Ryan Tannehill

In got a call from someone earlier saying they’ve heard from someone that Gisele was spotted in Nashville, having flown on Wheels Up, which,’if you don’t know, is basically rideshare for private jet travel. And that there was talk she was joined by Tom Brady and they’re putting their kids into a private school down there. A quick Twitter search didn’t ping much beyond this, from a Nashville Post reporter:

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/1764189/there-are-rumors-out-of-nashville-brady-and-gisele-are-registering-their-kids-in-school-there?fbclid=IwAR1TNTFUgU089yc8a3j7ppy_OiZdq7ChIX7vSKxGSm-LMLPMBnjLXMpnCc0

Vrabel, and Tom Brady are good friends too..

Also he posted this 10hrs ago in his twitter..

But man, as much as I would love this to happen. I dont wanna get rid of Tannehill. :(

"Cashvillesent wrote:

But man, as much as I would love this to happen. I dont wanna get rid of Tannehill. :(

There's good evidence that Brady's best days are behind him. 2019 was the first year he performed below average statistically... on a team with a great defense, the best coach in the NFL, and where he's won on average 12 games per season over 18 seasons and won 6 SB's (including in 2018). Not even as a rookie did he perform worse than average.

So irrespective of Tannehill, the only reason I'd sign Brady is if you have a near-SB calibre roster (except at QB), need to win now and you currently have a below average QB. That's about it. Tennessee doesn't fit that mold.

Brady's just one of the many great athletes that don't want to admit they're over the hill and keep playing after they should've stopped. Of course, Brady's accomplished so much it won't hurt his legacy (similar to Jordan playing with the Wizards not hurting his legacy), but there's no reason a team should be jaded by a great player who is past his prime.

"cbrad wrote:

There's good evidence that Brady's best days are behind him. 2019 was the first year he performed below average statistically... on a team with a great defense, the best coach in the NFL, and where he's won on average 12 games per season over 18 seasons and won 6 SB's (including in 2018). Not even as a rookie did he perform worse than average.

So irrespective of Tannehill, the only reason I'd sign Brady is if you have a near-SB calibre roster (except at QB), need to win now and you currently have a below average QB. That's about it. Tennessee doesn't fit that mold.

Brady's just one of the many great athletes that don't want to admit they're over the hill and keep playing after they should've stopped. Of course, Brady's accomplished so much it won't hurt his legacy (similar to Jordan playing with the Wizards not hurting his legacy), but there's no reason a team should be jaded by a great player who is past his prime.

Dude Brady had no recieving core last year. Of course he sucked. Edelman was banged up all year and he had huge drops.

There’s absolutely no reason to believe Tennessee would be better with Brady than they were this year with Tannehill

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

There’s absolutely no reason to believe Tennessee would be better with Brady than they were this year with Tannehill

Honestly, I would almost expect Tennessee the last place for Brady to land.

"KeyFin wrote:

Honestly, I would almost expect Tennessee the last place for Brady to land.

I truly don’t understand the hype of where Brady will be next season. He’s going to be the same place he’s been for the last 20 years

"Cashvillesent wrote:

Dude Brady had no recieving core last year. Of course he sucked. Edelman was banged up all year and he had huge drops.

Brady's often had a less than stellar cast at WR. They won the SB in 2004 with Deion Branch, David Givens and David Patten at WR and Christian Fauria and Daniel Graham at TE. That's a SB winning WR corps!! Brady of the past wouldn't have performed below average with the WR corps he had in 2019 given all the other advantages he's enjoyed (esp: elite defense! and still below average??).

Besides, that Titans playoffs game should have made it clear even without stats: Brady's not who he once was.

"cbrad wrote:

Brady's often had a less than stellar cast at WR. They won the SB in 2004 with Deion Branch, David Givens and David Patten at WR and Christian Fauria and Daniel Graham at TE. That's a SB winning WR corps!! Brady of the past wouldn't have performed below average with the WR corps he had in 2019 given all the other advantages he's enjoyed (esp: elite defense! and still below average??).

Besides, that Titans playoffs game should have made it clear even without stats: Brady's not who he once was.

And it was defense and special teams that won the Super Bowl.

