Is Ryan Tannehill the long term solution at QB?

Wilson and Newton are benched? Or just RG3 and Kaepernick?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

show me one poster who said tannehill is as good as Peyton and we'll stop laughing

 

I never claimed any of you did...

Did my point totally fly over your head or are you trying too hard to prove me wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I like Newton. I have him ahead of tannehill currently. But he has just started hitting his groove the past two years. Early cam wasn't that good

 

I've seen video of him scrambling before his knees gave out. Nobody had better pocket feel than Marino too. DJ doesn't want just a running QB (although he does like them more than most). Rodgers level mobility is often cited by DJ.

 

Um, yes he was...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In fact, you can make the case that Newton was even better earlier on:

http://www.nfl.com/player/camnewton/2495455/careerstats

More passing yards, higher completion %, more rushing yards and TDs, more long yardage plays, higher YPA, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Which shows the flaw in stats. He was wildly inconsistent. Couldn't read a defense to save his life. All over the place. Just relied on athleticism to play, almost zero gray matter involved. He's much more dangerous now. He can read defenses now, is much more steady and is smarter with the ball.

 

I believe we do have that, or did until James went down, the problem is...Lazor does not seem to grasp that the Stooges are simply not smart enough in a football sense to operate complex pass protection calls.

Keith Sims pointed that out over a month ago, we continue to see the same mistakes.

 

Again, completely ignoring the team around them.

Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL causation.

 

Dude...you jumped into a discussion, and started arguing with me. The argument is that the QB heavily influences wins. You don't agree with that? Then stop arguing with me. You jump in, and then act like my responses are aimed only at you.

 

I didn't call anyone crazy.

 

Proof of that stat? Proof that most elite QBS weren't on good teams?

 

Deej, you have to understand what is actually going on here.

You are throwing yourself into a lot that you think you identify with and are then assuming that we're arguing with these people because of the beliefs you share. That's not what's happening.

No one cares if Tannehill is critiqued negatively. The problem we have is the WRONG negative critiques. I cannot stress this enough, its been said numerous times and you're kind of ignoring it.

Here's just a couple of examples of what I mean:
- If a person wants to say Tannehill is lacking in the leadership department, that is a negative critique that I see virtually no one arguing against.
- If a person wants to say Tannehill is lacking in pocket awareness, that is a negative critique that I see virtually no one arguing against.

If we were just homers who couldn't accept critism (as we've been accused, even by you) then I couldn't say those things above.

The biggest problems we have, and the reason for thread after thread after thread of this crap and insults is because of a couple of Tannehill/football based issues and a couple of personal issues:

Tannehill/football based issues:
- The deep ball. Our contention has been that the deep ball problem was more on Wallace, playcalling and the oline then Tannehill. We are being proven right on that now that Wallace is gone.
- W/L record is not a QB stat. The fact that this keeps coming up is insane.

99% of the arguments you jump into are based on those two premises.

Personal issues:
- Lots of insults get hurled by both sides which escalates things
- Our side of the argument is headed by posters who will and have admit when they are wrong. The other side has never once done that. Not once.

99% of the arguments you jump into are already in the personal attack mode and you take it personal even though most of the time, it was never directed at you and it was going on long before you jumped in.

 

The truth here is, you just really don't know the sport well enough, it's not like your contradicting us, your contradicting one of the basic fundamentals of the sport.

Here's a test for you, get an experts opinion that agrees with your assertation on the QB position, that they aren't largely responsible for winning, good luck.

 

Find me an expert that doesn't say that it all begins with the offensive line.

I mean, I've been ridiculed nonstop, and told that I don't know football. But, I watch games, and I see QBs get pummeled behind bad olines, and I see them struggle, and I hear "experts" talk about oline deficiencies being problematic for QBs.

Find me an expert who will claim that QBs play in a vacuum, unaffected by other players on the field.

 

Heres the part I cant for the life of me understand:

For those of you arguing against Tannehill, can any of you tell me what his record is when we rush for 100 yards or more? Can any of you tell me what his stats looked like for a season where he was sacked less then 35 times?

It is clear and irrefutable that the Dolphins win a majority of their games when they rush for a hundred yards or more.

Tannehill is a GREAT QB when he has protection.

 

No one is claiming that, like I said, you're contradicting one of the basic fundamentals of NFL football, so the burden of proof is on you, you are the one who is defying what is considered to be the standard, so why don't you get some experts opinion that agrees with your assertation that W/Ls has nothing, or very little to do with the QB.

Is it also your opinion that an army company is only as good as the sum of its parts, that the Captain isn't integral in the winning and losing of battles?

 

I have never said that QBs don't affect games. I have taken exception to the idea that QBs play in a vacuum, and that a win/loss record is automatically an indication of the type of QB you have.

You guys, in an attempt to go after Tannehill, ignore basic football in regards to oline.

 

Anyone who claims W/L record is a QB stat is in fact claiming that. It is basic logic. If W/L is about the QBs than no one else on the field matters, else the person has to accept that W/L can be affected by non QBs.

This is not complicated.

 

Please... You've already said the Colts weren't really a 2-14 team without Manning and Luck...

Funny how you never responded to the long term wins argument. How did so many elite QBs get so many wins? Did GMs always resupply them with good teammates? Because you know QBs can play way past many of their original teammates, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That was never claimed. Go ahead and quote it. We're simply saying great QBs tend to have winning records. Do the supporting casts matter? Of course... Nobody has said it doesn't... What we're saying is Tannehill's supporting cast isn't as bad as you say. What we're saying is he hasn't done enough to elevate others around him and to earn a winning season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You guys are claiming that win/loss record is proof for elite or franchise QBs. You made the claim. I asked for proof. You guys literally can't answer whether or not franchise QBs have good teams around them. You need to prove your statement.

