Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Tannehill's upside


yankdog

Recommended Posts

Tannehill is more than impressing so far this year. what is surprising is that he is doing it with limited weapons. Sure he still looks like a rookie at times. But do we think he has the capacity to be a top 10 fantasy QB in the future? Stud QB? It seems to me his fundamentals are sound and with more help at WR or TE he could emerges one of those cornerstone pieces to build a dynasty team around in a few years. Others agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have liked what I have seen so far. He doesn't get rattled easily and goes through his progressions well. Good arm, good legs, he has all the tools personally, but it comes down to Miami giving him weapons to help him take that next step. I am holding him in dynasty with the hope of big upside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been very interested in hearing opinions about this too. I think due to being drafted the same year as RG3 and Luck, we aren't getting as much buzz about how well Tannehill is progressing at the Qb position, despite having such little experience at the position. I admit that I thought this season would be a trainwreck when I heard he would start the season opener. I thought if there ever was a guy who absolutely needed to sit and be groomed for the position, it was him.

:blackdot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tannehill or weeden? i guess i like tannehill better because he's younger. i don't know. i'd really like to get one of these guys for my future QB situation.

He is indeed much younger, but also has extremely intriguing athleticism - something he hasn't seemed to force or fall back upon during games, which is something you would expect from someone so young at the position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He throws too many INTs at critical points.

He had a bad one against the Jets but Miami is 5-1 if they make 2 FGs so despite those critical Interceptions(not that many his rookie year) Miami has been in position to win almost every game except week 1@Hou and that was primarily a 5 minute debacle at the end of the 1st half that put 20 points on the board for the Texans. I'm not trying to be Mimi homer but I don't agree that he should be labeled as a turnover machine. Miami for the first time has some stability at the position. 'Is it your opinion that he will be an interception machine his entire career?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He throws too many INTs at critical points.

How many did Peyton throw his rookie year? Rookies will make mistakes. That has little to do with his upside. The questions to consider are how is he progressing and how dedicated is he to making continuous improvements. Also does his overall situation lend itself to continuous growth (ie supporting cast, coaching staff). He's got the physical and mental tools in spades. I just want to see continuous development and hopefully the team will surround him with the supporting cast which will allow for team success.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

He's an ideal QB2 in dynasty. I wouldn't pay anything more than that. He'll be useful for bye weeks right away and he has the potential to become a QB1 down the road, but he can't be trusted yet.

I've seen quite a few QBs come in, play pretty well right away, and then never get a whole lot better. Guys like Cutler, Sanchez, Freeman, Flacco, and Bradford come to mind. They aren't all perfect parallels for Tannehill, but they represent the down side of buying a young QB on the assumption that he's going to improve significantly. Not all of them do. Sometimes what you see is what you get. I do think he had a good rookie year given the circumstances though and would happily take him over any QB in the upcoming draft class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sold on his decision making, consistency and accuracy enough for him to ever be a top 10 QB(real-life or fantasy unless he's in a perfect situation). If you believe in his talent then I can definitely see the optimism now that he was Wallace to throw deep bombs too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sold on his decision making, consistency and accuracy enough for him to ever be a top 10 QB(real-life or fantasy unless he's in a perfect situation). If you believe in his talent then I can definitely see the optimism now that he was Wallace to throw deep bombs too.

I didn't like him coming out last year but it's hard not to like pieces they're putting around him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1363204966' post='15386353']

1363200335' post='15385862']I'm not sold on his decision making, consistency and accuracy enough for him to ever be a top 10 QB(real-life or fantasy unless he's in a perfect situation). If you believe in his talent then I can definitely see the optimism now that he was Wallace to throw deep bombs too.

I didn't like him coming out last year but it's hard not to like pieces they're putting around him.
Same here. If he continues to run the ball like he did towards the end of the season he can be a one if thebetter QB2's/matchup plays.. Still too many good options at the position to be considered next year
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of pick value do you think Tannehill holds today? I play in large roster size dynasty leagues with 12 teams and like to carry several QB if I can. In the upcoming draft I own picks 3,5,7,13 & 15 in the first 2 rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sold on his decision making, consistency and accuracy enough for him to ever be a top 10 QB(real-life or fantasy unless he's in a perfect situation). If you believe in his talent then I can definitely see the optimism now that he was Wallace to throw deep bombs too.

