Ryan Tannehill

Weasel worded is spot on.

"The Guy wrote:

I don't believe that's the case. But I'm happy to agree to disagree, and I don't mind standing alone with an opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to manipulate numbers to support your opinion. You have tried that multiple times in this thread alone and you have a long history of doing it.

[ATTACH:full]

This is what I wish the Dolphins could return to:

[ATTACH:full]

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to manipulate numbers to support your opinion. You have tried that multiple times in this thread alone and you have a long history of doing it.

No manipulation of others has been intended, and who supports or doesn't support my opinion isn't important. Like I said I don't mind standing alone with an opinion. I've simply stated my point and supported it with the information that I believe is relevant and accurate. Others are free to disagree, and as I said I'm happy to agree to disagree.

"The Guy wrote:

No manipulation of others has been intended, and who supports or doesn't support my opinion isn't important. Like I said I don't mind standing alone with an opinion. I've simply stated my point and supported it with the information that I believe is relevant and accurate. Others are free to disagree, and as I said I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Were you a fan of RT17 when he was drafted?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

This is what I wish the Dolphins could return to:

[ATTACH:full]

I will say...it was DAMN fun watching them beat the Patriots a few weeks ago. I certainly wouldn't complain about more of that!

"The Guy wrote:

No manipulation of numbers has been intended

Then why did you try it REPEATEDLY? You accidentally cherry picked the data in the same way multiple times? Why don't you compute the odds of that happening randomly?

"Cashvillesent wrote:

Were you a fan of RT17 when he was drafted?

He spent 7 years on Finheaven doing the same thing. He was caught using fabricated data to support his argument and got banned.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

Then why did you try it REPEATEDLY? You accidentally cherry picked the data in the same way multiple times? Why don't you compute the odds of that happening randomly?

First, I don't believe I cherry-picked data. But like with anything else here, I'm happy to agree to disagree about that as well.

That'll be my last post about this topic (i.e., my personal intentions and conduct). I'm not on the witness stand being cross-examined here, and I've made my position clear enough.

"Cashvillesent wrote:

Were you a fan of RT17 when he was drafted?

I was happy the team drafted him because at the time it needed to explore what a first-round pick at quarterback could do.

"The Guy wrote:

First, I don't believe I cherry-picked data.

LOL. This despite the fact that it was pointed out to you at least twice.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

LOL. This despite the fact that it was pointed out to you at least twice.

I know what was said, and I don't agree.

"The Guy wrote:

I've made my position clear enough.

Oh, you certainly have. Pathologically so. You’ve steadfastly maintained your position despite being proven wrong on multiple occasions and despite numerous predictions being wrong.

"The Guy wrote:

I know what was said, and I don't agree.

You don’t have to agree for it to be true. Facts aren’t subject to your opinion.

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

You don’t have to agree for it to be true. Facts aren’t subject to your opinion.

I don't agree that's a fact. Again I'm happy to agree to disagree, and with you about this as well.

If you are unwilling to discuss your points, and are unwilling to respond to specific questions about your positions, and you are unwilling to change your position when given facts that refute your position, then why are you on a message board? It would seem you’d be better off blogging about your positions, and turning comments on your posts off, so that no one argues with you.

"Bumrush wrote:

Miami had the tank ready for execution when Josh Rosen was starting.

Guess what- They didn't intend to tank, at least not Flores. If they wanted to tank they had the built in excuse of evaluating John Beck Jr the rest of the season. They didn't.

10 games later and the magic of Fitzmagic took full hold.

Easy tiger. The “magic of fitz magic” commandeered the 5th pick

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

For years I claimed that some QBs had an advantage over Tannehill because of their supporting cast. I was labeled an "excuse maker" good QBs lift their teams up. There is really little difference in talent between NFL rosters. #AllAboutTheQB.

Now that Tannehill is succeeding, it is the supporting cast..... He is being carried by the team. The surrounding talent is amazing and unique. #NotAtAllAboutTheQB.

What a difference a year makes.....

30ish total tds in 10 games from the pocket progression qb should do the talking.

it’s not a mirage

You have to wonder how it is somebody could be so hung up on proving ONE guy sucks, for so long, directly in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary...to the point a verified, expert stats guy showed him where his approach was wrong numerous times, yet he still goes back to it, and stands behind it as incontrovertible evidence.

This level of obsession is mind-boggling to me. Either way, it's much nicer not seeing his posts...they're just the same unsubstantiated drivel over and over anyway.

I recommend the block feature y'all...does wonders.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

You have to wonder how it is somebody could be so hung up on proving ONE guy sucks, for so long, directly in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary...to the point a verified, expert stats guy showed him where his approach was wrong numerous times, yet he still goes back to it, and stands behind it as incontrovertible evidence.

This level of obsession is mind-boggling to me. Either way, it's much nicer not seeing his posts...they're just the same unsubstantiated drivel over and over anyway.

I recommend the block feature y'all...does wonders.

Philosophical question - If everyone blocks a poster, do their posts exist at all?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

He spent 7 years on Finheaven doing the same thing. He was caught using fabricated data to support his argument and got banned.

Here too.

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

You have to wonder how it is somebody could be so hung up on proving ONE guy sucks, for so long, directly in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary...to the point a verified, expert stats guy showed him where his approach was wrong numerous times, yet he still goes back to it, and stands behind it as incontrovertible evidence.

This level of obsession is mind-boggling to me. Either way, it's much nicer not seeing his posts...they're just the same unsubstantiated drivel over and over anyway.

I recommend the block feature y'all...does wonders.

Its called bad faith posting.

"Fin D wrote:

Here too.

He was banned under two different accounts on Finheaven. His last attempt at discrediting Tannehill was using passer rating and more specifically passer rating differential. Funny how we haven't seen that argument this season.....

Before that it was sacks, then deep ball passing. He has bounced around trying different things at different times but always attempting to show either the team's problems can be attributed primarily to Tannehill or the team's success is for reasons other than Tannehill. Sound familiar?

"FinFaninBuffalo wrote:

He was banned under two different accounts on Finheaven. His last attempt at discrediting Tannehill was using passer rating and more specifically passer rating differential. Funny how we haven't seen that argument this season.....

Before that it was sacks, then deep ball passing. He has bounced around trying different things at different times but always attempting to show either the team's problems can be attributed primarily to Tannehill or the team's success is for reasons other than Tannehill. Sound familiar?

More than two here.

Trust me, NO ONE argued more with him on here than me.