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. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,258
    3,233
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    You did read my last line re Adam Gase?
    4 years out 4 in the league his teams have had bad OL ratings in whichever metric you care to use (apart from a 5 or 6 game stretch in 2016 when all the unicorns were together). That suggests there may be common factor that is non random.
     
    The Guy and resnor like this.
  2. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    6,820
    3,134
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    More like herpes. Never goes away
     
    Bumrush and The G Man like this.
  3. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,226
    1,931
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    There may be a common factor, but to establish that I'd like to see the rankings of each team, ours and theirs, before he took over.

    I'm not sure how much roster say Gase has...I havent followed their power system in the FO. Whichever way it is would either assign more or less blame to him.
     
  4. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,781
    8,908
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Last season, Gase was the head coach and the GM leading into the start of the season...meaning he had complete control over everything.

    It's funny, I was sitting here trying to figure out if it was Gase's 2nd or 3rd year in NY. That's how out of whack this year has been with COVID and all the delays. It certainly doesn't feel like he was in NY for only one season.
     
    AGuyNamedAlex likes this.
  5. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    6,820
    3,134
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    [​IMG]
     
    resnor likes this.
  6. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,850
    7,906
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Those look like deepfake pics. That stuff is crazy. Like the Bill Hader noticing into Tom Cruise. Crazy.
     
  7. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets Club Member

    6,820
    3,134
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    But more important to the theme of this thread, would you hit it? I mean every other aspect of the Tennessee Titans starting QB's life has been covered here so now I need to know. Who here would eff that and who would not and why?
     
  8. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    381
    409
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    I see the common factor!

    Teams with bad offensive lines are the ones hiring HC's.

    It's the only answer that is consistent across the board.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  9. Phin McCool

    Phin McCool Well-Known Member

    411
    462
    63
    Jan 29, 2017
    United Kingdom
    I would. My reason is that I'm just a ****.

    Wow, you can't say s l u t on here..???
     
  10. FinFaninBuffalo

    FinFaninBuffalo Well-Known Member

    1,327
    1,886
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    https://www.nfl.com/videos/top-100-players-of-2020-ryan-tannehill-no-68

    A little too low IMO for Tannehill. He should not be behind Cousins or Garoppolo. At least he is ahead of Carr, Wentz, Josh Allen, Goff, Rivers, Ryan, Stafford, etc.

    Interesting that NBCsports has him at 9, ahead of Cousins and Garoppolo but behind Wentz, and Stafford.

    As I have said all along, rankings from approximately 6 - 15 are close. If you ask 100 different people, you're likely to get them in all kinds of orders.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2020
    xphinfanx and Irishman like this.
  11. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,775
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-quarte...il&utm_term=0_ae3f4210bf-27a3bbcfb9-217083277
     
  12. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,850
    7,906
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
  13. KeyFin

    KeyFin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    6,781
    8,908
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I mean, he took over mid-season for a mediocre offense, so there's nothing there to really debate. He clearly carried his team last season since he was the only variable.

    With the #1 passer rating, I think it's hard not to place him in the top 5. I can see why you'd rank Wilson, Rodgers, Mahommes and a few others above him since they've done it consistently, but for 2020 RT clearly belongs just below those elite, super-consistent QB's.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2020
    Irishman likes this.
  14. RevRick

    RevRick Long Haired Leaping Gnome Club Member

    7,078
    3,787
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Itsnotevenonthemap, GA
    That would not be appropriate here: Dirty Water belongs down by the banks of the River Charles...
     
  15. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,775
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Well once again, the issue is not what he did in 2019. The issue is whether it's replicable. If it's replicable, he's an upper-echelon QB. If it's not replicable, he's a one-year wonder like the list of other QBs who've produced similarly over 11-game stretches (Jim Harbaugh, Mark Rypien, etc.).

    This is yet another publication that firmly acknowledges his 2019 production, but argues that it isn't replicable. There is no national publication I'm aware of that asserts that Tannehill's 2019 production is indicative of some untapped potential that will continue beyond that year. All of the ones I've come across indicate that 2019 was an anomaly that isn't expected to continue. Vegas echoes that appraisal with its odds of Tannehill's winning the league MVP.

    So, whether his performance continues is an unknown. But realize that if you think it will, you're apparently in an awfully small minority.
     
  16. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    381
    409
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    Next year he may actually join the elite.

    That would give this board a big thread to respond to, if the current one is any indication!!
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  17. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,850
    7,906
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Well, Guy argued that Tannehill was not carrying the offense, but that he was the beneficiary of Henry carrying the offense.

    So it's funny that he quoted a source that attributed the offensive success to Tannehill.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2020
    KeyFin likes this.
  18. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,850
    7,906
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Sure. And Marino never replicated 84. Who freaking cares?
     