I didn't like him coming out last year but it's hard not to like pieces they're putting around him.
For sure, I like Wallace a lot, and Hartline isn't a bad WR2. I'd like to see Dustin Keller there as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sold on his decision making, consistency and accuracy enough for him to ever be a top 10 QB(real-life or fantasy unless he's in a perfect situation). If you believe in his talent then I can definitely see the optimism now that he was Wallace to throw deep bombs too.

I didn't like him coming out last year but it's hard not to like pieces they're putting around him.
For sure, I like Wallace a lot, and Hartline isn't a bad WR2. I'd like to see Dustin Keller there as well.
Your wish is the Dolphins command!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see him around QB15-20. He's got to learn to go through progressions if he's ever to succeed a become a franchise QB IMO

This is what a lot of QBs struggle with. Ever watch Stafford go through progressions when he was a rook? Calvin...um...#### it ...Calvin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there some stat that if a QB isn't in the top 10 in his first two years starting, it's highly unlikely he ever cracks that barrier?

Tom Brady?
In 2002, his second year as a starter, he finished as QB #6.Matt Ryan is probably the most visible exception right now. Finishes of 15 and 19 his first two years, then three top 10 finishes. Edited by Gawain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there some stat that if a QB isn't in the top 10 in his first two years starting, it's highly unlikely he ever cracks that barrier?

This seems impossible with the current landscape of the NFL. When you have perennial studs like Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers, and throw in newcomers like RGIII, Luck, Kaep, Wilson, there are not a lot of spots left in the top 10. Where do you put guys like Cam, Ryan, Stafford, etc.??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there some stat that if a QB isn't in the top 10 in his first two years starting, it's highly unlikely he ever cracks that barrier?

should tannehill's first year even count? look at who he was playing with for receivers. Edited by werdnoynek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i really liked tannehill coming out. his first year wasn't (obviously) as spectacular as his fellow '12 rooks but i think he showed a lot of promise - he's got a big arm and i see some big ben movement ability in him. ireland is putting alot of weapons around him already this off-season and i foresee him showing a huge improvement this year. he has a ton of upside but was just throwing the balls to a bunch of scrubs last year. i'd agree he was a QB2 but with weapons he could make a nice jump. :popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there some stat that if a QB isn't in the top 10 in his first two years starting, it's highly unlikely he ever cracks that barrier?

