Nick Foles gave hints he could lead a Super Bowl team. Has Dolphins’ Ryan Tannehill?
- Thread starter DKphin
- Start date
There aren't any far-righters. There are far-lefters and those are are arguing against him being in the far left. There is also a small percentage that feel if you don't have a far-righter, you should dump the QB and keep looking, completely ignoring the likelihood of finding one.
There absolutely is a far-right crowd with Tannehill. C'mon, be realistic.
I cannot recall a single poster calling Tannehill elite (which I assume is what you mean). I am one of his biggest fans and I regularly rank him in the 10 - 15 range with an acknowledgement that even up to 17 or 18 there isn't enough difference in the QBs to argue about.
My big arguments with the "find another QB crowd" is that Tannehill isn't near the highest priority on a team with lots of needs, Tannehill is good enough to win with, and the idea that you should keep searching for a new QB if you don't have an elite QB isn't realistic and is not how the NFL works, especially if you are not already a stacked team.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2016
- Messages
- 13,522
- Reaction score
- 16,549
Gents, this is a bell curve. The top of the bell curve represents the average, and each vertical line represents a quadrant. From the line "0" to the next line over is called one standard deviation. From 0 to the first standard deviation on either side accounts for 68.2% of the data set.
Let's call this data set NFL quarterbacks, and let's talk about every QB to ever play the game. About 68.2% of all QBs fall within the first standard deviation from 0. The further toward it goes, the more anomalous the data becomes. For example, you'd probably find Tom Brady past the 3a marker, and Ryan Leaf around the -3a marker.
Where does Tannehill fit in? Well, somewhere between the 0 and 1a. You could also plot the same graph for the "Tannehill QB" argument. Around -2a is the people who say "Tannehill needs to go now!" and the 2a is the "Tannehill is a top-10 QB in the league".
AKA a large percentage of us are sitting back while you far-lefters and far-righters bicker like children.
I'd tweak that to people who think Tannehill COULD be a top 10 QB (not quite top third of NFL) are more than 2.1%. This debate, IMO, isn't so much about Tannehill as it is about ALL QBs (including elite). That is, can Tannehill win with a good supporting crew? Showing a little prejudice, there seem to be two groups - those who think be may become top 10 and those who think, in the face of reality, teams should try for an elite QB, regardless the quality of the current starter. Over any 20 year period, that means 28-29 teams should be disappointed in their QB and actively try to upgrade. There's a reason that doesn't happen.
As a statistician by trade, I love this articulation of how to think about plotting a QB. Of course, we are assuming QB play is normally distributed :). I say Ryan is somewhere between 0 and 1 standard deviation from the mean.Gents, this is a bell curve. The top of the bell curve represents the average, and each vertical line represents a quadrant. From the line "0" to the next line over is called one standard deviation. From 0 to the first standard deviation on either side accounts for 68.2% of the data set.
Let's call this data set NFL quarterbacks, and let's talk about every QB to ever play the game. About 68.2% of all QBs fall within the first standard deviation from 0. The further toward it goes, the more anomalous the data becomes. For example, you'd probably find Tom Brady past the 3a marker, and Ryan Leaf around the -3a marker.
Where does Tannehill fit in? Well, somewhere between the 0 and 1a. You could also plot the same graph for the "Tannehill QB" argument. Around -2a is the people who say "Tannehill needs to go now!" and the 2a is the "Tannehill is a top-10 QB in the league".
AKA a large percentage of us are sitting back while you far-lefters and far-righters bicker like children.
I've tried to explain this over and over. Doesn't seem to take.
...and I was referencing YOUR post. Perhaps you should consider yet another eye to help see these things.
No one's called Tannehill "elite." What's been said is that during the 7-1 run he put up top 8-10 QB #s in some key stats and over the entire season if top 3-4 in a category were "elite" he had the 4th highest QBR from a clean pocket and 2nd or 3rd best completion rate on deep 20+ yd passes. So no he's not elite but has shown signs of if not becoming elite, certainly ensconcing himself as a Top 10 league QB
Solid stretch but 215 yards per game is not enough to get it done over the long run. Thats too much of a game manager IMO. We won some very close games with a strong run game. I was enjoying seeing Tannehill making strides but I just think we need to be realistic about the fact they he may not get us over the hump, sooner than later. If we love a QB 1st or 2nd rd I say take him. Tannehill obviously starts the year as the starter but also on notice that its go time.
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 4,563
- Reaction score
- 4,032
Easy there bigrig. This is what I’ve been saying for weeks in multiple threads. Plan to get some stats and facts to support your argument only to be refuted as nauseum by the Tannelovers.
We have the 8 game stretch. The high water mark. Two years ago. There is no need to draft a QB.
Also if we finish 8-8 with the 17th pick next year (sounds likely-ish) or something we are definitely going to need to address QB so we might as well get a jump on it with the fairly high draft position of this year.
I’m sorry but when did you provide stats and facts? Seems to me you were given stats by numerous other fans refuting your position. Also, name one fan that you’ve been pestering that doesn’t advocate drafting a QB whether it be in round one of the middle rounds.
Right around a 100 QB rating is the high water mark. In his most recent string of games. I'll take it. We can draft a backup in rounds 3 or 4. Drafting one earlier would be a waste of a pick by a team that is in no position to waste picks. As you seem to have finally realized, the OL and defense are in much greater need.
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 4,563
- Reaction score
- 4,032
I’m not planning to recap the stats I have provided because you are simply too lazy to read the threads. You should be able to find them in multiple RT threads. They all get refuted or excused as invalid by the Tannelovers. One was how lowly Matt Moore actually far exceeded RTs vaunted 8 game stretch in 2016 with his actually higher performing 3 plus game stretch when he took over and ran the offense with the same coaches, playbook, and supporting cast.
RT is not special, and not a difference maker. One day all will realize it but until then we stumble forward.