Sack. http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-york-...sacked-by-Muhammad-Wilkerson-for-10-yard-loss There was another one to his backside a little but this was right in front.
I've seen Russel Wilson post a 0.0 passer rating in the first half of an NFC championship game against a mediocre defense as well. And for the other 3, not exactly spring chickens, Romo will be 36 by the start of next season and will probably never win a ring. The only prize that truly matters in any sport and all I care about from our QB position, the ability to win it all. Let's see how the great Andy Dalton and Matt Ryan (If he makes it) do in the playoffs this year, being that they are seen by many as being elite but have come up short in the games that really count. Of course Tannehill hasn't even made it there yet, but isn't that what people were saying about Eli until that magical run, that he didn't have "it"? Lotta Giants fans were ready to run him out of town too lol, good thing their organization was smarter than the fans, they stayed patient, and he netted them 2 SB victories. The ONLY thing that really matters at the end of the day.
Wait. wait. wait... Tannehill can't even win and get it done in REGULAR season. Yet you are giving a negative to those QBs saying the only thing that matter is being able to win SUPER BOWLS? I mean, is this seriously what our fan base has come to? The friggin guy can't pull off wins enough to get to the playoffs, but hes going to turn into Tom Brady if he ever makes it there?
Where that can be a great tool for attention it has little to do with peripheral, which is outside the center of your vision, and has more to do with genetic make up than anything else.
Okay, so Wilson played poorly in the first half of a big game that most QBs have never gotten to or will ever get to, including Tannehill as of now. Tannehill couldn't even make a wildcard despite so many opportunities to do so. We've seen what the Cowboys look like without Romo. They're playoff contenders with him and couldn't win a game without him. We've seen this team before Tannehill and with Tannehill. Same damn thing. Dalton isn't elite in my book at all. Chokes when it matters most. Matt Ryan is known as Matty Ice for a reason. He nearly made the Super Bowl and the loss wasn't on him, it was on the defense. Eli Manning had a great defense and has a great head coach. Life isn't fair. But he's also more than made up for it with two SB wins with great performances. I'm not expecting that from Tannehill. I can't say he won't do that but what are the odds, really? Especially considering how he's choked in big games so far. At least Flacco showed something before his SB win. Point is it's pure speculation up to this point what Tannehill would be able to do in the playoffs. As for now he's just gotta do enough to get us there. He's had his chances and he hasn't even done that yet. His second and third seasons were full of chances, he blew it. Now he's regressing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting...expect Manning made the playoffs both his first two full seasons as a starter and won the SB his 3rd. Don't you dare compare the two players and their paths.
No.. peripheral vision testing just tests acuity (and possibly contrast sensitivity). They show you tiny dots of light to see whether you see that or not, and for quick testing ask whether you can see X number of fingers. That's mostly a property of the retina or the optic nerve that sends signals to the visual processing areas of the brain, and I'm sure Tannehill's peripheral vision is perfectly fine. How you do on peripheral vision testing will tell you NOTHING about how you process information in the periphery like we're talking about (except that you detected it, so unless you have a disease like glaucoma where you actually have damage to the optic nerve you'll do fine). Tannehill's problem is a problem of not being able to attend to enough things at once. In colloquial speech people may call that "peripheral vision" and that's fine, but an actual vision test that tests for peripheral vision will tell you nothing about what we're interested in here.
In a much easier division, and it was his 4th year he won the SB. And don't act like there weren't Giants fans questioning his long term prospects before the 07 playoffs, there absolutely were, and a lot. I'm not trying to compare RT to Manning, just saying, sometimes it's not smart to trash your young QB too much like many did with Eli before his success. Here is a quote from John Mara in 07 The only thing we evaluate is 'Can we win with this guy?' That's the one thing. When we talk about any player at the end of the season, the No.1 question is 'Will he help us win?' And to take it one step further, 'Can we win a championship with this guy?' He was definitely under fire before the 07 playoff run, it's well documented.
He's not really wrong though. I live in Giants country. Everyone wanted Eli out before that 2007 run. He wasn't really anything special up until that point.
Interesting...so if all that truly matters and you care about from the QB position is the ability to win it all why use Wilson's 1st half as a negative? You know, in the second half he led Seattle to 22 points (15 in the 4th) to send it to OT by driving the Seahawks to TDs on their final two drives (throw in a 2 point conversion as well) in regulation and then hit Baldwin on 35 yard TD pass in OT to win the NFC Championship. Personally, I would use this example for how "CLUTCH" he is that despite having the worst half of his career when the game was on the line he stepped it up big-time leading the Seahawks to the Super Bowl.
Russel is the man, no denying that. But the MAIN reason they beat the Packers that game is because their defense kept them in the game and that TE dropped the onside kick (was supposed to block anyway lol). Just pointing out how football is the ultimate team sport, too much focus is put on the QB position. Had Russel not had a solid team around him no way they win that game after his first half performance against a team as good as GB was last year.