This seems impossible with the current landscape of the NFL. When you have perennial studs like Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers, and throw in newcomers like RGIII, Luck, Kaep, Wilson, there are not a lot of spots left in the top 10. Where do you put guys like Cam, Ryan, Stafford, etc.??
I don't even know if I just made it up to be quite honest. I was sure that I had heard it from someone though. So, I decided to look it up. I treated any season where a QB had 8 more appearances as a started season, though I made a note if the QB didn't play 13 or more games. In the past 10 years, 37 quarterbacks have had one or more top ten finishes.Of those 37 quarterbacks, 16 of them cracked the top-ten in their first year as a starter. (Rodgers, Newton, RG3, P. Manning, Wilson, Luck, Rivers, Favre, Warner, Cassel, Anderson, Bulger, Kitna, Culpepper, Green, Brooks)Of the 21 remaining quarterbacks, 13 had their first top-ten appearance in their second season as a starter. (Brady, Romo, Stafford, E. Manning, Vick, Freeman, Cutler, McNabb, Palmer, Bledsoe, Delhomme, Plummer, McNair)That leaves 8 of 37 that recorded a top-ten finish after their first two years as a starter. Five QB's broke through in their third year, but three of the five had not managed to play full seasons during their first two starting seasons in the league.Drew Brees broke the top-ten in his third year as a starter, but he only played 11 games during his second year in the league. He's probably the biggest "miss" of this theory, because he didn't give much indication that he would blossom into his perennial top-3 status. Heck, he was benched for Flutie.Matt Ryan broke into the top-ten in his third year as a starter. He is probably the second biggest "miss" of this theory, but even with his development, his career high finish is seventh. He has recorded three straight top-ten finishes, but hasn't finished top-six yet, so he's still a below average starter in a 12-team league.Marc Sanchez recorded his one top-ten finish in his third season, placing as tenth best quarterback for the year. His fourth season was no where near as successful. He finished with 28 more points than #11 Michael Vick, but Vick was ahead of Sanchez on a PPG basis.Matt Schaub cracked the top-ten in his third season, with a fifth place finish, but his first two seasons were only 11 games each and he posted decent, if not overly impressive PPG averages.Matt Hasselbeck made the top-ten in his third year after two pedestrian finishes, but he only started 12 games and 10 games in his first two years. In his first 16 game season, he had a third place finish.The remaining three quarterbacks that broke into the top 10 after their third season are Ben Roethlisberger, Kerry Collins and Chad Pennington.Roethlisberger broke through in his fourth season with a fourth place finish and has one other top ten finish on his resume. Some of that could be attributed to getting dinged (he only has one 16-game season to his credit), but with the exception of 2007, Big Ben has likely never won someone their fantasy league.Kerry Collins had his first top-ten season in 2000, his sixth season in the league and has two top-ten finishes to his credit (8th and 9th). His first top-ten finish was the first time he managed to start 16 games in a season.Chad Pennington had his one and only top ten finish (10th) in 2008 in his ninth season in the league. 2008 was also only the second season Pennington managed to get through a full season as well.All three of these guys have some sort of injury problems that limited their ability to start a full season, but who knows if that can be applied to quarterbacks moving forward.2012:1) Brees: (Year 1=18th, Year 2=26th (only 11 games), Year 3=8th)2) Rodgers: (Year 1=3rd, Year 2=1st)3) Brady: (Year 1=19th, Year 2=6th)4) Newton: (Year 1=5th, Year 2=4th)5) RG3: (Year 1=5th)6) P. Manning: (Year 1=9th, Year 2=4th)7) Ryan: (Year 1=15th, Year 2=19th, Year 3=8th)8) Romo: (Year 1=17th, Year 2=2nd)9) Wilson: (Year 1=9th)10) Luck: (Year 1=10th)2011: (Just QBs not listed already)4) Stafford: (Year 1=26th (10 games), Year 2=4th)6) E. Manning: (Year 1=36th, Year 2=5th)9) Rivers: (Year 1=8th, Year 2=15th)10 Sanchez: (Year 1=25th, Year 2-19th, Year 3=10th)2010: (Just QBs not listed already)3) Vick: (Year 1=35th (8 games), Year 2=3rd)7) Freeman: (Year 1=27th, Year 2=7th)10) Schaub: (Year 1=23rd (11 games), Year 2=21st (11 games), Year 3=5th)2009: (Just QBs not listed already)3) Favre: (Year 1=7th, Year 2=7th)9) Roethlisberger (Year 1= 20th, Year 2=17th, Year 3=15th, Year 4=4th)2008: (You know the drill)4) Warner: (Year 1=1st, Year 2=14th (11 games), Year 3=1st)5) Cutler: (Year 1=11th, Year 2=5th)7) McNabb: (Year 1=37th, Year 2=5th)8) Cassel: (Year 1=8th, Year 2=21st)10) Pennington (Not listing the all, 5th season playing 10 games or more)2007:6) Anderson: (Year 1=6th, Year 2=31st)7) Hasselbeck: (Year 1=30th, Year 20=20th, Year 3=3rd)9) Palmer: (Year 1=23rd, Year 2=1st)2006:4) Bulger: (Year 1=9th, Year 2=11th)6) Kitna: (Year 1=8th, year 2=18th)2005:7) Bledsoe: (Year 1=15th, Year 2=4th)8) Delhomme: (Year 1=15th, Year 2=6th)9) Collins: (Had two top 10 finishes, first one was in his fifth year)10) Plummer: (Year 1=21st, Year 2=8th)2004:2) Culpepper: (Year 1=1st, Year 2=15th)4) Green: (Year 1=7th, Year 2=17th)10) Brooks: (Year1 1=8th, Year 2=5th)2003:6) McNair: (Year 1=32nd, Year 2=6th)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering trading Reggie Bush for Tannehill and the 1.6 in a Superflex league right now. A slam dunk from a longevity standpoint but I'm very intrigued with Bush in Detroit.

