The point of the data is to show correlation, not causality. It very strongly suggests a relationship between QBs starting later and a higher QBR... a MUCH higher one. My question is, if it's not because the time benefitted them, what do you suggest is the reason? I can;t think of any other likely one that would consistently appear only when the QBR was high AND the QB sat longer.... what other variable will always be present ONLY when those two things are treu that could be the alternate cause? I'm stumped, but then I am only a simple man good at simplistic analysis. I need your help on this one. :P Explain this to me... if franchise QB's are more born than bread, what do you mean when you say Tannehill not being ready? I'm not trying to corner you or anything, but I honestly wan to undertsand your criteria or defnition or whatever of a QB being 'ready'. Maybe this argument is from not understanding each other. That's what Marvin Gaye kept singing anyways. And I just can;t get past the data and evidence with a pile of hope and want to. I would HOPE Tannehill could be just as good if he started day one, but history suggests it's higher risk. As do most of the coaches who talk about developing a QB.... right up to the day they're pressuresd to start their own guy too early and have to come up with a way to justify it. My wife ALMOST married an idiot... but he lost her, and then I got her.
Hey Phin, I don't think we're convincing them. They make cute bunkmates though. THey have to become blood-brothers now. That's the rule
They're not skewed. They're facts. Concrete facts. The numbers say that not starting a QB from day 1 is significantly more likely to result in a top 20 passer of all time. We're the ones who have been saying it's based on a player by player situation. lol. You and pea-pod buddy are the ones who have been making a blanket statement [that Tannehill should start from day 1 just b/c you say so. ] I disagree, and that's where I think you turned down the wrong path [besides that beastly girl you took home last week. lol]. Franchise QBs are born & bred [so to speak]. A franchise QB would be crap if here weren't reared in the NFL properly. I know this to be true b/c All Pro rookie QBs are as hard to find as Hellen Keller's keys. I get what you're saying but Tannehill being ready to start is independent from whatever starting situation he's put in. Nobody's rising to any challenge if he's perhaps on IR, no? Carson Palmer was ready to start long before year 5, but that didn't stop the situation he was in from destroying him. Do you actually believe a rookie QB could better handle a tough situation like Carson's better than Carson, himself, could? Blindly throwing a rookie QB in just b/c you think nothing bad could happen to him even if factors are present that say otherwise is just plain irresponsible. **People thought the same thing before they got AIDS. This girl looks iffy, but I'll be fine, I don't need to wait to stick him in. Bottom line is--- if the team around him seems able to properly facilitate his development, then you start him. If they don't, then it could be a mistake to add even more to his plate during this critical time. What Tannehill should be doing during his rookie year is developing; spending time running from defenders, improving excessively, and the mental burden of trying to carry an offense and/or defense do not do development any favors. Could we at least agree on that much?
Therr is no way of knowing if a qb who started right away anf ended up sucking would have been any better if he sat for a year? How can you prove that. You act like if a qb sits for a year or so he us then better. What about Chad Henne? He didnt start right away and he still sucks. He woukd suck no matter what he did,,whereas Marino would a hall of famer no matter if he sat ir started from day one. One more time for you slow guys. A qb either has it or he doesn't. Tannehill should start so we can see what we have
Here's the middle ground... and it's your Carson Palmer example that made me realize this. We DON'T have the perfect situation. And there is a question if waiting will really change that. The bengals had to start Carson, despite the situation sucking. We are a team of suck, and that's, unfortunately Ryan Tannehill's inheritance. I hope we can delay starting him as long as possible to improve the suckage around him as much as possible... but inevitably, the boy will go out there to face the wolves. This is Sparta, after all.
I surrender....the difference between David Carr and Aaron Rodgers was not the talent but the time he spent holding a clipboard. You guys are right, and should begin formatting your NFL GM resumes immediately.
all this talk of tossing may entice someone to insinuate themselves into *you*, fin-o. and it won't be me. there are only two other guys in this discussion. you figure it out.
Thank you for playing. You've won a box of Florida oranges still attached to the branched and underripe. Please enjoy.
High-Fives Phinsational. (They bought it!!!!) I do get your point, Fin. Seriously. And I agree that it's not all about development. It is clear that some guys have mettle that others don't. It's part of why GMs do look at legacy players more favorably. It's not coincidence that Eli and Peyton come from Archie. But you can also say they were 'developing' at QB even as they grew up. I mean, we can argue it both ways. Clearly though, we all want Tannehill to succeed and if we get overly attached to a certain viewpoint on how to do it, it's due to us wanting the finish the decade of pain since Marino. No one wants Tannehill to fail. God, please let this be the one. Of course, right there is a sign we have not properly run this franchise for too long. No rookie should be that important to us. We should have a great team built already for new players to come add to, not 'save'.
After reading that I think you have came on over to my side on this point of view....I knew you would see it my way. Now what will your chica Phinseminal do??
Phinseminal. Nice. Freud would love you (if he hasn't multiple times already). And I haven't not come over to the side you belive you;re on. I just don't argue with crazy people.
Whatever dude. I asked how you could prove your theory and thats your response? Obviously you can't, its just your opinion and I think wrong. Who backs up Tom Brady? He's been sitting awhile, he must be awesome. I winder why hes not starting over Brady yet? Oh yeah, because Brady has way more talent and it doesn't matter how long the back up holds a clip board, he'll never be as good as Brady.
