What's the difference between blind homer...

Since Luck lost Reggie Wayne, he has looked very poor. Really gives you perspective into the humongous help that is having a veteran talented receiver for your young QB, no matter how "polished" he might be.

 

Tannehill is the QB of the future for us, but attacking posters for attacking Tannehill is stupid, why is there no room for critiquing his game? Calling people trolls for not agreeing with the majority is terrible.

 

Again, not that you'll read this, but many of the people that are "critiquing" Tannehill's game today are the same people that refuse to critique Wallace's game.

When people are giving a pass to a vet who doesn't fight for the ball or adjust his routes accordingly or catch the ball when it hits him in the hands, but then blasts a 2nd year QB for making a ridiculous throw 60+ yards while getting clobbered...then an agenda is obvious.

 

I do both, why does it have to be one or the other?

 

Honestly....

I think the problem lies in how everyone prefaces their arguments.
Just sayin Tannehill sucks time to draft a new QB, that gets people pissed when they are clearly already frustrated.

Just sayin Tannehill is a future hall of famer, gets the people who see him miss a wide open Michael Wallace running down the sideline 5 feet infront of the defender pissed.



I think with better posting, we would save a lot of these arguments personally.

 

Ryan Tannehill is an average QB with average talent around him and an average coaching staff. I'm not sure why these things are as controversial as they are.

 

Because....Stringer, some people see him as having the potential to be better then average. Average has taken on a negative connotation, because the common belief is that you cannot win with an average QB.

 

Can we all just agree that before we judge either, we need a goddam oline and a run game? haha

 

Id settle for that. Fo damn sho....

 

What do you mean you do both?

You critique Tannehill but refuse to critique Wallace? Do you not see that's what I wrote?

 

You can't be a consistent contender with an average QB IMO. You can have a season where everything comes together and contend. But over time you're going to be an average team. Thats how the league is.

 

He's an average QB with serious above average potential with a some average and some above average talent and some below average talent and an average coaching staff.

 

Tannehill shouldn't be The offense of the Miami Dolphins. When you make him pass over 40 times and expect perfection on each throw, then that's not fair. When you call a sweep on 1st down and it loses 3-4 yards each time and expect Tannehill to bail you out with his arm or legs, then that's not fair. When you throw a perfect hail mary and your star receiver drops it then the team is not doing what it needs to to help their QB.

 

Agreed.

But you see where the issue is when you use the word Average like you do. It seems, not saying you are, but it seems as though you are saying all he will be is an average QB.

I think the jury is out till we build a better line around him.

I think he has enough weapons to judge him with, as I think a better line would have our RBs playing better as well.

 

What kind of team would we have with a better Oline. Everything else being the same.....just a better oline.

 

at least 7-4.

 

At this point he is average. Nobody knows how he is going to develop. There are probably a dozen QBs that you could say are in the same position as Ryan Tannehill. They have potential to be great, but are just average at this point.

I don't think the OL issues are as bad as advertised. There aren't many teams in this league that have OLs that make the QB look better. Even the ones that do aren't going to be able to do it consistently.

 

44 sacks, say you're wrong about the oline as do games like yesterday and tampa, when running the ball.

 

There are plenty of other relevant stats than sacks.

 

Well, now that you put it this way...

 

This.
Everything about this franchise from the owner down to 3rd stringers is average.

 

yeah every team has pro bowlers when it comes to 3rd stringers, except for us

 

Good reading comprehension dude....

 

I really cannot understand this continued fixation with the QB flaws, as if they, and they alone, are the sole and preponderant reason for this team struggles.

It really boggles my mind, that someone can watch this team and really come out thinking that there aren't about 5 or 6 bigger issues than QB play.


Keep your eyes on the ball people.

 

Do you think Tannehill can evolve into an above average QB? Honest question, I respect your opinion either way. I think he can. He's shown marked improvement from last season to this season. Until he stops improving, I'll be a believer that he can become a franchise QB.

 

Sure.

 

No, I critique them both, Wallace has been terrible for the most part.

 

Thats pretty much the business model that NFL has developed. The game revolves around the QB. If you have an elite QB, you're team is going to consistently be a contender. If you don't have an elite QB, you're going to be up and down from year to year.

 

Matt Ryan is in many eyes an elite QB...so is Eli Manning....Yet they are having quite a down year...myth busted.

 

You can cherry pick a single year, but that doesn't really change the totality of what their teams have done.

 

That's not exactly 100% true. You can have a system that truly maximizes all your talent on the field, an elite QB just makes you that much better. I see the Steelers and the Ravens, and while they have above average QBs, they are by no means elite. Yet they continue to compete year after year.
Even on a mediocre year by their standards, like this one, they are in much better shape because they have a system.

Look at the Patriots too. Granted they have an elite QB, but Brady has not looked elite this year. They're system makes players better.

Elite QB certainly makes everything easier, but so does good coaching and a good system.

 

Um ok, then why comment on my post the way you did?

I very clearly, said:

If that doesn't apply to you why do you say:

I and others are clearly talking about a specific group of people that is clearly defined as people who blast Tannehill but refuse to critique Wallace.

 

Right, there will always be exceptions to every rule. If you have a Bill Belichick or Ozzie Newsome, you're the exception to the rule. Those are first-ballot HOF, once in a generation types.

 

Sorry, I didn't know you guys had an agenda but you first responded to me that there are people who will criticize Tanny and not Wallace and I said "I do both", what was I suppose to say?

 

There is nothing wrong with Tannehill that can't be solved with better coaching. Having a loser (Sherman) calling his plays, an In-Law as his QB coach and a moron coaching his line is a disaster.

 

You claimed that people are blasting anyone that says anything bad about Tannehill. I tried, clearly in vain, to explain to you that people were not doing that but rater going after the people who blame Tannehill and don't criticize Wallace.

You were supposed to say, "Ok, my bad. Carry on."