When Sean Smith was dropping automatic INTs were we, as fans, saying well that should have been a pick so that was a positive drive? Regardless of what happened after? That second "almost" pick that Jennings caught was on 3rd down so who's to say that the defence wouldn't have shut the Skins down? People like to laugh at that fumble but we forget that the defence gave them a 3 and out afterwards.
Dude...even if he had not thrown those two balls that were almost picked...he needs to step his ****in game up. Nobody will argue that. He wouldnt.
My friend in Texas who is a huge Cowboys fan says that Cousins is easily their best QB even when RG3 is healthy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hopefully for them they can draft a new quarterback with one of the first two picks. They will have a chance for a good one.
If you take away his 4 worst passes, then you also have to take away his 4 best passes, to keep it un-biased, and if you did that, his stat line would be bad, like 5 ypa and no TD.
i don't understand this logic that it "should" have been intercepted. It wasn't intercepted so let's leave it at that. It was a bad pass or maybe it was just a great play by the defender to get his hands on it. I'd have to watch those plays again to see. But regardless saying that it "should" have been intercepted is like saying they should have gotten a first down on 3rd and 1, but in the nfl 3rd and 1 is NEVER a given
Wow. Dude, you cannot epectin that hitting defenders in the hands will not normally result in an int. You're being intentionally obtuse about this. You really, are hiding behind his overall stats of the game, and ignoring how he played.
we see defenders drop balls all the time. Most of the time its the defender making a great play just getting a hand on the ball. Just this weekend alone I must have seen 5-6 EASY passes dropped by defenders. NOTHING is a given and NOTHING SHOULD be expected. how am I hiding behind his stats? I am not the one brining up his stats at all. YOU and many others are making those two passes seem like A) they SHOULD have been intercepted and B)had they BEEN intercepted we WOULD have lost you guys are just creating all these hypoctheticals for plays that haven't even happened and on top of that CREATING imaginary outcomes based off those plays. do you see how crazy that sounds?
I asked God and He says Tannehill is "As I made him." Whatever that means. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I asked the devil about Tannehill and he said, "I will swallow your soul!" It wasn't as enlightening as he thought it would be.
What's crazy is you saying "nothing should be expected". So if you have a routine fly ball, you shouldn't expect the outfielder to catch it? Of course you should. Similar situation with those balls Tannehill threw. They should have been intercepted, though the probability of an INT in that case is much less than an outfielder catching a routine fly ball (same principle though). To be more precise, the degree to which you should expect something to happen is the probability of it happening. So.. what's really crazy is you yourself are going through life doing exactly the opposite of what you're writing down. You SHOULD expect the sun to still exist tomorrow (even though as you point out.. it's not a "given"), and I'm sure you do!
and here we go with ppl taking this to an absurd level. focusing on "nothing should be expected....in this scenario" and making absurd comparisons like the sun rising every day gimme a ****ing break now, what is EXPECTED on a passing play is that the QB throws the ball and the receiver catches it. THAT is the most likely scenario and what is expected. However, there are other things that may happen. qb makes an errant throw out of bounds receiver drops the ball CB makes aplay to knock it down CB intercepts the ball. so since interceptions are the most LEAST likely scenario, they can hardly be expected. a routine fly ball is expected, because that is the most likely scenario. THe defense getting a stop on 4th and 10 is also another likely scenario and is expected.
Wording matters. If you're not willing to be held to what you actually write down, then we shouldn't take what you write down seriously in the first place. So don't go around telling other people they're making an absurd argument when that was the argument you actually wrote down. And all you need to do is look at those plays to see the most likely thing was NOT the receiver catching the ball. How can that be when in one case the ball bounced right out of the hands of the defender and then (very luckily) was caught by the receiver? Anyway, I've made my point here. I get the feeling you're just trolling so I'll stop with this post in response to yours.
