Rank Tannehill Among Young QB's?

[roy_miami]

I don't know why you keep confusing QBR and win/loss as an individual result. It's a team sport dude...

Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl, had to be all him...he's the QB.

Dan Marino didn't win a Super Bowl...he must have been mediocre.

Peyton Manning......why isn't he wearing 10 rings?!?!?!?!

You have no idea what I and others are saying because Marino makes my point, the stats from his first few seasons were predictive that he would be great. The stats were predictive that Dilfer would suck. The stats were predictive that Roethlisberger would be great. The stats were predictive that Mark Stinkchez would suck. The stats on Henne were inconclusive. The stats on Wilson predict great. The stats on Tannehill inconclusive.

 

[PhinFan1968]

you have no idea what i and others are saying because marino makes my point, the stats from his first few seasons were predictive that he would be great. The stats were predictive that dilfer would suck. The stats were predictive that roethlisberger would be great. The stats were predictive that mark stinkchez would suck. The stats on henne were inconclusive. The stats on wilson predict great. The stats on tannehill inconclusive.

lol!

 

[Yessir]

When did Trent Dilfer ever post back to back seasons of a 100 QBR?

 

[PhinFan1968]

When did Trent Dilfer ever post back to back seasons of a 100 QBR?

As many times as Marino did...zero.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

According to this chart Seattle was right in the middle of the pack when running against base defenses, which means defensive coordinators weren't as worried about their running game as you seem to be indicating. In fact the Saints ran against base defense at a higher rate than the Seahawks did. The difference is Seattle forced more runs than most teams. You would have a case against kaepernick and the 49ers with this argument, but not Wilson.

If you look deeper the Saints and Seahawks saw similar defenses on average and the QBs performed quite similarly. The major difference between those two teams was Seattle's D was better.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/bl...act-of-defensive-packages-on-yards-per-carry/

Defensive personnel is dictated by offensive personnel not what type of play they they think will be run. When the offense brings in 3 or 4 WRs, the defense responds. They have to. Otherwise deffenses would have LBs covering WRs and RBs all game. That is football 101.

The personnel grouping does not tell you where the DBs (especially the safeties) line up. That is demonstrated by comparing Philly and SFs numbers. Gore faced the most base defenses because SF ran out of the most 2 back and/or 2 TE sets (see below). McCoy faced near the fewest base defenses because Philly spread teams out. Both ran the football well with different philosophies.

San Francisco had 21 personnel on 26 percent of plays, 22 personnel on another 26 percent of plays, and 11 personnel on 21 percent of plays.

21 personnel is 2 RBs and 1 TE. 22 personnel is 2 RBs and 2 TEs.

Donte Witner (a safety) is on record stating that they needed to focus on stopping Lynch. The fact that Seattle may have dictated that they do that out of a nickel or dime defense doesn't change the emphasis.

BYW, nice find on the article. Very interesting.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

It was unfair when I posted that Tannehill isn't worthy of debate. An early pick with some obvious skills is certainly worth discussing. I make it a favorite that Tannehill improves this year, regardless of the direction of our offensive line. IMO, he underachieved last year.

However, the nature of a debate with myself involved would be ridiculous:

Me: Tannehill's background suggests he won't become a great player

Apologists: Let's adjust everything

And there we are. Round and round. Nothing accomplished. Potential for heated feelings and no reason for them.

My fear is that Tannehill will improve a slight to moderate amount, smack to the level I expected last season, maybe 7.0 to 7.2 yards per attempt. That's nothing to bank on. It's his college level. But in our case it could be absolutely devastating in terms of lost seasons and cash. We'd want to believe in Tannehill and get suckered by him, just like Reshad Jones. Then a year later reality sets in, that he was a moderate collegian because that's his true level -- moderate.

We need Tannehill to race wildly in one direction this season. From the outset and stay there. Either great and I'm happily wrong, or awful so we no longer kid ourselves with all the adjustments.

 

[roy_miami]

We need Tannehill to race wildly in one direction this season. From the outset and stay there. Either great and I'm happily wrong, or awful so we no longer kid ourselves with all the adjustments.

