The Book On Ryan Tannehill (parts 1 And 2) - Comprehensive Scouting Report

[SuperMarksBros.]

Blake Bortles got sacked 24 times to Russell Wilson's 46. Bortles is obviously the superior QB.

Apples to oranges. The tannehill/Cutler comparison is behind the same line.

Also let's not just compare the 24 to 46 in a vacuum, a fair assumption is that Wilson dropped back to pass WAY more than bortles did, as Seattle couldn't run and the jags did everything possible to hide bortles

 

[Vaark]

LOL at you not being able to see your own bias.

WV, Shoughright and NYJUNC all rolled into one.

If you read the draft forum, this guy spent a lot of time developing his own convoluted QB rating system which he seems to have been married to for quite some time, no doubt from the last forum he obviously frequented, or possibly even the previous one to that. It reeks of vacuum-visioned, subjective, proprietary prideful arrogance. As a result he declared Mark Sanchez to be an exceptional potential talent and has lambasted the Jets for mis-managing him.

Really that's all you need to know to evaluate his other opinionated "fruits from a poison tree," even before factoring in the flattering opinion of Failbin. So for perspective sake, consider the source. And like with junk, wv, and both iterations of Shouwrong, I predict that this too shall pass.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Line causes most of the issues but Ryan has got to get better at improvising.

I think we saw more of that in 2016, specifically because of Gase's coaching. Can he get better still? Sure. At the same time, I'd like him to need to less often.

 

[EvilDylan]

No. You want to introduce biases to twist arguments. Stats are not biased, they are clear facts.
And in this case consistent with previous years when he took way too many sacks. Facts are he takes too many sacks.
Your biased approach serves to reach a weak conclusion that all previous teams sucked for not protecting Ryan. That conclusion is divorced from facts.

YOU are the one who is skewing your argument to create bias. When analyzing statistics, or any numerical data for that matter, you have to account for variables. You are not accounting for those variables, instead you dismiss them which feeds in to what you want to see. Nothing you have said is based on fact. You absolutely cannot look at statistics from a football player from year to year and make equal comparisons to reach a conclusion, too many variables. I think you need to look up the definition of that. This is getting absurd on your part.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Apples to oranges. The tannehill/Cutler comparison is behind the same line.

Was it? I think they are all apples to oranges comparisons.

Also let's not just compare the 24 to 46 in a vacuum, a fair assumption is that Wilson dropped back to pass WAY more than bortles did, as Seattle couldn't run and the jags did everything possible to hide bortles

Wilson takes more sacks because of him attempting to extend plays. Prior studies showed that he hangs on to the ball near the longest in the league. A much higher percentage of the sacks are Wilson's "fault".

But guess what? It doesn't matter because it works for their offense. They have built an offense around Wilson's ability to scramble and create opportunities and the receiver's ability to improvise and make plays. IMO, Seattle is a very smart team and is purposely trading off sacks for big plays. Nothing wrong with that and it is (IMO) by design. Wilson is also very good at avoiding the devastating hit and is also solidly built and can take more hits that some other QBs.

That is why you cannot compare sacks in a vacuum.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

YOU are the one who is skewing your argument to create bias. When analyzing statistics, or any numerical data for that matter, you have to account for variables. You are not accounting for those variables, instead you dismiss them which feeds in to what you want to see. Nothing you have said is based on fact. You absolutely cannot look at statistics from a football player from year to year and make equal comparisons to reach a conclusion, too many variables. I think you need to look up the definition of that. This is getting absurd on your part.

His bias is in assigning blame. Pretty funny he thinks it is not obvious.

 

[Travis34]

So lets say there is a runningback who averages 1 yard per carry. Now, this back has a good amount of talent, however his OL is getting him blasted by defenders the moment he gets the ball. Whos fault is it for the low ypc?

 

[LargoFin]

Sure, let's compare our quarterback to the greatest QB to ever play the game. That makes a lot of sense. You know, Reshad Jones is a real piece of **** compared to Ed Reed. Since Kenyan Drake isn't Barry Sanders, we should probably cut him. Josh Sitton isn't Larry Allen, why the **** did we sign him?

Yes, we need a great quarterback, and he needs to do things that great QBs do.
Same goes for Reshad, he needs to be able to cover. He is not doing it right now. He can't cover. That's what we need.

Why did his sacks drop in 2016?

