Stupidest thread in the history of this site. Zach Thomas to Safety had better discussion points. Forget for a second that the title itself is full of moronic hyperbole...about 20 replies have "not many ppl think he sucks" in it....and why you ask?? Because less than 1% of posters actually think that. Low point of this fine site im ashamed to say.
I'm sure you were this stubborn about the importance of a QB to his team back when Cleo Lemon and John Beck were at the helm. If only they had been surrounded by the right pieces and everyone played at the highest level all the time.
Once again, the purpose of this thread is for all Tannehill arguments to be sent here so other threads aren't ruined. That's not stupid or ridiculous. Its actually an attempt to make things better here. I really wish you'd stop trying to sabotage that attempt to make things better.
So, you think your "making things better" by starting threads with inflammatory titles? Better how? I guess would be the appropriate question.
There's nothing inflammatory about the title. There's no accusations. There's no implications. Its nothing but stating the opposite sides. No one got called out in the title. No one was insulted. You guys are really reading waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into this and coming out of it insulted. It really makes no sense. And, I've explained numerous times how it will help.
This post is a mirror for your Tanne politics, you have drawn a line in the sand, on your side Tanne is elite, anyone on the other side of it thinks Tanne sucks. All this post has done so far, is rehash ways to argue about the same thing.
I am a lawyer, but do you read english? You're getting Fin D'ish in your replies, usually you're more even keeled. Single biggest reason, which is what I said, does not mean "QB holds most of the blame for wins and losses." Nevermind the fact someone is being blamed for wins , if a QB is 10% responsible (completely made up for discussion purposes) and the other 21 starters are 4%, each, special teams etc., and so on and so forth, the defense can go to crap, and they hold most of the blame, collectively. There is a discussion in Club right now about 2002 and Jay Fiedler/Ray Lucas. That was a championship level team with Fiedler, Jay effing Fiedler at the helm. With Jay, they go 7-3. With Ray Lucas, they go 2-4. Miss the playoffs literally by one game, 3 way tie. Tell me again, the QB doesn't make the biggest difference. A QB can literally mask whole units of incompetence. No single player holds as much power. As for not knowing how he will be judged, I absolutely know how he will be judged. If he racks up massive stats, but never wins in the playoffs, he will be judged much more poorly than if he posts mediocre stats and wins a SB. Go ask Eli Manning. Thank you. Again, Jay Fiedler/Ray Lucas. Going from decent to bad QB destroyed our season. Top Defense. Top Running back. 7-3 vs 2-4. With Fielder at the helm, it was essentially an 11 win team, just like 2001. With just a change to Lucas, the team became a 5 win team. Tell me again, how QB doesn't affect the win-loss column more than any other single player. The effect is HUGE. Why didn't the top defense, and top RB bail the team out? You can't sit there and look at Peyton Manning, and how many crappy defenses he's put up, different coaches, rotating RBs, rotating OL, even change of WRs throughout the years, but year in, year out, his teams make the playoffs. It's silly not to judge a QB on wins and losses. It's just one piece of the analysis of the QB. You don't ONLY look at wins and losses. But you look at it.
And if one were to read the title again, they'd see I didn't accuse anyone of saying that. Once again the title makes no accusations.
As I said, you and a few others are reading waaaaaaaaaaaaayyy too much into this . I'm not implying anything. I'm not insinuating anything. I haven't disrespected anyone. And for someone who thinks they know me and everything, I ask you when have I had a problem coming right out and saying something directly to a poster? Being subversive and passive aggressive is not MO. I'm not subtle. I say what I mean and I'm telling you, you guys honestly have it all wrong. This thread isn't anything but what I've said multiple times now. I created two threads. The first was the Philbin thread. I created this one next with the same title simply to show these are the threads for arguments to go and that they were similar objectives for both....which is to be a place to consolidate the same arguments that derail threads. There is no reason for you guys have your panties this bunched.
I know a few posters have decided to derail this thread for reasons I'm not sure. They'll obviously be successful because they clearly won't stop. But my intent was pure on this. I was really trying to help the site. Maybe if the mods changed the title of this one and the Philbin one to something like Philbin Discussion Thread & Tannehill Discussion Thread. I was just trying to create places for the thread derailing arguments to go.
The title of the thread is melodramatic. "Discussing Ryan Tannehill, 2015" is a more appropriate title.
The only thing melodramatic are the posts were people are upset about the title. But like I said, the mods can change them.
Every year I have a "Tracking Tannehill" thread, but it's mainly to discuss his statistical numbers from week to week.
Well, im not going to get into it with you, quite clearly, you never hold anything you do or say accountable and struggle with admitting that you posted a trollish/shoddy thread title, but your "always right", so whats the point... Im done with this thread until after Week 1 and hopefully a mod will switch the title to "Discussing RT17" or something along those lines or someone creates a new thread because this one is already off to a cheap start.
