PFF Tannehill analysis (3rd Ranked Passer)

[DeathStar]

I needed a good laugh.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

I hate to keep using golf as an example. I guess it's easiest for me. Instead of accepting the signed for score, PFF's golf version would be to follow the guy around and adjust for all the drives that barely rolled into the rough, or all those unfair lipped out putts. Suddenly they have rationalized a journeyman toward the top of the list. Meanwhile, keep following that guy and you'll see a monotony of barely missed putts and barely missed fairways. That's his level. There's a term for it in horse racing, a horse who always manages to run second or third regardless of company: Sucker horse.

Same here. Especially since golf is an individual game and has really nothing to do with a team sport perspective or concept. Horse racing? Really?

And the only suckers are the one's reading into your foolish vegas nonsense.

 

[rbrown23111]

Put. Matty ice in!! He throws a great deep ball and gives us a better chance to win. It makes me sad to say that I don't believe in Tannehill anymore..

 

[Dr. Phin]

this is exactly what i came back to when i was doing some work on other qbs the last 2 weeks...perfectly stated...

"When you grade Tannehill throw by throw and then compare him to the rest of the league’s quarterbacks by the same measure, he looks a lot better"

still can't believe he missed that post route to wallace in the middle of the field vs new england though...

This just shows that the league is FULL OF CRAP QB's. That's why the few who are elite are so valuable and the teams who have them win YEAR AFTER YEAR. If you have an elite QB in this league, you have to have some real holes elsewhere or you will be in contention just about every year. Like we used to have with Marino...he was on some really bad teams over the years...

 

[Sons Of Shula]

This just shows that the league is FULL OF CRAP QB's. That's why the few who are elite are so valuable and the teams who have them win YEAR AFTER YEAR. If you have an elite QB in this league, you have to have some real holes elsewhere or you will be in contention just about every year. Like we used to have with Marino...he was on some really bad teams over the years...

The emphasis placed on the QB position is crap. It's a result of the warped mindset that the NFL has put in place to promote it's next billion dollar enterprise, fantasy football. The QB is a very important piece, but it's still the best team that wins; not the group with the best positional player.

 

[enigmatics]

Pro Football Focus needs a competitor. I've posted that many times previously and it needs further emphasis. PFF doesn't seem to have any clue toward the burden of their adjustments. Matt Ryan is their top rated passer for 2014. Last week adjusted yards per attempt was 2.64. That's a hilarious number. We've played TWO games and a quarterback has a 2.64 on his resume, yet he's the best to date.

I hate to keep using golf as an example. I guess it's easiest for me. Instead of accepting the signed for score, PFF's golf version would be to follow the guy around and adjust for all the drives that barely rolled into the rough, or all those unfair lipped out putts. Suddenly they have rationalized a journeyman toward the top of the list. Meanwhile, keep following that guy and you'll see a monotony of barely missed putts and barely missed fairways. That's his level. There's a term for it in horse racing, a horse who always manages to run second or third regardless of company: Sucker horse.

It bottoms out to wins, points, and yards per attempt. Eventually there's no point in digging deep and trying to pretend it's not really a barrel of apples, but some type of alien fuel source. Tannehill's body of work is getting to be fairly large and beige. Not exactly glowing.

In regard to Drew Brees, he won the Maxwell Award, if I remember correctly. That's for best college football player. I don't believe Ryan Tannehill picked up that one. Brees was high in the Heisman vote twice. He had a very normal college progression for a star NFL quarterback -- spot play as a freshman followed by starter and national prominence beginning as a sophomore and throughout his full four seasons. Give that resume to Ryan Tannehill and I'd retain far greater hope than I have now. Instead, Tannehill has never been great at any level yet there's seemingly a determination to force him there. As a handicapper I reject that type of thing. I indeed believe it's Bar Stool sucker think, far more often than not. I rely on majority not exceptions. When we bring up Drew Brees in the first place it's the classic desperate grab for an exception, as if one outlier is a calming cure all.

I bet against Drew Brees frequently in college. That's because his coach Joe Tiller had a misplaced belief in short passes as substitute for rushing attempts. It made Purdue vulnerable to top teams with aggressive defenses. Once Brees reached the NFL it took a few years before he fully shook that Tiller mentality of settling for the short pass.

My man Awsi spittin' some more home brewed truth. :hi5:

 

[Dr. Phin]

The emphasis placed on the QB position is crap. It's a result of the warped mindset that the NFL has put in place to promote it's next billion dollar enterprise, fantasy football. The QB is a very important piece, but it's still the best team that wins; not the group with the best positional player.

You can have a team with a crap QB win "any given Sunday", but when you look at the teams with and without great QB's, there is no comparison. Or, do you think that the great QB's "just happen to be on great teams?"