In a superflex league, I'd trade Bush for Tannehill straight up. The 1.6 is just gravy.

Isn't there some stat that if a QB isn't in the top 10 in his first two years starting, it's highly unlikely he ever cracks that barrier?

I believe this is what you're referring to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Here is an excerpt from Peter King's MMQB from today:

And so what has all this information mining told Brandt about the 2013 draft?

"A totally unique draft,'' he said. "I don't think when we look at this draft five years from now that we'll have as many Pro Bowlers in the top 10 than you had in either of the last two drafts. Like, I think if Ryan Tannehill were in this draft, he'd be the top pick -- and he was [eighth] last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there some stat that if a QB isn't in the top 10 in his first two years starting, it's highly unlikely he ever cracks that barrier?

This seems impossible with the current landscape of the NFL. When you have perennial studs like Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers, and throw in newcomers like RGIII, Luck, Kaep, Wilson, there are not a lot of spots left in the top 10. Where do you put guys like Cam, Ryan, Stafford, etc.??

The theory means almost nothing because breaking into the top 10 can be done on either talent OR opportunity. For instance, Stafford has back to back top 10 finishes, but that is almost solely due to the fact that he leads the league in passing attempts over the last two years AND he's got Calvin Johnson. Should Tannehill throw the ball 700 times in 2013, bam, he's instantly in the top 10. If he only throws the ball 500 times, is he a different player than if he'd gotten 700 attempts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you guys think Tannehill is worth in terms of a rookie draft pick this year? I'm thinking about trying to trade for him. Standard scoring, 4 pts/TD pass.

I traded the 3rd overall pick for him. It was before free agency too. I feel I may have overpaid a bit at the time, but I knew I needed a QB and liked him more than any qb in the draft. I think after tthe Dolphins spending spree, that price is justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there some stat that if a QB isn't in the top 10 in his first two years starting, it's highly unlikely he ever cracks that barrier?

This seems impossible with the current landscape of the NFL. When you have perennial studs like Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers, and throw in newcomers like RGIII, Luck, Kaep, Wilson, there are not a lot of spots left in the top 10. Where do you put guys like Cam, Ryan, Stafford, etc.??

The theory means almost nothing because breaking into the top 10 can be done on either talent OR opportunity. For instance, Stafford has back to back top 10 finishes, but that is almost solely due to the fact that he leads the league in passing attempts over the last two years AND he's got Calvin Johnson. Should Tannehill throw the ball 700 times in 2013, bam, he's instantly in the top 10. If he only throws the ball 500 times, is he a different player than if he'd gotten 700 attempts?

You need talent to get to those numbers though. Stafford is a #1 overall pick. It's not like he's Ryan Lindley out there. How far down the attempts list do you have to go to where you'd consider someone cracking the list solely because of opportunity? Gannon or Cutler? Bill Kenney? Tommy Kramer?

I don't think i or SSOG have claimed that this is an absolute, but when you are reaching back to 1983 to try to disprove this theory, it's probably easier to accept that more often than not if a guy hasn't broken through by his third year, he isn't going to do it.

Stafford's only top-10 finish was in 2011, even though he had 4 more attempts per game in 2012. You can say that 2011 was solely volume, but he was top-10 in pretty much every advanced metric and was top-5 in passer rating. If he had benefited only from attempts, his advanced metrics would have been mediocre, but Stafford was solidly top-10 in everything in 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you guys think Tannehill is worth in terms of a rookie draft pick this year? I'm thinking about trying to trade for him. Standard scoring, 4 pts/TD pass.

