The Question of Ryan Tannehill - Bill Barnwell

[Phinatic8u]

The first thing I read in that link Awsi posted was "these stats are subjective, but are guys do there best"

Who in there right mind uses dropped interceptions as a argument. Might as well subjectively add all those dropped passes too. Wouldn't that be the same thing?

stupid link

 

[Digital]

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)?

Just out of curiosity, did you adjust for dropped TD's too? How about sacks/pressures/throw aways where he would have thrown a TD but the OL didn't hold up? Are those listed too?

And how about using those stats in comparison with other QB's? Most people conveniently forget that Tannehill lost 1 game to Andre Luck where Luck had over a 100 QB rating because the Dolphins dropped 3 should have been interceptions. 2 of those were harder to drop than catch and either one wins the game.

See, that's the problem with basing so much off stats in football. There is too much interdependency to get a truly level playing field on which to compare.

Marino posted redonkulous numbers but didn't win the Super Bowl so people regularly put Joe Montana above him in QB rankings which is absolutely ludicrous. Even Montana's coach thought it was ridiculous. It's just silly to ignore that while Marino had very good WR's, Montana had better. While Marino had very good pass protecting OL, Montana had that and excellent run blockers. Montana had better running backs and TE's and a far better defense.

It's not apples to apples. Watching Tannehill play you can see how much better he was with Keller and Gibson than when both were injured. You can see how much easier he had it with Jake Long and Anthony Fasano then the turnstiles Martin and Clay.

I thank the football gods every day that we passed on Dalton and the next year drafted Tannehill. Because I can clearly see that Tannehill is the better player. Nd no, he will never be Dan Marino ... but neither will anyone else.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

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.

Luck had a pretty high number of dropped interceptions his rookie season, too. I don't think that was a cause for panic. I like to mention Luck because I think everyone agrees here that he's going to be a great one, but he's had some growing pains you can point out here without certain parties flailing their arms into their keyboards like busted windmills.

His rookie season, he had issues with both badly overthrown passes (football just sailing on him) and over-aggressive throws into coverage that were (or should have been) picked off. I even posted a compilation of stuff here from one of the major Colts boards (Stampede Blue, I think?) of Colts fans getting REALLY upset about Luck and how he looked like a bust. Might even dig that post up.

Keep in mind that quarterbacks tend to evolve over time. Remember when batted balls at the LoS were going to singlehandedly sink RT17's career?

It's okay to think that Ryan Tannehill isn't going to be the answer, but I think to pin it on this statistical aberration or that is jumping the gun.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Luck had a pretty high number of dropped interceptions his rookie season, too. I don't think that was a cause for panic. I like to mention Luck because I think everyone agrees here that he's going to be a great one, but he's had some growing pains you can point out here without certain parties flailing their arms into their keyboards like busted windmills.

His rookie season, he had issues with both badly overthrown passes (football just sailing on him) and over-aggressive throws into coverage that were (or should have been) picked off. I even posted a compilation of stuff here from one of the major Colts boards (Stampede Blue, I think?) of Colts fans getting REALLY upset about Luck and how he looked like a bust. Might even dig that post up.

Keep in mind that quarterbacks tend to evolve over time. Remember when batted balls at the LoS were going to singlehandedly sink RT17's career?

It's okay to think that Ryan Tannehill isn't going to be the answer, but I think to pin it on this statistical aberration or that is jumping the gun.

I heard that Tannehill led the league in thinking about throwing passes that might have been intercepted if they had actually been thrown, which they weren't but could have been. He also led the league in almost INTs on passes where he threw inaccurately into coverage and nobody caught the ball.

 

[MD]

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's good info. I wonder if someone could pull up passer rating to Wallace on the right sideline in comparison to other WRs. I'm pretty confidant you'll get the same results.

Sometimes people need to step back from the ledge and review just how ridiculous a debate can turn. And reading through the rest of this thread you can see my point.

 

[RobertHorry]

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.

With nyjunc, it tends to be posters that take everything personal. He makes one comment and then they make a ridiculous retort about Mark buttfumble and his fumble. Its like us making a comment on a Jets board and someone commenting on the 62-0 loss to the Jags in the playoffs or AJ Feeley getting hurt from being smacked so hard on the ass.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

That's good info. I wonder if someone could pull up passer rating to Wallace on the right sideline in comparison to other WRs. I'm pretty confidant you'll get the same results.

Sometimes people need to step back from the ledge and review just how ridiculous a debate can turn. And reading through the rest of this thread you can see my point.

More props to, CK, who tweeted those numbers too:

121.5 passer rating on right sideline to targets who weren't Wallace.
68.6 to Wallace.

I've seen that number posted elsewhere too, so I'm pretty confident that it's accurate.

Anyway, here are your theories:

1. Ryan Tannehill sucks at throwing to Mike Wallace. This may be due to bad practice habits, chemistry, or simply that Tannehill is good at throwing routes Wallace is bad at running?
2. Mike Wallace is an average receiver and Ryan Tannehill sucks, but the other receivers on our roster are SO GOOD that they carry him to respectability.
3. Mike Sherman's offense was terrible at putting Mike Wallace in good positions to make plays on the football.
4. Mike Wallace is good at running fast, but isn't very good at playing wide receiver.
5. Mike Wallace is so good at playing wide receiver that he drew all of the opposing team's attention and opened things up for everyone else!

I'm going with a bit of #1, a lot of #3, and a smidgen of #4.

