Ryan Tannehill

"cuchulainn wrote:

The Titans are area good "all round" team on what basis?

Henry makes make their OL look better than it is in run blocking, but I think they're around NFL average to slightly better. The pass blocking and pass protection has been an issue since before Tannehill took over. Mariota had more more sacks after the amount of games.

Their secondary is missing several starters as well and that was a huge issue in this game. You saw blown assignments with the secondary that had guys like Stills, Hopkins, and others running free most of the game. With Watson scrambling, the Titan's defense couldn't get off the field.

As for Tannehill, his placement wasn't perfect today, but he was still putting the ball into the receivers hands and watching them drop it or lose the ball going to the ground. The INT was actually a TD he threw to the TE, who took a step and had it knocked out and into the arms of a LB. The was also some selective none PI calls where receivers where being held.

Still, Tannehill threw 2 TDs, ran another TD, and should have had a 4th, which ended up the INT and difference in the game.

In terms of straight statistical reasoning and without taking any further look at what happened in the game (which I know is possible to do -- I'm just not doing it in this post), Tannehill played an average game, which, considering the relationship between passer rating differential and winning, means he gave his team roughly a 50% chance of winning the game. He didn't win the game and he didn't lose it.

And that, by the way, is how he played overall in Miami.

"cuchulainn wrote:

The Titans are area good "all round" team on what basis?

Henry makes make their OL look better than it is in run blocking, but I think they're around NFL average to slightly better. The pass blocking and pass protection has been an issue since before Tannehill took over. Mariota had more more sacks after the amount of games.

Their secondary is missing several starters as well and that was a huge issue in this game. You saw blown assignments with the secondary that had guys like Stills, Hopkins, and others running free most of the game. With Watson scrambling, the Titan's defense couldn't get off the field.

As for Tannehill, his placement wasn't perfect today, but he was still putting the ball into the receivers hands and watching them drop it or lose the ball going to the ground. The INT was actually a TD he threw to the TE, who took a step and had it knocked out and into the arms of a LB. The was also some selective none PI calls where receivers where being held.

Still, Tannehill threw 2 TDs, ran another TD, and should have had a 4th, which ended up the INT and difference in the game.

They have a top 10 defense and one of the best RB's in the league and a QB that's been playing at an elite level. No team is perfect. And it's not like their WR's are crap (like Brady has) either. So yes they're "all round" a good team.

And that INT early on was nowhere near as big of a difference maker as Watson's INT that kept the Titans in the game. Like I said, Tannehill played well but not better than Watson. We'll get a better idea of how he plays in must-win games in the 2 games coming up.

"Bumrush wrote:

My main frustration was the debate around mediocre outcomes. Some people rightly believe that football has to be judged as a full team sport to evaluate a QB - and rightly so. Others believe that a great QB can elevate a mediocre team - and rightly slow. It's a conundrum that is difficult to come to agreement on. I just happen to think that a QB with a losing record over a 6+ year career is not the guy that will likely take you to the promised Land. Others disagree. That's OK.

I will say that at this point, on some level, it has become a circular debate where we all say the same thing but in a different way each time.

At the same time though I've learned a lot about many different things in this thread.

From CBrad and TheGuy basically giving rudimentary classes in statistics to just some interesting thoughts on team building from others.

Hopefully we have something more team related to talk about ad nauseam soon lol but it's hard to get too excited or discouraged yet.

I think next season the forum will be a little more on point with more excitement and some new members hopefully as we enter season 2 of this rebuild.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

I will say that at this point, on some level, it has become a circular debate where we all say the same thing but in a different way each time.

At the same time though I've learned a lot about many different things in this thread.

From CBrad and TheGuy basically giving rudimentary classes in statistics to just some interesting thoughts on team building from others.

Hopefully we have something more team related to talk about ad nauseam soon lol but it's hard to get too excited or discouraged yet.

I think next season the forum will be a little more on point with more excitement and some new members hopefully as we enter season 2 of this rebuild.

As it relates to the Titans they are clearly on cloud nine with Ryan but if they sign him to a massive contract and he reverts back to being a JAG they will be in a load of trouble.

