You're right....let's be fair. Who's fault is it? I took the time to look up statistics and you ignored them. I took the time to list out players fired in Tannehill's wake...and you ignored that too. Then I list out things he does horribly wrong and you say, "Let's be fair." So explain to me how we do that when you refuse to see anything except what you want to see. I'm all ears.
Ridiculous things? They were NFL statistics that can easily be verified if you weren't in such a state of disbelief. But you and a few others would rather stick to your guns and make every thread about Tannehill 35+ pages just to ensure that nobody else ever gets to state an opinion. Because, let's face it, the truth hurts when you've been dead wrong for four straight years....so why let a silly little thing like statistics get in your way? It's so much easier to just blame it on a random player, coach or assistant and keep pretending. Maybe you don't know how snapping the ball with the Fins forks. Tannehill looks at the guard to signal that he's ready, and in turn the guard signals to Pouncey to snap the ball. That happened on both plays, on the one yard line, and somehow Tannehill wasn't ready for either of them. Were they bad snaps? One of the two was, but it was certainly catchable if Tannehill was paying attention. But make no mistake, he called for the snap both times and then somehow stopped being ready. There's no signal to call off a snap that you've already called because....well, why would there be? Either you're ready or you're not.
I said top rated QBs meaning the first round since, you know, Ryan was a 1st rounder. Chances are teams drafting a qb beyond the first already have a vet in place. Going by the past 10 seasons including the current one: 2006 Cutler Leinart V.Young only Cutler sat for most of the season. ____ 2007 both JaMarcus & B.Quinn sat for most ____ 2008 M.Ryan Flacco ____ 2009 Stafford Sanchez Freeman ____ 2010 Bradford Tebow Tim played in 9 gms but none of us should confuse him with the other traditional QBs ____ 2011 Cam J.Locker Gabbert C.Ponder only Locker sat for most ____ 2012 Luck RG3 THill Weeden ____ 2013 EJ Manuel ____ 2014 Bortles Manziel Teddy B Just Manziel ____ 2015 Jameis Maroita So that's 5 out of 26 (or 25 excluding Tebow) 19 and 20%. That's the 10 year trend. I agree in an ideal situation coaches want to protect the rookie and have him watch from the sideline. But unless the league turns back the clock it aint happening in today's microwave - gotta have it now - pressure from owner, fans & media - NFL I like how you tried to use the handpicked "elites" in an effort to prove a point. Brees, Palmer, Eli & Rivers all had decent vets in front of them. Rodgers & brady? C'Mon man. If it wasn't for Favre being a major douche Aaron would've started. Yeah everyone including the cheaters knew brady would perform like a first rounder so much so they waited until the sixth rd to nab their future signal caller.
Another QB who would need a lot of coaching up, and weekly preparation to put him in a position to succeed and grow for the future by a good, solid, experienced coaching staff ... that, given the course of recent history in Miami, we won't hire. Sounds like a great idea to me...
Really? I think EVERYONE gets to state their opinion. Over and over and over. I'm sorry, I disagree strongly with the things you've mentioned. I find them to be petty, and not Tannehill's fault. Frankly, you seem more set on not listening to other's points of view than I.
There's a logic disconnect here. The thread is about what we need to do for a our roster. By that very title, the only way this thread becomes about Tannehill is by the anti-Tannehill crowd saying he needs to be replaced. That means you guys are the ones that turned this into a Tannehill thread. Also, please highlight anything in your last 3 or 4 posts that indicates you're ok with people posting their differing opinion? Was it this: Maybe it was this where you're going off on someone whose not even really arguing with you: Was this in favor of differing opinions:
LOL. I've got news for you. When the QUARTERBACK is still scanning the defense, and the ball is snapped, that's a premature snap. Billy Turner, you know, the guy making his third career start on a short week in Foxboro, tapped Pouncey too early. Dan Campbell said it. Billy Turner said it. Mike Pouncey alluded to it. As I've been saying for weeks, there's enough legit things to put on Tannehill's shoulders. Stop inventing new ones.
