Hahaha, Wilson has been blessed with a GREAT defense and excellent coaching staff from day one. Not to say he hasn't been excellent, but he's had 2 terrible playoff performances and hasn't been elite this year by any stretch of the imagination. When he underwhelms in the playoffs again this year, this time it will be u making the excuses for qb play. How ironic that will be...
Notice how one is a career high and the other is a career low. So what point were you trying to make again? I've already stated Tanny is a good starter but arguments like this do not help your cause.
I would just like to say, that I commend all of you for somehow finding a way to start even more fights among the fan base during the middle of one of the more successful seasons of the past 15 years. I can't wait to see this place if and when we ever make it to a Super Bowl.
When that happens this place will look like the ****ty gang green forums. They love to go full ******.
However, showing us that DTs with great stats don't always get in, doesn't mean that DTs without great stats do get in, that is a non sequitur. The fact is, as I pointed out, by and large, DTs don't get in the HoF. My point is that with guys like McMichael, Henry Thomas 93.5 sacks, Trevor Pryce 91 and Bryant Young 89.5 out there, all of whom also have double digit FFs, no way Suh is getting in with his relatively weak numbers. Can anyone say that Suh is definitely better than Atkins, McCoy or Donald? Are they all going to the HoF? How about Ngata, or Wilfork? Way too much competition, and he doesn't stand out among the group. The HoF is for those that stand out in their generation, and numbers are extremely important, there have been a lot of great DTs in the past 30 years, and almost all of them have not gotten in the HoF. Kennedy, 58 sacks for a DT is very good, it's like 12th or 13th all time for DTs, but the fact that he was a space eater makes that an enormous number, which is why he is considered possibly the best DT of all time.
Wilson sucks. I'm the guy who bashes Wilson. I'm the one who predicts he'll be a backup by 32 and I'm the one who's been predicting that once he turns 27 he'll start to regress just like Vick, cunningham, kordell Stewart before him. They all have the same career. Once the quick twitch muscles start to go (27) what made them special also does. Now they have to rely on their arm and smarts but since they spent their learning years relying on their legs they can't do it and become ever more ineffectual as every year passes
Wilfork and Suh definitely stand out in their generations. Wilfork simply for winning will most likely get in and Suh purely based on talent alone. I guess u never understood how elite suh was at Nebraska and has been since entering the nfl. Most people do, but for whatever reason and in the midst of one of his better years, u still don't see the talent.
We don't know how long Suh will play, but if he starts 158 games like Kennedy he's projected to have 67 sacks, and if it's 188 starts like Sapp he's projected to have 82 sacks. So on sacks he's well above the 58 Kennedy has. The projected number of tackles is basically the same as Sapp (435 for Sapp, 442 for Suh), so it's only on FF and FR he's deficient. Are you going to say Suh can't get in the HoF only because of FF and FR numbers? This is where my previous post matters. It basically shows you can't predict HoF induction that well based on stats (MUCH easier for QB's btw if you adjust for era) so you can't convincingly argue FF and FR are determining factors. Point is.. one can't argue Suh won't be in the range for HoF induction stats-wise. The one good argument against Suh getting into the HoF is your second point about how few DT's actually get in and how many others might be considered. I can accept that argument, but I'm not giving any credence to an argument that says Suh won't have the stats to get in. Suh is clearly a good candidate for HoF induction at DT. Whether he actually gets in or not.. who knows.
Notice how one of them had f****** queasy Joe and the other won a SB with an all time great d and Marshawn but has regressed ever since? Looking forward 2 seeing ur boy Matt Ryan flounder in the playoffs again too btw. He was never special at bc and other than probably this year alone has never been special in the nfl. He better win the SB this year though, tick tock.
I'll go on the record and say I disagree with all points in this post.. He doesn't suck, see stats, make sure you include rushing yards,watch play, and kiss ring.. See stats from pocket, see stats without Beastmode.. So at 32 he'll be a backup...ok I'll take a ten year career like that, with those hall of fame numbers, for a third round pick, and call it a win win win... Even if his physical skills regress a little it won't mean he won't school a defense with his escapability, what makes him so good his his ability to uderstand and feel where the breakdowns on protection are coming from..he's two steps ahead of everyone else so losing one step is cool.. Plus he doesn't get hurt or miss games for some reason,hmmmmm, that's peculiar, I wonder why..
Honest question, how many points do you or anyone attribute having better variables surrounding him, better run game, better protection, better coaching.? And what does that mean relative to what he's posted in the four previous years with worse variables?