I'd be weary if I was a Titans fan. He may continue at this torrid pace or he may decline next year and if that happens they'll be stuck much like Miami has been in a hamster wheel.

He's shown this level of ability before. Even in his rookie year before Phibo the Clown toned him down. In 2014 before the final collapse he was on the verge of throwing 30 TD's. 2016 before the cheap shot.

Be weary Titan fans.

"Bumrush wrote:

As it relates to the Titans they are clearly on cloud nine with Ryan but if they sign him to a massive contract and he reverts back to being a JAG they will be in a load of trouble.

I'd be weary if I was a Titans fan. He may continue at this torrid pace or he may decline next year and if that happens they'll be stuck much like Miami has been in a hamster wheel.

He's shown this level of ability before. Even in his rookie year before Phibo the Clown toned him down. In 2014 before the final collapse he was on the verge of throwing 30 TD's. 2016 before the cheap shot.

Be weary Titan fans.

If I'm the Titans, assuming he keeps up his play to end the year, I probably try and put the Franchise Tag on him for a year.

It's probably a massive salary, but it's far less damaging than signing him long term and him reverting back to being inconsistent.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

If I'm the Titans, assuming he keeps up his play to end the year, I probably try and put the Franchise Tag on him for a year.

It's probably a massive salary, but it's far less damaging than signing him long term and him reverting back to being inconsistent.

I would consider that as well. Realize however that in 2019 that would've equaled a cap hit of nearly $25M, or about 13% of a team's salary cap. Believe it or not his cap hit with the Titans this year is a mere $1.875M, well below the average starting quarterback in the NFL.

So the Titans' ability to maintain or increase the talent around Tannehill would take quite a hit if his cap hit increased from just under $2M to somewhere around $25M.

This is again why it's so important that QBs who make that kind of money actually produce at that level as well, because it becomes all but impossible under the salary cap to surround them with a great deal of talent. They basically have to carry their teams to a large degree.

"cbrad wrote:

They have a top 10 defense and one of the best RB's in the league and a QB that's been playing at an elite level. No team is perfect. And it's not like their WR's are crap (like Brady has) either. So yes they're "all round" a good team.

And that INT early on was nowhere near as big of a difference maker as Watson's INT that kept the Titans in the game. Like I said, Tannehill played well but not better than Watson. We'll get a better idea of how he plays in must-win games in the 2 games coming up.

I mean, if Tannehill's TD pass wasn't fumbled, it's a 14 point swing for the Titans and they win the game. That one play decided the outcome more than anything.

"KeyFin wrote:

I mean, if Tannehill's TD pass wasn't fumbled, it's a 14 point swing for the Titans and they win the game. That one play decided the outcome more than anything.

What?? Tannehill's INT occurred early in the 2nd quarter and the Titans would have been up 7-0 had it been a TD. Hardly anything "determined" based on that. Compare that to Watson's INT at the end of the 3rd quarter in the endzone. That would have allowed Houston to go up by 14 with one quarter to go. No question which was more important: Watson's INT.

"cbrad wrote:

They have a top 10 defense and one of the best RB's in the league and a QB that's been playing at an elite level. No team is perfect. And it's not like their WR's are crap (like Brady has) either. So yes they're "all round" a good team.

And that INT early on was nowhere near as big of a difference maker as Watson's INT that kept the Titans in the game. Like I said, Tannehill played well but not better than Watson. We'll get a better idea of how he plays in must-win games in the 2 games coming up.

Watson didnt play better than Tannehill. You are crazy, lmao.

Titans K cost them 3 points off the bat.

"The Guy wrote:

I would consider that as well. Realize however that in 2019 that would've equaled a cap hit of nearly $25M, or about 13% of a team's salary cap. Believe it or not his cap hit with the Titans this year is a mere $1.875M, well below the average starting quarterback in the NFL.

So the Titans' ability to maintain or increase the talent around Tannehill would take quite a hit if his cap hit increased from just under $2M to somewhere around $25M.

This is again why it's so important that QBs who make that kind of money actually produce at that level as well, because it becomes all but impossible under the salary cap to surround them with a great deal of talent. They basically have to carry their teams to a large degree.

