Is Ryan Tannehill the long term solution at QB?

Way to go off topic, you are a winner.

 

She died a while back, talked about it in outreach for a while when it was really rough for me.

I'm 12? Haha. Stay classy, junior.



Edit: And then in a sad, cowardly fashion, You ninja change your post to this of all things? I'm Off topic? LOL.

pathetic.

 

He's most definitely making a condescending suggestion.

He wouldn't make the reference if not for that.

I've read this whole thread. It really had some good conversation but non of his "40 pages" stuff is worthy of being posted.




Are we really too immature to ask that if people are having a reasonable conversation that someone who wants to photobomb just stay out?

Why do people feel like their 2 cents is worth posting when it's an announcement of how long the thread is?

 

double post.

 

That took an awkward turn.

Really, though, these conversations are like herding cats. We give reasons to one person why something isn't true, then two or three jump in to argue our point using some other random data, so we respond to those people, then those reasons get questioned by one or two others, using other things, while the original person starts arguing that they never said those things, while the other people say that they proved our original argument wing using data that had nothing to do with it.

Then we get accused of deflecting and ignoring.

 

Why does it bother you so much? It's a public forum. Maybe take your own advice.

He said nothing out of line. Out of all the posts in this thread to get worked up over, you sure picked a silly one.

 

Yep, just affirming what I've been saying all along.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think people need to be willing to advance the conversation is all. When someone like you suggests the O-line impacts the QB, someone might combat that with the opposite and say the line is being affect by the QB. That's fair.

That's fine. No problem there at all. If you disagree on on side of that then just disagree. No problem. The fact you and I are actually in agreement on Tannehill but disagree in how we express things something yet can still have a debate without insulting each other is a commentary on us as two grown adults.

For example. read dfaciero's posts over the last 2 pages and ask yourself if he's someone you would want to have a debate with? Probably not. Personal insults. Snarky back-biting. Just a bunch of rather negative sounding stuff. Very high and mighty.

Everyone has opinions. It's all about how you express them. The problem usually lies in folks just not having enough humility.

 

You attacked a HUGE generalization post that wasn't even directed at you, AT ALL, While literally name dropping people left and right like this. Talk about disrespectful and contradicting. Please.

I see no debating or factual here in this post?

I posted several facts and laid out questions that were ignored, but i'm supposed to continue civil debate while being attacked instead? Yawn. Could you be more contradictory?

 

Actually I showed stats that better QBs have had similar or worse OLs so forget about his OL argument. Within a reasonable range, OLs don't hold back good QBs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Greg is a good poster. You should be worried about resnor and Fin D. Those two are downright toxic and they're thanking your posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Also, at the end of the day there's a lot of number crunching that no one wants to do. If we really wanted to find out how good Tannehill was and put numbers behind it we could do it by scrupulously evaluating all the players and going back of past teams with winning and losing records and measuring countless variables.

No one's actually doing that though, not nearly to the extent it would end this debate so we'll still in the zone where opinions are free and folks want to put in their 2 cents. As discussion become more statistically informed, you'd see fewer opinion offered and more folks just deferring to whatever the numbers said.

You'd also see more useful conversation and debate about whether or not a given stat is a good one.

 

Nope. Myself and others pointed out Tannehill had the least to do with his perfect QBR. The stats are out there on the YAC, the multiple missed tackles and the amount of rushing yards that assisted in opening the field.

And we actually look at trends and stats over a long period of time, not a single game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You have shown no such thing. It's been pointed out to you and yet you keep claiming it

 

Does the run game function well when the line is playing poorly and grading out poorly? Does the passing game function better when the run game is also functioning well? In other words, when the oline is blocking well in the run game are they also blocking well in the passing game? I suspect they are. I suspect the successful run game is a function of the oline, which has been the major argument all along.

 

Fin D and res are two people that i have respect for and at least approach things from the 'common sense' angle, which is more that can be said for most here. I agree with them on a lot, Like, that football is a team sport, meaning being successful at it (or going to the playoffs) involves a myriad of factors..... other than just the QB.

Greg has earned no respect from me whatsoever, nor have I seen any substance from him worthy of it in the first place. All I see is name dropping from him, and it's sad for someone who is complaining this much.

