Is Ryan Tannehill the long term solution at QB?

It's no point in arguing. You asked me to answer the question. I gave a statistic that was based on why Dalton has a little more success than Ryan - due to his ability to win a game late or play well in tough games/division games.

You just throw back the 19/17 3300...Ever think to look at what he did in the wins? The losses? Ever think to break it down?

Your argument is tiresome. I'm not saying the Bengals won because of Dalton. I'm not saying the Dolphins are losing because of Tannehill either. But gain, you're not competent to understand an argument.

You just pick something out, attack and never stop like someone who is incapable of having a debate or unwilling to actually do any work, or fact checking to support your claim.

I know it's a team game, but I guess they pay some positions more than the others because they don't matter as much..

You're just a troll.

 

Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

I'll be honest, I don't have the time or energy to research this. I would love to have this answer, though.

 

So you respect those that have the same opinion as you
And those that have the same opinion as you have common sense.
So only those with the same opinion as you are those you respect and have common sense.

Got it. No reason to debate with you dude. None.

 

1. I'm not a troll. I pointed out a flaw in your 'opinion' of what makes a Franchise QB and you didn't like it. This was after YOU responded to ME with the snarky post in the first post.
2. There is a Bengals fan in my family and I watched EVERY. GAME. last year. I know the perfect context to that stat line.
3. In all of your self-righteous question-avoiding BS, did you ever stop and realize that you replied to me FIRST with the attitude? I'm the troll here? You weren't trying to debate me, guy. At all. But please, pretend like you were while you ride that high horse. Pot/kettle.

 

I respect plenty of people on this board that have different opinions than me. Especially the ones who appear to operate with common sense. Obviously you aren't one of them, coming to a conclusion like this based on...........?..............yeah.

"no reason to debate"

Not once have you tried to 'actually' debate me. Have a nice night.

 

Tempers are flaring waaaay too much in here. Look, truce resnor, Fin D and Rocky. We have fundamental disagreements but we also agree on some things.

Things really got personal when I felt I was misrepresented. Let's call it a misunderstanding. Let bygones be bygones.

I'm going to try to ignore these types of threads from now on because it seems to bring out the worst in a lot of people including myself. Or I'll try to be more civil next time.

If we end up dropping Tannehill in a few years or trading him or whatever, I hope we can discuss the next QB more civilly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't want to get rid of Tannehill at all. He's the best we've had, outside of Pennington's one year, in 15 years. I just don't think we will ever be a team consistently in the playoffs or competing for a championship with him. That's my belief.

I don't necessarily agree with that observation. I think it's more important to have some form of early success.

Fitzpatrick is playing well because as journeyman he's found a nice system, but he's also played 8 games and he typically crashes around this time.

All of those guys you mentioned all had early success in the form of a winning season and playoffs. That helps gain momentum for a player, especially a QB. Being labeled a winner at that position matters so much. Moreso than any other.

Brady, Rodgers, Manning, Brees - those are generational guys. No sense in making any comparison. I agree.

For me, I feel like Ryan Tannehill will always have some nice statistical seasons. The winning is what will lag. And it's because he can't elevate his play to carry the team for the extra 1 - 3 wins you need from your QB to constantly be a team that can get to the Super Bowl.

He's going to be our QB and we'll get there once, maybe twice, but it's going to be with the help of some elite/great units that carry him all the time. Wilson, Dalton, those guys are carried by some great defenses, lines, etc. around them. However, they also find a way 1-3 games a year to win when things aren't clicking.

 

I'm out. Sounds like this thread is ending about as well as it could.

 

Sounds good, man. I'll try to do that also.

 

At the end of the day we're all a bunch of passionate Fins fans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Proving you wrong has now become my favorite game.

1. You responded me to me first with your BS. Only difference was you weren't man enough to quote me or reply directly. Post #771 on page 39 was clearly a response to my mentioning of Dalton. Unless you were responding to someone 10-15 pages deep in, which I hardly believe.

2. Glad there is a Bengals fan in your family and you can broadly say you know the context without ACTUALLY, you know, providing the context. Well done. Next you'll probably tell me you used to play QB and know how it works...

3. Love how you continue to tell me that I avoided your question, when I in fact answered it but you just came right back with that nice 19/17 3300 because, well, you have someone in your family that's a Bengals family.