Yep, it's basically going to have to be a 1 year trial of being the presumed Franchise QB with quite possibly less talent around him if they go that route.

It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you dont type scenario right now.

If you shell out a longer contract you can probably save a decent amount of money but you'll also be hurting the team long term if you end up with a bunch of dead cap space and no QB to show for it.

I guess the other options would be an incentive based contract...but I doubt hed accept that honestly or to back load the contract to keep the core together and hope he plays this well going forward.

"Cashvillesent wrote:

Watson didnt play better than Tannehill. You are crazy, lmao.

Titans K cost them 3 points off the bat.

I'm not crazy. You just think I am because I don't agree with you. And what does a blocked FG have to do with QB's?

Tannehill wasn't that good in the 1st half even if he played well in the 2nd. Watson had 2 damaging INT's that allowed the Titans to come back and tie it but he recovered and led the team to a 10 point lead. That's playing well when it matters most. Yeah overall I'd rather have Watson's play in that game than Tannehill's play in that game, even if I'd be happy with Tannehill's play in a vacuum.

So yeah Watson > Tannehill today (and it's not a crazy opinion either.. I bet more neutral observers who aren't fans of either team would agree with me instead of you).

"cbrad wrote:

What?? Tannehill's INT occurred early in the 2nd quarter and the Titans would have been up 7-0 had it been a TD. Hardly anything "determined" based on that. Compare that to Watson's INT at the end of the 3rd quarter in the endzone. That would have allowed Houston to go up by 14 with one quarter to go. No question which was more important: Watson's INT.

You know damn well that football can be a big momentum/flow game...they had ALL the momentum up until that point, and it deflated them. Not to mention the 14 point swing. Throw in the field goal and you have Titans up at the half at least a touchdown, probably 2.

"cbrad wrote:

I'm not crazy. You just think I am because I don't agree with you. And what does a blocked FG have to do with QB's?

Tannehill wasn't that good in the 1st half even if he played well in the 2nd. Watson had 2 damaging INT's that allowed the Titans to come back and tie it but he recovered and led the team to a 10 point lead. That's playing well when it matters most. Yeah overall I'd rather have Watson's play in that game than Tannehill's play in that game, even if I'd be happy with Tannehill's play in a vacuum.

So yeah Watson > Tannehill today (and it's not a crazy opinion either.. I bet more neutral observers who aren't fans of either team would agree with me instead of you).

Isn't it passer rating differential that's the predictor? If that's the case, Tannehill slight edge...VERY slight.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

You know damn well that football can be a big momentum/flow game...they had ALL the momentum up until that point, and it deflated them. Not to mention the 14 point swing. Throw in the field goal and you have Titans up at the half at least a touchdown, probably 2.

How do you argue momentum was larger for the Titans early in the 2nd when it was 0-0 than when Houston was about to put the nail in the coffin. It wasn't. Watson's INT was MUCH more important because that made it a ballgame in the 4th quarter.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

Isn't it passer rating differential that's the predictor? If that's the case, Tannehill slight edge...VERY slight.

Statistically yes. You need large sample size of course. I've already shown that one should only start quoting passer ratings once they hit a minimum of 150+ consecutive passing attempts because statistical tests will show almost any (realistic) set of passer ratings from one QB is still too likely to be produced by another QB with less than 150 passing attempts. It's why I personally only started to talk about Tannehill's passer rating with the Titans as "statistically significant" after it hit that mark.

So for a single game passer rating really doesn't matter.

"cbrad wrote:

What?? Tannehill's INT occurred early in the 2nd quarter and the Titans would have been up 7-0 had it been a TD. Hardly anything "determined" based on that. Compare that to Watson's INT at the end of the 3rd quarter in the endzone. That would have allowed Houston to go up by 14 with one quarter to go. No question which was more important: Watson's INT.

Honestly I dont see how you can say either is more important.

If you erase both you end up with the exact same result. If you erase only one, you end up with a different result in either direction.

They seemed equally important looking at the game as a whole.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

Honestly I dont see how you can say either is more important.

If you erase both you end up with the exact same result. If you erase only one, you end up with a different result in either direction.

They seemed equally important looking at the game as a whole.

