No I didn't. There is nothing in the official definition of either word that says they aren't the same thing. The point is very simple, you have your own idea of what each mean, which is fine. Its America, you have the right to make up definitions to anything you want. Hell, if you want to call a pizza a fish, go for it. Just maybe don't get surprised when people act like you're crazy when call your large stuffed crust with pepperoni a halibut.
"Top tier is probably where the elites are located." You admit that elite is within the more general tier. Are you arguing just for fun?
Huh? I'm beginning to think "elite" and "top tier" are not the only words you've made up definitions to. Try it from this angle, where is it written, other than your mind, that the top tier is 33%? What if the classification was broken down into a 100 tiers?
Yes and I'm saying Tannehill isn't good value according to his draft spot or his contract when you look at other moves we could've made at other positions.
So because you can't argue against what you've already admitted to, you attack a number I threw out for reference. Tiers can be broken down into any amount you desire, but for convenience people typically think in terms of quarters or thirds or even tenths, not "elite, almost elite, almost almost elite" until you've got 100 tiers.
$96M is a really debatable number. That number could be higher but that contract could also not have been offered at all. This is definitely on the positive side, but it's not Miami going "all in." It's definitely too high in terms of shear value. 4,045 yards and a 66% completion percentage is not worth $15M per year in today's NFL where you can pluck a QB out of college and expect $3,500 yards and 25 TDs. We all know that. However, $96M is not so offensively high that it's going to make anyone mad and that's generally how contracts are figured these days. The salary cap is going up every year and the guaranteed money is not so much that you couldn't cut the player if you absolutely wanted to. Yes, it's seems shocking that a $96M contract could possibly make any sense for a guy who doesn't have complete command of the game and who hasn't lifted his team into the Play-offs given their "over the verge" status, but in today's NFL, $96M contracts are a lot more common than they used to be and the players don't have much leverage when the team decides to let them go. To me, this contract is good enough to show the team has faith in Tannehill but it's definitely not 100% faith. As others have said, there are several other QBs who will cost a larger portion of their team's salary cap. It's shocking but $96M doesn't lock you into anything if you're an NFL franchise. If Tannehill doesn't progress, the team will be free to do what they want. Like I said, this deal makes sense. It makes the fans feel good, it gets Miami in early on a guy that could be more valuable over the next couple seasons and it's not so much of a commitment that it couldn't be broken if absolutely necessary.
For $96 million I'd rather sign or trade for some positions we're lacking in. Imagine this scenario. We've got Tannehill, a good, young QB on a contract other teams would call "good value." I'd trade Tannehill to a team like the Rams, for example, for a few players that helped them win as many games as they did without a decent QB. I'm not a GM by any stretch of the imagination, but I am saying I'd rather have depth in the NFL over a QB like Tannehill making $96 million.
I'm one of the biggest proponents of "value" signings and moves in Club Level. I think your perspective is skewed on what constitutes value at the Q position. Andy Dalton has never had a season as statistically strong as Tannehill's 2014 and signed a deal with a max value of $115 million. Tannehill is also going to be making about $1 million less per year averaged out compared to Alex Smith. This deal absolutely constitutes a value deal. If you're signing a QB you anticipate will be around for the next six seasons and you're paying him a maximum $96 million, I don't see how that isn't valuable in the context of QB salaries. At the current rate of appreciation, in 3 years this will be even more amazing that we pulled it off.
There are a lot of educated people who would agree with you. You don't have to beat it to death arguing with 5 people on this forum who just so happen to be very much on the other side.
Take a look at all the non QBs selected after Tannehill that have proven to be MUCH more talented. Heck, the first selection after (Kuechly) is a much better MLB than Tannehill is a QB. There are several more players I'd rather have than Tannehill at #8. We could've even traded down and picked up several top tier guys.
I didn't admit to anything. Actually, you just admitted that not everyone thinks of elite the way you do.
That's my whole point though! Lol. In the context of QBs, yes, I agree with you, but not in the context of NFL players period.
That's like saying hiring an accountant for $100,000 per year is bad because you can hire 5 really good janitors for $20,000.
Not really. I'd say I could hire a janitor, a secretary, buy equipment for the entire office and an accountant straight out of school for the same amount as that one great accountant. In the NFL, for a $96 million contract you could get a really good MLB plus a couple of good guards, for example.
What is this, you agree w/ him so you are going to randomly inflate the value of his post and your post? Educated? We have Ph.D.'s out there pontificating no this signing? Just come out and offer your opinion, which I know you have done. No need to artifically inflate the value posts.
You get what you pay for. There's a reason teams choose paying QB's over just drafting a guy out of school and signing "a really good MLB plus a couple of guards". If you have the opportunity to hire a competent QB at below market value for his experience and production, you do the deal. Would you just hire a CEO out of school so you can hire some good janitors, a secretary, and buy equipment? The NFL doesn't just have a bevy of really good players laying around. This ain't Madden.
BS. Who expects that?!?!?! Only quarterback last year who got close to that was Derek Carr. No one in 2013 got near that. No one in 2011 even got close either. Other than a freak year is 2012, did quarterbacks out of college do that.
You mean more valued position? Sure, but would you rather have Tannehill or Kuechly? Would you rather have Tannehill at #8 or trade down for Chandler Jones and Alshon Jeffery, for example? Whatever #8 gets you in a trade down, I can think of a better outcome than Tannehill. Why? Probability tells you trading down is a good idea (unless of course you know you're getting Andrew Luck). That's rare.
I would rather have Tannehill. I would rather have Tannehill than Chandler Jones and Jeffery. Sorry dude. I suffered through years of "not Tannehill" caliber quarterbacks. If you want Henne's or worse, that is your decision.
The real reason is teams wanna believe they have a franchise guy. Why was Flacco paid so much? Eli? CUTLER? Kaepernick??? Even RG3 is being tagged, I believe.
I'd MUCH rather have Tannehill than Jones and Jeffrey. I get your overall point about value but I don't think it applies to this case, we should all be thanking Ireland for pulling the trigger and thanking the staff for doing a good job of developing RT into a good QB.
Idk dude. I don't think Tannehill is that good. He's good, yes, but not that good. Much lesser QBs have won Super Bowls with much better teams.
Lol! The Bears and their fans would trade Alshon Jeffrey for Ryan Tannehill faster than my wife yells at me for farting in bed.
I disagree. I think he is "that good". It is hard to build a superbowl caliber team that can win with a lesser quarterback than Tannehill. By how many teams are still looking for a quarterback as good as Tannehill, shows how hard it is to find a quarterback as good as Tannehill. The fact that it took years for Miami to come close to find a quarterback as good as Tannehill, shows how hard it is to find a quarterback as good as Tannehill. Closest was Pennington, however he couldn't finish more than one season. I like my quarterbacks not made of glass.
That's not the scenario I described. Bears fans are dreading the extension to their severely overpaid QB. If Tannehill can't get us to the playoffs in the next few years, fans will be clamoring for Hickey and Tannenbaum's heads. I guarantee it.
It makes you wonder what we be doing without a Tannehill this offseason. All the Gordon v. Gurley threads would've been Mariota v Winston threads, and all we'd talk about is how we need to trade up or we fail. Hoping for Brett Hundley in the second? Trying to sign Matt Cassel? Trade for Phillip Rivers? None of those options are better than Tannehill.
Actually, you're right that time. I didn't see you said both Jones and Jeffery. Then again you're assuming best case scenarios using hindsight.
Not really. I'm not saying I knew Wilson would be a steal (although a friend of mine did say he would've drafted Wilson before the draft even happened). You can't know what I thought going into that draft or this past draft. Just know I tend to lean towards trading down.