This is my worry as well. Especially if he survives a few regime changes and gets to use that as an excuse, could easily waste a decade or more.

 

[BlueFin]

It's not about adjustments...it's about rationality and fairness.

How can you judge a QB saddled with the handicaps this young QB has had?

As a 44 year Dolphin fan....2012 was the worst receiving Corp. I'be seen in Dolphin history....and, 2013 saw the worst O-line I've seen in Dolphin history.

So...I'm going to give this kid a little slack...I don't care what a Jet troll thinks or anybody else.

I saw growth from year one to year two despite the handicaps.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

It was unfair when I posted that Tannehill isn't worthy of debate. An early pick with some obvious skills is certainly worth discussing. I make it a favorite that Tannehill improves this year, regardless of the direction of our offensive line. IMO, he underachieved last year.

However, the nature of a debate with myself involved would be ridiculous:

Me: Tannehill's background suggests he won't become a great player

Apologists: Let's adjust everything

And there we are. Round and round. Nothing accomplished. Potential for heated feelings and no reason for them.

My fear is that Tannehill will improve a slight to moderate amount, smack to the level I expected last season, maybe 7.0 to 7.2 yards per attempt. That's nothing to bank on. It's his college level. But in our case it could be absolutely devastating in terms of lost seasons and cash. We'd want to believe in Tannehill and get suckered by him, just like Reshad Jones. Then a year later reality sets in, that he was a moderate collegian because that's his true level -- moderate.

We need Tannehill to race wildly in one direction this season. From the outset and stay there. Either great and I'm happily wrong, or awful so we no longer kid ourselves with all the adjustments.

For all your ramblings about background and tendencies and blah blah blah, you ignore these things:

1. The tendency of short QBs to not make it in the NFL.
2. The tendency of scramble-first QBs to not make it in the NFL
3. The fact that Wilson has only carried the load in a pass focused offense for one season (2010 NC State).
4. The fact that when asked to play a pro style run-pass ratio in college, Wilson was not as good as Tannehill.

Here is a quote from an article discussing projecting college QB success in the pros:

First and foremost, the change in Wilson's passer rating between his junior and senior years is insane. Remember that earlier I noted that Griffin had a larger senior year passer rating increase than any quarterback in our data set? Well, Wilson's senior year passer rating increase is 40 percent larger than Griffin's. But does it matter when the quarterback is playing in a completely different offense for a completely different school in his last year of college eligibility? At Wisconsin, Wilson got to pick apart defenses that were concentrating on stopping Montee Ball. At North Carolina State, I doubt opponents were quaking in their boots at the thought of Mustafa Greene and Dean Haynes.

Now, doesn't that sound exactly like what I have been saying?

I predict that Wilson returns to his 2010 NC State level (and probably worse) the moment he has to carry the load.

So, by all means, keep denying.....

 

[finjim]

Why they let this Jets guy on here is beyond me. He brings nothing of value, just a troll.

It's sad that he has been here so long, must have worn out his welcome on Ganggreen.

Pathetic.

 

[nyjunc]

He was their best player. I'll leave it at that.

Lynch: 301 attempts, 1257 yds, 4.18 YPC



You haven't told me who the best running teams were in 2013 yet.



Lynch is a proven running back in this league, Lamar Miller isn't. If they had any confidence in Miller they leave him in. If they have any confidence in Miller, they don't sign Moreno in the offseason.

---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------



Offended some folks don't agree with everything you think?

less than 4.2 YPC is far from great, I don't have to list anyone else. They had a quality running game, nothing more. Wilson was the guy who was the leader of that O not Lynch.


That is on the coaches. I will give you another example of an unproven back.

2009 div rd at San Diego. rookie Shonn Greene
1st half: 9 carries, 35 yds, 3.8 YPC
total carries before 53 yd TD: 16-55, 3.4 YPC

did they abandon the ground game? did they try to foolishly air it out? NO. It's called good coaching, it's something you don't have.