I don't have the win probability graph for the game, but to 99% probability the Watson INT will have caused a bigger change in win probability because of its timing. Even if the momentum shift or the change in expected points added (EPA) was identical (not saying they are.. this is just a hypothetical) the timing alone makes the one late in the game far more important – fewer chances to undo the damage.

OMG

Now passer rating in a game is meaningless? Stop. You've been arguing for years that X passer rating =Y wins. A season long passer rating is simply an average of each games passer rating. So, passer rating in individual games would have to matter.

And this is exactly why stats are not good for determining outcomes.

"resnor wrote:

OMG

Now passer rating in a game is meaningless? Stop. You've been arguing for years that X passer rating =Y wins. A season long passer rating is simply an average of each games passer rating. So, passer rating in individual games would have to matter.

OMG.. you've either ignored or not understood something I've said countless times. That passer rating shouldn't be used unless you have 150+ passing attempts. And the "X passer rating = Y wins" is assuming you have large enough sample size.

So which is it? Can't understand that or refuse to acknowledge I've been saying that for years?

If Tannehill stat is negative, then it's the answer.
If Tannehill stat is positive, then it's either an anomaly or inconclusive.
The tape is always, apparently, irrelevant.

At some point, the odds of the above have to be out of skew.

"cuchulainn wrote:

The Titans are area good "all round" team on what basis?

Henry makes make their OL look better than it is in run blocking, but I think they're around NFL average to slightly better. The pass blocking and pass protection has been an issue since before Tannehill took over. Mariota had more more sacks after the same amount of games.

Their secondary is missing several starters as well and that was a huge issue in this game. You saw blown assignments with the secondary that had guys like Stills, Hopkins, and others running free most of the game. With Watson scrambling, the Titan's defense couldn't get off the field.

As for Tannehill, his placement wasn't perfect today, but he was still putting the ball into the receivers hands and watching them drop it or lose the ball going to the ground. The INT was actually a TD he threw to the TE, who took a step and had it knocked out and into the arms of a LB. The was also some selective none PI calls where receivers were being held.

Still, Tannehill threw 2 TDs, ran another TD, and should have had a 4th, which ended up the INT and difference in the game.

Titans team has been to the playoffs and won playoff games. They are solid and very well coached.

"cbrad wrote:

Tannehill wasn't that good in the 1st half even if he played well in the 2nd. Watson had 2 damaging INT's that allowed the Titans to come back and tie it but he recovered and led the team to a 10 point lead. That's playing well when it matters most. Yeah overall I'd rather have Watson's play in that game than Tannehill's play in that game, even if I'd be happy with Tannehill's play in a vacuum.

Amazing how you find a way to credit Watson and discredit Tannehill when reviewing 1st and 2nd half performances.

Tannehill SHOULD have had 4 TDS on the day. Watson had 2 red zone ints that should have cost them the game.

The Texans would have lost that game if it weren’t for a missed FG and red zone fumble (perfect pass from Tannehill) for the Titans.

"Bumrush wrote:

My main frustration was the debate around mediocre outcomes. Some people rightly believe that football has to be judged as a full team sport to evaluate a QB - and rightly so. Others believe that a great QB can elevate a mediocre team - and rightly so. It's a conundrum that is difficult to come to agreement on. I just happen to think that a QB with a losing record over a 6+ year career is not the guy that will likely take you to the promised Land. Others disagree. That's OK.

The extremists partaking in the Tannehill debates have really damaged the main forum in my opinion.

That’s both sides also.

"Fin D wrote:

If Tannehill stat is negative, then it's the answer.
If Tannehill stat is positive, then it's either an anomaly or inconclusive.
The tape is always, apparently, irrelevant.

At some point, the odds of the above have to be out of skew.

Did you just post that because it sounded cool to you because it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the current discussion. We're talking (mostly) here about what happened on "tape". At least I watched the entire game and am basing what I'm saying on that.

Also.. if you look at the ton of posts over the last few weeks showing all kinds of stats that I pointed out weren't properly adjusted, those were mostly "Tannehill-positive" stats, not negative ones. So I don't think your post is reflecting the nature of the discussion much.