My Opinion on Ryan Tannehill

He also hadn't started a game since high school when he began starting for NE, correct? By the time he got to KC, he had NFL starts under his belt. He should have been better. However, he wasn't that much better that one year, and in general, he played worse.

 

Look again.

The NFL investigated a violation into the number of radio frequencies the Patriots were using during games. Chris Mortensen reported this and said that the Pats did not “have a satisfactory explanation when asked about possible irregularities in its communication setup during the game.” As per usual, the NFL swept it under the rug.

Patriots fans, and jdang, always bring up the jealousy factor. They claim their greatness is always the target for others to point at and find something unsavory.

They will always 5 SB wins as the reason for the unfounded claims.

If that’s the case, then how come other dynasties haven’t had to go through the same controversy?

If some people would realize that it's not just the fans, but other teams, players, coaches, (even our own great Don Shula), accusing the Pats of cheating they might see the truth.

 

Yet the "mistakes" could easily be a result of the cheating. If you illegally tape, and know the offense that's coming, people might see "mistakes," but in reality, its knowing what's coming cause you know the signals and codes.

Just one example. I'm not sure how anyone thinks that any of their play is "clean."

 

This is the same Mortensen that reported 11 of 12 footballs were severely deflated and never corrected that report even after it was shown to be completely false? Yeah great track record. And what was the result of that investigation by the way? Good luck finding it (I searched).

Mortensen also reported, along with the radio frequencies, that Patriots were miking a defensive player to steal signals. They found that claim baseless.

Because there wasn't as much media. Joe Montana admitted the 49ers all cheated. Jerry Rice admitted to using stickum.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/new...riots-49ers-linemen/w58ue1w23ec01dq8277h1hrgf

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/new...riots-49ers-linemen/w58ue1w23ec01dq8277h1hrgf

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/jerry-rice-on-stickum-use-all-players-did-it/

There is enough info out there that is verifiable. Like the videotaping. No need to resort to conspiracy theories and citing Mulder and Sully.

The odds of a backup live helmet, which is held under lock and key in a trunk guarded by an NFL employee, just sitting on a bench for Flutie to pick up is absurd on its face.

Bring your standards up fellas.

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=sando_mike&id=3035449

It's all out there if you search hard enough.

 

I never argued that Wilson would be out of the league. What does that have to do with what I wrote? You think Brady is the GOAT. Fine. I don't. And the reason I don't is because he's weak, has a mediocre arm, and has no real elite athletic ability. Add to that, he cheats. When I watch Brady I see a guy who plays smart and somehow knows 99.9999% of the time where the open receiver is. You think he's just that much better than any other QB, ever, while I think it's due to cheating. However, I also see a slow, weak, scared-if-a-player-gets-within-3ft of him QB. I have NEVER seen any "all time great" QB get rattled so easily.

The argument that RT isn't smart enough is laughable. Do you realize that RT scored higher on the wonderlic than Brady? No, probably not.

Saying that P. Manning doesn't have a great arm and is not athletic is what's really ridiculous and frankly borderline stupid.

Brady ran a 5.3 40. Peyton ran a 4.8. Peyton, at one time, could bench close to 400lbs. I doubt Brady can even put up 225. lol... Peyton was clocked at throwing the football around 59-60 mph. Brady was clocked in the low-mid 50's.

Do you have to replace your Brady poster at the end of each season or do you only get that "excited" at the end of their Super Bowl winning seasons? lol

 

He is what he is. Dolphin fans would not bat an eye if the Redskins, Bengals or Chiefs went in another direction at QB, most would probably even applaud them for making a move, the truth of the matter is the fans of those teams feel the same about Tannehill.

Belihick had a Tannehill, his name was Drew Bledsoe.

 

Book smart and football smart are not always the same. I can't see Einstein being a great QB.

 

I want to say after this season you guys will be proven wrong....but he's proven every gripe wrong and people still *****.

 

You actually don't have to search hard at all, because it's all out there as we're told. Literally every topic will give you different opinions, so if your mind is made up, just Google "Spygate false" or "Patriots not cheaters" or whatever you want. By the way, Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, but then he didn't, depending on how you Google. Sugar is like cancer, but it's good for you, depending on how you Google. I just look at facts (pro and con as well as my own direct experiences if they apply) and this "it's out there if you search hard like me" implication makes me smile, only because I cannot be bothered to laugh.
Many people said the cheatriots were not spying outside of the rules in 2007 as the story broke and then were proven wrong. Heath Evans or one of those other Patriots douches employed by the NFL Network said "no way" were they cheating as the tapes were being destroyed and then talked about by Goodell himself, who really wanted to quiet the whole thing down as it was bad for profits. Former players who had rings from the cheating of the franchise are to be believed, yet some people who want to believe the world is just jealous of the Patriots (but amazingly not the 49ers, the Steelers, etc.) want urine samples and question the conflict of interest of some guy in Houston, who writes a book on the topic, and a statistician 6 months in America from China who didn't know what the NFL was when he went through the numbers, more than former Patriots players who profited from the cheating. Then, years later when many people assumed they stopped cheating, Josh McDaniels, former assistant to the assistant pylon boy becomes an offensive genius overnight as he's handed the OC job. Another Festivus miracle! Then, he cashes in on a Denver HC job and gets caught doing what? Spying. Illegally. Again. That allows us to make a very plausible inference that he does not believe you can succeed without cheating, because he has never seen it done without cheating. Oh wait, no, it happened to be a rogue video assistant, just like the rogue Jim McNally who deflated footballs without telling the "genius" Belichick who supposedly has his fingers on every detail so his genius flows through the franchise like lifeblood, and without the consent of the "superstar" who gets paid to throw the ball. But it's out there, just Google it. You guys aren't researching hard enough with high enough standards if you don't find and believe that info. There's more, because it's out there, but I understand some don't want to let go of their belief system that Googling the topic they want means other people who don't agree with them have lower research standards.
Now I have to go find out if smoking lowers the risk of knee replacement surgery.

Edit: Believe it or not, it is out there. http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html

 

All I know is if Gase got fined for running an extra padded practice or two it would make me happy a little on the inside, because considering Pete Carroll, John Harbaugh and Bill Belichick are some of the leagues most fined head coaches then seemingly if you aren't cheating you aren't trying. Add Sean Payton to the list too. And thats just some of the stuff we know about.

So you guys can sit on your high horses and be fake outraged all you want but I guarantee if the shoe was on the other foot Gase and Tannehill would be get a pass at the very least.

 

Drew Bledsoe was Bellicheck's Tannehill....

Wow... Now I've heard everything.

 

If the Dolphins were found to be cheating like the Pats have been cheating I would not support them or root for them.

 

If Einstein was 6'4", 225 pounds and had the ability to throw a football accurately what makes you think he couldn't have been a QB?

And I always hear the adage, "Book smart isn't the same as football smart". What exactly does that mean? Do football players not sit in a class and read books about football schemes, plays, etc etc? Because I'm pretty ****ing certain that they do.

 

Same distinction between book smart and street smarts. Just because you are good at economics or finance doesn't mean you can run a business, manage the economy or be a good investor, and vice versa.

Also.. the kind of ability someone like Einstein had was to figure out a solution to a problem that took a decade or more to figure out after repeated trial and error where you didn't really have a time limit, except the limit on your own lifespan. That's a very different ability than you'll see by many other good scientists where it's a race to get something published before the next group. So actually no I don't think Einstein would have been a good QB even with all the physical tools.

 

Dan Marino is the furthest thing from book smart you will find. He's a meathead. Is proud of proclaiming how much he didn't study in the film room. Famously slept in the film room. Yet on the field his natural ability to find the open guy was evident. If he was book smart (and actually studied) he'd be even better.

If you don't know the difference between book smart and football smart by now I'm not sure anyone else can further explain it to you. Studying schemes in a classroom And then making the right decisions in a split second are completely different.

The Ravens told the announcers when they played the Phins that Tannehill struggles with his progressions. Take away his first read as he has trouble. That's something you don't say about the elite QBs.

 

Being good at economics or finance doesn't mean a person couldn't run a business. Claiming that Einstein couldn't be a QB (if given the physical attributes I stated) is just lazy. Speed of thinking can't be measured based on observing the speed of calculating non-standardized material. The problems that Einstein was working on were far more complex than the problems other people were working on. His answers would be expected to come slower when he is running a marathon and his colleagues are running a 100 yard dash. Even if he is twice as fast, he will take longer to finish.

Every person with a drivers license is processing information at a rate faster than an NFL QB. Sure, some people may crash while some others may avoid the crash in similar circumstances because of their differences in processing information, but they are both still processing info at 70 mph. IMO, Einstein would have been able to process the info that an NFL QB needs rather quickly and efficiently. Of course he'd need practice and reps just like any other QB.

 

Seriously??

Split-second decision-making is something almost no scientist is ever measured on, much less Einstein. Some decisions scientists make are fast, yes, but the goal is not speed, it's accuracy, and there are a multitude of studies showing the famous speed-accuracy tradeoff. In other words, scientists aren't "selected" based on how well they make split-second decisions. Really.. in NO scenario is that true. Accuracy is what counts.

And technically we have no idea how to measure the speed of information processing except for the same task (different people performing the same task), so to say the speed of information processing is somehow faster during driving vs. what an NFL QB does is not based on any ability we have to measure things.

On this one you're totally off base danmarino.

 

I've read articles about measuring the speed of thought processing for athletes. For example, I believe a test called rapid visual acuity, (or something like that) measures the athletes ability to rapidly process information. The example I read was having a baseball player read some words on an object while that object is rotating. I think the test showed that most MLB hitters can read words on something that is rotating at 34 rpm. NASCAR drivers can read those same words on something rotating at near 80 rpm. Of course we're talking about pro drivers, but even your every day driver must process information at absurd (relative to football) speeds.

Of course practice and repetition are key here. A 15 year old during his 1st time behind the wheel isn't going to process info as fast at the 15 year veteran at driving. Implicit memory is key in both driving and playing QB. And saying that someone as bright as Einstein didn't have the ability to improve his implicit memory over time is, IMO, what's off base.

As to the "book smart vs football" topic. Yes, I get it and I agree to an extent. However, and as much as jdang like to bash Marino and talk up Brady, Marino wasn't dumb. He may have been lazy, but he was far from dumb. Being a successful QB takes two things, good physical attributes and intelligence. The most successful QB's possess elite characteristics in one or both of those areas, but the intelligence must be very good or they fail. If that weren't true, people like Jamarcus Russell and Jeff George would be the greatest to ever play.

(Caveat- Brady has average (for the NFL QB) physical attributes, and most likely above average intelligence. However, I think when you know where the open receiver will be based on already knowing the defenses plays before hand that gives him the edge.)

 

Right.. everyone is being tested on the same task: where is the threshold beyond which you can no longer recognize a word, etc.. when the word is rotating.

When everyone is tested on the same task you can get what are called psychometric functions that plot (usually) the probability of detection on the y-axis (because "detecting" or "recognizing" isn't deterministic) and some physical attribute (usually intensity or contrast of a stimulus or in your case speed of rotation) on the x-axis.

Now.. let's say you have two such tasks. For example, in one case the word was rotating while in the other case the background was masking (basically means interferes with detection) the target (that is, the background isn't uniform, but something that has a pattern.. those psychometric functions look different then).

OK.. how do you calculate "speed of information processing" across two tasks? If you can solve that you'll have solved an unsolved problem in psychology/brain science because "speed of information processing" is task-specific.

Yeah I'm not getting into the Marino/Brady debate here. Just pointing out that abilities are very specialized, especially in science and you can't just assume being great at one type of "book smarts" transfers to any other type of "book smarts" much less anything more practical in nature. And Einstein in particular was totally useless as a lab scientist (never could make an experimental discovery) and many scientists who work in the lab are unbelievably inept when it comes to generating good theories, or worse .. math lol (seriously.. it's scary sometimes).

Abilities are specialized in football too.. do you think if you put AP's brain into Marino's body that the result would be a great QB? Or Marino's brain in AP's body a great RB? Who knows, but I doubt it and that's in the same sport. Point is.. abilities are highly specialized and until one person demonstrates excellence in a particular area I wouldn't assume they'd be good at the task.

 

Too bad he was only 6'3 and 223 pounds

 

No one has said Marino is dumb, but I appreciate you defending him.

 

How is calling someone a meathead that much different than calling someone dumb?

 

Yes they did.

 

Beat me to it...lol

 

I hope you're joking.

 

If they aren't tested on split second decision making, how do you know they aren't good at it? Your argument is predicated on a faulty notion that speed decision making is mutually exclusive with long and careful decision making.

 

They're selected on criteria other than split-second decision-making so there's no evidence they'd be good at that. Similarly, I'm not assuming Marino or Brady would be good at making scientific discoveries until they actually make one.

Oh, and like I said.. there is the well-known speed-accuracy tradeoff where maximizing one leads to worse performance in the other.

 

So in your world, unless it's been tested they're just terrible at it. Makes perfect sense....sigh.....

Again, what evidence do you have to say they are bad at X?

 

There are some things that are learned that don't seem to affect a person's ability to "unlearn" it and then learn to do something opposite of what was originally learned. All the examples you'll find are "simple" things like learning to prioritize accuracy over speed when moving your hand from one location to another target location, then reversing that by learning to prioritize speed over accuracy for the same task.

But in almost everything else where some decent amount of "higher-order" learning is required, you don't unlearn anything (though you can forget stuff!). What you learn is built on top of what was learned before, and it's hard to get rid of the efficiencies/inefficiencies due to the previous learning.

In sports.. look at how a guy in MMA that started from wrestling vs. kickboxing ends up. With few exceptions, they can train the other aspect(s) of MMA as much as they want and they still show the foundation they started off with. That's not because they choose to do so but because they can't unlearn stuff and start over.

Same thing here. If you select people based on their ability to think carefully about a problem over decades, that way of thinking changes your brain in ways that makes it nearly impossible to undo it and then prioritize something that was de-selected, like speed (and like I said.. speed and accuracy trade off with each other).

So the default assumption here is that you actually do get worse at things you don't train yourself to do well. It's a well-known principle in neuroscience called "use it or lose it". You can see this happening with individual neurons, neural circuits and in learned behavior.

So for a claim like Einstein would be able to be a great QB, the onus of evidence lies on the side claiming that, not some "we don't know so let's just assume that's equally likely to every other possibility" type of thought process.

 

You can take me out of your high horse argument if you included me in that statement. When a team is full of douches I call it like I see it and I did the same during Bullygate. I think Jonathan Martin is not football material (which he proved to be true a couple of years later as he left the sport), not a tough guy at all and was in the wrong place. Bad pick. However, nobody should be calling him the racial names Inognito and the others involved were calling him, nor should they be saying what they were saying about his sister. The coaches were also at fault, principally Philbin. It would be easier as a fan to pretend somebody planted those texts on the phones of Incognito and his gang, or to say the whole world is out to get the Miami Dolphins had this behavior somehow lead to winning more, but I see right and wrong for what they are in my book, not dependent on the level of inconvenience to me that it may cause. I called it like I saw it and at the time I referred to these losers as "the current caretakers" of my team, waiting for their stench to leave the franchise. I no longer encouraged my son after that to watch games with me on TV. I no longer bought merchandise from then on and will not take another trip to Miami to watch a game until the last player involved is gone. Book it.
I don't expect longtime Patriots fans to leave their team, I just laugh when they won't acknowledge what most of them know to be true as much as I laugh at the bandwagon fans who came along after the cheated SB's started to come. They cheated and continue to do so and have been proven cheaters in 4 of the 5 SB's. We can be pretty sure it is still continuing today, which takes out all 5, but whatever. I am not going to let some douche bags who happened to be on my favorite team drive me away so I don't expect other fans to leave their team. But I also have no respect for cheaters or those who defend them. Your morals or values are what they are and you can't turn them on or off. Either you disagree with cheating or you don't. Either you think bullying and racism are wrong or you don't. You can't say they are wrong only when it is convenient and when it is inconvenient make excuses and expect to be taken seriously. But I don't think anybody should have to let dumb asses on their favorite team dictate that they leave as fans IMO. Nobody would last more than 5 years as a fan if that were the case.

 

Sorry, all of that is conjecture. After all, (as I've learned from you), it's perfectly ok to say that doesn't exist or isn't possible without testing.

Now, what you need to do is provide actual evidence Einstein's brain was incapable of making fast & correct decisions. You have no basis for that other than a random opinion you formulated out of thin air....per usual.

So for your argument to have any merit, you'll need to provide evidence that Einstein's brain was poor at fast decision making. Until you have that, you are talking out of your butt.

 

We don't have direct evidence of the kind you're asking for (which is ridiculous btw). We don't have any evidence Einstein's brain if attached to the body of Marino would or would not have been able to do any particular thing, including function in the first place! lol.

What we DO know is what the default assumption here should be based on huge amounts of evidence in tons of other cases, and that's that it's extremely unlikely (from a purely statistical point of view) a brain that was great at one thing, and was trained for a long time in that very thing, would be world class in a totally different task. Basically doesn't happen except in very rare circumstances.

Anyway.. I know you think it's somehow smart to always say "we don't know", but it's really stupid. There is literally nothing we know with absolute certainty. I mean logicians will even tell you we can't prove logic itself is valid!!

Point is, the evidence gathered so far weighs tremendously in favor of what I said. There's literally NO realistic reason to assume Einstein would be world-class at anything outside of the specific thing he demonstrated (which was purely theoretical physics in the early 20th century).

As usual, I'm not going to entertain your ridiculous ideas any further so go ahead and have the (predictable with 100%) last word you need to have and we'll move on to another topic.

 

As far as Tannehill goes, I think he does all he can to prepare. He is very hard working IMO. I think he has trouble making quick decisions that are not pre-planned. He looks lost at times when plan A is shut down. Then he is on his own and instinct has to take over. That's when he looks more out of sorts than many QB's IMO. We can still win with him but he has his limitations and I think those are his limitations. Anticipation, instinct, ad-lib, that kind of football feel stuff. Throwing in traffic where he needs to anticipate a player coming open is an issue as well. He may improve in that area before the "instinct" improves with experience, if it ever does. I hope it does. He may be a great QB when he's like 32 or 35, who knows? But it won't be from lack of trying.
I like how he seemed more at ease with otehr players on the sideline last year too. I think Gase helped right the ship in general, and probably was the first coach to point out what he needed to do in that area. Being a leader involves being one of the guys as well as working hard and pointing out things you see to others.

 

We all know Einstein that was smart.

When I said that Einstein, if given the proper physical abilities/characteristics, was smart enough to play QB, and I guess I wasn't clear, I was also implying that he would go through the natural progression that all NFL QB's have gone through. This includes being introduced to the game of football at an early age and learning the game through years of repetition and playing.

 

If you watch him in college he was fantastic when plays broke down. What we have seen (and hopefully we won't b seeing it too much more) is something that RT was forced to do by past coaches during his NFL career. I think not a lot of people consider that when they watch him now.

 

Yeah.. then I'd assume he'd have an average brain for a QB with the proper physical abilities (unless there's evidence otherwise). I wouldn't assume "great brain" for theoretical physics implies "great brain" for anything else that is a bit far from that. Like I said, he didn't even have that kind of brain in experimental physics, much less any other science outside physics.

 

In college he could get away with rolling to the outside for a pass to a receiver cutting back to the sideline. That's a very easy pass for a QB who is a gifted athlete and can get outside consistently (and can zing the ball in there so quickly). Same goes for when he took off running. I think his highlight tape that I saw when we drafted him was exclusively one of those 2 things on almost every play. I would like to see him run more, but he will not be able to take off successfully as much as he did in college because of the equally high athletic ability of the defenders in the NFL. I think the same goes for being able to roll out for an easy pass to the sidelines (where there is almost no traffic to anticipate). That's what I think is going on. I think that is why he is being coached to stay in the pocket more. Defenses will force you to do different things well enough to win.

 

Dan Marino had a 14 or 15 on his wonderlic. Geno Smith 24.

Just saying. Nothing about Marino screamed intelligence.

Doesn't anyone here think Terry Bradshaw as book smart? I think he has the same wonderlic or similar.

I think the game has changed tho.