About a week before free agency I traded Ryan Broyles and rookie pick 3.7 for him. I'm sure most people assumed the Dolphins would add a key FA WR but adding that (Wallace) along with a seam stretching TE and quality third WR I would guess has increased his value.

I'm through the roof with Tannehill myself. Consider him a borderline top 10 dynasty QB's. Fantasy guys get to caught up in stats but I'm not sure how much better a rookie QB with less than 2 years of experience as a QB past the High School level with Brian Hartline as your #1 WR could have done. I think with weapons and another valuable year of experience we see a whole new Tannehill this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you guys think Tannehill is worth in terms of a rookie draft pick this year? I'm thinking about trying to trade for him. Standard scoring, 4 pts/TD pass.

About a week before free agency I traded Ryan Broyles and rookie pick 3.7 for him. I'm sure most people assumed the Dolphins would add a key FA WR but adding that (Wallace) along with a seam stretching TE and quality third WR I would guess has increased his value.

I'm through the roof with Tannehill myself. Consider him a borderline top 10 dynasty QB's. Fantasy guys get to caught up in stats but I'm not sure how much better a rookie QB with less than 2 years of experience as a QB past the High School level with Brian Hartline as your #1 WR could have done. I think with weapons and another valuable year of experience we see a whole new Tannehill this year.

Curb Your Enthusiasm ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there some stat that if a QB isn't in the top 10 in his first two years starting, it's highly unlikely he ever cracks that barrier?

This seems impossible with the current landscape of the NFL. When you have perennial studs like Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers, and throw in newcomers like RGIII, Luck, Kaep, Wilson, there are not a lot of spots left in the top 10. Where do you put guys like Cam, Ryan, Stafford, etc.??

The theory means almost nothing because breaking into the top 10 can be done on either talent OR opportunity. For instance, Stafford has back to back top 10 finishes, but that is almost solely due to the fact that he leads the league in passing attempts over the last two years AND he's got Calvin Johnson. Should Tannehill throw the ball 700 times in 2013, bam, he's instantly in the top 10. If he only throws the ball 500 times, is he a different player than if he'd gotten 700 attempts?

You need talent to get to those numbers though. Stafford is a #1 overall pick. It's not like he's Ryan Lindley out there. How far down the attempts list do you have to go to where you'd consider someone cracking the list solely because of opportunity? Gannon or Cutler? Bill Kenney? Tommy Kramer?

I don't think i or SSOG have claimed that this is an absolute, but when you are reaching back to 1983 to try to disprove this theory, it's probably easier to accept that more often than not if a guy hasn't broken through by his third year, he isn't going to do it.

Stafford's only top-10 finish was in 2011, even though he had 4 more attempts per game in 2012. You can say that 2011 was solely volume, but he was top-10 in pretty much every advanced metric and was top-5 in passer rating. If he had benefited only from attempts, his advanced metrics would have been mediocre, but Stafford was solidly top-10 in everything in 2011.

Fair enough. If you were allowed only one piece of information then this might be useful, but situation obviously plays such a huge role in this, that unless you just don't have time to lightly analyze situation then this rule just isn't very useful. I mean, if Tannehill were to throw the ball less than 500 times this season, would you write him off? What if Russell Wilson runs a conservative offense again and finishes just outside the top 10?

As an A&M grad, I found Tannehill kind of error prone so I'm not overly excited about him, but at the same time he was very green, not having played until almost halfway into his junior year. So I've got to cut him some slack. 13 INTs in 484 attempts isn't terrible for a rookie, so there's reason for optimism this year. His O-line is a concern but he's mobile although he doesn't always play like it - which is commendable in a way. Nobody want to see their QB scrambling at the slightest hint of pressure.