His sacks dropped because his attempts were significantly lower in 2016. If you adjust the numbers to 2014 attempts levels, you'll find that his sacks would be in the 40's, again. in other words, for the passing volume, he took a lot of sacks again.

This sentence encapsulates your feelings toward him.

And you're entitled to them. But nothing you have shown conclusively proves that "Tannehill at his best is average." If anything, it shows the opposite.

And most others disagree with you.

If we could leave it at that, I think everyone here would get along much better.

People say his best year was under Gase in 2016, and that year he had 12th-best passer rating, and 24th-best total QBr, 19TDs, 12 ints, and 29 sacks on 390 attempts. That's average, in his best year.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

His sacks dropped because his attempts were significantly lower in 2016. If you adjust the numbers to 2014 attempts levels, you'll find that his sacks would be in the 40's, again. in other words, for the passing volume, he took a lot of sacks again.

Now break it down by before and after release Dallas Thomas and Billy Turner.

First 5 game - 17 sacks
Next 8 games - 12 sacks

Why did that happen? Hint, it's not number of attempts.

 

[SuperMarksBros.]

Was it? I think they are all apples to oranges comparisons.



Wilson takes more sacks because of him attempting to extend plays. Prior studies showed that he hangs on to the ball near the longest in the league. A much higher percentage of the sacks are Wilson's "fault".

But guess what? It doesn't matter because it works for their offense. They have built an offense around Wilson's ability to scramble and create opportunities and the receiver's ability to improvise and make plays. IMO, Seattle is a very smart team and is purposely trading off sacks for big plays. Nothing wrong with that and it is (IMO) by design. Wilson is also very good at avoiding the devastating hit and is also solidly built and can take more hits that some other QBs.

That is why you cannot compare sacks in a vacuum.

Comparing essentially the same set of linemen, coached by essentially the same set of coaches from one year to the next is not apples to oranges. The Cutler/tannehill comparisons are valid, we'll agree to disagree.

As far as Wilson, it CAN be both. He extends plays but also takes more sacks than bortles because he drops back to pass more often, behind a line ranked near the bottom of PFF rankings, compared to bortles playing in a run first offense behind a statistically average line

 

[LargoFin]

Now break it down by before and after release Dallas Thomas and Billy Turner.

First 5 game - 17 sacks
Next 8 games - 12 sacks

Why did that happen? Hint, it's not number of attempts.

It's not the Oline either. He, played, better. It's as simple as that.
The problem is, you are taking a narrow sample of 7-1 record. You are taking a sample of games won. You are disregarding other games. Yourargument boils down to, Tannehill is good when we win. Yes he is, I agree with that.

 

[Travis34]

It's not the Oline either. He, played, better. It's as simple as that.

This just in folks, the offensive line is responsible for no sacks given up. It's all about who is at qb

 

[Travis34]

Tom Brady was sacked 35 times last year. He needs to get better at improvising and avoiding those sacks. They are definitely all on him.

 

[BigNastyFish]

Was it? I think they are all apples to oranges comparisons.

Wilson takes more sacks because of him attempting to extend plays. Prior studies showed that he hangs on to the ball near the longest in the league. A much higher percentage of the sacks are Wilson's "fault".

But guess what? It doesn't matter because it works for their offense. They have built an offense around Wilson's ability to scramble and create opportunities and the receiver's ability to improvise and make plays. IMO, Seattle is a very smart team and is purposely trading off sacks for big plays. Nothing wrong with that and it is (IMO) by design. Wilson is also very good at avoiding the devastating hit and is also solidly built and can take more hits that some other QBs.

That is why you cannot compare sacks in a vacuum.

I don't think taking sacks (as a predetermined aspect of an offense) is a "smart" strategy and seriously doubt that's baked into Seattle's cake. As an example -- Marino was a tremendous BIG PLAY QB while being the most difficult QB to sack in the league (mainly because of his awareness -- and of course lightening strike release)!

 

[The Goat]

People say his best year was under Gase in 2016, and that year he had 12th-best passer rating, and 24th-best total QBr, 19TDs, 12 ints, and 29 sacks on 390 attempts. That's average, in his best year.

Keep moving those goalposts and mixing conjecture with facts.

"At his best" is not the same as "his best year."

Once again...for the record...when Tannehill got hold of Gase's system, he took off.

That 7-1 run when the run game was clicking and people were doing their jobs was Tannehill at his best *so far*. The game slowed down for him.

Yes, "people say" that, too.