  19. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,258
    3,233
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    On the other hand there is nothing to say that Tannehill will not have a mid/late career surge like Rich Gannon or Jim Plunkett.

    When the level of analysis in a national publication goes further than parroting “regression to the mean” I will take note. In the meantime we have several former NFL/college QBs who assessed Tannehill’s performance on a play by play level, who have said his individual performance has been at a high level, and not the product of flukey unrepeatable things. One example is Rypien in 1991 where the Hogs were the best OL in football and were uninjured for the whole year. If I remember correctly in Foles’ big year he had a lot of luck with opposing defenses dropping a lot of potential interceptions. When experts analyzed Tannehill’s performance on a throw by throw performance they didn’t come away saying he was getting away with unrepeatable things.

    A further argument is Tannehill’s favor is that the common feature with the few QBs who did have a mid/late career surge is that they escaped from bad coaching to good. It’s a pretty unanimous consensus that the coaching RT had in Miami was far from good.

    Also in Tannehill’s favor is that he has performed at a similar level in the past. Specifically the 8(?) game stretch in 2016 after the purge and before his injury. In a situation where he had a strong running game and decent/good OL play he consistently performed at a high level. Not as high as he did in 2019.

    “Regression to the mean” is a lazy argument. It is the null hypothesis. While there is evidence that there was nothing flukey or lucky Tannehill’s individual performance (such as an abnormally high number of dropped interceptions) or circumstances (abnormal lack of injuries for his teammates) other hypotheses deserve consideration. I know people point to Derek Henry as an abnormal circumstance but (1) Henry’s performance with Mariota and (2) Tannehill’s performance without Henry indicate that it is not as simple as Derek Henry = boost for QB.
     
    resnor, VManis and Irishman like this.
  20. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,775
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Sure they did. Read this article:

    https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/12/ryan-tannehill-titans-franchise-qb-new-contract
     
  21. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,775
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    So how do we know Marino was good? We know that because of his performance over many years, not just one. His performance over many years came close enough to replicating 1984 that it established his career level of individual ability as extremely high.

    Obviously Tannehill is nowhere near having accomplished that. That's the point, and it's why whether his performance is replicable is the issue. Whether his performance is more or less replicable over time will determine his individual ability.

    Right now his ability can't be distinguished from that of Jim Harbaugh, who also experienced an 11-game stretch of play statistically non-different from Tannehill's amid an otherwise average career.
     
  22. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,850
    7,906
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Again, what measures are you using to determine that? You are using RESULTS, not performance. There are plenty of examples of Tannehill making the right reads, making the right throws, and having it fail due to other factors.

    Results are not necessarily the same as performance.
     
  23. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,775
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    How are performance and results related, if at all, for you?
     
  24. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,850
    7,906
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Well, positive performance would give a better chance of positive results. But positive performance from one part does not guarantee positive performance from other players, and doesn't guarantee positive results.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  25. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,775
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    Certainly, and so the only way to know the ability of an individual player is to assess his performance over many years, with presumably considerable variation in the other players around him. 11 games won't do it, unless you want to say Jim Harbaugh for example had stellar individual ability because of the 11 consecutive games he once played like Tannehill's in 2019.
     
  26. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,226
    1,931
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    I would need to watch Harbaugh and see what types of throws he was making that season.

    I'm not arguing in either direction, but you're basing it on end statistics without looking at whether Harbaugh carried the offense or the offense carried him.

    Also with Tannehill you can at least say he had flashes of potential at times early in his career. It's not like Harbaugh where everyone would agree the individual talent wasnt there.

    I do agree he needs to continue to perform however.
     
    VManis, Pauly and resnor like this.
  27. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,775
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    What do you figure is the percentage of career average QBs who display flashes of potential early in their careers?

    We're not talking about JaMarcus Russell here. It takes some talent to be a career average NFL QB as opposed to a complete failure.

    In other words, "flashes of potential early in careers" isn't something that distinguishes the Andy Daltons from the Dan Marinos of the world. Sustained performance is what does that.

    And according to the history of 11-game stretches not unlike Tannehill's in 2019, such 11-game stretches don't do that either.

    All you have to date with Tannehill are stretches of games that don't historically distinguish above-average from average QBs. He's done nothing to date to distinguish himself as something other than a career average QB.
     