Since this dude has been around forever and clearly knows more about football than most, I will be hitching my wagon to his star. Preach on! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some of us like Tannehill, some dont. I consider myself somewhere in the middle. But there seems to be a growing segment of folks w pitchforks, criticizing RT from a position of almost complete cluelessness when it comes to properly analyzing the QB position. To the OP, the Dolphins need to decide what kind of team they want to be before any definite list of needs is made. Offensively I'd go w a pro style. FB, TE, more balance, less dependence on the pass. That means bigger, more physical OL, traditional TE type. On defense get back to more man/quarters and less cover 3. Meaning LBs w more range and CBs who can run w people. Cover 3 simply will not be effective w/o a good FS and a pass rush that creates pressure consistently w/o blitzing.
Good idea. CK is great. We have a lot of great members here. Most of them post in Club and not surprisingly, that's where the good, level-headed Ryan Tannehill debates take place.
I live for the posts of some members of the Club. It's hard to engage with most other posters unless it's because they say something kind of absurd.
And I asked you nicely three times...several pages ago...if it's not Tannehill's fault, then who's fault is it? But your only reply is how wrong I've been, without offering a shred of anything to say why. Which means you're just trolling for the sake of trolling...but I'm the petty one?
Sometimes I disagree, and I don't want to inflate his head anymore than it is but my fantasy dynasty team is kicking *** with Russell Wilson (stolen in the 17th round his rookie year), Allen Robinson and TJ Yeldon (who I chose over Ameer Abdulla) solely based off of Ck's posts. I bank on his analysis. Scored 170 points last weekend in standard scoring. Average score is 90ish. Bank!
I must be the only guy under 30 in America who doesn't play fantasy football. You might as well be speaking a different language. I thought you drafted a team every season?
Yes, I was the first to suggest that we take a QB in the first round- But immediately, folks came to Tannehill's defense. Which is fine...we debated back and forth. That's what a forum is for...until the trolls show up. For example, your first post here completely ignored the OP to inform us that Tannehill has already proven he's a top 5 to top 10 QB- And in my reply, I showed where PFF has ten teams with worse quarterback pressures, yet their QB's are putting up much more respectable numbers (I quoted Wilson as an example since he's the most pressured QB for the past 2 seasons). I also pointed out where Football outsiders ranked Tannehill 27th overall in defense adjusted yards and where ESPN has him 30th in Total QB rating...which are the about only stats out there that don't automatically give the QB credit for YAC. For the record, Wilson is ranked 6th and 7th in those same categories...with the worst line in football. And out of the QB's ranked 28th-31st by Football Outsiders, all but one of them (Luck) are sitting the bench. But Luck's also been playing hurt, so at least that partially explains why he's so bad this year. So how is someone like Wilson pressured more often, with an inferior line, yet he's wearing a Super Bowl ring and 32-12 W/L over the past 3 seasons? Statistics say that it's not specifically just the line and we've fired or replaced every other facet of our team around Tannehill. So how can Tannehill consistently be less productive than 26 other NFL starters yet not be at fault? I tried to type that out as civilly as I possibly could and you'll notice, I haven't flamed you (or anyone else) back yet. I am simply asking a very direct question backed by statistics from two major football sites, and I'd appreciate if you (or Resnor...or anyone) could answer it directly without some generic answer. In other words, let's end this debate....you have my facts, now let's see yours.
Dynasty you keep your core (8, or 10 or whatever the league decides) and draft the rest. Keepers you might keep a couple. Regular you draft every year. My QBs started with Eli and Wilson. Eli sucked for two years so we dropped him. Wilson's been our starter. I've had Tannehill on and off and thought this was the year he was going to exceed last year so I kept him. He's put up some stinkers this year in standard scoring. I think I posted the link up earlier this year, but Tanny finished in top 10 scoring fantasy wise last year. However, some pundits noted, he had a very low success rate, meaning he was a top scorer but had many games below average so he would score a bunch of points in bunches, then have too many stinkers. Now, this is fantasy not real life but the points are based off his performance. He was inconsistent last year and this as well.
