking about the correlation between the run game and quarterbacks' performances.

    Please try to follow the conversation better. Your understanding is lacking.
     
  6. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You could say that in response to any post that featured a number and it would be equally meaningless every time.
     
  7. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,660
    7,817
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    BECAUSE LOSING TEAMS THROW MORE.
     
  8. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,206
    1,741
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Agree to disagree.
     
  9. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,206
    1,741
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Agree to disagree.
     
  10. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That point would have relevance only if it was impossible to win a high-volume passing game. If it’s possible to win one, and of course it is, then the likelihood your quarterback gives you of doing that has meaning.
     
  11. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,156
    1,881
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I think his point is that if high volume games are a losing proposition to begin with, emphasis should be placed on staying out of them rather than seeing who can win if they are put into one.

    In other words, if you are trying to stay away from those games to begin with it's probably not one of the top traits you are looking for but more like a nice bonus.
     
    resnor likes this.
  12. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The issue is that staying out of them requires a stud run game and/or defense, and that's the original point here -- that Tannehill, unlike some QBs, needs those surroundings to keep him out of high-volume passing games. He's dependent on his surroundings in that way.

    Nobody is saying high-volume passing games should be sought out, as though they're something preferable to experience. But not all teams have to construct their rosters and gameplans with keeping their QBs out of high-volume passing games in mind. The Kansas City Chiefs for example freewheel it and do tons of passing, seemingly without regard for what it does to their quarterback's performance.

    The larger issue is whether Tannehill's 2019 performance is replicable. To the degree that he's restricted to low-volume games to play well, and given the fact that the Titans passed the ball at a frequency nearly two standard deviations below the league norm in 2019, that scenario may be difficult to replicate. It's probably not easy to stay at an extreme (i.e., very low-volume passing) in the league in any one way, from season to season.
     
  13. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,206
    1,741
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Compare the videos of Tannehill against the Ravens, Raiders, and Chiefs to the videos of Lamar Jackson and this one of Garoppolo.



    The obvious difference is the big time strike that Tannehill threw to Raymond for the TD vs Garoppolo missing a similar throw by 5 yards.

    There were also accuracy and decision making issues by Garoppolo.

    The Titans are in far better shape at QB.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  14. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,660
    7,817
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You posted a stat that said that basically half of every game played involves one team being high volume. Since losing teams pass more, then losing teams are the ones going high volume. Since losing is not a preferred outcome, then teams would be trying to avoid high volume games.

    Therefore, balanced attacks are preferred. Having a running back that is able to run effectively makes it much easier to have a balanced attack. If you have a QB who is able to be incredibly effective with limited throws, while having a good run game to control the game, then of course you will run the ball. It's safer than passing, regardless of who the QB is.

    You continue to show that you don't understand the game. At all.
     
    FinFaninBuffalo likes this.
  15. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,660
    7,817
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That premise is flawed. Now if you can show that the 52% high volume is actually the winning team the majority of the time, then you'd have a point.

    But you haven't shown that. So, I will default to what we know:

    1. Losing teams throw more, and winning teams run the ball more, with the difference coming usually in the 4th quarter. Cbrad can chime in if he wishes, he's showed this numerous times.

    2. If half the games played involve a high volume team, basic logic suggests that the high volume team is the losimg team. It's not that both teams are high volume in those games. It could be sometimes, which is why the percent was 52%, and not 50%. If the winning team was often also high volume, it would have pushed the percent of high volume games up to say 70% (it appears that your stat was simply taking every teams passing volume, so each game is two data points).
     
  16. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure. Like I said above, high-volume passing games aren't something to be sought out.

    What you don't seem to get here is Tannehill's performance historically in high-volume games, and how that 1) restricts his team to the above strategy versus being more flexible offensively, 2) makes it dependent on the personnel required to execute it effectively (i.e., if Derrick Henry gets hit by a bus tomorrow, they're in deep trouble), and 3) makes it even more unlikely to win than the average team when a high-volume passing game comes along.

