REDSKINS fan Here, but a fan of football both college and NFL and Tannehill

No fan is objective. But thanks for trying and welcome ;)

"unluckyluciano wrote:

No fan is objective. But thanks for trying and welcome ;)

Thank you for the welcome and I hope this isn't a discussion of the literal meaning of 'fan' vs 'fanatic'.
But, plenty of fans are objective, maybe you didn't know any before.

-Cheers

"edromeo wrote:

Thank you for the welcome and I hope this isn't a discussion of the literal meaning of 'fan' vs 'fanatic'.
But, plenty of fans are objective, maybe you didn't know any before.

-Cheers

doubtful. Once you choose a team, player, etc, objectivity goes out the window in some way. Just the way it is. Nothing wrong with it really.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

doubtful. Once you choose a team, player, etc, objectivity goes out the window in some way. Just the way it is. Nothing wrong with it really.

Again, maybe that is your experience and many fans certainly don their rose colored glasses as you might.
But, for myself and many of my friends we are objective and critical about football; we don't turn it off when it comes to our respective teams.

Didn't realize my introduction would be a source of contention.

Cheers-

Why don't you ask me a litmus test question about football then?

"edromeo wrote:

Again, maybe that is your experience and many fans certainly don their rose colored glasses as you might.
But, for myself and many of my friends we are objective and critical about football; we don't turn it off when it comes to our respective teams.

Didn't realize my introduction would be a source of contention.

Cheers-

Why don't you ask me a litmus test question about football then?

not experience really, just what is. No one on earth is completely objective, especially about something they choose to watch, take the time to watch, and teams/people they take time to invest in. Like I said welcome and thanks for trying, but I doubt anyone on here really is objective. It's not meant to be rude, or unwelcoming.

I agree, no one can be completely objective. but obviously there are different levels of objectivity. most of the posters in this forum are far from objective, which leads to the much more interesting, passionate discussions.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

not experience really, just what is. No one on earth is completely objective, especially about something they choose to watch, take the time to watch, and teams/people they take time to invest in. Like I said welcome and thanks for trying, but I doubt anyone on here really is objective. It's not meant to be rude, or unwelcoming.

Of course no one is 'completely' objective, but then again I never said I was 'completely' objective.
It may not occur to you, but some people value making correct/accurate/objective assessments about football and their teams without being biased/skewed as many fans tend to be. (sometimes knowingly or purposefully)

And you're not being rude per se, and again I thank you for your 'welcome'.
Your belief that 'no fan is objective' may surely apply to you and those that you know.
But, when you make a pre-judgement sight unseen, and doubt someones objectivity as a fan you're being a bit pretentious.
Anyway, I don't want to quibble nor delve into semmantics nor have a needlessly argumentative discussion i'll just say:

thank you for you're welcome

Hey man! Welcome to the forums!

"edromeo wrote:

Of course no one is 'completely' objective, but then again I never said I was 'completely' objective.
It may not occur to you, but some people value making correct/accurate/objective assessments about football and their teams without being biased/skewed as many fans tend to be. (sometimes knowingly or purposefully)

And you're not being rude per se, and again I thank you for your 'welcome'.
Your belief that 'no fan is objective' may surely apply to you and those that you know.
But, when you make a pre-judgement sight unseen, and doubt someones objectivity as a fan you're being a bit pretentious.
Anyway, I don't want to quibble nor delve into semmantics nor have a needlessly argumentative discussion i'll just say:

thank you for you're welcome

I don't really need to see anything, as its quite doubtful again anyone who takes the time to support a team will be objective.
And it's not rude to give my opinion at all. You taking it as rude is you taking it as rude. Implying I'm being pretentious because you don't like what I have to say is not very objective of you, fyi.

Welcome to the site .:up:

Welcome, I've only been here ~1 month and its been nothing but good reads/discussions.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

I don't really need to see anything, as its quite doubtful again anyone who takes the time to support a team will be objective.
And it's not rude to give my opinion at all. You taking it as rude is you taking it as rude. Implying I'm being pretentious because you don't like what I have to say is not very objective of you, fyi.

I agree with unlucky 100%. You may be more objective than most, but once you 'follow' a player/team, you throw some of that objectivity out the window.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

I don't really need to see anything, as its quite doubtful again anyone who takes the time to support a team will be objective.
And it's not rude to give my opinion at all. You taking it as rude is you taking it as rude.

"edromeo wrote:

And you're not being rude per se, and again I thank you for your 'welcome'.

"unluckyluciano wrote:

Implying I'm being pretentious because you don't like what I have to say is not very objective of you, fyi.

Okay:

"edromeo wrote:

Anyway, I don't want to quibble nor delve into semmantics nor have a needlessly argumentative discussion i'll just say:....
thank you for your welcome

-Cheers

"lmeister3 wrote:

Hey man! Welcome to the forums!

Thanks

"CrunchTime wrote:

Welcome to the site .:up:

Thanks

Welcome, hope to see you often.

Tell us your thoughts on RT, how do you see him, good and bad points?

"gafinfan wrote:

Welcome, hope to see you often.

Tell us your thoughts on RT, how do you see him, good and bad points?

The tangibles and observables guide my evaluation.

Tannehill overall athleticism imo is on the same tier as Cam Newton and Luck.
I think his physical skillset is even better then Luck and its their athleticism that sets them apart from the rest of the field.
Luck trumps him in polish and experience.