I'm done with this. We don't agree with this. We/I have ruined this thread. There just is no need to say crap like no common sense and half the crap you do. Much of that was probably in response to me. So blame is on me here too. We're done. You have your belief, I've got mine.

 

If that's the case, then that's completely uncalled for.
My mom passed away too. No reason to get crazy over this stuff.

 

Confirmed upper teir milf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well it took me some time to dig through their explanations, but in my opinion they don't explain, and even seem like they're trying to hide, their methodology in the very link where they say they explain it (go to Adjusted Line Yards Explained): http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods#ALY

For example, they say:

"In general, the offensive line is 20% more responsible for lost yardage than it is for yardage gained up to four yards, but 50% less responsible for yardage gained from 5-10 yards, and not responsible for yardage past that."

How in the world did they figure out those 20% and 50% values? Think about it.. if you can solve the problem of what percentage of a play is due to the OL, that's your measure right there. There's no need to do anything else. No, those 20% and 50% figures were basically pulled out of thin air.

Or when they say they "adjusted based on down, distance, situation and opponent". Umm.. there are an infinite number of ways of "adjusting". That link is supposed to describe their methodology and they tell you nothing about how they adjust for any of those factors.

Or when they say they calculate the probability of a RB (e.g. Tiki Barber) having a positive carry vs. the same line without TB. OK, that's a concrete statement and I can do those calculations too with the relevant data, but then they tell you nothing about what to do with that calculation (they act like they used it, but.. how??).

In a previous post I said I don't trust people that claim they've discovered something (in this case a good way of ranking OL/DL) unless they show their methodology. These guys don't show their methodology and by the looks of it seem to want to hide whatever they did behind half sophisticated sounding terminology. So while I think your intentions were totally good (you wanted to find some OL stats to justify your argument), I wouldn't base your argument on these rankings. Ranking OL/DL is damn difficult and I think this is a case where relying on expert rankings is better than any statistical approach.

So.. coming back full circle to QB W/L record and how much of that is due to the OL, I think putting the onus on the OTHER side to demonstrate that most of the OL's top ranked QB's played with were ranked high (assuming someone could rank OL's well) is the better argument. Because absent any good argument there, I think one has to assume there is random variation in OL strength for top ranked QB's, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread.

 

That's fair. Grading an offensive line is difficult. I thought I found something scientific or objective but I guess not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Eh, I just deleted the post I wrote here. Not worth it.
I'm over it. We obviously went 2 completely different directions with interpretations, so.... yeah. Sorry. A2D and such.

 

...

Odd... this guy said stuff about my mother too in a post in a game thread... he was banned, but for some reason unbanned. Not sure what's going on around here lately... Not sure we need that kind of person in our community.

 

Yeah, there's all sorts of variables. For instance, Seattle has a bad oline. However, Russell Wilson has elite escapability. He looks like Barry Sanders. That in itself, is a huge way of offsetting his oline. But, he also benefits from a good/great run game, and an elite defense.

Compare that situation to Tannehill in Miami. Terrible oline. Doesn't have the same mobility as Wilson, not even close in lateral agility. Doesn't have a dominant run game, despite Miller's stats last season. Doesn't have an elite defense. So, it's that much more difficult for Tannehill and the offense to overcome the oline problems.

Just one example.

 

I remember seeing the comments and the ban, and wondering why it was lifted, myself.

Fin-omenal or w/e says things like that all the time to people here. Definitely did on his other account.

Surely all "just in jest", though.

 

Yeah... To be honest, really made me consider my amount of time spent here. Especially in the mains seeing comments like that, then the removal of a deserved ban. No offense mods, But this is two clear cut incidents on top of whatever there was in the past.

I understand people have inside jokes with one another, etc, etc. But the instance I'm referring to in the GDT was nothing of the sort, especially since there's no relationship whatsoever between us... I'm not sure about your's...

I mean, not to stray this further off topic... but IMO, it's an issue that deserves attention. It's not what I remember this place being about since day 1.

Now, back to the regularly schedule Tannehill brawl

 

Agree. No need for it here.

 

I gotcha. My post was complete BS too. Over the top.
All good dude.

I want to watch Tannehill and the team win as much as you do. Same team.

 

Yeah, we agree. I think Tannehill can do better at scrambling though. Wilson has eyes on the back of his head or something, he has an uncanny sense of pressure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

He definitely needs to do something different with scrambling. If it's not a coaching issue, then we have a serious problem. Coaches need to be watching film, and telling him this stuff. I can see, though, with how bad his line is, that he's hesitant to pick a spot and run. You watch him try to climb the pocket, and get hammered. You'll see him try to go right, and get hit. The issue just comes from seemingly every angle. Makes it tough for that part of the game to slow down for him.

Wilson is a freak runner for sure.

 

Come on, guys. Fin O apologized. How about three strikes and he's out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And here comes this guy.....Mr Nice Guy who took a post of mine and replied with F bombs and acts like an internet Clint Eastwood. THEN, plays the role of "our community" etc.

Why dont you block me, instead of claiming to be "done bro" 40 times only to reply 5 min later.

I dont know who can see through the phoniness and who cant, but ive been a member here as long as most and the picture you are trying to paint wont work unless its with ppl who WANT to believe the crap u say.

Now, Im done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yep. You aren't even part of the crowd that my Dalton tangent from last year was meant for, anyway. I'm just bias in that regard.

 

Obviously it was a bad poster to make a common joke in jest, ive apologized and deleted the damn thing within SECONDS!

If that isnt good enough, what can I say? But ofcourse you have the usual suspect piling on,...doesnt take Matlock to figure out what happened.

Moving right along..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Did you just hear that "thud" on the ground? That's the football hitting the ground after another missed Tannehill deep ball.

 

Uh oh, here we go [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well at the very least I'll do my best to be civil from here on out. I respect every poster on here for the mere fact that we care enough to participate in this forum and discuss our beloved Fins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

"A Tale Of Two Tannes"

 

Is this serious?

There's the post that I made, in regards to the comment you made in that GDT about Tannehill and the playmakers in the Texans game, which was I believe your first post in the thread of the game, and obviously an attempt to fire up a unnecessary debate during the game, while our QB was having a perfect game, taking all the credit away from him. It was this post of mine, which then prompted your insults about my mother...

Yup, look at all those F bombs and insults from me bro.

I'm not sure what world you live in, but it's not reality.

For the record, I later in the thread referred to you as "Mike Wallace's biggest fan" when your previous username was mentioned. Am I really stretching the truth here?

Why do I keep coming back? For this exact reason. Provide the fact of the matter, and the truth. I'm not about to let you get the last word, when you're going to paint yet another inaccurate picture.

Now who's being the internet Clint Eastwood? And who's being phony?

Also, I did have you on ignore, however I removed it after the ban, because I don't typically like to use the ignore feature. However, unfortunately it's looking like I'm going to need to. So, yes, I will take your advice on putting you on ignore.

 

Sounds good man, you did reply with FBombs and insults because I DID give credit to ghe playmakers and deservidly so.

But we both know what you replied with, not really concerned about it anymore...you likely wasnt even told about it and forgot.

Well wishes.

For the record, for the crowd who auto annoint me the issue.....



Evidence of his reply with an F bomb and an insult, inspired by me giving props to the playmakers for turning short passes into long TDs.

I mustve deserved it though.

Nothing else really worth talking about on the matter, if we want to get back to talking about the topic im in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Wow man, really? I know exactly what I replied with, so does everyone, because I posted it right here to remind you, with the link to my post, my reply, and the entire thread. You still want to blatantly lie about it? Your insult, didn't even deserve a response, I simply reported the post.

I thought you'd take the high road here after I pointed that out, but clearly you don't have the ability to do that.

So that says all I need to know about whether I should actually use ignore on you. Now, I will. Because if you can't own up to your own BS, even when called out with proof, there's not really alot of point in having a conversation with you about anything, because you just aren't willing to listen, or accept anything other than your own opinion. Even when shown you're incorrect, and called out on it...

Pretty sad...

See ya!

 

i wanna see some chicks??..I haven't trimmed my package in ages, tells you how long its been.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think you saw what I attached. Or atleast NOW you can pretend you didn't. But hey, FinD likes it despite the evidence being an inch and a half above this post.

Sums a lot of things up.

 

lmao! Great joke you even mention those two in the same sentence. Brady puts up points. New England doesn't always go deep. That is how their offense works. Thursday night game pretty much sums up the differences between them.