Mel Kiper bashes Tannehill

That's not why I feel bad for him. I don't want him to work for US anymore. It's a human thing. Not everything in life is about the Dolphins or how much money a man makes.

The guy probably feels unappreciated and sees how much Campbell is appreciated. That's all. You can't sympathize with him because of how much money he made? That's heartless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Here's the lesson of this thread. Even if you were spot on about the needs of this team, if you say one thing incorrect, none of what you said is valid. No matter how many things you said that was right, came to fruition and worked.

But yeah, Turner and Albert were invaluable. No other linemen could've helped us run the ball.

The guy that said the easy thing, which is to trash the OL based on face value is correct. Despite the examples of other teams using backups that are serviceable. The vague guy was right. The guy with no reasons was right. Populism at its finest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I know, it sucks when you're convinced you're right, and few agree with you. You came in crowing about how you were right, all they had to do was change the gameplan. You've said it multiple times...even though much more was changed than just the gameplan.

We have evidence from two seasons that losing Albert sends our oline into a death spiral. Perhaps the Patriots have guys step in and be successful due to coaching. Surprise, surprise, we fired our head coach, a supposed oline guy. The answer was not simply to run the ball more. It's more complex than that. Literally no one is saying that running more didn't help, we're simply arguing that it was multi-faceted.

 

I'd love to still have Incognito, btw. Thought it was stupid to get rid of him.

 

No, that's not what happened...at all.

You made an obvious statement that nobody really argued. Then you you literally invented a talking point for a valued poster and then proceed to argue against the point you made up and attributed to said poster. Then you went all over the "how much did X player effect Y scale" going form end to another. You did that. Not me, not resnor, but you. And you wanted props or respect or recognition or who knows for doing all that.

No one but no one thought scheme had nothing to do with the oline woes, including Boomer. You don't get a prize. You don't get props. You basically said water is wet. Whoopie do.

 

Incognito was terrible his last year in Miami.

 

Lol except none of you attributed anything to the OL woes. You just agreed they were a liability. I gave several reasons and I was right.

The argument now is about if Turner and Albert allowed the scheme to be executed. I argued that we could've ran the scheme since Tannehill was drafted, we just needed a willingness to stick to it.

If your argument is that what I'm saying is not true then you have the burden of proof of explaining which OL would look good dropping back into pass protection as often as we used to. Last night's Pats fan explained this to you. It's not a miracle. It's not only attributable to select players.

I argued that Turner isn't irreplaceable with one of our other guys and Albert isn't as highly ranked a run blocker as you guys would think. Look it up on PFF.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Can't tell if serious...

 

You know what I'm referring to. Boomer and his crew that asserted the OL was simply a liability. There was a comparison to the Dallas OL. It was clearly about talent and not scheme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Because this thread isn't about why the oline has woes. This thread is about Tannehill's struggles. We don't need to go into WHY the oline has played poorly when we're saying they've been Tannehill's biggest obstacle. That's been discussed before. Numerous times in numerous other threads. Boomer, for example, despised the job Philbin has done with scheme and personnel across the board. That is what I've been trying to tell you, but you won't listen.

My argument is that since Tannehill has been here he's had little effective talent on the oline. There's a reason the offense and oline were fine before Albert got hurt last year.

Either way, scheme plays a part. Talent plays a part. Regardless of the percentage that each effected oline play is irrelevant to this thread, but you refuse to acknowledge that.

Make a thread about the oline.

 

His point was that of a Tannehill apologist. Can't do anything because of the OL. Do you know how hard it is to throw with a 300 pound lineman in your face? Do you? Now imagine playing with the Dallas OL. Romo said they were so helpful.

That's more or less what he said. A comparison of talent, not asserting why they suffered. Just a comparison of skill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is why you get attitude from me...its your arrogance.

You proclaim to know the mind of probably the most respected poster on this site. A person who is literally connected to the team, the game and professional sports. He actually writes columns for the miami papers and posts quite a bit in the Club forum. Posts, which I may add, **** all over your asinine and criminally uninformed take on his stance.

You don't know what you're talking about and you're talking about it in the wrong thread.

It really is that simple. Take it or leave it.

 

Perhaps understanding WHY Boomer made that post would allow you to see why your stance is so ridiculous right now. He made the post, in an effort to shed some informed light on WHY Tannehill isn't to blame, as certain posters want to make him. He wasn't trying to diagnose all the issues, just why Tannehill should not be expected to play like a HoFer behind the line, the way they were playing. You took the post and ran in a different direction.

By the way, I hope your shoulder is ok. I was afraid you were going to yank it out of its socket the way you were stretching around to pat yourself on the back.

 

You are the second leg of the worst posting "couple" this site has.

If you dont like me calling you out when you consisently make those ridiculous claims, hiu have 2 choices.

1.) Stop letting your emotions for Ryan get in the way and force you to come in to a thread making false claims and base your entire argument on things PEOPLE NEVER EVEN SAY.

2.) Block me.


If you continue to post this way? I will continue to call you out and disect your false claims, then when you claim Im wrong and you just dont feel like proving it....folks will continue to point and laugh.

Either way, its all up to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Question. If Albert and Turner started, but the game plan was the exact same. 10 runs, 40 passes. Success?