I can't really buy #5 simply because I can't see how that explains the huge discrepancy in passes over the middle. So I'd be curious to hear the reasoning of anyone who thinks it's primarily #5.

 

[MD]

More props to, CK, who tweeted those numbers too:

121.5 passer rating on right sideline to targets who weren't Wallace.
68.6 to Wallace.

I've seen that number posted elsewhere too, so I'm pretty confident that it's accurate.

Anyway, here are your theories:

1. Ryan Tannehill sucks at throwing to Mike Wallace. This may be due to bad practice habits, chemistry, or simply that Tannehill is good at throwing routes Wallace is bad at running?
2. Mike Wallace is an average receiver and Ryan Tannehill sucks, but the other receivers on our roster are SO GOOD that they carry him to respectability.
3. Mike Sherman's offense was terrible at putting Mike Wallace in good positions to make plays on the football.
4. Mike Wallace is good at running fast, but isn't very good at playing wide receiver.
5. Mike Wallace is so good at playing wide receiver that he drew all of the opposing team's attention and opened things up for everyone else!

I'm going with a bit of #1, a lot of #3, and a smidgen of #4.

I can't really buy #5 simply because I can't see how that explains the huge discrepancy in passes over the middle. So I'd be curious to hear the reasoning of anyone who thinks it's primarily #5.

At this point I think it also involves a mental issue with each as a result of trying to hard perhaps. It really is puzzling that Tannehill has minimal issues with WRs not named Wallace. Hopefully Lazor puts them in a better position to allow adjustment on the route and in flight, as well as move pieces around to create favorable match ups. I thought all to often Sherman painted them into a corner.

 

[hoops]

lead the league in dropped ints with 11 huh ...i'd sure like to see the video cuts of that cause i don't recall a number anywhere near that

short of levitating there was nothing he could do against that bills front in week 16...every time he did make a throw while the game was in the balance hartline dropped it as i recall...12 yards rushing as i recall to boot also

even aaron rodgers wouldn't have done jack squat with that oline effort

 

[hoops]

With nyjunc, it tends to be posters that take everything personal. He makes one comment and then they make a ridiculous retort about Mark buttfumble and his fumble. Its like us making a comment on a Jets board and someone commenting on the 62-0 loss to the Jags in the playoffs or AJ Feeley getting hurt from being smacked so hard on the ass.

no he just throws out biting key words like "failure" and "reality" and dumb stuff like "if i told you every time i was right i wouldn't have any time to do anything else" or "don't deflect" and talk about people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones when his qb is a complete utter disaster...not to mention he's way way way off the mark with most of his stuff and baits people...comes in dead threads tosses some bait to see who will bite...it's not a coincidence...

and shouright was a moron...football wise a complete moron...he may have been a hell of a numbers cruncher but he had zero football common sense...and i'm damn glad the mods ridded us of that clown

 

[nyjunc]

I don't buy the dropped INts stat, I remember back in 2010 it's what all you guys were using against me w/ Mark. I saw every throw, there were maybe 2-3 legit dropped INTs, many more just getting hands on the ball but either way if it's dropped it's dropped. They don't credit for INTs that weren't their fault or for dropped passes and TDs so I don't buy any of the dropped INT #s. we have too many stats to look at and most are really subjective.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

and shouright was a moron...football wise a complete moron...he may have been a hell of a numbers cruncher but he had zero football common sense...and i'm damn glad the mods ridded us of that clown

That dude was just a troll. On more than one occasion he drew conclusions that were not only unsupported by his data, but actually contrary to it. I'm pretty sure that was intentional. Though I'll admit it was funny to see people pick up on it and act like the dude was some kind of football savant, even after those who actually did the statistical analysis he lifted for his posts came in and bashed him for being a clueless nincompoop.

I think junc is actually earnest about what he posts. The fact that he's considered delusional on Gang Green for saying some of the same weird things leads me to believe that he simply marches to the beat of a different drummer. A drummer who thinks Mark buttfumble is a good quarterback.

 

[nyjunc]

That dude was just a troll. On more than one occasion he drew conclusions that were not only unsupported by his data, but actually contrary to it. I'm pretty sure that was intentional. Though I'll admit it was funny to see people pick up on it and act like the dude was some kind of football savant, even after people who actually did the statistical analysis he lifted for his posts came in and bashed him for being a clueless nincompoop.

I think junc is actually earnest about what he posts. The fact that he's considered delusional on Gang Green for saying some of the same weird things leads me to believe that he simply marches to the beat of a different drummer. A drummer who thinks Mark buttfumble is a good quarterback.

the ones that consider me delusional are generally the ones that a)don't really understand this game or b)don't actually read what I post but rather take bits and pieces and perceive what they think I post.

 

[sm0kinfins]

I think it can be inferred that it was better than pretty good. anyone watching w/o bias could see it. The OL wasn't great but it certainly was good enough. You missed the playoffs more b/c of the QB play than the OL. If either are improved you probably make it but if Ryan played a little better you easily make it.

What's better than pretty good? Very good? Great? So, you're saying that the O-Line went from terrible to very good/great from the 1st half of he season to the second? Are you high?

 

[nyjunc]

What's better than pretty good? Very good? Great? So, you're saying that the O-Line went from terrible to very good/great from the 1st half of he season to the second? Are you high?

The OL was good the 2nd half, good enough. you went 4-4 the first half of the year w/ the OL playing poorly, you went 4-4 the 2nd half when the O was good enough. The bottom line is he had an opportunity to get Miami to postseason and he failed.