"cbrad wrote:

Brady's often had a less than stellar cast at WR. They won the SB in 2004 with Deion Branch, David Givens and David Patten at WR and Christian Fauria and Daniel Graham at TE. That's a SB winning WR corps!! Brady of the past wouldn't have performed below average with the WR corps he had in 2019 given all the other advantages he's enjoyed (esp: elite defense! and still below average??).

Besides, that Titans playoffs game should have made it clear even without stats: Brady's not who he once was.

This gets at exactly one of the points I've made here ad nauseam: the better QBs vary in their performance at a level higher than that of the worse QBs. Give Brady (or at least "the old Brady") a poor receiving corps and he'll do better than Andy Dalton would with the same corps. Likewise, give Andy Dalton Randy Moss, Donte Stallworth, and Wes Welker (i.e., Tom Brady circa 2007), and he won't perform nearly as well as Brady did with those receivers.

There is both the individual ability of the QB and the ability of the surrounding cast, and those variables interact. It isn't either one of them that's completely responsible for what we see.

"resnor wrote:

And it was defense and special teams that won the Super Bowl.

What did special teams do? This is the 2005 SB (2004 season) we're talking about:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200502060nwe.htm

I can't remember that SB, but going through the play-by-play it looks like it was somewhat even in terms of how much defense and offense mattered, though I wouldn't have an issue with someone saying defense was slightly more important. But special teams??

Those first three were all pretty much defense and Vinatieri.

"cbrad wrote:

Tennessee doesnt fit that mold.

Tennessee absolutely fits this mold. Tannehill can maybe be consistently good or a Flacco/Foles without a ring. He hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt yet. The sample size is big enough to where they can reasonably go with Brady over Tannehill and not worry too much about it.

Yeah, I'm not convinced that Brady's numbers this year were because he's declining. He had terrible weapons on offense.

"resnor wrote:

Those first three were all pretty much defense and Vinatieri.

I think that's wildly off mark, especially for the 2003 season SB: 32-29 is the final score when league average in points scored is 20.8, both QB's throw for 3 TD's while Vinatieri misses 2 FG's, but sure it's "defense and ST" and not offense.

No, offense was pretty clearly more important in the 2003 SB. I can see the argument for defense in 2001, while 2004 is a toss-up. I mean there is a reason Deion Branch (a WR!!) was voted SB MVP (2004 season). No it wasn't "defense and ST".

"resnor wrote:

Yeah, I'm not convinced that Brady's numbers this year were because he's declining. He had terrible weapons on offense.

His weapons were bad but so were a lot more of his throws, even taking that into account.

I'm not saying he cant or wont play at an above average level another year or two, but I think it's clear he couldnt make all the same throws this year consistently.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

His weapons were bad but so were a lot more of his throws, even taking that into account.

I'm not saying he cant or wont play at an above average level another year or two, but I think it's clear he couldnt make all the same throws this year consistently.

Yeah, I'll admit, I don't look at particular throws, not my thing. But, historically, Brady has been like an upper 80s passer without Gronk. So, to me, with no Gronk and no weapons to throw to, I was not at all surprised by his overall stats. I think Brady would have looked just fine if he'd had Gronk, or some other seam threat with great hands.

"resnor wrote:

Yeah, I'm not convinced that Brady's numbers this year were because he's declining. He had terrible weapons on offense.

His stats this past year were actually very similar to 2006 and 2013 when his WR were equally as garbage. The following years when they improved the weapons he went back to being top 3 QB production. He can consistently produce more with less compared to other franchise QBs who wouldn't be caught dead on a team without a Pro Bowl WR, but there is in fact a limit to how bad a supporting cast can be.

Unless you really want to argue a 32 year old Edelman hobbled by injuries, Dorsett who has accomplished next to nothing 5 seasons into his career, and Nkeal Harry who missed half the season and never learned how to get separation in college is a reasonable supporting cast for any QB. Not to mention the nonexistent TE position.

"Cashvillesent wrote:

His stats this past year were actually very similar to 2006 and 2013 when his WR were equally as garbage. The following years when they improved the weapons he went back to being top 3 QB production. He can consistently produce more with less compared to other franchise QBs who wouldn't be caught dead on a team without a Pro Bowl WR, but there is in fact a limit to how bad a supporting cast can be.

Unless you really want to argue a 32 year old Edelman hobbled by injuries, Dorsett who has accomplished next to nothing 5 seasons into his career, and Nkeal Harry who missed half the season and never learned how to get separation in college is a reasonable supporting cast for any QB. Not to mention the nonexistent TE position.

