here's something for all the people complaining about his deep ball

[AgentXof12]

Not sure why this thread is directed at "people complaining about his deep ball" when CK also complains about his deep ball.

:confused:

Didn't he say there's a lack of chemistry with Mike Wallace?
Didn't he say that PFF said that Tanny dead is average in passes of 20 plus yards?
Didn't he say that on those deep ball completions, the yards are also average?
Didn't he say in his conclusion, that "Ryan Tannehill does NOT have the most accurate deep ball in the league?"
Didn't he say in his conclusion, that "His deep ball accuracy is mediocre?"

What did I miss?

What he's trying to do is explain away the lack of chemistry with Wallace, by examining play choices, plays where wallace was held or tanny was pressured, and even blame Wallace himself for being too fast:

"Wallace's speed can work against a quarterback due to the functional constraints of his arm, if the play is not timed correctly."

Well, Ben didn't have any problem with Wallace's speed. There's nothing wrong with Mike Wallace, and there wasn't anything wrong with Brandon Marshall, either. Both are good receivers. Would I rather than someone other than Wallace on our team? Yes, I don't think he's a good fit with Tanny and Wallace doesn't fight for the ball or run great routes. But at the same time it's a gift to have his big play ability and he is a threat.

With time, the chemistry between Tanny and Wallace will improve.

But Tannehill, so far, in college and in the nfl, has struggled with his deep ball, in general, and that will likely continue for a while, regardless what any of us think.

Listen, if it really has to be spelled out for you, ck basically demonstrates that Ryan Tannehill's primary struggles with the deep pass are disproportionately with Mike Wallace. And the eye test shows it as well. We have been yelling at Mike Wallace for losing his stride, slowing down, tripping up, or in some cases just not looking back in time to adjust to the ball. It takes two to connect on passes over 20 yards, and at 50+ yards through the air it's completely possible for the receiver to go off route to the ball. In this case, demonstrating that Tannehill is mediocre in the long ball squelches the complaints around here that RT17 is somehow anything less than average at going deep. That's what mediocre means; he doesn't stand out as far as results are concerned. Do you get that? He's right with the pack of other starting QBs for results going deep. RT17 struggles no more (and no less) than other starting QBs when going deep. Got it?

 

[mega-fin-love]

I'm a Tannehill fan, appreciate the article by CK and the posting of it by knawlege. I do however completely disagree with the conclusion. I watch pretty much every game possible by all teams. Tannehill misses on fly routes more than the average QB. He is not average at this time. I personaly believe this will be corrected in the near future and think his upside is fairly high but that article is misleading in my opinion. Gotta go with my eyes on this one.

 

[Nawledge]

Can he tell us how much Olivier Vernon sucks again? Or maybe how Brandon Weeden is the natural Roy Hobbs and will throw hundreds of TDs in the NFL while winning 1000 dollar foozball tourneys at the same time.

I never said he is right about everything...but at least he gives well thought out explanations he just doesn't come into threads saying so and so sucks and posting sarcastic comments telling people they must love mediocrity because they don't agree tannehill sucks

 

[Shouright]

It's a well written piece. But there's still the eye test. And that test today saw Tannehill leave plays all over the field. Including an under throw to an open Hartline deep.

Unfortunately the "eye test," in terms of making conclusions involving comparisons among players league-wide, is heavily susceptible to this:

According to the confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias), people tend to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.

Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

[Shouright]

I'm a Tannehill fan, appreciate the article by CK and the posting of it by knawlege. I do however completely disagree with the conclusion. I watch pretty much every game possible by all teams. Tannehill misses on fly routes more than the average QB. He is not average at this time. I personaly believe this will be corrected in the near future and think his upside is fairly high but that article is misleading in my opinion. Gotta go with my eyes on this one.

Do you really believe you can accurately cacluate Tannehill's deviation from the league average in your mind, based on whatever exposure you have to QBs and their deep throws across the league? Would you actually side with your own personal estimate of that, over whatever the objective data told you?

I mean come on people. It's fun to watch the games and all and think we know something, but at some point I think we have to realize our limitations. :)

 

[mega-fin-love]

Do you really believe you can accurately cacluate Tannehill's deviation from the league average in your mind, based on whatever exposure you have to QBs and their deep throws across the league? Would you actually side with your own personal estimate of that, over whatever the objective data told you?

I mean come on people. It's fun to watch the games and all and think we know something, but at some point I think we have to realize our limitations. :)

Yes I trust my eyes over those stats. I am all for stats and they do have value. I also think that it is fair to say that I have had your back probably more than anyone else on this site. I just don't believe that these particular stats are good enough to overrule what I can plainly see.

 

[AgentXof12]

Do you really believe you can accurately cacluate Tannehill's deviation from the league average in your mind, based on whatever exposure you have to QBs and their deep throws across the league? Would you actually side with your own personal estimate of that, over whatever the objective data told you?

I mean come on people. It's fun to watch the games and all and think we know something, but at some point I think we have to realize our limitations. :)

I would give this a thumbs up if the icons to do it were showing.

The eye test is one way to analyze a QB, and I would think that it really matters most whether or not there is consensus among these eye tests. You know everyone is subjecting Ryan Tannehill to this eye test, and the opinions that are going to matter the most ought to, in some part, identify the same qualities in the test subject. Without consensus, we're left to question the test more than the subject.

For example, one set of eye tests have stated that Tannehill has "IT" and shows "leadership" on the field, while other eye tests state he lacks "IT" and looks "lost and confused" on the field. While I strongly disagree with the latter results, I consider these eye tests inconclusive.

