My goodness.. The claim was that naturally any qb will benefit from better protection. I feel stupid having to spell this out to you. I know you think you just discovered fire with this groundbreaking claim that Qbs are better with better protection, but frankly it goes without saying. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, and you and your cronies have given me and many other no end of **** for saying Tannehill is a dramatically better QB with a better oline. Talking out of both sides of your mouth again.
Again. Reasonable people understand Ryan has has a bad OL etc....unreasonable people pretend thats why he is an average to below average QB. Imagine a world we lived in where both an OL AND the QB were not very good....think real hard...picture it. And now you have reality. And no I will not bring up his 80yd performance last week under the best conditions he has seen all year. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Im sure Iam sometimes. But not when it comes to Ryan Tannehill. Nice deflection by the way, your struggling. Is it your pass protection at home? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What am I deflecting? Look there's evidence when the oline plays average Tannehill's game dramatically improves.....just like there's evidence when Wilson's line plays better his game dramatically improves. Same with any QB. So when I say Tannehill goes from average to above average when the line plays better its not unreasonable....its fact as we've seen it with Tannehill and his peers. Its so fact, that a person cannot reasonably argue against it, all they can do is insult, deflect and make baseless declaratio...heeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyy I see what's going here now....
Ryan has been below average, but I agree he creeps up on above average with good OL play. Problem is pass blocking is a league wide issue, not saying all are bottom 3/4 like the Dolphins...but you cant have a QB who is totally dependant on his surroundings and pay him franchise QB money. He still had his same Tanny issues last week when the blocking was better so it isnt a tick for tack. This is why barring a drastic improvment jn the next 12 months, we will have a brand new QB in Miami. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Average oline play. That's not too much to ask. However this leads into my overall point, this isn't about just oline play. He has to deal with crap NO OTHER QB has ever thrived with. Its not just the oline. Its the ****ty OCs, not being allowed to audible and the running game being abandoned too early. Just getting the oline to average didn't barely make him above average, it got him to very above average, which is still with bad OCs, not being allowed to audible, and an easily abandoned running game. I know, I know, I'm doing whatever bs you're going to accuse me of, but these are facts and facts you've agreed with, but now that you can't name a single QB that has thrived under those specific circumstances, you want to deflect and insult. Its because you've lost. You know it and I know it. That's why my message is consistent and yours changes like the wind.
Get me a data sheet that shows a breakdown of all of the QBs and their freedom at the LOS. Get me a fact sheet of OC's by ability. Your asking a moronic question. You want proof of an opinion? Do you not realize how ridiculous that is?? Ofcourse you dont. You have two choices, start making sense (not likely) or stay away from Tanny threads for another year until he is backing up another QB in 2017. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A lot of forum reputations on the line here. Will be interesting to see how things unfold. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
lol. Yeah, yeah, get indignant when people start accusing you of thinking Lazor and Sherman were good OCs. Start getting indignant when people accuse you of thinking its not a problem to not have audibles. Then pretend none of that matters when I use those things to prove you wrong...again. You all compare him to every QB you want, but when I simply point out he has to deal with things no other QB has thrived under all things you agree with, the insults come out. How dare I want similar circumstances compared!!!!!!! How unreasonable and stupid of me!!!!!!!!! Oh wait....I've pointed that out a number of times now.....shocking how you prove it right every time. Its ok that I'm right, it won't kill you.
You wasted mire time typing things that I didnt say or imply. You asked what Qbs "thrived" under these conditions, i explained to you in crayon that I can not speak on the freedom or the abilities of other OCs around the league... Then naturally you dive in nose first accusing me of calling Lazor and Sherman good Oc's. Do you understand why this is a problem? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you can't speak about the abilities of other OCs, then why are you acting like Tannehill was not hindered by the ones he had? I don't think this is so difficult...are other successful QBs successful with a poor oline, bad OCs who don't call good games, abandonment of the run game, and not being allowed to audible? Or, another way of phrasing it, are those things that are conducive to a young, raw QB being successful? Would you take your young QB, whether raw or not, and give him those things, and then expect him to wildly successful, or expect that the team will win most of their games and be in the playoffs? If just seems ***-backwards. Again, I'll say this: admitting that those things set up Tannehill for failure DOES NOT MEAN that you think that Tannehill would be awesome otherwise. You can admit that all those things made it very difficult for Tannehill to be successful. Tannehill could still end up being what you guys say he is, but he could be successful if he wasn't saddled with all that crap. All we've been trying to say is that the environment was set up for Tannehill to fail, no matter the level of his ceiling.
Or Tannehill has failed at managing the offense, finding open WR's and maneuvering the pocket - Thus forcing the running game to be abandoned, putting the burden on the D after 3 and outs / not being able to convert on 3rd down, making the OL look worse than what it is by not moving around in the pocket, making coordinators look terrible because they are saddled by him. It's a vicious circle and you have to have Tannehill in the circle with some level of involvement.
