Tua is not the Problem

Classic Sceeto. No football knowledge or real opinion. Just copy and paste.

 

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I felt bad for Zach Wilson tonight. And, Dolphins fans better be glad that Tua isn't a clueless, non-aware quarterback that Wilson is.

Be grateful of what you have under center.

 

I have the other one on ignore, so for a moment...

 

You can't say he's saying something, that he isn't saying, because you deem it to mean the same thing.

Just stop.

 

What were the multiple defenses?

 

You're running around calling people liars, calling people trolls, while lumping people together...it's not like you're your attempting to defuse the conversation or simply move on. You aren't a victim in this.

 

Just because some people didn't use the word "overrated", doesn't mean it wasn't implied.

 

Did you bother to read the conversation I linked to? Read from page 80-81:
https://thephins.com/threads/tua-is-not-the-problem.96818/page-80
https://thephins.com/threads/tua-is-not-the-problem.96818/page-81

Unless you have issues with English comprehension, the claims made there were about how Tua did not play well against good teams and good defenses. I and others pointed out that Buffalo's defense was ranked #1 (or #2) despite the injuries. In response, the argument was repeatedly made that Buffalo's #1/#2 ranking was not accurate for the game that we played against them because of the injuries. This was completely revisionist. It was not something claimed before the game, only after the game after Tua played well against Buffalo.

The issue here is not about using the word "overrated". I mean if it's about the word itself, then why not attack me for putting quotes around "oh the defenses he faced were overrated". I put the quotes around the entire phrase, not the word per se. No one said precisely that entire phrase. Clearly I'm referring to the claim that multiple posters here for multiple games claimed after the fact that strong defenses Tua played against were actually "overrated", and StaleTacos literally claimed the #1 ranking didn't apply to that game.

And I already explained what the multiple defenses were. You're not reading the posts. At minimum, both Buffalo games. What I said is true. In fact you explicitly agreed with it. There is no misrepresentation going on, and yes StaleTacos is a liar and a troll. I proved the former very clearly. The latter is an opinion.

 

Again, you're not attempting to defuse. Now you're insulting me and my grasp of English, wanting to argue with me. I could play your card, and talk about how I was an English major: voracious reader who always scored phenomenally on reading comprehension tested.

But I won't. I'll just say, again, that you are claiming people are saying things, that they didn't say, because, in your opinion, they mean the same thing.

Stop it.

 

Of course I'm not going to defuse. I was falsely accused of misrepresenting things by someone who repeatedly made false claims. And yes I'll accuse you of your grasp of English if you can't see that someone literally saying "They weren't the #1 defense when we played them" in the context of arguing the defense was not "good" means the ranking was too high, i.e., the defense was "overrated". That's literally what that means: "overrated", precisely what I claimed.

So why don't you stop it. I didn't misrepresent anything in the post you explicitly agreed with.

Also, let's put this all in context. The anti-Tua posters have been trying their revisionist history for months. So often when Tua proves he can do something they said he couldn't, instead of acknowledging it they act like it wasn't a "true" test. They're being called out on it, and they can't defend themselves against that accusation (the evidence is overwhelming). So what's their next lame attempt? Yeah trying to play word games and deflect from the fact they're playing revisionist history. That's really what's going on here.

Nothing to defuse. It's important to set the record straight.

 

"Tua misses flag football game". He won't be eligible to play anyway.

 

First of all, best username ever!

Second, please don't come here just to troll others. Most of us here try to play nice with each other.

 

I've been a guest for years. Finally decided to jump on in. Thanks for the support and I'm not here to troll. I'm just a glass half full kind of guy happy with the direction we're headed. I see three very winnable games ahead with a great opportunity to get on a hot streak going into the playoffs.

 

Tua is the best QB we have had in over 20 years. Cant we just be happy and hope the defense plays better? He won't awe you with laser throws on the run like Herbert. But as far away as he is from the Allen/Mahomes/Herberts from a raw talent ability, they are also all clearly trailing him in elite accuracy and anticipation.

He is perfect for our scheme and our offense.

 

Tua's been great. Since he's been here the team has been right in the mix for the postseason each year so far. Hopefully we can actually make it this year. With the Jets losing and the Pats potentially taking an L this weekend, we will be right in the mix again. I feel good about the playoffs with a healthy Tua. I think once we get there we have the ability to beat any team we play. Look at The Bengals last year. Nobody had them in the Super Bowl. They barely scraped by against the Raiders in the first game, and then all of a sudden just took off.