Don't feel bad. I've emerged on the other side of the whole fantasy thing. I'm 34 and don't play fantasy at all because I'm pretty much over that sh-t, lol.
Is what Tannehill's fault? There are things that are his fault, or partly his fault. There are things that aren't his fault. I posted some of your things that I don't agree are his fault. It didn't really matter who's fault they are, in regards to me disagreeing with them.
How could Wilson have a ring? How could Wilson have better coaching, better scheming, better run game, and better defense? Yes, Tannehill lacks Wilson's escapability. It's why he struggles worse than Wilson behind a slightly not as bad oline. It's why we've argued that Tannehill needs decent oline play.
We aren't dsicussing this from the same mindset. I'll say this though, this is how you can be right about your point of view yet still lose an argument because of the approach to communicating in a way that's off-putting to others. And effectively communicating in a way other people care to hear does matter in a conversation, debate, discussion, whatever... without being heard by others you may as well just be thinking inside your own head. Even if you're right, it'll go nowhere.
Really? He's being an apologist and trashing the OL when there's already been comparisons of other QBs with similar or worse OLs. I've already posted this data. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Someone raised the idea of considering NFL QB years of experience as years starting and playing, and you countered by pointing out years as a non-starting QB or QB on the bench as if they were of equal value. I raised the point that there is a spectrum whereby actually being in QB meetings is valuable but being in QB meetings PLUS practicing PLUS starting on Sundays was more valuable, so maybe you could consider Drew Brees' year with only one start as a "half year" of experience -- I did this as a compromise between two rigid and unrealistic positions: 1) that a year NOT starting is a full value year of NFL experience (your position) and 2) that a year as a non-starter in the NFL is not to be counted as a year of experience at ALL (the other poster's position). I proposed the 'half' a year as a way of pointing out that there is value, but LESS value than if the person was an actual starter. I would think this is common sense. However, your reply was a pointed (dare I say snarky) declaration that any year on a roster is value "period". Clearly meant to drive home the absoluteness of your correctness. Also a ridiculous, unnecessary and off-putting tone to take. My reply was that if you insist there is NO distinction between the value of being a QB who never (or barely) starts and a QB who starts all or most games, then you have to consider all years of Ryan's college as QB experience years. Your counter, above, is common sense and I agree... yes, when you do not fully get to focus on doing all the things a QB does, you do not get FULL value. Thing is, Chris, if you acknowledge that it is true that not all chronological years are created fully equal, and that there is a spectrum of value where you learn more or less depending on what you do with that time during the year then it stands to reason that there is a difference in value between sitting in QB meetings in the NFL but not starting (like Brees did that year) and actually sitting in meetings AND playing Sundays. This whole back and forth just to seemingly agree that YES Drew Brees benefitted that year, but not as much as if he had started the games. Pretty straightforward when we don't slam down proclamations that are absolute, rigid and reek of the attitude 'that is the final word' or "/thread", "period". Let's talk with one another, not at one another from the soapboxes and podia.
I know cbrad has already explained that these rankings are far from perfect but it's all I can find. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol Take a look at the teams slightly ahead and all behind us in run and pass blocking. There's a lot of QBs on those teams that have played close to Tannehill's level, matched it or surpassed it. Once you factor in his pay, it's even clearer how little value he gives this team. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, we know these stats are unreliable, but since they are all you could find, they somehow become reliable enough to make your point? Interesting.
Your message of talking to instead of at each other is solid. The problem is you're delivering it to the wrong people.
Not to mention, I don't agree with the premise. Tell us which QBs, specifically, below us in those suspect ratings, you believe have matched or surpassed Tannehill. I have a feeling it's going to be mostly opinion based.