  28. Irishman

    Irishman Well-Known Member

    381
    409
    63
    Oct 16, 2017
    High Point, NC
    It takes two (and in football it takes eleven) to tango! LOL
     
    resnor likes this.
  29. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,850
    7,906
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    But you aren't (and most analysts aren't) assessing performance, you're assessing results. That's why you had that analyst, was it Chris Simms??, Last month or so talking about how he hasn't really looked at Tannehill, and when he started going through film and actually looking at performance instead of results, he came away with a very different belief about Tannehill.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  30. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,775
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    But yet the 31 other GMs in the league who do that for a living weren't willing to give up any more than a 4th-round pick and (initially) 1% of their salary cap for him when he became available from the Dolphins? All 31 of them had access to his six years of film with the Dolphins and not a single one of them drove up the price for Tannehill to something consistent with the belief that he's something other than average?
     
  31. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,850
    7,906
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Ok? What does that have to do with anything? Again, we've been down this road...my argument is and will remain, why would a GM offer anything substantial for a QB who lost two years to injury when he's going to be released anyway?

    There are many reasons why the price wasn't higher, and they have nothing to do with Tannehill's actual play on the field.
     
    Irishman likes this.
  32. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,775
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    That begs yet another question -- why was he going to be released when it was supposedly so clear on film that he was merely an adequate surrounding cast and better coaching away from being far better? At that point you're talking about only a workout to rule out the effects of injury and simply signing him to another contract and reaping the supposed benefits of his new and improved surroundings.

    Hell, the Dolphins just spent a top-five overall pick on a guy on the basis of film and a workout to rule out the effects of a significant injury and then signed him to a long-term contract. The guy's never played a down in the NFL. Yet six years of film of Tannehill in the NFL and a workout wasn't sufficient to get either his own team or one of 31 other ones to pony up?

    Listen, as important as quarterbacks are in this league, nobody is letting one go under the radar like that when only a workout is needed to determine whether he's viable. The parsimonious explanation is that the six years of film you're talking about doesn't reveal anything special, even during the supposed "better" stretches.
     
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,850
    7,906
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You really literally are restarting the entire thread right now. We've already answered these things you're saying.

    I'm not doing it again.
     
    Silverphin likes this.
  34. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent Well-Known Member

    521
    390
    63
    Dec 8, 2019
    Goff is trash. I mean stats leads you to believe he is a good QB but if you see him play the guy is trash. Thanks to McVay for making him look atleast decent.
     
  35. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,258
    3,233
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    The article was written on the basis of Tannehill’s first 7 starts, not his complete 11 games. Specifically mentioning he was leading the NFL in passer rating.

    When talking about his play under pressure he mentions that the stat is volatile and “regression is coming”.
    When talking about play action he mentions that the stat is more volatile than under pressure and “regression is coming”
    When talking about deep ball success “that’s another area where Tannehill is getting the benefit of unsustainable luck”.

    These 3 areas the “regression to the mean” is not based on any film study or deep analysis of scheme. The fact of how Tannehill performed over the next 4 games rendered these three assumptions as proven false.

    Whether they continue to be false is another matter, but the “regression to the mean” crowd had a stab at making predictions after 7 games and got it wrong.

    The article also mentions performance without pressure is a more stable indicator of future performance, and we all know Tannehill did exceptionally well in that stat.
     
    resnor likes this.
  36. AGuyNamedAlex

    AGuyNamedAlex Well-Known Member

    2,226
    1,931
    113
    Sep 12, 2015
    Again the 11 game number is arbitrary and means nothing to begin with for reasons I've already gone over in this thread. I'm not sure I feel like doing it again.
     
    resnor likes this.
  37. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,775
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    The 11-game number is all you've got. It's the sample of games during which he's played at a significantly different level. When more games come along, the criterion with which to compare him to other players will change, but for now it's all you've got.

    In exact opposition to what you said, any other number of games would actually be arbitrary.
     
  38. The Guy

    The Guy Well-Known Member

    2,775
    942
    113
    Oct 1, 2018
    In the end you're still dealing with a sample of play (11 games) that doesn't reliably distinguish the Jim Harbaughs from the Steve Youngs of the world. So any indications of unsustainability in that sample of play, like what was mentioned in the article -- when applied to a QB whose previous track record of merely average performance comprised a full six years -- should make one lean toward the belief of impending regression.

    There's a reason why Vegas's odds for his winning the league MVP are so poor, and that's obviously the reason. When you combine six years at an average level with 11 games rife with indications of unsustainability, you get those kinds of odds, and rightly so.

    If that doesn't fit for you, then please tell us the percentage of your belongings you're planning to stake on Tannehill's winning the league MVP. Certainly if he plays at roughly the same level he did last year, he stands quite a good chance of doing so.
     
  39. Cashvillesent

    Cashvillesent Well-Known Member

    521
    390
    63
    Dec 8, 2019
  40. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,258
    3,233
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    In the end you’re still dealing with with a sample of people making “regression to the mean” arguments ever since Tannehill started 6 games that have been repeatedly proven wrong.
     
    resnor likes this.

Share This Page