One thing all the important eye tests have concluded is that Ryan Tannehill makes deep throws very, very few QBs can make. He also demonstrates rare athleticism, and stats support this conclusion. Ryan Tannehill has talent, people.

 

[Dolfan23]

Do you really believe you can accurately cacluate Tannehill's deviation from the league average in your mind, based on whatever exposure you have to QBs and their deep throws across the league? Would you actually side with your own personal estimate of that, over whatever the objective data told you?

I mean come on people. It's fun to watch the games and all and think we know something, but at some point I think we have to realize our limitations. :)

Wanted to give you a thumbs up for this but they're missing on your post for some reason. So anyway +1

 

[Nawledge]

I just thought ck raised some excellent points....the majority of people going off the deep end about his deep ball just blame it solely on tannehill when many other things factor into it .

 

[DANTODUPER]

It's a shame that you feel you have the right to belittle someone else's football knowledge and ability to watch a football game.

CK has been wrong on many occasions. He is just as human as anybody else. I appreciate some of the effort he puts into "breaking down" the things he sees but he also skews things to his gut a little to often and has difficulty admitting when he is wrong.

This is true; CK is human and he has been wrong on many occasions like with Vernon and Gibson (the most recent ones)

 

[Shouright]

I would give this a thumbs up if the icons to do it were showing.

The eye test is one way to analyze a QB, and I would think that it really matters most whether or not there is consensus among these eye tests. You know everyone is subjecting Ryan Tannehill to this eye test, and the opinions that are going to matter the most ought to, in some part, identify the same qualities in the test subject. Without consensus, we're left to question the test more than the subject.

For example, one set of eye tests have stated that Tannehill has "IT" and shows "leadership" on the field, while other eye tests state he lacks "IT" and looks "lost and confused" on the field. While I strongly disagree with the latter results, I consider these eye tests inconclusive.

One thing all the important eye tests have concluded is that Ryan Tannehill makes deep throws very, very few QBs can make. He also demonstrates rare athleticism, and stats support this conclusion. Ryan Tannehill has talent, people.

How do we know whether the consensus is correct?

 

[Nawledge]

I see the haters still got nothing to say

 

[AgentXof12]

The consensus will never be 100% right 100% of the time in much the same way that the academic peer review process is susceptible to letting some flawed logic live for a little while. Those who know football and have demonstrated some amount of success at making good football decisions are going to help shape the consensus more than anyone on this board. You know I'm referring to the so-called experts (coaches, scouts, former players). Basically, if I'm going to have some opinion on a player and it completely goes against the grain of a lot of knowledgeable opinions, and I'm still inclined to hold to my little ol' opinion then either I have some information that they don't (which I pretty much never do) or I'm delusional.

Those who claim Tannehill is already a bust and who are lobbying for him to ride the bench in the near future ought to consider what I'm saying. If their job and income were riding on playing vs benching Ryan Tannehill, would their conclusion continue to be "bench Tannehill"? I strongly doubt it. The likelihood that they see something that Tannehill proponents are unaware of is pretty slim. Now, it's well known that RT17 has areas of his game he really needs to improve in, but the deep pass is not among them. There are still people on the board who are beating that drum, though. That eye test is obviously flawed as the consensus doesn't meet it. Those who are hammering on Tannehill's pocket awareness find a lot more in common with the consensus.

Of course, the consensus can be wrong, but if you're going to wade against the consensus you had better offer some very compelling support. In other words, you ought to be able to bank on your knowledge and have something to show for it.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Those who claim Tannehill is already a bust and who are lobbying for him to ride the bench in the near future ought to consider what I'm saying. If their job and income were riding on playing vs benching Ryan Tannehill, would their conclusion continue to be "bench Tannehill"? I strongly doubt it.

This is a really good point. In the same vein, just imagine what the the rest of the football world would say if the Dolphins benched Tannehill right now. They would think the Dolphin's coaching staff had lost their mind (and they would be right).

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

The consensus will never be 100% right 100% of the time in much the same way that the academic peer review process is susceptible to letting some flawed logic live for a little while. Those who know football and have demonstrated some amount of success at making good football decisions are going to help shape the consensus more than anyone on this board. You know I'm referring to the so-called experts (coaches, scouts, former players). Basically, if I'm going to have some opinion on a player and it completely goes against the grain of a lot of knowledgeable opinions, and I'm still inclined to hold to my little ol' opinion then either I have some information that they don't (which I pretty much never do) or I'm delusional.

Those who claim Tannehill is already a bust and who are lobbying for him to ride the bench in the near future ought to consider what I'm saying. If their job and income were riding on playing vs benching Ryan Tannehill, would their conclusion continue to be "bench Tannehill"? I strongly doubt it. The likelihood that they see something that Tannehill proponents are unaware of is pretty slim. Now, it's well known that RT17 has areas of his game he really needs to improve in, but the deep pass is not among them. There are still people on the board who are beating that drum, though. That eye test is obviously flawed as the consensus doesn't meet it. Those who are hammering on Tannehill's pocket awareness find a lot more in common with the consensus.

Of course, the consensus can be wrong, but if you're going to wade against the consensus you had better offer some very compelling support. In other words, you ought to be able to bank on your knowledge and have something to show for it.

Interestingly, after the Panthers game, Ron Rivera told Joe Rose that he thought Ryan Tannehill was going to turn out to be really effing good. But that his deep ball needs work.

Personally, I agree that his deep ball needs work, but at the same time it's not nearly as bad as some people are making it out to be.