A few years ago I sought to create a thread where all Jeff Ireland discussion / debate could be held. Very similar to what Fin D is trying to do here. Here are the results: http://www.thephins.com/forums/showthread.php?71908-The-Anti-Jeff-Ireland-Thread Very interesting to see Fin D's thoughts on that thread and what he thought should be done with it... And a lot of laughs all around in that thread.
That's simply not true. I've made numerous threads and posts admitting when I was wrong and/or apologizing. You haven't. Neither has a single poster that is giving me crap in this thread. But carry on.
That is not the same thing at all. This is reaching levels of stupid I never dreamed some were capable of.
Lol...just wait for game day threads..1st Qtr if we havent scored three TDs...or if hez picked..youll see the same voices.."he sucks"...then he will plau hreat and they will shut up. Seriously...people vacilate between the two from series to series, much less season
This is a perfect example, actually. Do you believe that Tannehill is better than Fiedler, equal to Fiedler, or worse than Fiedler? OR, do you believe that Tannehill is more like Ray Lucas? If Jay Fiedler had the team poised to go to the playoffs, and he was at best a slightly above average QB, then how is anyone questioning whether or not Tannehill can get to the playoffs? Or, why is anyone contradicting people who say that other pieces of the team are as important? A football team is a symbiotic thing. If one area is deficient, then you have to be better in another area. I believe Tannehill is much better than Fiedler. I believe that while Tannehill had some struggles, as he has had to grow and mature from a raw prospect into an NFL caliber QB, that the team has suffered, especially last season, from poor play at other positions/units, more than from Tannehill's play. This is why I don't think it's accurate when people place more blame on the QB. For the record, if you believe that a QB's total responsibility for wins/losses was 10% (I realize that is made up), would it ever be really accurate to say that they hold most of the blame for a loss? I mean, that would leave 90% of the blame for the loss elsewhere, hypothetically. Still, for a QB to do his job, it absolutely requires other players to do their jobs.
The way I'd answer this is to say the QB has the most responsibility among individual players for a win/loss. But if you're willing to group players together (e.g. the "defense"), then you can say the defense has more responsibility for a win/loss than a QB. Also.. I'll just put this out again (said it in another thread). The 10-20% figure is made-up, but the range is probably approximately right. If you look for a stat that is as dominated as possible by QB performance and has a high correlation with wins, the best candidate is YPA. YPA depends on WR too, but any credit a WR gets would have to be partly distributed back to the QB, so things likely average out. YPA correlation to wins is 0.43 from 1990-2011. In stats, the variance accounted for is the square of that, which is 0.185, or 18.5%. That's the best quantified estimate I think one can come up with for credit/blame the QB should get for the outcome of a game.
I think it would be fair to say the QB has a larger responsibility than other offensive players, but, I think looking at units as a whole is more fair then isolating a single player, unless that player is clearly a problem.
How is it not similar? You are attempting to keep all discussion of a topic in one thread just like I was. You were annoyed at the thread title of that thread just like people are bothered by this thread title. Some people are thinking your thread is a rant because of your thread title. Just like you did in that thread.
Well I would say that there is one difference, using the title for this thread would work with Ireland, because that was the debate, many thought he sucked, others did not, so this title would be apropos. This title is reflective of his Tanne politics, either you think he's great, or you think he sucks, there is no middle ground, and then that becomes the argument, and then his partner in crime, resnor comes in picking up this banner and waving it around. Same old, same old, he just can't stop tugging on the end of that rope, and when no one is tugging on the other end, he reels it in and throws it back out there to get your attention. That is what this thread SEEMS like to me anyway.
You really add nothing. You don't like my view on Tannehill, that's fine. However, there's nothing "obtuse" about saying that a QB depends on other players doing their job so that he can do his job. The only thing "obtuse" is people ignoring that fact. I see Tannehill get all sorts of criticism, yet even last year in the first third of the season, when our receivers lead that league in drops, with like twice as many as the next closest team, I didn't see all you guys going after the receivers. Obtuse.
Because you can look at what's in front of you, or ignore it. 2002 is a perfect example of it. Top run game, top 2 defense in the whole league. It's a petri dish and we saw, how important a QB is to the game. An 11-5 team goes to 5-11 essentially. Peyton Manning, playoffs, Jim Sorgi, 1st pick. Of course Tannehill is a playoff caliber QB. Rex Grossman got to the Super Bowl. Being a playoff caliber QB is not a big deal. Eli Manning won the Superbowl, and beat the 18-0 Patriots, with a 73.7 regular season rating and 6.3 ypa. But does anyone talk about that, or his two Super Bowl wins? Exactly. You want to say he's a playoff caliber QB, have at it. It's a very low standard. Wallace, Landry and Hartline had decent rapport with Tannehill. He had good ratings throwing to them. To Clay too. Everyone but Gibson really. They had a good run game. One of the most efficient. Defense failed down the stretch but so did the offense. 16, 13, 13 in must win games.