Again, at least 16 QBs who DID NOT START from day 1 are in the top 20 of ALL TIME in the 3 major QB categories: TDs, QBR, Yards. Keep arguing with the stats all you like but it wont change them. I also like how you attempt to cherry pick random players to support your argument, yet I used the TOP 20 in 3 major categories. Who are the top 4 PROVEN, likely HOF QBs in the game right now? Brady Manning Brees Rodgers 3 of those 4 sat. If you add in the guy who just retired, Favre, it's 4 out of 5. I don't want to hear your ifs, ands, or buts. They sat. Period. We KNOW what happened with them sitting. They became future HOFers. What we do NOT know is whether or not their careers would've been on the same path if they had been thrown into the fire from day 1, especially if day 1 wasn't a favorable situation for rookie development. And for you to assume that EVERY ONE of those Top 20 All Time QBs would've had the exact same career success had they instead started from day one is outlandish. All you're doing is arguing with simple logic.
I agree with most of this; however, we're better off than Cincy b/c unlike the Bengals we've prioritized the oline and we take Tanny's future protection seriously. Our coaching staff is hopefully better, and regardless of what people think of Ireland he's one of the league's better talent assessors. By next year, or hopefully middle of this year, the oline will be gelled and quite strong in pass pro with Long, Pouncey, and Martin. With those 3 most important Oline spots solidified we should be able to plug in guards easier I would think. The defense should be supportive by sometime this season, hopefully from week 1. The other pieces like receiver could be easily addressed if we prioritize them IMO. What I don't want is to see us trying to start a QB week 1 amidst a team that may be trying to find itself (considering the, coaching changes, new schemes, and so forth) b/c all that does is increase the burden beyond what I personally feel a rookie QB should endure.
And of the four guys you mention, are you saying that because they didn't start from day ine is the reason they are gonna be hall of famers? They would be hall of famers no matter when they started. I guess you think them holding a clip board made them the great qb's they are today. Again, they would be where they are today, no matter what. Can you explain why Chad Henne sucks even though he sat for a long time and Matt Ryan started right away and is a prow bowler
And by that you mean.... Spoiler Do Not Open. You've Been Warned. http://www.lobstertube.com/search/?q=Amputee&kwid=6054&c=1
We have proven it but you conveniently refuse to address it. So, if you and Fin-Omenal wouldn't mind telling me the difference between these 2 Carson Palmers I'd appreciate it: Palmer's 2nd 2 years (average): 97.4 QBR, 65.0%, 3936 yards, 30 TD (5.8%), 12 INT (2.4%) Palmer's last 4 years (average): 82.7 QBR, 61.9%, 2936 yards, 18 TD (4.3%), 15 INT (3.5%) According to your insane theory, nothing can interfere with a QB's success and guys like Carson Palmer should still be an elite QB...... so why is he not?! Here's another great QB that I'd like you to explain: Joe Theismann 1986: 0 QBR, 0 passing yards, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, 0% completions. 0 wins. 0 losses He was a franchise QB so why the heck did he have no friggin stats in '86... or '87... or '88?
What's with this Palmer obsession?? He hasn't been the same since his injury, what's this have to do with anything?
IDK, I guess it probably has something to do with Ryan being a #3 pick and Henne being a near 3rd rounder. Perhaps it's also b/c Ryan was in a situation that's great for QB development with an outstanding ground game he can lean on, a solid defense, good protection, solid special teams, a HOF TE, and one of the game's best WRs; meanwhile Henne went to a team with crappy protection, a run-oriented HC who was fired, poor weapons, an OC who was fired, an OC who had a LONG history of NEVER having one of his QBs develop, and a terrible ground game. The situations couldn't have been more night and day different. Comparing Henne to Ryan are not apples to apples. If you want to compare Ryan to anyone, compare him to someone of a similar situation, or else your argument carries no weight. If you want to compare Henne to a successful QB, compare him to a guys who were successful in a similar situation. Do your research; find QBs who had Olines that couldn't protect, a ground game that couldn't be leaned on, a poor supporting cast at WR/TE, and new coaches who also brought with them a new system. You find those teams and then tell me how many elite rookie QBs emerged from them compared to those who didn't.
And Joe theismans careeer was over when his leg snapped like a toothpick. What kind of example was that? Atlanta sucked when they picked Ryan. You say compare apples to apples well Ryan was a 1st rounder and so is tannehill. Therefore by your theory tannehill should be ok
Everything. He was a seasoned vet who was physically destroyed while mentally suffering Cabin Fever..... and he never recovered. Yet for some reason you and pea pod believe throwing a rookie QB into a similar situation will leave him entirely unscathed.
I think we should pick up the top high school QB this year and start him. When you've got it you've got it, you know?
Lol. I love that you use the word goofy. I seriously do bec no one uses it anymore and it's a great ****ing word.
It's an awesome example. So you're admitting that a great QB's success & career ARE actually dependent upon factors outside of his own control? I did answer it. You haven't answered the Carson Palmer stuff. Quid pro quo.
Goofy? How so? You and Canez are arguing that a rookie QB is essentially infallible, that you can start him from week 1 w/o any fear of negative consequences. Yet I'm showing you how even an elite veteran QB can be permanently damaged by irresponsibly placing him in a situation not conducive for success. I seriously don't understand how you guys think sticking a rookie QB into a situation that destroyed Palmer will have no negative affect on the rookie.