As Miami fans, we've been told for years that good QBs elevate the play of their teammates.....

"resnor wrote:

Yeah, I'll admit, I don't look at particular throws, not my thing. But, historically, Brady has been like an upper 80s passer without Gronk. So, to me, with no Gronk and no weapons to throw to, I was not at all surprised by his overall stats. I think Brady would have looked just fine if he'd had Gronk, or some other seam threat with great hands.

Well I'm not saying I've extensively charted every throw myself, definitely not!

The lack of talent around him absolutely impacted things and like I said I dont think hes "done" entirely or anything.

I do think if we compare him to himself though there was some falling off the horse. There were times the throw was there to be had and he made some very uncharacteristic mistakes.

One play I know you saw was the pick 6 against us. I'm not saying that one play alone defines his year either just using it as an example of something that happened more often to him this year.

On that particular play he had two open WR and somehow managed to throw a duck to neither of them in particular. There was no reason for that play to have resulted the way it did, and 99 out of 100 times in his career he has made that easy throw.

I've heard he played with a sore elbow portions of the year but due to his age I think that is just part of life for him now as a QB.

In other words, this year I saw a lot of a Brady who knew where he wanted to go with the ball and talent issues aside couldnt always get it there.

Yeah, I don't disagree. However, there were also times where I saw what at first looked like a bad throw, and then I'd see Brady gesturing to the receiver where he SHOULD have gone. Knowing how complex the Patriots offense is, I think far more of the bad throws were on receivers who weren't diagnosing what they were seeing as they were running routes, and were not on the same page as Brady. Of course he's going to have some bad throws, he's 43. I hate Brady, but I don't think he is as far in the decline as many others think/hope.

Im not sure why tannehill got comeback player of the year. I guess he qualifies since he wasnt a day 1 starter. He should be most improved player.

"Vertical Limit wrote:

Im not sure why tannehill got comeback player of the year. I guess he qualifies since he wasnt a day 1 starter. He should be most improved player.

Well he did get most improved player too.

But when you consider how many other teams had the opportunity to trade for Tannehill but didn’t, and he was acquired to be a backup to a mediocre-at-best Mariota that gives you a fair idea of how low Tannehill’s stock had fallen in the NFL.
The Broncos took Flacco over him. The Bears thought they were better off with Trubinsky. For some reason Tampa still believed that the human turnover machine was better than him. The redskins thought, nah we’re fine with Case Keenum. And that’s just the teams where I thought it was pretty obvious Tannehill would have been an upgrade at the start of the season. You can make a case for the teams with rookie or sophomore QBs wanting to see what they had, but at the end of the day even teams with dreadful QBs didn’t think Tannehill who could be acquired for a 4th round pick, was a better option than their starting QB.

So yeah I do think the comeback player of the year is deserved.

Looks like I'm going to be wrong about the Super Bowl winner, but this is exactly the kind of game Tannehill needs to be competitive at this level, where his team's pass defense makes the Patrick Mahomes types play uncharacteristically poorly, which allows the Tannehill types to compete when playing at their typical level. Garoppolo is at a passer rating of 101.4 at this point, which is typical for him, and Mahomes is at a lowly 49.8, highly atypical for him. Compare that to the 120+ the Titans gave up to Mahomes.

And here's why we need a single-game measure of quarterback play that's better than traditional passer rating: Patrick Mahomes just went 5 for 5 for 60 yards and a touchdown pass on a highly influential drive in the game, and his traditional passer rating is still but 79.9. Traditional passer rating does nothing to incorporate the change in win probability for the Chiefs as a function of Mahomes's play on that drive.

According to ESPN.com, the Chiefs' win probability changed by roughly 43% on that drive.

Love it!! Mahomes and KC win! It's a bit like revenge against the 49ers for them preventing Marino from getting his SB win in '84.

Gotta love Mahomes though. Helps lead his team down 24-0 in the division championships, down 17-7 in the AFC championships, and down 20-10 in the SB to win each time. Not only is he the best QB in the NFL but he's also clutch (modern day Marino but WITH a SB win).

Oh, and that purely stats based prediction of 30-17 turned out not to be too far off lol
https://www.thephins.com/threads/titans-to-start-ryan-tannehill.94693/page-139#post-3249389