 

Says the guy that ignores that other QBs have played behind worse OLs and done much better operating offenses, including current players.

This website ranks OLs according to run blocking and pass protection week by week:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

Take a look to see who's right ahead of us (NYG). Manning has done more with not much better run blocking. And don't say run blocking has nothing to do with QBs. They rely on the run game to open the field for them.

Behind us? These are the QBs that have outperformed Tannehill so far with worse run blocking to rely on. Bortles, Rodgers, Fitzpatrick, Hoyer, Rivers, (maybe Taylor if you count rushing), Peyton Manning, McCown. There's no arguing those.

As for pass protection, NE is right ahead of us. Needless to say, Brady has done waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more. Right above NE is PIT. Big Ben has done way more in his short time healthy, but yes he does have Bell, Bryant and Brown. JAC and Bortles aren't too ahead either.

Behind us, McCown, Taylor, Smith, Wilson, Mariota. I'd say those guys have performed better than Tannehill so far. Wilson's OL has been ranked lower than ours before too and still done better than Tannehill, something I've said so many times.

If you don't believe that, check this link:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2014

Our run blocking was ranked 9th. Plenty of teams behind us. This was when Tannehill had his best season, something which has been a point of emphasis for me forever. No excuses for him there. Pass pro? Ranked 19th despite the obvious play calling imbalance. Which QBs outperformed Tannehill despite their pass pro being ranked lower? Stafford, Newton, Wilson. Two spots ahead of us was Chargers and Rivers. Right above them? The great DAL OL with Romo.

So yes, OLs do matter. Could he do much better with the same team? It's a resounding yes, especially when you've got career backups performing better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No, you're right. Elite QBs had good teams around them all the time. Manning to Luck, good team inherited. Favre to Rodgers, good team inherited.

Forget that one team went 2-14 and the "tanking" led to the firing of the HC and GM and who knows else. Forget that Rodgers has an OL ranked lowers than ours at times in either run blocking or pass protection.

Your biggest argument against it not being true is the Pats went 11-5 without Brady. As if that somehow diminishes what Brady has done or proves that he's always had stacked teams. I've got news for you, there's some career backups performing better than Tannehill now. Sometimes guys just get into the right situation or play better than their averages show.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Of course, you're focusing only on oline. I'm not. Oline is one area. A team is more than QB and oline.

But, you're right. Franchise QBs just win games, with absolute trash around them. You're also right, I'm the only one who's ever thought the 2-14 season of the Colts was a farce.

 

Hah. There goes your OL argument. Okay, so please give us rankings of QBs that Tannehill has done better than given his supporting cast.

Who else is trash if not the OL you like to deflect to?

Forget about the Colts and Pats, you won't budge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No, my oline argument hasn't gone anywhere. Just because a QB might have a good oline, doesn't mean that they didn't have a good/great defense, good/great run game, good/great special teams, or good/great coaching. My argument about wins and losses is that it's a TEAM EFFORT. I know, that's pretty novel.

And, if you are admitting that most elite/franchise QBs had good olines, then your argument would be toast.

 

Like I said, deflect and ignore. Classic resnor. Your biggest argument went right down the drain so you blame eeeeeverybody else.

Anybody else want to say Tannehill's OL was so terrible? Plus, remember they played under Philbin. Give them a full offseason with Campbell and they'll do better. Give them the same time Philbin had and they'll be good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Quit trolling. You have offered nothing of substance. There's no deflection, there's no ignoring. Tannehill's BIGGEST problem is his oline. That's the truth. When discussing elite/franchise QBs, and their win/loss record, there is more to it than simply QB. How many guys with great records played on teams that were absolute crap, outside of the QB? You haven't answered that question, even once. You are the one ignoring and deflecting.

 

Me trolling? I've given stats and coherent arguments to back up my claims.

You still haven't disproven the stats I just showed you. Or are you just gonna ignore that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No you haven't.

Look at it from this angle...could Luck/Brady/Marino/etc. lead a team of the first 52 people you see to a 12 win season..yes or no? If the answer is no, your argument is flawed, plain and simple.

 

There is no proof. There will never be "proof." If you want to believe that all elite QBs have all been on great teams and that might be one giant coincidence, and that Peyton Manning wouldn't have a winning record let alone his usual type of record in place of Tannehill then I can't help you.

 

How can you not see that your stance means there's no such thing as great teams, only great QBs? Following your logic, there is literally no way to separate the difference between a great team and a great QB.

 

Miami is 19th in run blocking and 25th in pass blocking, according to that chart. So, 24 teams are better than us at pass blocking, and we're bottom half for run blocking. Not sure what your point is. Blocking is only one part. It happens to be the major issue for Tannehill. Play calling and receivers can do alot to minimize the blocking.

 

Lol what? Who ever argued that? Again, misrepresenting my views. You and resnor love doing that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You can't give proof of a stat that you say is 99%?

 

Aaaand you ignored the rest of what I said. Many QBs have done better with similar or worse OLs this season, last season, and I'm sure the season before that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I've never said 99%. Quote me on that. It seems like you guys don't want the other posters to see my findings so you keep spamming the thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I. Never. Said. You. Said. It.