That's not supporting your opinion with any type of proof or statistics, but for the heck of it let's say you're 100% right and I'm 100% wrong on Wilson/Tannehill. That's one QB's Tannehill is less productive than on a weekly basis "that's not Tannehill's fault"....meaning that there's nothing he could ever do to play on Wilson's level. Now you have 29 more quarterbacks to go through to explain why he ranks 30th overall...since he's only ahead of injured Luck and old/injured Manning. And maybe you have the same answer for all of them- they have better coaches, better running games, better play-makers, etc. Maybe the entire organization plays at pro-bowl levels to make the QB look good...it really doesn't matter what "the excuse" actually is. Because Tannehill is still playing worse than every quarterback that has played the majority of the 2015 season besides Andrew Luck. PPC, Football Insiders, and ESPN all show these statistics clearly. And as much as you want it to be, that's not up for debate....I'm providing facts while you give opinions. FinsFanDan has been providing the same statistics and being ignored just as much. So with that FACT in mind, you're still saying that we should fire another coaching staff, overhaul yet another line, re-work an entirely new roster and continue this process until Tannehill finally has a solid game? Even when we could start Moore today (or most backup QB's in the league) and become instantly more productive? I'm not trying to be rude here but that's complete insanity...there's just no other way to say it. When you have the decision of replacing one player or replacing an entire organization, you send the player packing.
Why? He was remarking to a poster who he feels was condescending to him?? Who should he deliver it to??? People he DOESNT feel are talking to him incorrectly?
Lol, you must be new here. CK is far from an apologist when it comes to the Dolphins. He's as fair as anyone I've ever seen. Calls it right down the middle based on what he sees, not his fandom. Someone disagreeing with your stance doesn't make them an apologist.
Oh, it's definitely a lot of the posts on the forum, and in this thread. I addressed it in a previous post too. It's tiresome and with the Dolphins disappointing me this season, I'd like to at least have some pleasant discussion here as opposed to more bull****. To me, bull**** is when everyone exagerrates their position and dials up the extremity to be more polarized. Instead of actually exchanging thoughts and info in the spirit of a community, people begin lobbing set-in-stone exagerrated positions at one another like greek fire from a catapult.
Ofcourse they are opinion based?? Something like that is never factual. I think its safe to say that 9 of those teams below Miami have better QB situations overall. A couple were close each way...
I'm not saying he is an apologist. I'm saying he's being an apologist by deflecting to the OL in that post. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's fine. The first part of my post was clarifying the back and forth with CK. The last part sort of expanded into a comment on the whole polemical argumentativeness of this thread, which is about other posts too, and not CK-specific. I think my back and forth with Key felt the same way. Like I was being middle-grounsih and consensus-building but was respond to as if I'd been trying to bait him. That certainly wasn't my intention. I just don't get the contentiousness around all this. Can we not be reasonably moderate in our positions? Anyways, this is off topic now and I'll stop because it's not fair to discuss the posters. Apologies if I am offending people.
What are we supposed to go on? YOUR rankings? At least they lay out their objective method. There's something to it. The only doubt I have is the following. When Tannehill is blitzed, how do statisticians determine who's to blame? Is it the guard that was lined up in front of the blitzer or is it on Tannehill for not diagnosing it? When Miller breaks tackles but the OL opened decent holes, how much credit do you give to each? So we have to go on SOMETHING. If you're not going to propose a solution, your only goal is to ignore damning statistics against Tannehill. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again, since I had to explain why these stats aren't perfect (just like Passer Rating isn't), here's my post. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol Take a look at the teams slightly ahead and all behind us in run and pass blocking. There's a lot of QBs on those teams that have played close to Tannehill's level, matched it or surpassed it. Once you factor in his pay, it's even clearer how little value he gives this team. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not going to mention every QB within the criteria I've outlined for a simple reason. Some will disagree, the argument will change, and the point will be lost. I want YOU, meaning whoever is reading this, to take a look at the OL pass and run rankings, look at the teams slightly ahead of us and all behind us. Take note of the QBs who YOU believe have played close to Tannehill's level, matched it, or surpassed it. Then factor in their pay. Now tell yourself if you believe Tannehill is valuable to this team or not. Is he worth holding onto for another coaching staff? Has he shown enough promise outside of the one season under the magical Kelly offense that has been found out? I personally don't think so. I've done this exercise before. I've looked at Tannehill's stats. I've considered the supporting cast. I've looked at his pay. He should've shown more by now. Four seasons is enough. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