You are creating a ridiculous premise. When a defender has to do nothing out of the ordinary, and the ball hits him in the hands 15 yards downfield, yes, it is expected that he should catch it. The defenders didn't make crazy plays to get a hand on the ball. The balls literally hit them on the hands. If those were OUR defenders, we'd all be going on and on about how they *should* have picked it off. It's crazy, but I've been one of the most supportive posters on here, in regards to Tannehill. This game, however, Tannehill did not play well. He made terrible decisions several times, and was extraordinarily lucky that the balls weren't picked off. Not sure why you feel the need to argue that. It's a simple fact. I'm not on here trying to **** all over Tannehill, as I'm a huge fan, and you can go back through my post history, or ask FinD, Fin-Omenal, DJ, or even recent posters like Finster, and they'll tell you that I've probably defended Tannehill more than is necessary. However, in the pursuit of fairness, I'm not going to complete backtrack on many of the arguments I made in favor of Tannehill, such as receivers dropping balls negatively affecting his rating, and suddenly act as if dropped gimme ints didn't positively affect his rating. They did. All I'm saying is, stop being a homer. Admitting that Tannehill didn't have a great game doesn't mean that you think it sucks. Agreeing with me does not mean that you agree with those on here who are using yesterday's game as proof that Tannehill isn't the answer. If your hope isn't that Tannehill plays like that every week, then you should quickly realize that he didn't have a good game. I want Tannehill to play every week at a high level. I understand he won't, just as every QB in the league has bad games. However, I'm not going to sugarcoat his bad games. I think I've earned the right to be a little hard on him, given that I've argued about him for three seasons. Oh, and if you're not hiding behind his stats from the game, then I'm not sure how you can even remotely begin to argue that he had a good game. The only thing that looked good from the game, was his stats. Yes, he made some plays. Yes, the rest of the offense was poor, for the most part. Yes, the oline was bad. But Tannehill didn't look anywhere near where he should have looked yesterday.
But that makes sense. This is the "say stuff that makes no sense thread" since it has to do with Tannehill and proving that he's the best quarterback ever.
I expected you to come back with some BS and sure enough that happened because THAT was the likely scenario. Thanks for proving my point.
dud e how many ****ing times do I have to say I don't think he had a great game?? you clowns in here just don't know the difference between good and great and think everything is measured as either great or horrible. sounding and acting like children because everything didn't go their way in the game. EVERYTHING isn't black and White what you guys NEED To do is temper your lofty expectations especially for a game in week one. and if you watched ANY other games beside the dolphins game you would see how poorly soo many other teams played....many worse than the dolphins. if Tannehill deserved a D what did Luck deserve? you guys really lack perspective. "B-b-b-b-but Tannehill made 3-4 bad throws out of 34 he was TERRIBLE, oh yeah I don't care if we won HE WAS TERRIBLE, the whole team sucked the defense sucked and no one did anything write, FIRE PHILBIN!!"
You obviously can't read, as I have never accused you of saying that Tannehill had a GREAT game. Well, I guess, technically, I did use the words "great game" in there, but I said multiple other times "good game." If you want to focus on one little part, and try to extrapolate your argument from one phrase, that I didn't mean exactly as you took it, that's fine, I guess. That is a strawman you have invented, so that you can then disregard everything else I say. Also, I haven't EVER said that Tannehill deserved a D rating. I've said, all along, he deserves a C rating. As to the rest of your post...SO WHAT? Why should I care if other teams played poorly? Why should other teams being poor mean that I have to act like Tannehill played a good game? Again, there were other teams who didn't play poorly. What makes them so special? Further, have I EVER stated that Tannehill played terrible? No. Again, strawman argument. You clearly aren't being rational in the least, right now. You're arguing with me, as if I'm a guy on here arguing that we need to get rid of Tannehill, as he sucks, and we will forever be losers with him as our QB. I'm not that guy. Take a chill, and actually understand who you're arguing with, and what you're actually saying. Again, it all comes down to this: when we play the Bills, or the Jets, or the Patriots, or any other good team, would you be happy with the play you saw from Tannehill on Sunday? If yes, then we can stop discussing everything right now, and just agree to disagree. If no, then we can stop arguing about this right now, because we're both on the same page.
I've already said I wouldn't be happy with his play if it continued. I'm not gonna say it again because its getting tiring. my WHOLE point in all this back and forth arguing with everyone on here is that a lot of you just LACK perspective. because eventhough you think he was a C the majority of clowns on here think he played terrible and I've seen ratings of D and D- being thrown around which is just ridiculous. ANYONE that is satisfied with a B- performance from any aspect of the team should be questioned. maybe you guys think "good" means "great" maybe you would be happy for "good" I want great. But there are many degrees between Great and Horrible, and IMO this game was good. If we are going by grades where A=Excellent B=Good C=Fair D=Poor F=Failure I would put this game somewhere between Fair and Good. No interceptions, efficient passing, some good drives, but also showed some poor decision making and had some bad throws. Factor all that in, plus the last drive and the win That's how I see it. Maybe its just semantics, maybe I'm just not overreacting like most. either way...it is what it is.
Well, to be fair, most people on here have put the grade for the game for Tannehill around a C. Even Fin-Omenal, who I've argued extensively with about Tannehill in the past. Again, you keep citing "no picks." While true, he had no picks, it's not really honest, as Carib has explained to you. When evaluating Tannehill's play, I don't think there is an analyst or a coach who would just gloss over those two gimmes that were dropped. As long as we agree that we wouldn't be happy with Tannehill playing like that every week. And, when I say Tannehill, I also want to be clear, it's everyone else on offense also, excepting Landry and Cameron.
Also, it wasn't only 3-4 passes. I'd have to go back through the game to be more precise...but, the two gimme dropped picks, he missed Stills, he missed Sims, he threw the bad pass to Landry way behind the line of scrimmage. That's 5 pretty bad ones right there. Add on the fumble, that's another potentially costly mistake (believe me, I understand it was a ****ty performance on that play by the oline, but Tannehill still needs to hold on to that ball). I'm sure if I rewatched it, other plays would jump out to me, also. So, trying to simplify it to "3-4 passes" is, again, not being honest. I know I'm coming off as overly negative. I agree, he had some other really nice throws in the game. It's why I give him a C rating.
But again, those "non" picks had no impact on the game. Had no impact on anything other than an incompletion. When it comes to him practicing this week, and preparing and analyzing tape then yes those throws should definitely be looked at and taken in to account. Because that is where they can make adjustments for next game. It just blows my mind how much ppl are so caught up on these near interceptions. Why isn't anyone talking about Jamar Taylor's "near" interception? because it later resulted in a turnover on downs? I've heard more about these near interceptions than I have heard about some of the GREAT passes he made today.
That is essentially what Caribphin said to you pages and pages ago. In looking at the game as a whole, yes, the picks/not picks didn't matter. But, in evaluating Tannehill as a QB, for the game, those gimmes matter very much.
that stills miss still ended up being on the TD drive if I recall correctly. In which he made some other great passes to Stills Cameron then to MAthews for the TD.
These 2 guys were kicked off Phinfever for their personal attacks. Nothing new here. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh also. Matt Ryan threw interceptions all over the field last night. He must suck. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
but I bet you have Luck there right? Peyton Manning? Or maybe even Flacco or Drew Brees or Cam Newton or Russel Wilson or Eli Manning ALL of whom, had worse days on Sunday than Tannehill.
Dude, STOP assuming stuff about me. If you haven't been following my posts for the last 2 seasons, then don't pretend to know who I rank where. I've caught TONS of flack because I believe Tannehill to be, at worst, top 10 in the league, based on last season. I've argued that, as far as stats, that Luck isn't really better than Tannehill. Manning is done. Brees may be done. I got banned for 24 hours for going after DJ in regards to his belief on Russell Wilson being elite, after the first half of that stinker he put up in the playoffs last season. Eli Manning is not better. Cam Newton could be better, but he doesn't seem to be able to put his game together. You're trolling just as bad as some other anti-Tannehill guys. Stop acting like I think that Tannehill sucks.
so what you are saying is that Tannehill isn't as good as Newton? lol, j/k Relax. I agree with most of what you said.
They never keep it unbiased. The funny thing is they keep barking about lack of drives for purposes of building offensive chemistry - that's chicken or the egg. How many drives do they need exactly? Perhaps if they SUSTAINED the drives they did have, the outcome might have been more efficient. The Redskins certainly didn't need 8 possessions in the first half to accomplish something.
Again - this isn't being viewed thru the vacuum of Week 1. This is PATTERNED behavior by this franchise, especially recently. The Redskins franchise is in turmoil. I don't even know how you can begin arguing otherwise. Apparently you fell asleep for months leading up to Week 1.