I was criticizing his offensive Cordinator long before you two. You just wasted 1500 characters based on something that wasn't even applicable. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because you said Seattle and Miami have similar records when the defense gives up over 20 points, hinting that Wilson wasn't doing enough to put the team on his back. It turns out he still did well in those losses except one time. Tannehill, on the other hand, was terrible more than half the time. Heck, he was even terrible in at least one win. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are the Tannehill zombies still talking about Russell Wilson even after what he's done for the last month in crunch time (and his whole career for that matter)? LOL
I get that Baltimore's pass defense hasn't been great this season... I don't think I'd go as far to say last week were the best conditions Ryan Tannehill has seen all year though. We just fired our incompetent OC, and replaced him with an even more incompetent coach to be the OC... It's pretty obvious the entire offensive unit was lost. Miscommunications with WR's and their routes, blocking, the whole thing was just a mess last week. We should have had a much better day against that secondary, and Ryan was clearly not good last week, but... this team is a complete dumpster fire right now. From bad QB play, to mental errors all over the offense (penalties, wrong routes, bad routes etc), poor pass pro, inexperienced, unqualified coaches all over the place taking over for terrible coaches that were fired. It's far from the best conditions anyone could see all year, simply because we're playing a bad pass D. I'm sure that's just an "excuse" to some, so before we go down that road... In this post... I said... "bad QB play". I also said... "Ryan was clearly not good last week"
This is true. We are a dumpster fire of a team, from top to bottom. Bottom feeders in nearly every statistical category. Time of possession, rushing D, third down conversion rate.. All the important indicators are near dead last in the NFL.
When Seattle's defense plays poorly, they lose. The Steelers game this year was the first time in Wilson's career they won a game when allowing 25 or more points. Also worth noting, prior to this year Wilson faced double digit deficits 5 times in three seasons, or 56 games. They run the ball as much as any team in the league. It's a very QB friendly team.
Apparently it's the most QB friendly team in NFL history, because Russel Wilson has had the best 3 years to start a career of any QB ever.
How can you possibly say that I was hinting at that, when I specifically stated that Wilson played extremely well in most of the losses. You want to boil it down, erroneously, to Tannehill vs Wilson, because then you don't have to address the reasons that a team can lose, even with great QB play.
Are the real zombies incapable of reading what has actually been discussed?? The current discussion has nothing to do with Tannehill or Wilson. You realize that there whole teams called the Seattle Seahawks and the Miami Dolphins, and there can be a discussion of the teams OUTSIDE of the QBs right?
That's not true, though. First, you'd have to prove that he's had a pocket to maneuver in. Second, you'd have to prove that we didn't abandon the run game until later in games. Problem is, we've seen Tannehill try to maneuver in the pocket, but can't, due to poor oline play allowing pressure from the sides and the middle. Another problem is, that we've seen Lazor abandon the run early in games, when Miller or others were ripping off big gains.
I undetstand the whole team is playing like crap, I (like you) just agree that the QB is an issue aswell. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You counted the letters? Further, the post wasn't only about OCs. But thanks for boiling it down to only that.
And once again, you've no idea what you're talking about. No one is saying Tannehill is playing great this year. No one is saying the team wouldn't be better if Tannehill performed better. All we have been saying is that Tannehill doesn't suck and the biggest problems he faces are outside of his control and there's evidence of all that. But you know, keep making stuff up, while accusing people of that, then contradict yourself when that doesn't work until you insult us. You know, the "Classic Fin-O". Me: "How can you say Tannehill sucks?" You: "I never said that. Me: "Ok" You: "Tannehill sucks" Me: "but..." You: I win, suck it. Me: What are you talking about? You: Here we go Me: Stop. Why don't you factor in the fact he has a terrible oline? You: Get a clue, I've said he's had a terrible oline since before he was born. Me: Oooook, why don't you think not being allowed to audible is a big deal? You: You're dumb. I've been saying that since Bart Starr was a QB. Me: Sigh. You: I own you in these arguments! Me: WTF are you talking about? You: You can't handle the fact Tannehill sucks! Me: No, I'm asking you how none of these problems aren't factored into his analysis of him. Like, having horrible OCs? You: Grow up, get a clue, learn something....I think Lazor & Shemran are the worst two OCs ever. EVER!!!! Me: Ok, so you agree the oline sucks, the OCs suck, and the no audibles suck? You: I know I'm taking you to school, but this is too many questions. OF COURSE I agree. Pay attention. Me: And Tanehill still sucks? You: YES! How many times do I have to be your daddy? Look at him compared to other QBs in the league? He sucks. Me: Well....what other QBs have to deal with the things we just talked about? You: You're an idiot. Me: Why? You: I can't know if an OC sucks or not? Its all just an opinion. Me: But you know our OCs sucked? You: So? I'm gonna trade you for smokes.
yes, nothing has changed..its now about the losses early in the season that wilson no matter what could not impact the game into a win..
so what teams can lose even when the qb plays well, whats that have to do with ryan being as good as wilson if he had the same variables?, whats that have to do with you and others continue to say that wilson isn't a great qb?
Pssstttt...because wins aren't all about QBs. This really isn't anything to do with Tannehill or Wilson.
taking away superlatives on the qb and giving credit for his success to the variables...this is what were saying is wrong..hes sticking all that stuff back in your faces and you continue to reach for other things...now lynch has been missing for four games and rawls the last game and here he is posting 16 tds and 0 ints and 140 passer rating..lol