How about turning over a new leaf and forgetting what people said up until last year? This is a different offseason, different year, and most people (here) think Tannehill is ascending as a QB, already at worst average, probably above average, and possibly more (must be proven, and the season is about to start so the wait won't be long).
I would love to. Problem is, the same arguments that were used in seasons past are still being used, no matter how much evidence is presented to refute them, which is why these discussions just go in circles.
I would say that it's you who bring nothing but banging a drum, you want to decrease the value of the QB so that it isn't Tanne's fault, decrease the value of the WRs, so it isn't Tanne's fault, in fact, as far as your concerned it's never Tanne's fault, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault, everyone else is to blame, it's never Tanne, I don't hear you saying that he IS partly to blame, whenever anyone does, you have excuses, one after the other, it reminds me of the Blues Brothers; [video=youtube;JFvujknrBuE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE[/video]
Well.. a new season's about to start. Just give it a try. Oh, and I'm not naive in thinking there won't be unwarranted criticism of Tannehill or many other players/coaches, especially during an in-game thread where emotions are heated. I just think the criticism of Tannehill in particular will be more situation based (specific to certain plays) this year rather than general to the quality of the QB. Anyway, I've said enough.. time for FOOTBALL!!
There will be moments where the "Tannehill Sucks" crew will go full "Tannehill Sucks" mode this season, but I will go with the he doesn't suck, he will have his bad games, every QB does, but I think overall, he will have more good than bad! Heres hoping for him to have a tremendous HEALTHY season!
Your view is inaccurate. I've laid blame on Tannehill for stuff, just not to the extent that you, or others, have. You say I'm devaluing the QB position, but I'm saying that you and others our to much into it, specifically around wins/losses. Question again, since you didn't answer: Can the QB do his job if another player doesn't do his?
What new evidence? Did we make the playoffs last year is that new? Tanny is a good QB. To get into the second tier, the Ben Rothies, the Tony Romos, the Drew Brees, he'll need to kick it up another notch. He can. He's right there. These QBs, with good teams, are championship quality. They can't carry a bad defense like Manning and Rodgers have, or run a gameplan like Brady can, but they can win. But when things aren't just right, they don't go far or they even miss the playoffs altogether. Below them are the QBs who can win a Super Bowl if things go correctly. Flaccos, Eli's. Flacco might be in the upper tier if he wasn't so inconsistent. Last year Tannehill was very inconsistent. It's fantasy, but it does reflect his individual performances, and he was in a group of top 12 QBs with a bunch of subpar games. He was learning a new offense, but his first good game was against Oakland. Depending on how you count, he had 8-9 meh games out of 16. He needs to pick those up.
Who said "new" evidence? I'm talking about the arguments around the deep ball...tons of evidence around that. I'm talking about poor pocket presence, and the evidence around that. I'm talking about wins/losses being on him, and the evidence around that. I'm talking about ypa, and the evidence around that. I'm talking about his development, and the arguments around that. Here's the problem, as I've said before: Poster A makes black and white statement about Tannehill in regards to say, pocket presence. I come out and talk about oline, and short time to throw. Now, I'm apparently absolving Tannehill of all wrongdoing, and making excuses for him. That's simply not true. I've said that he needs to get better, but it's hard to truly judge him with how awful our line has been. This scenario gets played over and over and over again, with different arguments, where now certain posters say that I'm simply a Tannehill homer. It's not true. If we're going to discuss Tannehill, and his strengths/weaknesses, we shouldn't ignore other pieces that directly impact the QB position. I get the feeling that certain posters don't actually want to have rational discussions about Tannehill, they just want to say whatever they want, without being contradicted. I'm glad that seemingly the consensus has changed this offseason, but I can't help but think that alot of these posters who are saying the "right things" about Tannehill right now, will change their tune immediately as soon as Tannehill has a bad game, and will go right back to the same old arguments. Hopefully I'm wrong about that.
Anther thing, which goes back to my question about the QB doing his job if another player doesn't do his...how can you say that he didn't have a "good game" until the Oakland game, when his receivers were leading the league in drops through the first 4 games, with like twice as many as the next worst team? It's why I say it's a simplistic view, as you're essentially looking at only the stat line. What would his stats have looked like if his receivers had just done their job for half of those drops? A bunch of those drops in the first 3 games were 20+ yard balls for TDs, that never made the stat sheet. Again, I guess this makes me a Tannehill homer, and not looking objectively at this stuff.