The concerns that I have about Tannehill are his inconsistent throwing motion; both his arm angles and his arm extention is inconsistent.
Which imo results in his high number of batted passses despite his height.
RT throws 'shorter' then his height because of his inconsistent and sometimes low release point.
I would prefer if he would keep his arm and elbow up and fully extend his arm overhead.

When I watched A&M the staple throws that jump out to me in that offense are:
o Tannehill sprinting out left or right and throwing on the move (which are difficult throws)
o Tannehill throwing the deep sideline out or deep comeback from either hash mark (which is another difficult, velocity intensive NFL throws especially from the far hash to the far sideline with Tannehill throws quite well)

For me factors caused/effected by coaching/scheme/system/personnel/decision making are less important then tangibles because those are transient circumstances.
But I sometimes get the feeling that his is reluctant to use his athleticism/playmaking.
I think he passes up the chance to adlib and make a good play in favor of sticking with a play that the defense has covered. (b/c of Sherman's predictable playmaking)
But, I think that confidence will come with experience.

To my eye Tannehill:

o good accuracy on the same tier as Griffin and Luck, good anticipation
o above average arm strength, the critical ability to drive the ball with velocity to all levels of the field (better then Luck, on par with Griff)
o clean 3/4 throwing motion
o good size, sturdy build
o smart kid, mentally tough (switching to WR to help the team yet not losing focusing on his goal of being a QB and was very good immediately)
o above average athelticism

I actually wanted the Redskins to draft him.
I thought that he was more of a direct fit and day 1 starter in our offense because of the similarity/familiarity to Mike Sherman's offense.
I think RT has the skillset to be a top tier NFL QB.
He reminds me of a much more athletic Joe Flacco with just a tad less arm strength.

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

I agree, no one can be completely objective. but obviously there are different levels of objectivity. most of the posters in this forum are far from objective, which leads to the much more interesting, passionate discussions.

The thing about objectivity is that it is subjective...

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

"edromeo wrote:

The tangibles and observables guide my evaluation.

Tannehill overall athleticism imo is on the same tier as Cam Newton and Luck.
I think his physical skillset is even better then Luck and its their athleticism that sets them apart from the rest of the field.
Luck trumps him in polish and experience.

The concerns that I have about Tannehill are his inconsistent throwing motion; both his arm angles and his arm extention is inconsistent.
Which imo results in his high number of batted passses despite his height.
RT throws 'shorter' then his height because of his inconsistent and sometimes low release point.
I would prefer if he would keep his arm and elbow up and fully extend his arm overhead.

When I watched A&M the staple throws that jump out to me in that offense are:
o Tannehill sprinting out left or right and throwing on the move (which are difficult throws)
o Tannehill throwing the deep sideline out or deep comeback from either hash mark (which is another difficult, velocity intensive NFL throws especially from the far hash to the far sideline with Tannehill throws quite well)

For me factors caused/effected by coaching/scheme/system/personnel/decision making are less important then tangibles because those are transient circumstances.
But I sometimes get the feeling that his is reluctant to use his athleticism/playmaking.
I think he passes up the chance to adlib and make a good play in favor of sticking with a play that the defense has covered. (b/c of Sherman's predictable playmaking)
But, I think that confidence will come with experience.

To my eye Tannehill:

o good accuracy on the same tier as Griffin and Luck, good anticipation
o above average arm strength, the critical ability to drive the ball with velocity to all levels of the field (better then Luck, on par with Griff)
o clean 3/4 throwing motion
o good size, sturdy build
o smart kid, mentally tough (switching to WR to help the team yet not losing focusing on his goal of being a QB and was very good immediately)
o above average athelticism

I actually wanted the Redskins to draft him.
I thought that he was more of a direct fit and day 1 starter in our offense because of the similarity/familiarity to Mike Sherman's offense.
I think RT has the skillset to be a top tier NFL QB.
He reminds me of a much more athletic Joe Flacco with just a tad less arm strength.

You failed to mention that he often telegraphs EXACTLY where his target is, before the ball is even snapped to him. Aside from that, very "Objective" insight I would say.

Good to have you. Anybody that is NOT a Pats or Cowgirls fan is good enough with me!

"azfinfanmang wrote:

You failed to mention that he often telegraphs EXACTLY where his target is, before the ball is even snapped to him. Aside from that, very "Objective" insight I would say.

Good to have you. Anybody that is NOT a Pats or Cowgirls fan is good enough with me!

Blasphemy, infidel!! May your skin be turned inside out and a pack of baboons string you up by your man parts.

Carry on.

:shifty:

"lmeister3 wrote:

Hey man! Welcome to the forums!

There, Is it really that hard to say 5 words instead of engaging him in sort of pseudo-philosphical debate?

"Frumundah Finnatic wrote:

There, Is it really that hard to say 5 words instead of engaging him in sort of pseudo-philosphical debate?

It really isn't when one is accustomed to not reading the OP.

"azfinfanmang wrote:

You failed to mention that he often telegraphs EXACTLY where his target is, before the ball is even snapped to him. Aside from that, very "Objective" insight I would say.

Good to have you. Anybody that is NOT a Pats or Cowgirls fan is good enough with me!

Can't agree that he telegraphs where he is going with the ball a significant amount more then the other college QB prospects, espcially before the snap.
Imo a QB cannot be as productive as Tannehill was as quickly as Tannehill was with a major flaw like the one you suggest.

But hey anyone that has the good sense to dislike the Cowboys is alright with me.