The Question of Ryan Tannehill - Bill Barnwell | Page 12 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

The Question of Ryan Tannehill - Bill Barnwell

Somebody out there can pull those numbers. I'm just legitimately curious, because I know for a fact his passer ratings both deep and to the right side of the field are like literally 40+ points higher to anyone not named Mike Wallace. So I wonder if it's the same case for throws over the middle.
 
I'd say it's a fair article. No clear indication one way or another. And that's why Tannehill finds every requirement that I abhor. If you are still waiting for a guy to be great there should be a sustained and undeniable period of greatness at an earlier level. If not, then you shouldn't have had to pay much for the coin flip.

We somehow botch every principal. Millions and millions on a projection who has never been special. Then we wonder what could possibly go wrong?

And this same mentality seemingly applies to every decision. It doesn't matter if Ju'Waun James was the best remaining prospect at offensive tackle. Is he a special talent? Do you gain on the rest of the league from a manpower perspective by picking him at 19? Or are you merely applying a patch? Patches are like a treadmill...running in place at high expense.

Tannehill led the league in rightful interceptions that were dropped last season, at 11. I mentioned that in another thread tonight, including the link to the Football Outsiders article, but it deserves more mention, since we're so determined to adjust everything. I wouldn't mention it other than that absurd adjusting in every thread.

From my perspective, once McKinnie was inserted at left tackle the pass blocking was noticeably improved across the board, since it coincided with Clabo's improved play on the right. Clabo was so disastrous early it was a logical upward bump. He had nowhere else to go. The second meeting with Buffalo was always going to be a problem. Amidst the hoopla after the win over New England, I posted that the danger in the Bills game would be that we were physically abused, that Buffalo would return to the defensive intensity that the Bills displayed for the first two and a half quarters hosting the Chiefs. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. They enjoyed the Fury of Anti-Revenge, we were overwhelmed, and our quarterback couldn't find anything cheap. That's not exactly his specialty, rescuing a troubled matchup.

Other than that Bills game the second half of the season featured games well within NFL normalcy. Only the final game was pathetic and inexcusable, IMO. I can't imagine a quarterback destined for NFL greatness to respond like that.

nyjunc is a terrific poster. I have no idea how he calmly volleys so many desperate and mean spirited replies from posters who are simply not on his level. It reminds me of the shouright situation, who was so far above the head of people who were mocking him that Philippe Petit in his prime couldn't get there.
 
Awsi Dooger said:
I'd say it's a fair article. No clear indication one way or another. And that's why Tannehill finds every requirement that I abhor. If you are still waiting for a guy to be great there should be a sustained and undeniable period of greatness at an earlier level. If not, then you shouldn't have had to pay much for the coin flip.

We somehow botch every principal. Millions and millions on a projection who has never been special. Then we wonder what could possibly go wrong?

And this same mentality seemingly applies to every decision. It doesn't matter if Ju'Waun James was the best remaining prospect at offensive tackle. Is he a special talent? Do you gain on the rest of the league from a manpower perspective by picking him at 19? Or are you merely applying a patch? Patches are like a treadmill...running in place at high expense.

Tannehill led the league in rightful interceptions that were dropped last season, at 11. I mentioned that in another thread tonight, including the link to the Football Outsiders article, but it deserves more mention, since we're so determined to adjust everything. I wouldn't mention it other than that absurd adjusting in every thread.

From my perspective, once McKinnie was inserted at left tackle the pass blocking was noticeably improved across the board, since it coincided with Clabo's improved play on the right. Clabo was so disastrous early it was a logical upward bump. He had nowhere else to go. The second meeting with Buffalo was always going to be a problem. Amidst the hoopla after the win over New England, I posted that the danger in the Bills game would be that we were physically abused, that Buffalo would return to the defensive intensity that the Bills displayed for the first two and a half quarters hosting the Chiefs. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. They enjoyed the Fury of Anti-Revenge, we were overwhelmed, and our quarterback couldn't find anything cheap. That's not exactly his specialty, rescuing a troubled matchup.

Other than that Bills game the second half of the season featured games well within NFL normalcy. Only the final game was pathetic and inexcusable, IMO. I can't imagine a quarterback destined for NFL greatness to respond like that.

nyjunc is a terrific poster. I have no idea how he calmly volleys so many desperate and mean spirited replies from posters who are simply not on his level. It reminds me of the shouright situation, who was so far above the head of people who were mocking him that Philippe Petit in his prime couldn't get there.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahaha. You're a hoot.

h4145054A.jpg
 
Awsi Dooger said:
I'd say it's a fair article. No clear indication one way or another. And that's why Tannehill finds every requirement that I abhor. If you are still waiting for a guy to be great there should be a sustained and undeniable period of greatness at an earlier level. If not, then you shouldn't have had to pay much for the coin flip.