 

[Sons Of Shula]

My man Awsi spittin' some more home brewed truth. :hi5:

This was the icon you were searching for: :buttkiss:

 

[Sons Of Shula]

You can have a team with a crap QB win "any given Sunday", but when you look at the teams with and without great QB's, there is no comparison. Or, do you think that the great QB's "just happen to be on great teams?"

Your grading analysis went from "elite" directly to "crap". Hardly a fair range. The very few elite QB's can help carry a team but we all saw in last year's SB that it's clearly not the deciding factor in being a champion. There are plenty examples of above-average, good QB's with a SB ring and even a few merely average ones that rode their team to the Lombardi.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

I haven't had the stomach to re-watch the game, but I will before the weekend. My initial impression is that Tannehill showed no control over the game, no control in the pocket, poor accuracy, and a poor understanding of situation.

I noted in from another PFF post, but those numbers indicate what should be obvious (we're talking stats - not pff grades): Tannehill is generally efficient when playing under positive circumstances (2nd/3rd and short/medium), and he's absolutely terrible under any other situation.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/03/qbs-in-focus/

When you're good at something, you make your own luck. For a good QB, it should work more often than not. I'm still holding out hope that he's a late bloomer, but it's looking rough. When that offense lost Moreno, they lost their soul. Given that this was Moreno's 2nd game and Tannehill's 3rd season with the team, that's discouraging.

No QB is perfect, but when you look at players like Luck and Wilson, their attributes are so obvious and important that you're happy to take their shortcomings. If Tannehill starts making crucial plays, I'll gladly forgive his sporadic accuracy. He'll never be perfect, and I'm not asking him to be, but I am asking him to find a way to get it done. I don't know that he has the competitive edge to get it done. There's a fine line between cool under pressure and detached. He's a very 'Aw shucks' kinda guy. Read Bill Walsh's take on the QB position, and Tannehill is pretty much the opposite of what he looks for in the position.

http://www.sportsxchange.com/DS97/walsh/walsh2qb.htm

To become a great quarterback, there must be instincts and intuition. This is the area that can be the difference between a very solid quarterback and a great quarterback. This isn't an area you can do much with as a coach. You can certainly bring a quarterback up to a competitive standard, but to reach greatness the quarterback must possess that inherently, ala Billy Kilmer, Sonny Jurgensen, Ken Stabler and Warren Moon.

Now, he must be courageous and intensely competitive. He will be the one on the field who is running the team. His teammates must believe in him or it may not matter how much physical ability he has. If he is courageous and intensely competitive, then other players will know and respect that. This will be a foundation for becoming a leader.

Arm strength is somewhat misleading. Some players can throw 80 yards, but they aren't good passers. Good passing has to do with accuracy, timing, and throwing a ball with touch so it is catchable. This all involves understanding a system, the receivers in the system, and having great anticipation. It is a plus to be able to throw a ball on a line for 35 yards, but not if it is off target or arrives in such a way that it is difficult to catch.

Mobility and an ability to avoid a pass rush are crucial. Some quarterbacks use this mobility within the pocket just enough so they are able to move and pass when they "feel" a rush. But overall quickness and agility can make a remarkable difference. As an example, there were some very quick boxers in Sugar Ray Leonard's era, but he was quicker than they were and because of that he became a great champ.

The single trait that separates great quarterbacks from good quarterbacks is the ability to make the great, spontaneous decision, especially at a crucial time. The clock is running down and your team is five points behind. The play that was called has broken down and 22 players are moving in almost unpredictable directions all over the field.

This is where the great quarterback uses his experience, vision, mobility and what we will call spontaneous genius. He makes something good happen. This, of course, is what we saw in Joe Montana when he pulled out those dramatic victories for Notre Dame.

No reason to bury him yet. He'll have the season to correct his issues, but the odds (as predicted) are stacked against him.

 

[enigmatics]

This was the icon you were searching for: :buttkiss:

 

[danthemanfan]

I have seen too many dropped balls that could have been good plays!

 

[Sons Of Shula]

What's there to mad about here? I was simply offering the proper tools that fit your gushing response.

 

[Bumpus]

You can have a team with a crap QB win "any given Sunday", but when you look at the teams with and without great QB's, there is no comparison. Or, do you think that the great QB's "just happen to be on great teams?"

Russell Wilson is NOT a "great QB"

... Just saying.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

IMO there are only 3-4 legitimately great QBs in the NFL and then maybe 10 guys who are definitely good enough to win it all but not good enough to carry a team on their backs to get there.

My 3-4 are Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers.

From 2012 I think Wilson has definitively shown himself to be in the group of 10, and I'm pretty confident Andrew Luck will be in there, too. RG3-10 blows and I'm still not sure what to think of Nick Foles... or Ryan Tannehill.