I'm out on Tannehill

Why are you basing an argument on it, if you have no idea the validity of it? And how valid is it, really, if it would have caused you to give up on guys like Brady or Brees? These guys are elite athletes, with elite talent. Give them the right environment, and most will flourish.

 

Not except nothing... My statement is true, and backed up by years and years of brady succeeding without him. Teammates matter for your ceiling in stats.... not your floor... and not your consistency.

 

I think its funny that Tannehill is getting questioned. 27 TD and 12 INT is pretty good considering the team that he plays for. We haven't seen production like that in a while.

So the kid has limited QB experience. He played WR for a Division 1 school and was moved to QB. He gets drafted by the Dolphins who know he is raw as a QB prospect but has nice upside. What has he done to disappoint besides his deep ball? Each year he has shown improvement. He continues to grow as a QB. I like the direction that his trend arrow is pointing.

He has some stuff to work on. Most of us know what his issues are. But he's relatively green as a QB still. He's not doing too shabby considering. Its hard to compare his development to QBs that already had more college experience and were drafted by established organizations that already had good systems in place.

 

You seem to be struggling with following a conversation. What point of mine are you arguing against? Let me break it down for you, the subject was Luck and whether his superstar WR made a difference in his game. I said yes, and sited Brady and Moss as an example. Brady being better with Moss than without. Your replies have been pointless straw man arguments (no one said that Brady couldn't succeed without Moss) that you will not drop.

 

The argument is that we don't know what meaning to ascribe to the fact that Tannehill has started his career very much like Brady did. It's quite likely that some percentage of QBs who started their career like Brady ended up like Brady, some percentage ended up mediocre, and some percentage ended up being downright inadequate as starters in the NFL. The question is, what are those percentages? We can't act like it's a foregone conclusion that Tannehill will be Brady-esque when we don't know that information.

 

It's quite simple: DON'T ASCRIBE ANYTHING. That is my point, and it is why I brought up Brady to begin with. NO ONE knows how good Tannehill can be. We DO KNOW what he has done so far, and his improvement every season. So how about we stop declaring Tannehill to have hit his peak? I know even the staunchest supporters aren't trying to predict the future of Tannehill, just that he had played pretty damn well up to this point, and shows a lot of promise.

 

I'm sure fine with that. I sure haven't declared him to have hit his peak. I think the team ought to settle in and view him as its QB of the future, and try its best to put a great deal more talent around him.

 

That's fine, he has progressed every year, but the same characteristic he keeps showing is his ability to crumble in playoff format games (Wk 16-17 in 2013 against Bills and Jets- ZERO and 7 points and in 2014 against the Ravens where he put up 13, this is the guy who leads us to points....) Fine passer, just need to work on his intangibles and deep ball. Because, in the past 2 years, he's (the PASS HAPPY offense that he LEADS) averaging 6.67 points in playoff format games.

 

I am pretty positive that is not at ALL what I said. What I did say was that I would like to see what he could do with our receivers. I didn't really realize that comment would be so difficult to understand. However, I don't think he would be upset at all to have Wallace and Landry. Probably not Hartline either.

 

I think Tannehill can be fine with a great supporting cast around him. I don't think he will ever be able to pick the team up and carry it.

 

He's already done that.

 

You are implying the reason Brady was good was because of Moss, which isn't true.

Brady was good and successful before Moss. More successful then Tannehill as far as leading teams. Even in Brady's early years, he wins, regardless of what is around him.

I'm sorry you can't follow the arguments you start.

 

When?

I've seen him cost us games, and maybe win us 1 game.... in his career.

 

That's because you're a biased hack.

 

I'm tried of the "if Tannehill gets some playmakers in here he will be elite". The same could be said for a lot of QB's.

It's important to see what a QB does without a supporting cast, they need to lift those guys up.

Like Luck does with that offense. He has Hilton.... that's it. Wayne has been living off his name (deservedly so) for the last 2 years. He really doesn't have much more to throw to then Tannehill..... look what he does. He has even less of a running game then Tannehill, and his offensive line is a joke.

Like Wilson does with his offense. His WR & TE blow, yet he has better career passing #'s then Tannehill.

Like Brady has done his whole career.

Like Manning has done his whole career.

Look at how receivers do when they leave those teams (Manning's colts/broncos & Bradys Patriots.), they just fade away. And they step their game up to even higher levers when they get an elite talent. (moss and brady)


You are never out of a game with any of those guys. Because they can win big games, and make big plays with the game on the line. Tannehill doesn't do that. It's been 3 years, you would see flashes of it if he could. If anything we have seen him become a shell of himself in these situations.

You can put a better cast around him, and we will get further. But we will lose in crunch time much more often then we win.

 

Looks like I win.... when the personal attack comes you have nothing left. Sorry bro.

 

There's been 61 pages of proving you wrong.

Your goddamned screen name is TanneBlows. That's a personal attack on Tanne, so following your incredibly ignorant logic, you lost the damn argument the second you signed up for the site.

You can pretend there's rules to winning an argument on the internet all you want, but end of the day you've proven you're a biased hack. Which, ftr, is not a personal attack, its fact.

 

http://www.footballperspective.com/which-receivers-elevate-their-quarterbacks-the-most/

 

Which games are you calling "play off" format? Just those three? You don't mention the the Viking game from this year...

 

How exactly am I implying that? Because, I'm not.

I see the problem now, you don't even realize that your making a straw man. If you want to debate me, that is fine. If you want to debate me, and the me that is in your head, I'm out. Just debate him, no need to take the argument public.

 

I'm hungry for some tacos.

 

Tannehill is AWESOME, in Madden Mobile.....

 

That's the original intent of the post, that deej is outside, playing Madden on his phone.

 

C'mon man... we had like a .001% chance of making playoffs when we played the Vikes. We held our own fate when we played the Ravens this year, Bills and Jets last year. And RT17's offense that he leads failed to put up an acceptable amount of points in those games averaging 6.67 ppg.

 

Some interesting stuff...

Armando had this up today:

 

Is this real life?

 

This thread has had a longer post-season than this team did.

 

Well, if Tannehill gets a great Quarterback to play instead of him I think he'll be fine.

KIDDING!!!

Tann Marino is the best!

 

As if that was hard to accomplish.

 

Where do I even begin?

He has Hilton... and that's it? You do realize that the Colts have two great tight ends in Colby Fleener and Dwayne Allen, right?

He also has Marshawn Lynch to lean on. Not to take anything away from Wilson, since I do believe he is a great QB, but let's not act like having Lynch is not doing him any favors.

Except for lately.

But you know what, I'll give you Brady* (we all know what the asterisk is for). But when has Manning NOT have great receivers? The only he really lacked was a consistent running game until he got to Denver. Beyond that...

In this year alone, there have 3 occasions when Tannehill has left the Miami Dolphins in position to beat playoff teams (Green Bay, Detroit, Denver), only for the defense to drop the ball when all was needed was a single stop. If those occasions are not flashes to you, I don't know what to tell you.

 

You can't compare pre-2004 numbers to now. Pre-2004 QBs who beat Dan's records. None. Not even close. After 2004 everyone is jumping over Dan's single season records

 

Fleener and Allen are far from great.

 

Sounds like Wallace carried Tannehill all year.

Well the FO messed that up pretty good.

 

How are they far from great?

 

I guess my question is how are they "great" do you really consider either a top 10 TE?

 

They both have 8 TD's a piece despite the fact both of them starting at the same time results in each of them getting less balls thrown their way than the average starting TE. Sooo.....

Either way, point of that post was showing that it's pretty criminal to say that all that Luck has is TY Hilton.

 

They collectively are better than Clay/Sims, but I'm not sure I take either over Clay.

I would say Miami had much better weapons overall, but we shouldn't be comparing Luck and Tannehill TBH.....Ryan will never be as good as Luck but that doesn't mean he can't be good.