 

Adamprez, here you go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Resnor is a good guy he's just been beating the same drum for A LONG time. HIs point is valid. In all honesty, Tannehill's line is bad and it's clear the team needs to feature Tannehill less and run the ball more. People have said that if you're going to build a great line and run the ball down people's throats that it doesn't matter who the QB is but that's not entirely true. You'd need one with a strong arm that can push the ball and Tannehill can, at least in terms of arm strength, do that. Is he accurate enough on the deep throws? Eh....even with so much blame going to Wallace, I'm still not sure I believe Tannehill is fine given how putrid some of his misses look.

I was calling for the team to build up a heavy running game earlier this year. I said specifically the one major flaw of the team was that they couldn't run the ball late in games or in tough spots like on the goal line. There were a lot of situational problems you noticed if you were watching that maybe weren't obvious when you looked at Miller's 5.1 ypc average. Guards and a bigger RB would've helped that. Gurley would've helped that--more than Parker anyway. I WAS ABSOLUTELY in favor of building up the running game and it obviously would've helped.

Res is absolutely right about that.

However, I dont' think it's fair to say that this late in the game (55 games in) that we don't have a good feel for Tannehill. Eh....I'd say we do. He's a limited upside guy who can be VERY efficient if the right things are happening around him. Truth is, if you go back to the 2013 year (Sherman's last) Tannehill was starting to put up some good numbers. Let's recall he threw for just shy of 4,000 that year and almost as many TDs as in 2014.

Personally, I think Lazor kind of cleaned things up but he didn't fix anything. Lazor freakin' sucks as a play-caller. I've never seen anyone so afraid of running on 1st and 2nd down. It's like he's gun-shy. But he also runs to the wrong side too. Not sure if you all noticed but when James got hurt and Fox came in the very next play was a run behind Fox. WTF?! Maybe run behind your All-Pro LT Albert? Maybe?

That's a strength and the one thing we all agree on is that Lazor isn't helping this offense with his play-calling and the team avoided fixing it's most major offensive issue (the line) last offseason).

 

I never said anything about Mariota. We don't have enough of a sample size but solely from what I've seen up to now since Oregon, I'm projecting him to be better than Tannehill. I'd trade for him straight up based on that.

Tannehill has had great games. I just haven't seen enough to convince me he is the solution. If he adds things I've mentioned, he will be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Finsfandan has an axe to grind with me, since he continues to say that win/loss is not a QB stat, but yet continues to bring it up as evidence of who are elite QBs. Further, he's upset that when I made a specific claim, that no QB is solely responsible for 10 wins, and he said that Manning and Luck were two that applied to, that I said he was saying that they were alone responsible for the wins.

But that was what he said. I can't make this stuff up.

 

No, it's because somebody else notified me that you were speaking for me in another thread. Misrepresenting me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

OK "Captain Common Sense" .... LOL

 

Can you ever learn to stop speaking for people? Seriously?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So you DIDN'T say what I said you said?

 

What are you claiming now? I'm lost with all your accusations...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Are you still mad about the last time I smoked you? Please, not here.
Nice input and substance, as usual. As (i'm sure) you can tell it's always so welcome by everyone here. /s

Oh great, now i'm responding to an attack on me so that means Greg has to write a column about how toxic I am.

Zzzz.

 

I don't think people should have their minds made up about Tannehill if they're going by the numbers which are available to fans.

My mind is not made up. I can't speak for cbrad but I doubt his is either. DJ holds out hope Tannehill can improve. A lot of reasonable people are cautiously optimistic.

You have your mind made up that Tannehill is a top-15 guy. That's fine, but it shouldn't offend you enough to insult anyone when people don't agree. You sound like you want to force people to buy into your opinion by screaming louder than them.

Not matter how strongly you believe something, that really won't convince anyone who wants firm evidence. This is a 40+ page thread. There's clearly two sides to the story here. The only issue is anyone who has a problem with that.

 

Welcome to the ignore list.

What makes anyone that bitter?

 

It was in jest, thats why I deleted it within litterally seconds. Obviously that wasnt my intention as I do not visit that forum. Sorry to hear, and I hope you do not take it personally.

But either way, you were out of line by trying to bait me with a Mike Wallace post that was very off topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Oh i dunno...

Someone White knighting a general post that has nothing to do with them? Attacking someone whilst COMPLAINING about personal attacks? Holy contradictions, do you even read what you right?

Please ignore me twice if you can.

 

After the pics of chicks youve been railing, I urge everyone to take your opinion of what is "great" with a grain of salt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You hope I don't take it personal that you insulted my dead mom, and then ninja edited it after I pointed it out to you? More than likely just out of report fear? Jest.. right. .... don't worry I don't.

