http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/nfl/miami-dolphins/article144385454.html Truth is, as it has always been, Thill is actually one of the better QBs in the league and his team has been just been that bad.
Not again with this crap. Saying that Thill would be a great QB if the offense and everybody around him functioned perfectly is not a great revelation, most NFL starting quarterbacks would be great under ideal conditions. What truly separates the great ones from the decent or average ones is being able to succeed and show their stuff in spite of adversity and things not functioning perfectly. Tanehill so far has not shown he can succeed in the face of adversity and elevate his play to meet big challenges. He is a decent QB, not one of the best in the league as you say please stop it with this nonsense. Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk
The problem is your notion that great QBs can put up great numbers no matter how bad the team is around him. There is literally no basis for your notion. You have no evidence, no history, no examples, no anything to back up your claim.
Dan Marino always had very good to great receivers who were on the same page. He also generally had a good to great line when it came to pass blocking.
lol, yeah you're right, there's no quantifiable difference between Marino's olines and WR's and Thill's.......coaching either... /thread still open
Dan Marino never had a hall of fame reciever. Remember the dolohins 1997 reciever core which was made up of oronde gadsden, O.J. McDuffie and lamar thomas as the top three recievers? Compare that to Parker landry and stills. When did Marino ever have a running back like Jay Ajayi to hand off to? Never. Marino's offensive lines were not anymore talented than what we have now. Yet marino always showed his greatness despite playing on some very ****ty teams. Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk
If that's true, then you can't say the exact opposite and expect anyone to believe it. Yet that's what you've been doing for five years- blaming everyone but the QB. But to Hitman's point- Brady just won a Super Bowl with receivers that wouldn't start elsewhere. Manning dominated in Indy with little more than a solid offensive line. 14-2 as a starter in his last season there, then 2-14 without him. Marino did the same for many years. For anyone being objective, that's about all the proof we need.
Sorry, the Pats WR's are very good and would start on nearly every team they play for. The proof is that when RT had a running game and protection he put up top 10 QB numbers. I'll ask you also, how well do you think Brady would do playing for the Dolphins?
Says the person who literally ignores facts that have been proven... I've said Thill needs 3 specific things, 2 of the 3 things every great QB has had. He gets those. You pretend it was magic. And you're so dead set on it being magic, that you'll get belligerent at the mere notion that magic isn't involved. Now, here's yet another person telling you these things, a professional I might add, and again, you harp on magic and **** all over actual facts and results.
Mark Duper and Mark Clayton are borderline hall of fame receivers. So is Irving Fryar. 1997 was not a good year for Marino. He only had 16 touchdowns and 11 interceptions. With a rating of 80, which is lower than Tannehill's lowest when he had Wallace, Hartline, and ????. Marion's offensive lines were some of the best of all time when it came to pass blocking.
A professional? Give me an f'n break. Some 26 year old irish bloke pretending to be a football guru is not my idea of a professional. Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk
Matt Moore put up those "top 10" numbers coming off the bench with zero reps, so it's not much of a stretch to think that Brady would do the same. I mean, two weeks in and the guy was leading the league in QBR? That's a MASSIVE HINT that it's not all QB skill. Don't get me wrong, I love Moore something fierce...but it wasn't all him. And you're right, Tannehill did great down the stretch. That's what happens when you have a balanced offense that's strong just about everywhere- I think almost any QB could thrive in our current system. As far as the Pats comment, Chris Hogan...our 7 Eleven...was the star of the post season. He wouldn't make our roster. Where would you put Edelman on our roster? Surely not ahead of Parker or Stills. He's not better than Landry either. So you're talking a slot receiver WR4 at best for him. And those were their best two guys last season.
Okay. A 14-2 team started Curtis Painter. The OP is saying that a QB can't be successful on his own, there has to be a great line, stud receivers, a solid running game, etc. So what happened in Indy? They made very little roster moves from season to season, yet they were -12 in wins without Manning. That tells you the OP's theory is clearly false- a QB can carry a bad team.
That is some flawed logic. he did not say a terrible quarterback could lead a team with a great line, stud receivers, a solid running game, etc. What happened in Indy? They went from Peyton Manning to Curtis Painter. That does nothing to disprove the original theory. It just says a team cannot have a terrible quarterback and win games. I do not think the 1985 Bears would have won games with Curtis Painter.
He is implying that a great QB cannot be great unless he is surrounded by a great supporting cast, which is BS because there have been plenty of great QBs that have played great in spite of being on some very bad teams. Tannehill is a decent QB, but he is not great and not one of the best in the league unless your idea of one of the best is being top 20. Tannehill has up to this point shown some real flaws in his game in terms of bad instincts, poor pocket presence, holding on to the ball too long, inconsistent accuracy on his throws requiring his recievers to regularly adjust to make the catch or have an expanded catch radius, and he also has a tendancy to be gun shy and consistently check down for the safe throw instead of going for it. Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk
Well sure if you're going to reinvent my argument then it's super easy to discount it. I never once said the BS you just attributed to me.
You said that tannehill is actually a great QB who has not been able to show it because he is on a bad team. How did I reinvent the argument by saying that according to you a great QB cannot be great unless he is on a good team? Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk
“Timing and placement is easier for him when he pushes the ball to the intermediate and deep routes,” he writes. “One of the best arms in the NFL. ... Throws well from the pocket but becomes more confident and aggressive outside of the pocket. ... Exceptional deep passer. ... Pressure doesn't impact his mechanics.”
You're twisting words. He said that a great quarterback couldn't win unless he had a great cast surrounding him. I'm not sure how you lost sight of that because it's the same thing we've heard for six seasons now- Tannehill is awesome, the team sucks. Well, guess what? Manning was awesome and the Colts sucked. Yet they went 14-2. Painter proved that by going 2-14 with the same roster. Marino never had a running game...yet Miami almost always finished above .500. There are countless examples of great QB's carrying bad teams. If you want to debate, then let's debate. I'm all for that. But ignoring what others are saying and then twisting words is what's started countless arguments over nothing. I don't want to play that game with you.
No, that's not what he said. This is why we have arguments. How any rational person can believe that the Colts didn't purposefully tank that season to get Luck is beyond me.
Resnor, I really like you brother....but I'm not playing this game. We've heard every excuse in the book how Tannehill's shortcomings were someone else's fault. If my life was that pathetic, I can literally quote you 500 threads where the OP said it. Almost everyone here likes Tannehill these days and we're excited for the 2017 season. Please stop enabling this kind of stuff.
Are you being serious right now? No problem though, there's a magic button that fixes these levels of ridiculousness.
1. We've asked for "great" QBs who ALSO won, while having no run game, not allowed to audible, and terrible oline. So far, none have been given. 2. It is frustrating that, no matter what evidence is given regarding Tannehill, the same arguments are used to try to show Tannehill to be not good. This article is more of the same. The guy destroys the arguments that many on here use, yet it's simply dismissed out of hand.
Your first post in this thread said, "not this crap again"...yet you misrepresent what my stance is. You'd think after all these years of me repeating my stance over and over and over, to the point where you and the others groan when I make it...you'd be able to accurately recall it. But no. Hell, you can't even accurately restate your misrepresentation of my stance.....ON THE SAME PAGE OF THE SAME THREAD!!!!!
it's accurate according to the tape although fahey doesn't id coverage very well...it's evident in his gif play analysis
Who said Tannehill wasn't good? Nobody here but maybe Finster. Yet you guys want to argue about how great Tannehill could have been in 2012-2016 if something different had happened. But it didn't happen...it just didn't...and that's not anyone's fault here. And sure, you can keep creating scenarios to avoid disproving whatever the hell you're trying to prove in the first place. Do you even know what you're trying to argue about? Because nobody else does...you can't even agree that the OP said that Tannehill was great. It's so incredibly annoying to have every thread hijacked with this nonsense just to piss people off and drive them away from Phins.com. Anyway, you win though- congrats. You've successfully chased off yet another long-time member with the troll-fest over nothing. Great job!
Thats an exciting article, he's always been an innately accurate QB..I hope he implements the one part of the game that his coaches and a couple others have been talking about..its his best way of becoming a better QB, and improving our chances of winning championships...the art of winning...convert at all cost.
Says who? Marino never had a really great all around oline, he had Richmond Web who was great for a good portion of his career and Dwight Stephenson who was aslo great for a very brief moment. Aside from them it was mostly a collection of average or above average lineman but nobody great. The line tanehill had last year with Albert, pouncey, james and tunsil is about as good or better than any line Marino ever had. A big part of the reason why tannehill has taken so many sacks in his career is because he has terrible pocket presence, holds on to the ball too long and has a relatively slow release, all three of which are things that marino was amongst the best at and enabled him to avoid many sacks. Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk
