QB In Focus- Ryan Tannehill | Page 4 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

QB In Focus- Ryan Tannehill

The second down strength is very familiar. I remember that from Texas A&M. Tannehill thrived on second down, and also in the second quarter. He was tremendous in the second quarter during his final season. I'm a first half bettor so that tendency was much appreciated. I don't know if the second quarter trend has carried over since I bet pro first halves based on situation, not quarterback specifics.

Second down is a natural spot for effective play action. IMO, given Tannehill's level and skill set we should abuse play action regardless of down and distance. Normally it looks stupid to run play action on 3rd and 10 but how much worse could we be? We might bait the opposing defense into self destructive laughter.
 
2nd quarter has been our best offensively. Then the half comes and breaks our momentum. It's like the game starts over offendively
 
I agree that taking all variables into play make PFF's numbers much better than QB rating, but batting average is not close to up to the batter only. The pitcher, the umpire's established strike zone, defensive shifts, defensive range of fielders, official scorers, weather, altitude, amount of foul territory, park dimensions all play a part in a batters batting average outside of simply hitting the ball where they aren't.
 
PhinsTD said:
I agree that taking all variables into play make PFF's numbers much better than QB rating, but batting average is not close to up to the batter only. The pitcher, the umpire's established strike zone, defensive shifts, defensive range of fielders, official scorers, weather, altitude, amount of foul territory, park dimensions all play a part in a batters batting average outside of simply hitting the ball where they aren't.
Click to expand...

I think some of the responses to that were sarcastic but its hard to tell sometimes with this lot.
 
PhinsTD said:
I agree that taking all variables into play make PFF's numbers much better than QB rating, but batting average is not close to up to the batter only. The pitcher, the umpire's established strike zone, defensive shifts, defensive range of fielders, official scorers, weather, altitude, amount of foul territory, park dimensions all play a part in a batters batting average outside of simply hitting the ball where they aren't.
Click to expand...

None of those are similar to the impact that the other offensive players have on the QB. Not a single one of those issues has anything to do with the teammates that the batter plays with and that is the whole point.

Until 5 posts ago roy_miami was arguing that QB rating was not a team stat.
 
I think a good way to articulate the points in this thread are that QB rating is in large, a measure of a team's offensive effectiveness, but it is also a stat driven mainly by the quarterback. That is why you will never see Tom Brady or Peyton Manning put up a season with a below 70 QBR, no matter how poor the talent around them is. That is also why the all time QBR list is such a strong correlation to publicly perceived QBs in rank of skill. To argue one extreme or the other is pretty crazy, IMO. Obviously the swing in Brady's years by 30 points was driven by supporting cast, the talent level was nowhere near equivalent, but Tom Brady on our team would easily be putting up QBR's that are near what he's done throughout his career.


Is Tannehill handcuffed by his O line? In my opinion yes, but until we fix that problem and he performs at a higher level, you certainly can't prove it.
 
russianbear said:
I think a good way to articulate the points in this thread are that QB rating is in large, a measure of a team's offensive effectiveness, but it is also a stat driven mainly by the quarterback. That is why you will never see Tom Brady or Peyton Manning put up a season with a below 70 QBR, no matter how poor the talent around them is. That is also why the all time QBR list is such a strong correlation to publicly perceived QBs in rank of skill. To argue one extreme or the other is pretty crazy, IMO. Obviously the swing in Brady's years by 30 points was driven by supporting cast, the talent level was nowhere near equivalent, but Tom Brady on our team would easily be putting up QBR's that are near what he's done throughout his career.


Is Tannehill handcuffed by his O line? In my opinion yes, but until we fix that problem and he performs at a higher level, you certainly can't prove it.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

When you compare Brady early in his career, his QB rating is very close to Tannehill while playing on a better team. In his second season as a starter his QB rating was only 4 points above Tannehill's. I have no reason to believe that a young Tom Brady would have done any better than Tannehill did in 2013.

The impact on a QB can be huge though. Marino had a 76.9 QB rating in his prime. IMO, he is the greatest QB of all time, yet he was still impacted by the team.

When two of the greatest of all time are severely impacted by their supporting cast, then surely Tannehill can be too.

I'm not sure why anyone would argue differently, yet they try.
 
Now that we have established that we all agree (however reluctantly), that QB rating is impacted by teammates, game situations, etc., the only thing left is by how much. I have historical evidence that swings of 20-30 points happen. That cannot be disputed.

So how much was Tannehill impacted? Given the historically bad OL and no running game, IMO, 10 - 15 points is conservative. Others can form their own opinions. Frankly, I don't care what they are.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
So how much was Tannehill impacted? Given the historically bad OL and no running game, IMO, 10 - 15 points is conservative. Others can form their own opinions. Frankly, I don't care what they are.
Click to expand...

LOLz. There you go again. 15 points in CONSERVATIVE?
 
The difference between Brady and Tannehill is that Brady has done it at an elite level in the past, and you saw him playing well in spite of his WR's last season - just not as well. Tannehill hasn't done it yet, so you can project that the change in offense and upgraded O-line will help, but it's a major leap of faith to say that his rating will be in the 92-100 range. Wilson, meanwhile, has produced back-to-back 100 QBR seasons, so we know that he can play at a high level. Some of the hypothetical worlds that people create on FH . . . the obvious answer is often the correct answer. Knowing the value of the QB position, arguing for a QB with a career QBR of 79 over a QB with a QBR of 101 is just not reasonable.

I don't think QBR is the best way to measure a QB, but for PFF to criticize it because it measures the entire offense (where the QB is obviously the key contributor) is silly. How do they project that they can accurately grade a player in isolation? The cliche missing the forest for the trees comes to mind.
 
j-off-her-doll said:
Knowing the value of the QB position, arguing for a QB with a career QBR of 79 over a QB with a QBR of 101 is just not reasonable.
.
Click to expand...

But arguing for one with a career QBR of 81 over a QB with a career QBR of 101 is reasonable?

Could you be any more hypocritical?????????
 
j-off-her-doll said:
Awsi covered this very well in his post about Luck's pedigree and how it relates to the argument.
Click to expand...

Bullsh1t. Pure and simple. What you are saying is that Luck isn't performing up to expectations because of the team that surrounds him but Tannehill either isn't affected by his team or his team wasn't bad. Both are BS.
 
roy_miami said:
LOLz. There you go again. 15 points in CONSERVATIVE?
Click to expand...

I wrote 10-15 points.

Tannehill's numbers in 2013:

355 comp, 588 att, 3913 Yds, 24 TDs, 17 INTs

Are you saying that these numbers are out of reach for Tannehill:

360 comp, 540 att, 4000 yds, 25 TDs, 14 INTs

The league's worst pass blocking and no running game could not account for that much of a difference?

Wow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom