Your QB ratings are off to say the least. Romo is not top 2 on anybody's board. Not even Romo or his family believes that.
Romo has been excellent the past 6 years. Don't know why people keep sleeping on him. He's had one "down" year that was still pretty good.
I'm already on the record saying Tannehill is a slightly better passer. Like Kent pointed out, Newton lost some targets and was injured but still ran for a few TDs. It's okay to acknowledge that Newton is the better QB.
Eh. The Cowboys were stacked with Dez, that OL and Murray. Took a lot of pressure off of Romo. If you put Romo ahead of Brady and Manning and right behind Aaron Rodgers, that's just ridiculous.
Newton is better at what? Not trying to bust your balls just tryin to better understand where you're coming from.
Be honest. Compare the weapons Tannehill had to the ones Newton had. Factor in running yards, running TDs and Newton's injury.
With all those factors, Tannehill is a much better passing quarterback. Overall, Newton's ability to run might be enough to overtake Tannehill, however as a passer, right now, it is not even close.
Newton is not much worse of a passer when you check out his stats before all his WRs left in free agency. He's also a much better and more willing runner.
I think it was a good move for both sides. I expect Tannehill to play well this year, so the price tag would have been higher next year. It's certainly a reasonable price for his current and projected production. Miami also protected itself by putting the guaranteed portion in the first three years. Here's what I have about it: http://youngspeaksports.com/2015/05/...hill/#more-656
Then let's just agree to disagree on their rankings. You're right, we're splitting hairs here. Tannehill is decent but just not special IMO (unless he capitalizes on his running ability).
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I would rate Romo a top ten QB in the NFL at this time, but on my list he would be behind, Rodgers, Brady, Luck, Wilson, Roethlisberger, Brees, Rivers, and then Romo. Peyton Manning might still be better than Romo, but we will have to wait until the regular season begins to see if he is fully recovered from his arm injury and has the strength in his arm to complete passes downfield anymore.
Gotya. I believe Tannehill is considerably better as a passer. He processes reads quicker and is more accurate. I agree Newton is a better runner and IMO he has as high of a ceiling as any QB in the league so I can understand where you're coming from.
I have never understood these so called 'football fans' who continue to perpetuate the myth that it's the quarterback who is the sole benefactor when the team wins and the sole malefactor when the team loses. Last time I looked, there were 10 other guys on the field on offense, and there were 11 other guys on defense, none of whom was under the direct mental direction of the quarterback. Point 2. About 4 years from now, a $16,000,000 a year quarterback is going to sound like a rock solid, copper-lined, caulked and hammered, lead sealed basement bargain - as disgusting as that amount of money sounds compared to the social value of qualified teachers.
Andrew Luck is the perfect example of a quarterback who carries the team on his back year after year. Do the Colts have a great defense? Absolutely not. How about an offensive line? Luck is one of the most sacked/pressured QB's in the league. Running game? The bust Trent Richardson averaged below 2 yards a carry. It's not a myth. Luck is responsible for all those wins.
I'm not putting all the blame and/or glory on QBs. My problem with the contract is I don't believe RT is worth the $16 million but I'm glad we can opt out soon if it doesn't work out. When you're paying that much for a single player you should expect more than he's given us. I already said I hope he shuts me up. You don't need to be so condescending and question me as a fan. I could just as easily label you as a blind homer.
lol. So you started this with the claim you'd rather have spent the Tannehill money (and draft pick) on getting more talent elsewhere because we have a lot of holes. Now you say Tannehill isn't even as good as Flacco & Manning who need good teams to win......based on Tannehill not winning with what you admitted earlier was a bad team, hence why you wanted more picks and money instead.
I don't understand what you're arguing about. I'm saying Tannehill MIGHT not be as good as Flacco and Eli and even they need good teams to win. So yes I'd rather have built a good team before I pay out a bunch of money to an unproven QB. If we had a good team around Tannehill before we drafted him it'd be easier to evaluate him instead of making excuses about the OL and WRs and defense, etc. I don't believe we couldn't have drafted a QB later on that would be almost as good as Tannehill, as good or better than him while we had a better team. Instead we've invested a high pick and a $100 million contract and we're HOPING he proves he's worth it. I can tell you have a personal vendetta to prove me wrong since we've been arguing semantics and just about everything.
So, since you asked me to quote you, here it is. Again. I quoted and responded earlier, but you act like I'm pulling stuff out of thin air. Here you say he hadn't helped "improve" their record. That means, I assume, he hasn't helped win more games. You really come across as someone who believes we win in spite of Tannehill.
The Tannehill contract is NOT large, it is NOT excessive. It's in line with what better than average QBs get, or should expect to get.
And here is what you claimed I said. I never said he wasn't responsible for "a win". A win literally means a single win. I believe he played a part in helping us win the few games we won but he hasn't made us a winning team the way other QBs have willed their teams. Newton did it, Luck did it, RG3 did it (albeit a single season), Wilson moved the needle, but Tannehill hasn't willed us to anything significant. Franchise QBs should be able to will teams to winning seasons. He HAS to do that in order to justify his $100 million contract.
Andrew Luck was a once in a generation prospect. If you are going to compare every QB to him, you're going to be disappointed all the time. Just because you don't have Andrew Luck doesn't mean you have a bad QB, or that you need to be looking for a QB.
Right, and you make that statement as if Tannehill is the reason we haven't won more games, disregarding all other areas of our team that have exhibited worse play than that of our QB.
Which is why I would've continued to invest in other areas of our team before investing a #8 pick and a $100 million contract in him. It's why it's so difficult to evaluate him because you have to account for those excuses. Now he HAS to produce to justify those investments. Those other rookie QBs I mentioned have done more than Tannehill with just as bad teams. He has a LOT to prove before he earns that contract.
Actually, you specifically said that he might have made a one game difference. So, yes, I think it fair to say that your post is saying that you don't believe Tannehill is winning games for us.
Okay, just ignore everything else I wrote. You're right. I'm stupid. Idk why I even bother offering my opinions. You're right. Nobody can ever disagree with you.
So what would do at QB? Roll with Matt Moore? Would have have drafted Winston or Mariotta? Your saying to not pay Tannehill, but you have given nothing, that I've seen, to explain what exactly you would have at QB. You deflect and say it's not fair to speculate since you aren't drafting, or some such excuse. Bottom line, if you don't want Tannehill, who do you want? Who would you go get, today if there was no Tannehill?
Right back at you, I guess. I'm telling you what I see when you post. Apparently it's fine for you to disagree with me, but not vice versa? It's what I posted pages ago, when I said that I'm learning that anti-Tannehill people can post whatever the hell they want, and no one is supposed to say anything. But, post support for Tannehill, and they have no problem telling you why you're wrong. But don't you dare disagree with them, or you'll get snarky retorts.
I asked all those questions last night. Who would play QB or who he would trade for or who we should draft. You are wasting your breath because he doesn't really know. He just doesn't like Tannehill.
It's a legitimate excuse to say I haven't made decisions as the GM so you can't pin the QB situation on me. You can't force me to say "I'd have drafted so and so" when I would've drafted other positions before drafting a QB unless I felt he was BPA. I didn't feel Tannehill was BPA at #8 in 2012. Things don't happen in a vacuum. Let's say I'd have drafted a better OL as a whole plus a better RB and then put, idk, AJ McCarron as a developmental QB. Nobody here knows how that project would end up working out because the circumstances are different. Instead we've got Tannehill and we're making excuses and blaming everybody but him.
Newton doesn't have a career winning record, and the lone season he did get a winning record came with the help of the #2 scoring defense in the entire league. Cam didn't play badly by any means (he essentially did what Tannehill did last season), but to suggest he willed his team is incredibly disingenuous IMO.
The difference is I'm not questioning you and then ignoring everything you say. You're doing that to me. I've disagreed with others and had good debates. You're just trolling at this point.