All of the above? Its an entire package...and dont forget the fact Gase dumped Thomas and Turner. Subtracting those two ...weve lost one game since. Hes just a better QB now...and should be even better with another offseason in Gases offense.
I like Wilson...but hes clearly not as good a QB when he doesnt have his mobility. If he lost that.mobility...I believe he could adjust his game to be a QB like a Drew Brees though. I think both Wilson and Brees are very similar, personally.
Hmm. Brand new poster. Calls Matt Ryan my boy. So which is this one? I can't keep up. Matt Ryan has made the NFCG. And they did it on a comeback drive engineered by him against Seattle the #1 defense. Next thing you're gonna tell us Tanny is the best Dolphins qb ever because Dan never even won a Super Bowl
That's not fair about mobility. An injury causes multiple problems not just mobility. It's one thing to say he's slower due to age. It's another to be hobbled by an active injury that inhibits even your ability to throw.
I can at least take a stab at how the running game helps the passing game. First of all note that key rushing stats like rush yards per game, or rushing attempts per game, or Y/R are all not very highly correlated with key passing stats like passer rating. For example, the correlation in 2016 between rush Y/G and passer rating is 0.137, the correlation between Y/R and passer rating is 0.041, and the correlation between rushing attempts and passer rating is 0.184. As you can see all of them are small (anything below 0.2 is pretty small).. but of the key metrics rushing attempts matters most, not rushing efficiency or total yards. So.. knowing that, how to predict increase in passer rating given any of those rushing stats? Let's just find the best-fitting line and see what the slope is. For rush yards per game, the slope is 0.073, meaning that for each extra yard rushing per game passer rating increases by 0.073 points (basically means you need 13.7 extra rushing yards per game to increase passer rating by 1 point, on average). For rushing efficiency (Y/A), the slope is 0.88 meaning each extra increase in average yards rushing per attempt leads on average to 0.88 increase in passer rating points. For rushing attempts, the slope is 0.73, so each extra attempt rushing increases passer rating by 0.73 points. As you can see, not that big an effect of rushing on passing, but if you had to choose you'd try and keep run/pass balance steady enough because rushing attempts does have the highest correlation to passer rating.
i'm not getting into this debate again. was just correcting a poster who was blaming others for wilson bashing. greatyou see wilson winning a ring. great. enjoy the ring. he'll never sniff another one. i view wilson as costing seattle two rings and being considered one of the great dyansties of football. there are probably ten QBs who would have seattle looking for their 4th super bowl in a row if they were on that team (brady, big ben, brees, rivers, rodgers, etc). .
Sports writers elect the HOF, they also elect all pros. Suh has 4 all pro first team and 1 second team so far, and he is in his prime. By comparison: B. Young 0 first, 1 second V. Wilfork 1 first, 3 second T. Pryce 3 selections team not noted. H. Ngata 2 first, 3 second W. Sapp 4 first, 2 second (1 D player of year) Your opinion of Suh and Suh's play does not match the opinion of HOF voters. It's also worth noting Suh was defensive rookie of the year. Sapp is the only one on that list with more pro bowls (7). Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
You can't compare CK's stats with Suh's, CK was a space eater, like Wilfork or Ngata, but in spite of that he still got a lot of sacks, it's incredible, which is why he's widely considered the best ever, so lets put CK to the side. Sorry Brad, but I don't see where this has anything to do with your post, that if he maintains his current level for his entire career(which in truth is a spurious argument), if it lasts that long, then his numbers will still be less than others who haven't got in, in no way proves that you can get in without having great stats. Stats are what gets you in the HoF, because if you are truly dominant, then you will put up great stats, it really is just that simple, take a look at who gets in the HoF, RB, WR, TE, LB, DE, DT, CB, S, none of these players get in without great stats, and whats more, great stats don't even guarantee you a spot, as we have seen. Also a DPOY will be needed as well for Suh to get in, and the TO numbers are a lot more important than you seem to think, we're talking about the HoF here, lol, not a dominant pass rusher, not a dominant run stopper and didn't turn the ball over will never get you into the HoF.
I'm not sure how my opinion doesn't match the HoF voters, since Suh has no HoF votes yet. As far as being in his prime? We don't know that, he's 30, his career could be over in 3 years, we don't know, his play could start dropping off at any time, he's seen heavy usage, one lower body injury could effectively end his run of good years.
So, you think he's been top 2 DT in the game 4 years, and top 4 once? If so, what is the argument here? If he makes 1st team again this year he'll have been elected one of the top two DTs 5 out of 7 years in the league, top four 6 out of 7 (last is true with a second team selection). That's pretty undeniably someone on a HOF track. That's better than anyone you've mentioned besides Sapp, and he can equal or beat Sapps entire career with any team selection this year. It's utter dominance. We know he's in his prime because his play is as good or better than it ever has been. Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
This is generic and unnecessary. It should go without saying. The hypotheticals do not help your case one bit. Everyone has an opinion. But acting as if yours is concrete is where you're lost. It's not. Neither is anyone else's. Hence, being an opinion. Yours didn't hold a drop of water regarding Can Wake's injury. The notion of a world-class athlete, who does EVERYTHING right to stay healthy, coming back from that injury didn't even cross your mind. The certainty in which you expressed your OPINION on the subject made it so, correct? And you based this off of what? Personal experience? Let me guess, you're an orthopod. James Andrews, is that you? You were so well-versed in a way that only Google can be. You just couldn't see that a 34-year old player who has some of the best medicine and trainers in the world at his disposal could come back from an injury of that magnitude and still be effective. I get it. But it is that certainty in how you go about your argument which shows your lack of depth. How's that opinion holdin' up these days? Gain some perspective. We have good players on the team. I'm thankful for that. These players have been integral, along with coaching, in Miami's recent success. It's not always pretty, but I have a feeling this team has to win ugly before it wins pretty. And that's part of building something special. I get the feeling you get off on "being right" when a Miami player doesn't succeed. Pick a side, bud! You're either in or you're out.
It's an opinion based on fact, if you don't believe me, than go look up the HoFers, I'm basing it on what THEY have had to do to get in thE HoF. Look at Zach Thomas, 5 1st teams and 2 second teams, 7 pro bowls, 1700 tackles, 17 INTs, 4TDs, 16 FF, 8 FR, and he's been eligible for 3 years, he may never get in. It seems to me that there are some people here that don't understand what it takes to get in the HoF.
The last time I checked, the committee bases it's selections on opinion. The only facts (other than raw statistics), are the selections.
You're just cherry picking which stats matter in which conditions. First you say 58 sacks is sufficient, then when it's pointed out Suh is almost certainly going to have more you say that only applies if you're a space eater. Who precisely sets that threshold? You? No, stats aren't what gets you in. There are enough examples of guys with great stats at DT that aren't in. Anyway you can have your opinion on whether he makes it in the HoF, but one thing you haven't done is show he can't get in because of his stats. I'll just leave it at that.
Well...he hurt his leg in week one against Miami, and really didnt play well until the middle part of the season when he could move around as he had in the past. I said I saw him on the level of Drew Brees..jeez. Youd think that would be taken as a compliment
Can yall make a Suh thread? Then people can weigh on on that conversation without having to be bogged down on another dumb Tannehill debate. The Suh debate could actually be a good one.
Again, you are trying to make a case that does not exist, like their selections are a mystery, as if there are players without great stats getting elected, but there is no "mystery" as to who they pick, it's always the guys with the monster stats, no players with substandard stats make the HoF. The facts are in the elected players, they all have monster stats.
My point about Matty ice is, he needs to produce these playoffs. He turns 32 in may, and unlike Dan Marino he's not a truly gifted and special player. There's a lot of pressure on him this year, and if he comes up short in the playoffs like he has in the past, his time to win one will be on a countdown. I know Matt Ryan is better than Tannehill at this point, he should be he has way more collegiate and professional experience. But tannehill is younger and on a team with more potential IMHO, I wouldn't be surprised if Tanny wins one when it's all said and done and Matty ice doesnt. Isn't that the whole point of football anyway, to win a SB? So gloat all u want about how much better Ryan is compared to tannehill, just remember, these playoffs are critical to the legacy of the great (lol) Matty ice, and I'm looking forward to watching them.
Seriously Brad? Sticking with your non sequitur? Because great stats don't always get you in, stats don't matter? Seriously? Tell you what, put together a list of players with substandard stats in the HoF, then you can formulate that theory. 58 sacks for a space eater is PHENOMENAL, I simply do not understand what you don't get about that, you think Wilfork is known for his sacks, lol, he has 16, Ngata? 29.5, that is the type of player CK was, and yet he put up 58 sacks, a feat that may never be matched. You want to compare Suh to someone, the HoF player he most resembles? Try John Randle, except he has 137 sacks, and then there is the handful of guys with 90 sacks, Suh is a passrushing DT, so compare him to such.