I don't know why you keep confusing QBR and win/loss as an individual result. It's a team sport dude...

Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl, had to be all him...he's the QB.

Dan Marino didn't win a Super Bowl...he must have been mediocre.

Peyton Manning......why isn't he wearing 10 rings?!?!?!?!

Trent Dilfer was VITAL to that Baltimore SB run.

Marino didn't have the talent around him, he elevated mediocre/bad teams to postseasons

Peyton is a choker, has the most talent in the league almost every year and can't win.

You have no idea what I and others are saying because Marino makes my point, the stats from his first few seasons were predictive that he would be great. The stats were predictive that Dilfer would suck. The stats were predictive that Roethlisberger would be great. The stats were predictive that Mark Stinkchez would suck. The stats on Henne were inconclusive. The stats on Wilson predict great. The stats on Tannehill inconclusive.

except Mark didn't suck until he had the worst talent in the league around him. Some QBs need less talent(Brady) but most need talent, when Mark had it he was successful, when he didn't he stunk.

It's not about adjustments...it's about rationality and fairness.

How can you judge a QB saddled with the handicaps this young QB has had?

As a 44 year Dolphin fan....2012 was the worst receiving Corp. I'be seen in Dolphin history....and, 2013 saw the worst O-line I've seen in Dolphin history.

So...I'm going to give this kid a little slack...I don't care what a Jet troll thinks or anybody else.

I saw growth from year one to year two despite the handicaps.

No one is saying he doesn't have potential but too many are making excuses for last year. he had very good weapons to throw to and the Ol wasn't nearly as bad as you portray it to be.

Stop w/ the troll deflections, it doesn't help your weak arguments.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

For all your ramblings about background and tendencies and blah blah blah, you ignore these things:

1. The tendency of short QBs to not make it in the NFL.
2. The tendency of scramble-first QBs to not make it in the NFL
3. The fact that Wilson has only carried the load in a pass focused offense for one season (2010 NC State).
4. The fact that when asked to play a pro style run-pass ratio in college, Wilson was not as good as Tannehill.

Here is a quote from an article discussing projecting college QB success in the pros:



Now, doesn't that sound exactly like what I have been saying?

I predict that Wilson returns to his 2010 NC State level (and probably worse) the moment he has to carry the load.

So, by all means, keep denying.....

A little bit of perspective on the running game and its influence on QB play. The top ten rushing teams in the NFL in 2013 were the Eagles, Bills, 49ers, Seahawks, Redskins, Jets, Packers, Vikings, Patriots, and Chiefs. Those ten teams combined for 35,260 yards on 5,248 attempts for a YPA of 6.72. Of these teams, only the Eagles, Seahawks, 49ers, and Packers averaged more than 7.0 YPA.

 

[nick1]

That was an epicly bad oline anyone who argues it wasnt wasnt watching the pocket dissolve in 2 seconds. Its not an excuse its fact. Tannehill is our franchise I don't need any more convincing he has great potential. Most players take 3 years to develop especially a guy who was WR half of his college career

 

[nyjunc]

That was an epicly bad oline anyone who argues it wasnt wasnt watching the pocket dissolve in 2 seconds. Its not an excuse its fact. Tannehill is our franchise I don't need any more convincing he has great potential. Most players take 3 years to develop especially a guy who was WR half of his college career

it really wasn't, I get that it is the excuse you guys want to use. I'm not saying it was a good OL(though in the 2nd half it WAS good) but it wasn't some historically bad OL like you guys like to portray.

now the former WR excuse? he started year 1, he had a years experience in the NFL, they gave him a ton of weapons to throw to in year 2, he didn't have to learn a new system entering the league like every other QB. we need to stop w/ the excuses.

He had an up and down rookie year which was to be expected, overall it was good

He improved in year, showed flashes of being really good but came up small in too many big spots.

He has the ability to be a quality starter, he hasn't been one YET though.

 

[nick1]

The WR excuse? He improved every year. Like I said most guys take 3 years. You just call everything defending tannehill an excuse don't you