    You're essentially responding to my posts in this area without any acknowledgement of Tannehill's history and how that forces the Titans to adopt this strategy and have the requisite surrounding personnel to execute it effectively. It's like you're placing a league template for one kind of team "success" on the Titans, without acknowledging that Tannehill, because of his own weaknesses, is dependent on that template.

    It's like in your mind, the success of their offensive strategy has nothing to do with Tannehill and his history and his limitations.
     
  17. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You're missing the point. You're understanding the point to be "high passing volume causes winning," and that isn't the point.
     
  18. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,660
    7,817
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    And not to mention, Henry was not running crazy the first half of the year. He wasn't crazy dominant until after Tannehill started on his tear.

    And I don't care what your correlations say. The fact is, Henry only hit 100 yards in a game ONCE before week 10, and never went over 100 yards until week 11. So it wasn't like Henry was running for 150 yards a game all season, and Tannehill was just along for the ride, which is exactly the scenario you're presenting.
     
  19. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,660
    7,817
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Correct. I'm not interested in his history.

    1. You maintain that the Dolphins were average throughout Tannehill's tenure, without presenting any actual proof of your claim. You disregard the facts contrary to that, such as the coaching carousel, and the compete lack of production of players that left the Dolphins, once on other teams.

    2. If the Dolphins were a bad team, then it makes complete sense that they lost high volume games, and that Tannehill wouldn't have spectacular stats in high volume games.

    So, yes, I disregard your premises that aren't supported with proof, or that simply dismiss things that disagree with your premise.
     
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Tannehill displayed a similar decrement in performance in high-volume passing games in 2019, with the Titans. So your belief that the decrement in his performance in high-volume passing games historically was a function of the Dolphins isn't consistent with the data.
     
  21. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,660
    7,817
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No. I'm saying that bad teams lose. Losing teams pass more. Therefore, it is to be expected that losing teams will be involved in a high volume situation, while a good team will not be involved in high volume. I don't care about correlation to winning. So telling us that 52% of the games involve high volume, and extrapolating that to mean that you need a certain QB is pointless. You need a good team with a balanced offense. If you find your team in a high volume situation, then your most likely in a situation where your QB is going to be asked to do things that do not have a high probability of success. So, regardless of your QB, you shouldn't expect to have great success in high volume games.
     
  22. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,660
    7,817
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Is this your definition of "high volume"? Also, the teams your playing make a difference. If you're playing a great defense, and you get into a high volume situation, good luck. If you're in high volume situations, then the defense knows the pass is coming, and it's way easier to defend, and far more difficult for the offense to complete, regardless of who the QB is.
     
  23. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,660
    7,817
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Here's what I would consider a high volume game:

    Tannehill went 17-27, 272 yards, 63% completion%, averaged 10.1ypa, 3tds - 0 ints, for a 133.6 rating.

    Or this:

    22-36, 279 yards, 61.1 completion%, 7.8ypa, 2tds - 1int, 92.2 rating

    Both losses.

    The loss week 5 against Carolina, Tannehill played not great, with high volume, but only 1 TD and 2 ints.
     
  24. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Here's how simple the point is that you're missing: the Kansas City Chiefs, New Orleans Saints, and Seattle Seahawks don't need to construct a roster and have an offensive strategy designed around keeping their quarterbacks out of high-volume passing games; the Tennessee Titans do, despite that their quarterback led the league in passer rating in 2019.
     
  25. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,206
    1,741
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    The loss to Houston should have been a win and the passer rating should have been much higher. A TE flubbed a TD pass and turned it into an INT that led to a Texans TD. 14 point swing. In addition, Tenn missed a FG earlier. That is 17 points in a game they lost by 3.

    That is why he needs to watch the games.....
     
    Cashvillesent and resnor like this.
  26. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,206
    1,741
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    BTW, if the TE hangs onto the ball and scores, his passer rating becomes 115.

    But, but..... passing volume!!!!!!!!!
     
    resnor likes this.
  27. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,660
    7,817
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Says who? Seattle was ABSOLUTELY a low volume, run first, dominant defense team the first 4 or 5 years that Wilson was there. You know, the years where they were hands down the best team in the league.

    NO is always better when they have one, sometimes two, backs who are running well, and a good-great defense.