You were baiting with the Kap post but nice try, again.

Have a good night.

 

Bahahahahaha this guy is always undefeated and "smokes" people because he just doesn't see posts...
This is the funniest thing I've read on here in quite some time...
You're something dude. Amazing the way you work the message boards.
Much respect.

Post #791 on Page 40 brah...

 

Listen guys, this thread should be closed. It's ridiculous how nobody can agree even on stats. There's really only about 3 guys that swear Tannehill is being held back by his team and that he'd be awesome. You can say that about a lot of QBs.

Look at the links I've posted giving stats on our OLs throughout the years including this one. Look at the better performing QBs with similar or worse OLs.

We can't complain about our WRs or RBs anymore, yet our offense still stalls. Why?

Look at Tannehill's YPA throughout the years. Can't make big plays often enough to threaten a defense. Our winning percentage is best with higher rushing games. Therefore defenses just need to focus on the run and there's a good chance they'll win.

If Tannehill doesn't develop better pocket presence, scramble more often, hit more deep balls (not long plays with YAC), and hit more read option plays then I'm not interested in keeping the guy.

He can have over 60% completion percentage averaging a low yardage average and that won't help us win. He can throw less often but hit bigger plays more often with this same team and we'd win more games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm glad you find it hilarious. I read that post. You didn't even slightly answer my question. Hence my response.

4 GWD vs 2 GWD? that's even a START to your reasoning here?????? Oh i'm sure the game winning drives consisted of Dalton playing 1v11 on the field too, right?

You think Dalton and the Bengals went to the playoffs last year because of 19/17 3300 Dalton? You are more delusional than I thought. That TEAM went to the playoffs. Dalton was lucky enough to be there while he flopped and died like he normally does in the post season.

Much respect BREH

 

Nope. It was edited about 15 secs after typed, and it had nothing to do with my fear of being reported....believe me this.

It was a bad reaction and you must have been hitting the refresh button at an alarming rate to have had time to even see it.

Acxept my apology or dont, or just put me on ignore.....that way when I lol at your heat you wont be offended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Oh no! You don't cut him loose. Let me make clear that he WILL be the guy through 2016. There isn't a question about that in my view. Given that fact, I think we must acknowledge that (1) there's more to come including another offseason of rebuilding and chemistry-improvement and (2) if he's still the same guy in another 1.5 years, it'll be 80 games in and that's a lot so we'll feel more confident either way we go.

If the question was in regards to cutting bait right now...no way. One thing I said at times with Philbin is that coaches ought to get several years, not just 2 or 3. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that same thing can be said even more about QBs. You really need to see quite a bit unless someone is just utterly garbage. HOWEVER, I think Tannehill has consistently shown that he's mediocre in seeing the field and slow in making decisions. That stuff worries me because it tells me he may not have the prerequisite skills on which to build up a good understanding of offensive concepts and all that.

I don't care how athletic a guy is, if he can't see the field and make quick decisions it's sort of game over isn't it?


TO me, this is all a "what if" conversation. I wouldn't get serious about it until after 2016 when maybe then--after 5 years--you can offer more confident judgement. If my opinion was that after 5 years he's still struggling to see the field, recognize blitzes, audible, etc. then yeah, I'll be really worried. For now, I just want to see him play clean against bad competition (which he did against Tennessee and Houston) and rise up against difficult competition (which he's only done against Jacksonville).

I was really disappointed in how he looked utterly stiffled against the Bills and Jets. That's frustrating 4 years in. He should start being the reason the offense works. I totally agree with you 100% that when he's down 22-7 and casually walking off the field after a sack or another 3-and-out that it send the wrong message and it may speak to his lack of fire.

 

Travis we've posted many times, all the way back from the FH days.

Why is it bad to have your mind made up about a QB?
How many starts does it have to be before someone can have an opinion on something that is firm?
And people act like it's a bad thing to have an opinion and then be wrong about it.
You can have an opinion, have your mind made up, listen to someone and change it.

I've been right about things and I've been wrong about things. That's what happens when you say things and have opinions.

 

Small sample size...


As in didnt see the face. She may have had bucked teeth or a lazy eye.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Oh yeah, of course.

I'm SO offended, I'll go cry on our trophies that neither one of your nba teams will touch, probably in your lifetime.