We somehow botch every principal. Millions and millions on a projection who has never been special. Then we wonder what could possibly go wrong?

And this same mentality seemingly applies to every decision. It doesn't matter if Ju'Waun James was the best remaining prospect at offensive tackle. Is he a special talent? Do you gain on the rest of the league from a manpower perspective by picking him at 19? Or are you merely applying a patch? Patches are like a treadmill...running in place at high expense.

Tannehill led the league in rightful interceptions that were dropped last season, at 11. I mentioned that in another thread tonight, including the link to the Football Outsiders article, but it deserves more mention, since we're so determined to adjust everything. I wouldn't mention it other than that absurd adjusting in every thread.

From my perspective, once McKinnie was inserted at left tackle the pass blocking was noticeably improved across the board, since it coincided with Clabo's improved play on the right. Clabo was so disastrous early it was a logical upward bump. He had nowhere else to go. The second meeting with Buffalo was always going to be a problem. Amidst the hoopla after the win over New England, I posted that the danger in the Bills game would be that we were physically abused, that Buffalo would return to the defensive intensity that the Bills displayed for the first two and a half quarters hosting the Chiefs. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. They enjoyed the Fury of Anti-Revenge, we were overwhelmed, and our quarterback couldn't find anything cheap. That's not exactly his specialty, rescuing a troubled matchup.

Other than that Bills game the second half of the season featured games well within NFL normalcy. Only the final game was pathetic and inexcusable, IMO. I can't imagine a quarterback destined for NFL greatness to respond like that.

nyjunc is a terrific poster. I have no idea how he calmly volleys so many desperate and mean spirited replies from posters who are simply not on his level. It reminds me of the shouright situation, who was so far above the head of people who were mocking him that Philippe Petit in his prime couldn't get there.
Click to expand...

Peyton Manning in the SB.
Russell Wilson in the playoffs against NO.

There are two examples since the Jets game.

Please, enough with the pompous nonsense. I have only seen one other person post so much drivel without any real information to back anything up. When presented with information and facts that shoot down your arguments, you simply ignore them. I can see why you are an admirer of junc.

Please share with us how you make sense of the following exchange (paraphrased of course):

junc: Here is a quote from the article that states the author thought the Miami OL was "pretty good" in the second have of last season.
me: The article said no such thing, but it did state they were the worst OL in the league.
junc: here is the quote again
me: where does it say they were "pretty good"?
junc: well if you watched the team with an unbiased eye, you'd see it. (no mention of the article....)
me: what does that have to do with the article?
junc: well after the NE game NO ONE was taking about the OL.
me: Here are links to two threads discussing the OL immediately after the NE game.
junc: (somehow ignoring the links) you didn't provide proof and when I say "nobody" it doesn't mean literally not a person
dictionary: Nobody - no person; no one
me: look at the threads! one was titled "How to fix the o line in the offseason" and advocated replacing the exact players that got replaced.
junc: Oh, yeah? Well here is a thread about a different topic where people didn't complain about the OL
me: You claimed nobody was talking about the OL and used it to back a false claim that we thought the OL was "pretty good". I proved your claim wrong.
junc: show me where everyone was complaining about the OL at that moment in time
me: :bobdole:
awsi dooger: junc is a good poster....
me: wtf......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FinfanInBuffalo said:
Peyton Manning in the SB.
Russell Wilson in the playoffs against NO.

There are two examples since the Jets game.

Please, enough with the pompous nonsense. I have never seen a person post so much drivel without any real information to back anything up. When presented with information and facts that shoot down your arguments, you simply ignore them. I can see why you are an admirer of junc.
Click to expand...

Yet, you somehow fail to address the adjusted INT's. If Tannehill numbers were 24 TD's and 26 INT's, would you still be humming the same tune (to yourself in the corner)?
 
j-off-her-doll said:
Yet, you somehow fail to address the adjusted INT's. If Tannehill numbers were 24 TD's and 26 INT's, would you still be humming the same tune (to yourself in the corner)?
Click to expand...

He failed to address how different that was from other QBs. Typical of the haters to want to add INTs to Tannehill's total and leave all the others alone.

You are the same way as the rest of the haters.

"Only a fanboy would compare a QB with a career QBR of just over 80 to a QB with a career QBR of 101"
"Luck or Wilson is a tough call"

Those two quotes exposed you as a hater. I'll remind you of it every chance I get.
 
j-off-her-doll said:
Yet, you somehow fail to address the adjusted INT's. If Tannehill numbers were 24 TD's and 26 INT's, would you still be humming the same tune (to yourself in the corner)?
Click to expand...

It'd be interesting to see the full table/chart on those numbers to see the difference between the top and bottom. I'm sure every QB has a number of INTs dropped...
 
russianbear said:
It'd be interesting to see the full table/chart on those numbers to see the difference between the top and bottom. I'm sure every QB has a number of INTs dropped...
Click to expand...

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/adjusted-interceptions-2013

IMO, this is one of those bogus stats.

1. There is no way to know how a team would respond if the INTs were higher early in the season.
2. What happens if an INT is dropped, then one is caught on the same series? Does the QB get credited with two INTs?
3. Just like actual INTs, almost INTs are caused by many things, not all are QB mistakes.
4. I'm sure there is some random variation to the totals. Luck has 19 almost INTs in two seasons. Tannehill has 14. What does that mean? Probably nothing.
 
I agree that nyjunc is a great poster.

A message board can never truly thrive without at least a couple of clowns.
 
So now we're adjusting for dropped Ints? Then why not adjust for dropped passes?

You guys are getting ridiculous. Anything to push an agenda.
 
sorry barnwell but your credibility drops like a stone for me when you say rg3 is a franchise qb...sure looked like the plan is to make him a pocket qb from what i saw last night and even in his one drive against the pats scrubs no less he looked like a deer in headlights when asked to stand in the pocket and make reads/go thru progressions...all check downs against basic coverages etc the rbs are gonna catch a ton of passes and the guys in the flats if they make him a traditional pocket qb...

the best qb for that offense in washington provided it is gonna be a make proper reads and progression one is absolutely kirk cousins...

rg3 gonna be a fish out of water if he can't play his read option and pistol game and use those legs to contact...
 
MadDog 88 said:
So now we're adjusting for dropped Ints? Then why not adjust for dropped passes?

You guys are getting ridiculous. Anything to push an agenda.
Click to expand...

It's a message board. People make up their minds and then stick to their guns, picking and choosing the evidence to use in their arguments. Sometimes, they even make up the evidence!

Anyway, last night I asked if anyone could tell me what Tannehill's passer rating was over the middle to Mike Wallace vs Other targets. Someone was nice enough to PM me that CK posted this very info on twitter, so here it is:

---

Ryan Tannehill throwing over the middle of the field: 98.2 passer rating

Ryan Tannehill throwing to Brian Hartline over the middle of the field: 105.5 passer rating

Ryan Tannehill throwing to Mike Wallace over the middle of the field: 49.8 passer rating

---

ALL CREDIT GOES TO CKPARROTHEAD, WHO POSTED THESE NUMBERS ON TWITTER

Now, before the lunatic brigade and the Tannehill defense brigade race in here to blah blah blah blah blah blah...

... oh, who am I kidding? Knock yourselves out, guys.
 
That dropped INT stat is really depressing, and it indicates that his passer rating is higher than it should have been. Stinkchez led the league in that stat one season which led me to believe his one "good" season might have been a mirage, this should concern even his biggest defenders.

I'm still choosing to be optimistic though for these reasons:

-Did Foles make Kelly's system or did Kelly's system make Foles? If its the latter and we run something close Tannehill's stats will be much improved, which means more wins. (For the record I think its a combination, Foles probably is really good in his own right and Kelly's system also helps to manufacture stats somehow.)
-Read option helps produce passer rating stats. On top of that I hope we'll use a lot more play action which should also help boost his numbers.
-More rollouts and bootlegs will help too. Tannehill seems to look like a much improved player when he's running around. One of his most memorable plays for me came in preseason last year (sad, right?) when Cushing had him all but sacked but he got away and made a great throw on the run to Wallace deep down the field. The other was the fourth down play to Gibson mentioned in the article. His innate athleticism and ability seems to get triggered when he's on the move for some reason (BTW, the Henne comparisons should stop after that Gibson play, Henne did not have the ability to elevate his game like that when its all on the line).

And speaking of Chip Kelly, I don't see anybody complaining about him taking a "patch" at number 4 overall in last years draft. Why? Because winning, and WINNING RIGHT ****ING NOW!!!!!!! Is all that matters at the end of the day. I understand both sides of the argument but both sides do have validity. I'm sure if you told Philbin and Hickey they have 10 years to build the team they probably make some different decisions. And if you tell them they need playoffs now or gtfo then what you see is what you get. Thats why having a "lame duck" head coach or GM is a bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom