If taking away his primary read caused him to be terrible, after five years wouldn't every team know that and just do it? When they said primary, what did they mean? Did they mean his first read, or did they mean his only reliable receiver? You guys realize that usually there is an alternate, reasonable interpretation other than "Tannehill is a bad QB."
Mando says their are people in the organization that feel the entire team needs to be torn down and rebuilt with a new quarterback, there’s another faction that believes the team is only a few pieces away from competing for a playoff spot. We’ll see which side wins.
Need a reference to see what a great QB can do for your team? See: Jimmy Garoppolo + 2017 San Francisco 49ers Much easier to mask holes on the team with a great QB over trying to completely build everything to be great around an average QB.
Jimmy Garoppolo has not proven to be anything at this point other than an average QB. They had Brian Hoyer (who is one of the poorest QBs I have seen) and C.J. Beathard (who most people would have to look up to know who he is). No one wants a Brian Hoyer or C.J. Bethard type quarterback.
Garrop is AMAZING!!!!! To be able to lead the team in passing yards, tackles, FG pct, INTs, rushing yards, coffin corner punts is the stuff of legend.
agreed but I think Carr is significantly better than RT and now with gruden the raiders are going to be far better. carr and RT both got dealt bad injuries at bad times to really tell. I agree Henne was worse than RT but as far as careers they are going to be the same wash outs. I think RT is a drag because the offense is so simple and when Juice leaves the team you will see how mush RT will struggle just something to keep in mind juice leaving is going to kill the offense IMO. and only time will tell on the pretty good part of that statement, and I hope he does prove me wrong only makes arguing about something much easier when the subject leaves the qb topic.
Good god man, SF went from being complete losers, switch to Garoppolo and they are all this sudden winning games... hmmmm? I guess it wasn’t Garoppolo either...I forgot how star studded SF was... my bad
ummm ok an above avg qb would have all those things or atleast 1 of them wouldn't they? or do above avg qbs just ride off in the sunset as backups? your a joke, and only time will prove you are I wrong, based off your opinions of his stats you think hes above avg that's fine, based off my knowledge of the position and his abilities is what I base mine off and I will leave it at that no need for you to banter and banter about how what you believe is better we will see next year like I said and when its another avg yr then you can apologize and tell me I was right...agreed? and if its a 13 win season and a bye I will def say your right.
The writing is on the wall, you know it, I know it, everyone is gonna use this “it’s still early” thing until you can’t... I know how bitter it must feel if a QB like Garoppolo was gonna leap frog Tannehill this quick in the QBS rankings...
This is the problem.... 13 win or 3 win, doesn't matter because W/L record isn't a QB stat. Why didn't Seattle make the playoffs this year?
They went on a winning streak and the dude is undefeated as a starter.... the hate is quite clear from you. If he’s average, then sure, Tannehill has to be garbage.
Tannehill lead us to the playoffs last year. Yes, I know he got hurt, but he was playing well, and should get credit from you for that. Average QBs aren't getting Pro Bowls. Playoff wins require a good team, not just an average or above average QB. If our offer is simple, why is it so hard for the players to grasp? Maybe you should listen to the coach in regards to who the problem was on the offense last season. Who are the players he got rid of? If losing Landry kills our offense, that says far more about our offense than it does the QB. Landry shouldn't be the focal point of an offense.
What does that have to do with anything...a multiple playoff winning, SB winning, Pro Bowl getting QB is on that team. If those things are indicative of QBs then again, why didn't they make the playoffs? Or is your bull**** stance that its either the QB or the conference that determines playoff status? C'mon back up the ridiculousness.
As much as it pains me to say it (since he came from the NE camp), I think it's hard to deny that Garappolo is a great quarterback. He had the best QBR in the league last season during Brady's 4-week time-off and overall, then he drops a 99.7 QBR over six games with the league-worst 49ers...good for 8th overall in 2017? I realize he's not a long-term proven commodity yet, but those six games in SF make me a believer.
You calling Jimmy G great has absolutely NOTHING to do with Tannehill. Seriously, stop with the nonsense, because it is.. when you reply to people like this, your credibility takes a shot. I like Jimmy G, calling him great is extremely premature....adding in the Tannehill comment is incredibly immature. Sorry shame, anyone bitter on here is you. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, with silly trolling posts like this, thats over. I actually thought you were a little better than this type of stuff.
For Tannehill to be successful we have to go 13-3? Damn. Someone let Marino know he was unsuccessful and a below average QB the vast majority of his career.
There is no hate. I do not call a quarterback who has played 6 games in the NFL as great. There are many factors that are involved. Jimmy G. has not proven to last the test of time. Is he going to turn out to be good or be another flash in the pan like Nick Folk? All Jimmy G. has proven is that he is not as bad as two quarterbacks who are not even below-average starters.
Agreed. He could be destined to become great. But now? No way, and that is not a knock on him...I like his game.
Anyone remember when Nick Foles lit the league on fire that one year? What about when Matt Flynn was the hottest QB out there?
I have watched many QBs be great for short amount of times and fizzled out. Being a QB in the NFL is difficult. I deny any QB as great who hasn't at least started two NFL seasons.
That's completely your right to judge a position that way- it's probably a smart move. But at the same time, ask yourself this. If Tannehill played the last six games in San Fran (assuming his knee was fine), would the team have gone 6-0? That's a tough assumption to make for any QB joining any team- much less the 49ers. I'm just giving the guy props at this point.
You still love me man lol Not that I’m everybody’s favorite poster (by a long shot), but you guys love the debate, we are all Phins fans, we may disagree on what the team should/shouldn’t do but I’m sure we both just want to see us win, we are different in our attitudes to getting there, its all good my good brotha.
OK first a general comment. It is seriously stupid for anyone to use "plays per fumble" or "touches per fumble" if you want to do statistical analysis afterwards because, as you see in that chart in your link, a bunch of guys have ZERO fumbles, and you can't divide by zero! So anyone out there doing "statistical analysis" using "plays per fumble" as opposed to "fumbles per play" isn't even thinking through the consequences of formulating the problem that way. That alone should reduce trust in these sites, including the one you just linked to. But to directly answer your question about whether fumbles per play with NE vs. with another team are significantly different, the method to use is called the paired t-test (this is different than the t-test I usually use) where the data in two conditions are paired with each other. Basically the paired t-test asks whether the difference between the two conditions follows a normal distribution (bell shaped curve). The answer in your case is that the probability it DOES follow a normal distribution is 98.81% lol.. so assuming that data is correct, and assuming those are the ONLY players that fit the criteria (I'm not looking this up), there is no significant difference between playing for NE vs. playing for another team, measured by fumbles per play. I've got a problem with this link. I can't reproduce their data. Maybe you or someone else can help out? Take two teams, NE and Detroit. They explicitly say they went to NFL's official site (I'm guessing it's http://www.nfl.com/stats/team) and they first looked up "fumbles and number of plays", then subtracted all cases where 'K' balls were used. OK, let's try this out. Go to 2015 regular season and you'll see under "offense" and "game stats" that NE had a total of 1,050 scrimmage plays and 14 fumbles. Now, go to "kick returns" and look at total number of fumbles for both punt and kick returns. For NE you get a total of 3 (all from punt returns). So 14-3 = 11. But 1050/11 = 95.45 while that link says NE had 105 plays per fumble. I don't see where that extra "1" came from, and you need an extra "1" because 1050/10 = 105 as they suggest. But suppose I'm just missing something. OK.. now look at Detroit which has 1,030 scrimmage plays and 17 fumbles, with 1 from kick returns and 3 from punt returns. That gives you 17-4 = 13 fumbles for 1030 plays, or 79.23 plays per fumble. Yeah? Well.. look at their graph. Detroit is just BELOW that 75 play line! So if I'm missing something from somewhere with NE, then I'm "seeing too much" by subtracting too many 'K' ball fumbles with Detroit! Anyway, we need to clear this up or this link isn't trustworthy either.
So did Thad Lewis and Tyrod Taylor and Ryan Fitzpatrick and Josh McCown and Joe Flacco....and that means what?
Agreed Shame. My point on Jimmy G had nothing to do with Tannehill...I thought that was a little lame on your part. I like Jimmy G a lot, just think the word great right now is a little over the top. All good. Phins up!