 

Why assume? WHY NOT JUST READ HIS POSTS???

 

Absolutely not. I am so glad Captain Campbell threw that blueprint out. I dunno who they thought they had throwing the ball back there but the kid clearly could not shoulder the team week in, week out. Balance was an absolute necessity ...... especially to keep defenses honest and to help mask personnel deficiencies.

 

It's not mind reading. I replied to the post because I disagreed with it. You're always misrepresenting what I type.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I always feel that we should be clear about how we feel about the qb from the get so good games or bad games doesn't skew the projection..sometimes have to reiterate that stance..

what ive always said....We can win games with ryan..if his entire skillset is used within the context of the gamelan..my concern with ryan is how he will deal with pressure in playoff intensity and tempo, on the road, in a hostile evirnment..its always been that, so when he plays well im not suprised, no'one said he was bad, but for me personally, if he's used correctly, you can win 10 games a season and make the playoffs..i will just need to wait and see on the other stuff..and hope that along the way the coordinators and ryan himself remember, your, he, is not just a pocket passer...please don't forget it...always try to keep that balance within yourself...if you do, you wll have the best chance of individual and team success.

 

End/thread.

 

Nope and WAY LESS success than OL backups dealing with a 1:1 pass to run ratio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm with you, DJ. I've even said Tannehill could win a Super Bowl with the last couple of seasons Seahawks type of team. Or this year's Broncos with a running game lol.

I know you're happy about him running the read option now. I know I am.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Drop the sanctimonious crap, you're every bit as bad (worse, actually) than what you're accusing him of.

 

Or you're gonna what? Keyboard tough guy?

Ooooh...he be'er not...nuh uh...you bess just quit it...

Your schtick is tired...how long did it take you to get ran off FH? That's an accomplishment.

Yes...it is a team sport...yes, a QB can elevate a team consistently...generational guys...nobody ever said they expected RT to be Marino or Rodgers, yet that's the standard, since it's SO easy to get...would love to have them, but it's not that simple. The difference between those guys and your standard franchise QB is fairly huge.

Luck sure uplifted that team last night...

GTFO.

That 97 yard drive was pretty uplifting if you ask me...against the #1 passing defense in the league...158.3 passer rating for the offense on that drive...or was that not a "spot?" RT chose the pass to Stills on his own.

 

How can you predict a Super Bowl win for a guy who's never even sniffed the playoffs? That's a whole different stage.

 

Great, thanks for sharing. Would definitely read again.

 

I've already given my stance on why I argued with him about it. The OL didn't lack the required talent. They needed a scheme change.

You still don't understand that Tannehill was partly to blame... He could've audibled to built in run plays. He could've throws screens, ran read option, play action once they establish those plays.

And don't say he couldn't communicate with the OC to dial up some plays. At the VERY least he could've audibled to more runs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So so what you are saying is Resnor is a bad poster? It's crazy that after all you've been through together you would turn on Resnor and start insulting him, it's insane that you do things like this.

Finally you you have a friend, and you run his name into the mud. Unbelievable.

 

I'm not predicting it. I'm saying it could happen with a really good supporting cast. Because it can. Dilfer won a SB and Marino didn't. Let that sink in. Tannehill definitely needs big time help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Anything "can" happen. My point is you don't know what the kid is made of yet when it comes to that stage .... especially when the windows to throw are even tighter.

 

Ever heard of sarcasm? When you repeatedly say "the only thing that had to change," It's unreasonable to believe that you mean "the only thing that had to change?"

You guys are borderline insane.

 

I'm so glad you quote him once in awhile, I can still laugh at his idiocy.

 

I like to see some good games strung together in the regular season before I start predicting he can win a SB with this team. And the whole Trent Dilfer example is tiresome....something that happened 15 years ago doesn't really prove much IMO.

 

Lol, you quoted me like an hour ago??? God, I'm really starting to be emberassed for you. 36 ehhhh....I'm not buying it.

 

Like I said, I wasn't predicting anything. I'm saying he can win with a very good supporting cast like what we saw this past Sunday.

And yes I know anything can happen.

Dilfer isn't the only mediocre to bad QB to win a Super Bowl. There's a list of them. Point is Tannehill, assuming he doesn't crap the bed, is good enough. It's saying something.

When it happened doesn't matter so much. Sure, the officiating favors the passing game now especially with elite QBs factoring into the Super Bowl W/L column but Eli didn't win on his arm alone either. That was pretty recent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes but Eli made a lot of plays in the SB and the road to get there. Eli can be my Qb any day of the week and I will feel very good about it.

But I agree Ryan can win playoff games as long as he doesn't have to be the main reason why.

 

The "Dilfer" examples are rather anomalous when it comes to Super Bowls.

 

I get that but there's a few "Dilfers" lol. Point is Tannehill is good enough. I think we can all agree on that. Of course that's assuming he doesn't crap the bed. He just has to be himself with a really good team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

"Windows to throw are even tighter"? Tannehill has played some of his best games against playoff teams. Packers, Broncos, Ravens games last year. Bengals, Steelers, Patriots, Colts games the year before. There are a lot of other smarter comments you can make to criticize Tannehill, but "he won't play well in the playoffs because the windows are tighter" is not one of them.

 

Fixed it for ya.