Given his youth and measurables, I can see why some would consider him a borderline top 10 dynasty QB. How many more good years can you expect out of Brady and Manning? Just looking at the current staff rankings, I'm not sure it would take a lot to pass guys like Ryan and Stafford as far as talent goes, but they do have great situations. Eli and Flacco aren't really intimidating, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there some stat that if a QB isn't in the top 10 in his first two years starting, it's highly unlikely he ever cracks that barrier?

This seems impossible with the current landscape of the NFL. When you have perennial studs like Brady, Brees, Manning, Rodgers, and throw in newcomers like RGIII, Luck, Kaep, Wilson, there are not a lot of spots left in the top 10. Where do you put guys like Cam, Ryan, Stafford, etc.??

The theory means almost nothing because breaking into the top 10 can be done on either talent OR opportunity. For instance, Stafford has back to back top 10 finishes, but that is almost solely due to the fact that he leads the league in passing attempts over the last two years AND he's got Calvin Johnson. Should Tannehill throw the ball 700 times in 2013, bam, he's instantly in the top 10. If he only throws the ball 500 times, is he a different player than if he'd gotten 700 attempts?

You need talent to get to those numbers though. Stafford is a #1 overall pick. It's not like he's Ryan Lindley out there. How far down the attempts list do you have to go to where you'd consider someone cracking the list solely because of opportunity? Gannon or Cutler? Bill Kenney? Tommy Kramer?

I don't think i or SSOG have claimed that this is an absolute, but when you are reaching back to 1983 to try to disprove this theory, it's probably easier to accept that more often than not if a guy hasn't broken through by his third year, he isn't going to do it.

Stafford's only top-10 finish was in 2011, even though he had 4 more attempts per game in 2012. You can say that 2011 was solely volume, but he was top-10 in pretty much every advanced metric and was top-5 in passer rating. If he had benefited only from attempts, his advanced metrics would have been mediocre, but Stafford was solidly top-10 in everything in 2011.

Fair enough. If you were allowed only one piece of information then this might be useful, but situation obviously plays such a huge role in this, that unless you just don't have time to lightly analyze situation then this rule just isn't very useful. I mean, if Tannehill were to throw the ball less than 500 times this season, would you write him off? What if Russell Wilson runs a conservative offense again and finishes just outside the top 10?

As an A&M grad, I found Tannehill kind of error prone so I'm not overly excited about him, but at the same time he was very green, not having played until almost halfway into his junior year. So I've got to cut him some slack. 13 INTs in 484 attempts isn't terrible for a rookie, so there's reason for optimism this year. His O-line is a concern but he's mobile although he doesn't always play like it - which is commendable in a way. Nobody want to see their QB scrambling at the slightest hint of pressure.

Given his youth and measurables, I can see why some would consider him a borderline top 10 dynasty QB. How many more good years can you expect out of Brady and Manning? Just looking at the current staff rankings, I'm not sure it would take a lot to pass guys like Ryan and Stafford as far as talent goes, but they do have great situations. Eli and Flacco aren't really intimidating, either.

Personally, I never intended for the look to be definitive, merely suggestive. I never meant for it to be interpreted as "if you don't crack the top 10 in your first 2 years as a starter, there's less than a 10% chance you'll ever do so!", I meant more for it to be interpreted as "Wow, I think we're all underrating just how quickly good QBs become fantasy viable, and how rare it is for a QB to deviate from this pattern". And also, to some degree, I meant it to be an indictment of just how low of a threshold "fantasy QB1" really is. Maybe 20 guys a year are going to play 15+ games. If you're one of them for several years running and yet you can't crack the top 12, that needs to be a serious red flag.

Again, though, this was never intended as definitive. Ben Roethlisberger started his career with poor fantasy stats, but it was obvious to anyone who watched him that he was awesome, and I hitched my wagon to him in plenty of leagues figuring his production would eventually follow his talent. I said when I originally did the comparison (back in 2010) that while it suggested Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco were unlikely to ever be fantasy QB1s, I very much doubted that both of those guys would miss. I think we're seeing more of a shift towards starting QBs younger and earlier and letting them develop on the job, to the point where I don't know if today's results will exactly mirror the results of the last two decades. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore those results entirely. We can use them to INFORM our beliefs even as we question their usefulness to FORM our beliefs. The Form/Inform distinction is a very important one, and it's one that I've hammered on essentially since I first joined, back when people assumed that the fact I looked at numbers and historical trends meant I just looked at box scores and didn't actually watch any football. Historical analysis should be used as a supplement to all the other tools in your belt, not as a replacement for them, especially since the most valuable assets in fantasy football will always be the outliers (Jerry Rice, Emmitt Smith, Adrian Peterson last year), and historical analysis, by its very definition, will not and can not predict outliers.

