Devil's Advocate View on Paying Tannehill

[Jonboy]

 

[TheBukafax]

That’s not really devils advocate. Anybody with half a brain knows he will have regression. The question is what regression will it be? A gradual slope down to somewhere slightly above his previous years play or a straight nose dive?

Edited December 10, 2019 by TheBukafax

[rns90]

The Titans don't really have many options here.  So they're kind of stuck with paying him anyway.

[tgo]

They're not factoring in what he's being asked to do in our offense and the fact that his mistakes are covered up with a superbowl roster, a great running game, and a championship caliber defense. 

 

Again, he's not having to carry the offense, and furthermore he can regress quite a bit and still be better than any other options that we have. 

 

It's not like he turned into Tom Brady overnight. He's being asked to do things he's good at here and not being asked to do things that he's not good at or to carry the team. He's distributing the ball to the good players that Robinson has acquired and letting them do the rest of the work. 

 

He's playing within an offense that has been tailored to his skillset. 

 

This is why it's critical to keep Henry in order to sustain Tannehill's success to some degree next year and to keep him healthy. 

Edited December 10, 2019 by tgo

[Jonboy]

4 minutes ago, TheBukafax said:

That’s not really devils advocate. Anybody with half a brain knows he will have regression. The question is what regression will it be? A gradual slope down to somewhere slightly above his previous years play or a straight nose dive?

 

If you click the link in the first tweet, the title of the article is "The Titans would be foolish to make a long-term bet on Ryan Tannehill's sudden greatness." 

 

Pretty sure that's a devil's advocate view to paying him long-term.

[Jonboy]

4 minutes ago, tgo said:

They're not factoring in what he's being asked to do in our offense and the fact that his mistakes are covered up with a superbowl roster, a running game, and a championship caliber defense. 

 

Again, he's not having to carry the offense, and furthermore he can regress quite a bit and still be better than any other options that we have. 

 

This was my question in a twitter reply to him. Even when you factor in a regression, does he really think there are going to be better options in FA or late in round 1? Because I'm not seeing them.

[reo]

13 minutes ago, Jonboy said:

 

 

That article says a lot without really saying anything. 

[BudsOilers]

Problem is that they are in win now mode.  If it’s not Tannehill, it’s Brady or Rivers or someone like Dalton.  Of those options, Tannehill is already established in the team and offense.

 

The team already demonstrated the ability to pay a QB $ 21 M to not be able to execute the offense.  Paying $27 M -$ 30 M for someone that can is worth it.

[rns90]

The Case Keenum comparison is sort of weak too.  Tannehill had a couple of 4K seasons in his career.  And even if he regresses to a slightly better version of Miami Tannehill that's probably still in the top half of NFL QB's and worth whatever they pay him.

Edited December 10, 2019 by rns90

[tgo]

1 minute ago, rns90 said:

The Case Keenum comparison is sort of weak too.  Tannehill had a couple of 4K seasons in his career.  And even if he regresses to a slightly better version of Miami Tannehill that's probably still in the top half of NFL QB's and worth whatever they pay him.

 

Tannehill has always been out of Keenum's league and has always had infinitely higher upside. 

[TerryBoats]

8 minutes ago, tgo said:

They're not factoring in what he's being asked to do in our offense and the fact that his mistakes are covered up with a superbowl roster, a great running game, and a championship caliber defense. 

 

Again, he's not having to carry the offense, and furthermore he can regress quite a bit and still be better than any other options that we have. 

 

It's not like he turned into Tom Brady overnight. He's being asked to do things he's good at here and not being asked to do things that he's not good at or to carry the team. He's distributing the ball to the good players that Robinson has acquired and letting them do the rest of the work. 

 

He's playing within an offense that has been tailored to his skillset. 

 

This is why it's critical to keep Henry in order to sustain Tannehill's success to some degree next year and to keep him healthy. 

You do realize that these things apply to Brady as well, right?

[tgo]

1 minute ago, abc2330 said:

You do realize that these things apply to Brady as well, right?

 

Well then there ya go. 

[Callidus]

This article is dumb. Ofc the chances of him sustaining this are low but acting like he is gona fall off a cliff is dumb as well. He has been consistently average his whole career and it may have been the scheme or talent around him that was the cause. He also Might suck and he is just playing out of his mind. But I think it the former not the latter.

[PhinFan1968]

Here's my issue with it.  You have the money (summary) paragraph in the Football Outsiders article the guy links to support his argument that the Titans would be fools to make a long-term bet on Tannehill:

 

"At some point, this absurd run from Tennessee has to come to a stop. Henry can't keep putting up over 150 yards each game and it's tough to imagine Tannehill has suddenly bloomed into an elite quarterback in his eighth professional season. When it does begin to slow down, however, there should be no complaints about them being an average or slightly above average unit. The passing offense under Mariota was anemic in a way that actively held the team back, whereas Tannehill's guidance of the offense at least provides Tennessee the means to compete in every single game."

 

OF COURSE their current level of play won't continue forever...it's basically impossible.  But...

 

1.  Henry was gimped against Oakland, and got 103 yards, not the 150 they're saying Tannehill can't survive without...and Tannehill lit it up.

2. QB can't bloom into elite after 8 years...and why not?  Brady did after 9-10.  Others have after several years...Gannon, Warner, Young, etc.  Tannehill got a late start at the position...most QBs are QBs all through college into their NFL career...he's behind that curve.

3. Why wouldn't you sign a QB to a franchise deal, if he gives you "the means to compete in every single game?" 

 

Useless article.

Edited December 10, 2019 by PhinFan1968

[9 Nines]

I think Mariota will "regress" more.