    Andy Reid is ALWAYS QB friendly and pass happy...which is why he struggles in the playoffs. Also, it's already been pointed out to you that the passing volume didn't change significantly when it was Matt Moore at QB instead of Mahomes. Are you arguing that More y is as good as Mahomes?

    Yes, those are all teams that are designed to prevent the team from getting into high volume situations.
     
  28. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,156
    1,881
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    You're confusing the concept of what they did with something that is required.

    Why would you attempt to have high volume passing games when you're currently built not to at key positions?

    Success in high volume passing games has more to do with your scheme and receiving talent than just your QB alone, though obviously he plays a role.

    If Mahomes was throwing to Hartline and Bess I'm pretty damn sure his numbers in high volume games would be lower, for example.
     
    The_Dark_Knight and resnor like this.
  29. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,206
    1,741
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    He also must think Mahomes is the 10th best QB... because passing volume!!!!
     
    resnor likes this.
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,660
    7,817
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Oh, there's also this, since you continue to dispute that Tannehill needed fewer passes to gain the yards of other QBs:

    2019 Drew Brees: 2979 yards on 378 attempts

    2019 Ryan Tannehill: 2,742 yards on 286 attempts

    Brees COMPLETED MORE PASSES THAN TANNEHILL ATTEMPTED.
     
  31. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,206
    1,741
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Interesting point about Tannehill in 2019. Over the last 7 games of the regular season, he had just 2 INTs. One was a flub by a TE that should have gone for a TD. The other was a batted ball at the LOS that fell into the lap of a DT.

    He flat out tore it up in 2019.
     
    Irishman and Cashvillesent like this.
  32. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent Well-Known Member

    518
    386
    63
    Dec 8, 2019
    Better QB play last year by SF and they would've beaten the Chiefs
     
    FinFaninBuffalo likes this.
  33. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,206
    1,741
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Definitely.
     
  34. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    You’re failing to distinguish whether those quarterbacks are dependent on those kinds of surroundings, or whether they have the ability to play well within surroundings that make high-volume passing games more likely. None of the quarterbacks noted above show the performance decrement Tannehill has in high-volume passing games.
     
  35. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    No I don’t dispute that. What I dispute is that the Titans’ low passing volume was caused by Tannehill’s YPA.

    The reason I dispute that is because the correlation between those variables game-by-game was almost nil, whereas the correlation between Derek Henry’s yards per rush and the Titans’ passing volume game-by-game was astronomical by comparison.
     
  36. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The appropriate response to your post is simply a repetition of post #8104.
     
  37. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,156
    1,881
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    If I could run the ball every down and never throw I would, even if Peyton Manning was my QB.

    If something is effective you do it. The argument has somehow devolved into the idea that Tannehill needs to throw 40 times a game despite having no WR help, no TE help and a line suited to run blocking.

    Now I'm sure a statistic will be provided showing they pass blocked well, entirely disregarding the fact that it directly contradicts the argument about Tannehill in the process.

    It will imply that somehow the offensive line receives no benefit from running the ball but Tannehill receives it in leaps and bounds.

    I'm going to just say it. If Maholmes had to throw as much as he does with the Titans roster, he would look like crap as often as he looks magic.

    There are tens of reasons you might run the ball that have literally nothing to do with the QB.
     
    resnor likes this.
  38. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,156
    1,881
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    That post provided nothing to the argument. You just danced around the issue while ignoring all pertinent parts of the post.
     
    resnor likes this.
  39. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,206
    1,741
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    This would be an appropriate response to nearly every one of his posts......
     
    resnor likes this.
  40. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,592
    941
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That isn't the argument.

    The issue isn't that he needs to throw 40 times a game; the issue is that he needs not to, to play well, despite having the best passer rating in the league.

    And that distinguishes him from QBs like Mahomes, Brees, and Wilson. If he needs not to throw 40 times a game, then he needs surroundings that make low-volume passing more likely. And that starts with Derrick Henry, for example. Patrick Mahomes by contrast doesn't need his load lightened by someone like Derrick Henry to play well.
     

Share This Page