 

You are being ridiculous, going to stupid lengths to try to be right. Your third sentence says everything. He didn't say what you say he said, but saying that they weren't "the #1 defense when we played them" is not by any stretch saying they aren't good or they are overrated. You can assume whatever your want, but putting words in people's mouths is not an honest way of discussing.

Regardless of what YOU believe he meant.

 

OK so now you've conclusively proved you have an English comprehension issue. He said this in the links I provided:

Not sure how much more obvious I can make this, but saying "NE is the only good defensive team he faced" means Buffalo was NOT a good defensive team when we faced them. That's a logical implication. So yes saying they weren't the #1 defense when we played them in that same context is VERY clearly saying Buffalo's defense is being overrated as #1 or #2 (depending on when you looked) when we played them, i.e., their true rating should be for a defense that was "not good".

 

You guys are arguing over semantics. For the sake of peace, let's just say I was wrong and both of you were right, LOL. Could that end this argument before Christmas? =)

 

lol.. semantics is the specific issue right now, but the broader issue is much bigger. It's establishing revisionist history by anti-Tua posters.

I want to be clear about this. I have nothing against people who think Tua doesn't have the physical or mental abilities to succeed long term. They're either right or wrong. What I don't like is the attempt to deny Tua credit for what he's done so far. He's proven he can play at elite levels for sustained periods (within a season), he proved he can play at elite levels with a bad OL, he proved he can overcome adversity and carry the team when necessary (i.e., in multiple games), and he proved he can play well against good defenses in the cold, in December and in a playoff race.

What I'm warding off here is the latest attempt to say he didn't really do X, Y and Z, specifically in this case playing well against good defenses. All those claims are revisionist history. It's very important to establish this, otherwise that bogus claim will keep coming up.

Anyway, don't mistake intensity of an argument for hatred or anything. This is strategic.

 

Saying NE was "the only good defense he faced" does not have to mean he's saying every other defense is bad or overrated. It could also mean that it was the only defense that was missing starters and all banged up.

The Chargers defense was awful, yet they dominated us. Doesn't make them good. The Bills were depleted, yet still played good, doesn't mean that a bunch of backups is a "good defense."

You're playing semantics to try to win an argument.

 

My issue is, you can't give Tua two incredible receivers, and then give him all the credit and say he's elite.

Maybe he is. Maybe he's Nick Foles. One season doesn't necessarily prove anything.

 

Where does he say Tua IS elite? He has said Tua has played at elite levels this season. Something that people said he could never do.

 

Umm.. no. Saying NE was the only good defense Tua faced logically implies all the others were not good. No way around that. Couple that with saying the statistical ranking of the Buffalo defense was NOT what it was when we played them also logically implies they were overrated, as in literally overrated when we played them. Yes it's semantics. But what's important is my original post was not misleading.

I never gave him all the credit. I even told you that credit had to be given to McDaniel + Tua + Hill + Waddle. I've even said repeatedly that for me the MVP this season for the Dolphins is Hill. So it's not true that I've ever given Tua all the credit, not even the majority. I mean McDaniel is an elite OC. Without him I doubt any of this happens.

And I also said in the very same post that started all this crap that Tua might be Nick Foles. You read that post and agreed with it. So don't act like I'm saying Tua is elite. I'm saying he's playing elite. And I've also said in previous posts that for me you're only elite if you can play like that sustained over many years. Among the new group only Mahomes (and maybe Watson if he keeps this up) fits that bill. Burrow is closest to getting there from the 2020 draft, but he's not there yet either (just needs a few more years).

 

I gotcha back CB.. don’t listen to anyone but a mod

 

It’s really a shame that a few on this site will actually be passive aggressive liars to spew

 

Then by that logic, would Marino not be considered elite with Clayton, Duper and Moore?

Great quarterbacks all have great weapons.

 

And that's the clear and stark difference between the camps. Forget the logic and arguments. At the heart of the debate, one was saying he will not, and the other was saying he might. I suspect they still don't see the difference.

 

If a team is overrated, it means everyone thinks they are really good, but you don't. The players you are judging would have to have a level of success for everyone to rate them so highly. Obviously though if a team is missing many players, it's going to be weaker, but it doesn't mean they were overrated to begin with. Let's say a basketball team goes 30-0 on the season, and then 4 of their starters get injured. When they play that next game, you wouldn't ever say they were "overrated." You'd just say the actual team is injured.

cbrad isn't even arguing semantics. It's pure stubborn and self-righteousness.. He's attempting to change meanings so his attacks make sense. Really petty stuff.

 

You said "They weren't the #1 defense when they played them." You weren't talking about the next game. You implied they were overrated when we played them.

 

How is saying "They weren't the #1 defense when we played them" at all the same as him saying that they are "overrated"? The two are not the same thing.

If your issue is some other statement, maybe start referring to that instead.

 

You're looking at results not the skills necessary to get those results. Marino was great because his individua sills were phenomenal, better than everyone else. Marino made the throws regardless of who he was throwing to, that currently is just not the case with Tua.

 

Elite stats aren't the same as an elite player. Nick Foles had an elite season, with elite stats.

Ain't no one arguing that Foles was elite. I said that I wanted to see Tua go the entire rest of the season strong, once he started his turnaround. While I agree that the defense is vastly mostly to blame for the losses, Tua's play the last couple weeks has been concerning. Buffalo was definitely better, but I'm not going to call Tua elite yet, and one season out of three is at this point the anomaly, and happens to coincide with having two of the fastest receivers in the league, with Hill being a complete beast.

 

The definition of "overrated" is "rated or valued too highly". #1 is literally a "rating". So if they're not #1 they must be lower than #1. They must have a lower rating. Thus, calling them #1 is "overrated" by definition given what StaleTacos said. Can't believe you can't see this.

Furthermore, since we've already established he implied Buffalo's defense when we played them was "not good" (only NE's was good), then the rating must be for a defense that's "not good". In other words, a huge difference in rating is implied.

 

Who ever said Tua is elite? The thing is he had a really good season so far and before the season some people on here said he couldn’t even do that and now that he has done that the shifting of goal posts has begun. Only question with Tua is, can he sustain the good play and can he stay healthy, if he does that he’s our franchise QB. One thing is for sure though, he’s the best QB we‘ve had since Marino.

 

Dude, you're unreal. Overrated means that you believe a team/player isn't worthy of the ranking. You always want to use your scientific statistical definitions of things, and act like there is no such thing as connotation with words. Sometimes people use words and they're using the connotation, not the denotation (definition).

I'm done discussing this with you.

 

Yeah.. the team wasn't worthy of the ranking in that game is what StaleTacos said. They were overrated in that game. Everything I said is correct, and I didn't use some scientific definition. I got those from the dictionary.

Thanks for proving my point. By the actual definition of the word "overrated", as well as by your definition, what I said is accurate.

 

He says that he has proved he can play at elite levels for sustained periods, su he's saying he's played at elite levels consistently, which is what must people use as a barometer to determine if someone is elite.

I can play the same game cbrad is playing.

 

So a game with a bunch of backups, who didn't earn them the #1 spot? And you're complaining that he's saying that the defense we faced wasn't the #1 defense?

He's not wrong. You're just attempting to make him out to be arguing something he's just not arguing.

I really wanted to be done. You think I'm not understanding your point, but i do. I just don't agree with you that he's trying to say what you're alleging he's trying to say. I don't believe you are understanding his point.

You can have the last word, as I know you will respond anyway.

 

I already posted the injuries Buffalo had in every game this season, which demonstrated quite conclusively that the claim Buffalo was more injured for our game than any other game (another revisionist claim) was completely false. Their defense is arguably more injured in the last few weeks than when we played them the first time. I mean they lost von Miller for the season recently.

Buffalo has earned that #2 spot playing most games with LOTS of key injuries. So the "overrated" claim (both by the definition of the word and by your explanation of the "connotation") due to the injuries they had when we played them in that first game is not accurate. That was a top defense Tua played against, twice actually. He played well, not great, twice against a top defense. No one should try to take that away from him. But this constant goalpost shifting by anti-Tua posters is attempting to do just that.

 

Only problem is I made it very clear that for me it has to be sustained elite play across multiple seasons to label a QB as elite. Said that many times explicitly. And since you've been responding to my posts on the claim of elite play, you need to admit that what I wrote doesn't imply I'm labeling him as an elite QB yet. I mean.. I said so explicitly.