I agree with you that Tannehill is a unique case and deserves to be treated like one. Comparing Ryan Tannehill, (who started week 1 of 2012 after 1.5 years as a college starter and 0 years in the NFL), to Philip Rivers, (who started week 1 of 2006 after 4 years as a college starter and 2 years in the NFL), doesn't make sense. At the same time, I think it is useful and valuable to make the observation that, historically, great QBs have very quickly reached some minimum threshold of acceptability (defined here as "fantasy QB1"), and that QBs who have failed to quickly reach that threshold have seldom proven themselves great over a longer timeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I am not sold they opened up the playbook very much. I am not going to question the decision making of an athlete that has played the position less than 3 full years. He was a project when they drafted him at 8 and probably should have been drafted later. The fact he beat out Garrard and Moore (not a tremendous feat but still) in camp says he has the "it" factor. Those guys were not supreme options but Moore is quite competent even though he is never going to put you over the top. With the lack of talent surrounding him I was pleasantly surprised with Tannehill's performance and have no trouble having him on my FF team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sold they opened up the playbook very much. I am not going to question the decision making of an athlete that has played the position less than 3 full years. He was a project when they drafted him at 8 and probably should have been drafted later. The fact he beat out Garrard and Moore (not a tremendous feat but still) in camp says he has the "it" factor. Those guys were not supreme options but Moore is quite competent even though he is never going to put you over the top. With the lack of talent surrounding him I was pleasantly surprised with Tannehill's performance and have no trouble having him on my FF team.

Garrard was actually named the starter but he got hurt. But I do agree he's shown some "It" factor. Mostly in the way he's taken hits and commanded the offense. He got knocked out of that game vs the Jets but he toughed it out and came back next week and started all 16 games. I think a vertical weapon like Wallace is the perfect match for his skills and Tannehill has BigBen upside, easily. Might even have a chance to be on that next level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's about to take a leap not matter what but how much is going to depend on what they do with that line. If I'm not mistaken I read a breakdown on PFF that showed when given time to throw, and I can't recall their arbitrary cutoff of time but I think it was 2.6 seconds, he has the best improvement in QB rating and accuracy of any QB in the NFL when compared to having less than 2.6 seconds. So as of now it's a bit of concern in that the OL right now seems worse since they lost Long but if they can address that along with his continued growth and weapons I still maintain his upside is a fantasy starting QB which I consider to be inside the top 12. I'd not want to go into a season with him as my starter but I'd rather roster a high upside guy like him than a more proven QB2 like a Jay Cutler as an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sold they opened up the playbook very much. I am not going to question the decision making of an athlete that has played the position less than 3 full years. He was a project when they drafted him at 8 and probably should have been drafted later. The fact he beat out Garrard and Moore (not a tremendous feat but still) in camp says he has the "it" factor. Those guys were not supreme options but Moore is quite competent even though he is never going to put you over the top. With the lack of talent surrounding him I was pleasantly surprised with Tannehill's performance and have no trouble having him on my FF team.

Garrard was actually named the starter but he got hurt. But I do agree he's shown some "It" factor. Mostly in the way he's taken hits and commanded the offense. He got knocked out of that game vs the Jets but he toughed it out and came back next week and started all 16 games. I think a vertical weapon like Wallace is the perfect match for his skills and Tannehill has BigBen upside, easily. Might even have a chance to be on that next level.

Well, to be fair, Garrard was named the "preseason week 1" starter prior to having knee surgery. Sorry for the nit pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...