Ryan Tannehill's Career-Defining Game

[Dolfanalyst]

Allow me to refresh your memory: in week 16 of the 2013 season, MIA was in a 2-way tie for the #6 seed at 8-6, had just come off of a 24-20 over NE, and had they won either of their final two games, would have made the playoffs.

That's precisely what I meant above.  Tannehill's QB ratings in those two games were in the 40s.

[Spider-Dan]

At some point he's going to have to play very well in 1) a game with a lot of meaning and importance, 2) against a team with a good defense, when 3) the run game isn't likely to sustain the offense and he therefore has to carry it.

In other words, he has to win a clutch game, to simply show he has that capacity.  Through the first four years of his career, he failed to demonstrate that in my opinion, despite having some opportunities.

Again, week 15 of 2013:  7-6 Dolphins hosting the 10-3 Patriots, needing a win to keep pace for the #6 seed.

Tannehill goes 25/37 for 312yds/3TD/0INT, for a 120.3 passer rating.  He throws 2 fourth quarter TDs, including a game-winning TD to come from behind with 1:15 remaining.  MIA rushes for less than 100 yards as a team.

The game you are looking for already exists.

[Dolfanalyst]

Again, week 15 of 2013:  7-6 Dolphins hosting the 10-3 Patriots, needing a win to keep pace for the #6 seed.

Tannehill goes 25/37 for 312yds/3TD/0INT, for a 120.3 passer rating.  He throws 2 fourth quarter TDs, including a game-winning TD to come from behind with 1:15 remaining.  MIA rushes for less than 100 yards as a team.

The game you are looking for already exists.

One would think, and yes Tannehill did play well that day, but New England's defense that year was in fact not very good.  The defenses he faced the following two weeks (Buffalo and New York's), when he played very poorly, were actually a decent bit better.

Moreover, the loss today was in the Gase era, which suggests that Tannehill's issues in games with meaning and importance are not a function of coaching, but of something within him.

[Spider-Dan]

You are ignoring the "important games" in which he does well and only focusing on the ones in which he does poorly, so your conclusion is predictable.

Furthermore, you have identified as an "important game" an opponent ranked in the bottom 10 in offense.  Wouldn't a more important game (for a QB) be one against a high-ranked offense, where the MIA offense should be expected to have to put up a lot of points?  The fact that the MIA defense let a low-ranked offense score three TDs in the first half is not something the QB should plan for.

[Baba Booey]

You are ignoring the "important games" in which he does well and only focusing on the ones in which he does poorly, so your conclusion is predictable.

Thank you for pointing that out!

[Dolfanalyst]

You are ignoring the "important games" in which he does well and only focusing on the ones in which he does poorly, so your conclusion is predictable.

The point was about important games against good defenses, in which the QB would likely have to play like one of the league's best to surmount the opposition.

Again, the distinction here is between the game-winner and the game manager.  The game manager is likely to play well against poorer defenses, and play more poorly against good ones.

I'm focusing on the games he's played well and the ones he's played poorly, but like usual, you aren't reading the entirety of what I'm posting.

[Dolfanalyst]

Since 2004, there have been 841 games between weeks 13 and 17 of the regular season in which a team with a winning record played another team.

In other words, there have been over 800 games in which a team with a winning record played a meaningful game, as games 13 through 17 of the regular season are roughly when the playoff race heats up each year.

In only 27 of those games (3.2%) was that team with the winning record beaten by 28 or more points.

In only 7 of those games (0.8%) was the team with the winning record beaten by 32 or more points.

What the Dolphins did today happens very, very rarely, and suggests that they likely have no business being considered a legitimate playoff team.

[Spider-Dan]

Again, the distinction here is between the game-winner and the game manager.  The game manager is likely to play well against poorer defenses, and play more poorly against good ones.

You have it precisely backwards.

Against a team with a good defense but a bad offense, a game manager simply takes care of the ball, keeps the game close, and hopes for a play by the defense or special teams.

Against a team with a high-powered offense (and ANY defense), you need your offense to go out and score points to keep pace.  Simply managing the game will get you blown out.

[Run Ricky Run]

Tannehill is a loser and will never make the playoffs. The same people who are defending him are the same people who appointed henne and kept making excuses for him every year. If tannehill was released no good team would pick him up. He is a backup qb. He lacks the intangibles to make him a winning NFL qb.

[Dolfanalyst]

You have it precisely backwards.

Against a team with a good defense but a bad offense, a game manager simply takes care of the ball, keeps the game close, and hopes for a play by the defense or special teams.

Against a team with a high-powered offense (and ANY defense), you need your offense to go out and score points to keep pace.  Simply managing the game will get you blown out.

The point is about what can likely be said about a QB's ability as a function of 1) the importance of the game, and 2) the strength of the defense he's facing.

If a QB tends to play well against poorer defenses in important games, while tending to play poorly against good defenses in important games, what does that likely say about his ability?