Well I'm not sure what your referring to, but the peripheral vision I'm referring to is what is outside your line of sight, where acuity doesn't come in to play, just shapes, you don't know what player is there, just that there is a player there, the peripheral vision doesn't allow for acuity, and that has to do with the construction of the human eye. Peripheral vision has to do with things that are not in your focused area of vision, and the ability to respond to those things, and it has a lot to do with the abilities of the individuals eye and also the brain. A test for peripheral vision cannot be done in a 2 dimensional setting on a flat screen, unless you're actually looking away from the screen, it can really only be done in a real setting, looking straight ahead and being able to see what is 90 degrees to the left or right, and eye doctors do a light flashing test for peripheral vision, while you look forward, flashing lights on the side indicate peripheral abilities.
We're talking about the same thing. The problem isn't the definition of peripheral vision. The problem is that an actual peripheral vision test only tests whether you can detect small dots of light when you're attending to that dot. Tannehill probably has perfectly fine peripheral vision. My point is that such a test tells you nothing about what we're interested in, which is how his brain processes what is detected in his peripheral visual field. If you could look at the signals sent from his eye to his brain, you'd probably see his retina and optic nerve are working perfectly fine and send all the relevant information about what's happening in his peripheral visual field to the brain. What happens after that is the question. His brain is simply not interpreting the information coming from the peripheral visual field in a football smart way. Most likely reason is because of attentional mechanisms. He has to use up so many resources to process what's going on downfield that he can't properly process much else. At least that's the most likely explanation. The likelihood his peripheral vision (in terms of how his retina and optic nerve work) is actually bad is astronomically low. First of all, diseases like glaucoma that cause gradual deterioration of peripheral vision tend to mostly affect African Americans, not white people. White people tend to have the opposite problem: age related macular degeneration where you lose central vision but keep peripheral vision (your visual field is like a donut). And if his peripheral vision really was bad, he would be bumping into all kinds of things in daily life. No, it's almost certain his peripheral vision is perfectly fine. He just can't process that information in a timely manner as a QB. Oh, and tests for peripheral vision can definitely be done on a 2D screen, often done with an eyetracker. And yes they test for acuity. Acuity is just vastly reduced in the periphery.
Exactly. If Tannehill throws 3-4 picks in a game, lights out. Against a team as good as GB, it's 35-0 by the time he leads his two 4th quarter scoring drives and he's a bum. Wilson has a lot of games where his offense isn't clicking for 1. 2, 3 quarters. But they stick to the script, run, play D. They don't hang their QB or pass pro out to dry by throwing 40-50-60 times. Wilson could absolutely come to Miami and do what he does in Seattle. It wouldn't be enough to win though. 25-30 attempts simply will not cut it and if Wilson had to put it up 40 plus times on a regular basis he'd get exposed too.
It's not even just peripheral vision, it's also lack of instinct and "feel" of a pass rush. It's almost as if Tanny commonly forgets where the pressure is coming from and doesn't account for who's blocking in front of him.
He absolutely would've won enough in Tannehill's second and third seasons to clinch a wildcard spot at the very least. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's right. The issue with a lot of comparisons we've seen is they're microcosms. I remember somebody said Matty Ice threw a pick in the end zone one time. Luck has been injured and we want to hone in and speculate as to when that was and if any games were on him despite all the other seasons. This season it's Flacco despite all his previous playoff performances. Now it's Wilson's first half of a big game. Can't we just compare circumstances over 4 seasons? Can't we speculate as to what somebody else would've done by now for us? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lmao where do you get these from? Are you a fellow /b/tard or Redditor? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some of them I make, but a lot of the time something pops into my head and I go on a Google Image hunt or search on Giphy.
A fan base has never wasted this much time arguing about a mediocre quarterback that no one cares about.
We care because the QB is so important for future success to this team. And until this year, Tannehill showed progressive improvement as a QB but had enough deficiencies that there was good grounds for debate as to whether he'd be our future franchise QB. I think 2015 is the year that really started tipping the scales towards those who thought he was average/mediocre. Anyway, the only arguing I see little point in is when the same arguments come up over and over again (at least some of those exchanges are high on entertainment value, though I admit those types of debates happens too often). Other than that, it's worth debating.
I think russel Wilson would've been Waived if he had been drafted by Miami. He would've sucked in lazor's timing offense. The guy is horrible throwing slants. What was he in the championship and superbowl? 4 for 4 all the slants thrown for picks? Wilson needs that offensive scheme they run in Seattle to function. Put him on twenty other teams he would be horrible unless they started running an Osborne offense. If Wilson was drafted by Miami I think matt Moore would've been our starting qb
If Miami drafted Wilson Lazor wouldn't even be here. There was 2 years under Sherman. I don't know how Carroll/Bevell's WCO differs from Sherman/Philbin but one thing Seattle does is adjust their system for their star players (Lynch, Harvin etc.) Bevell stated the core is what Holmgren and Mariucci would recognize but they, Seattle, tailor it. Because theyr'e good coaches. Our coaches suck. Guess who was QB coach under Sherman by the way.
You're right. He would've been waived because we're ****ing stupid. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some of the **** we hear about other clearly better QBs is just bat**** crazy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm enjoying the curse filter now that I know I can use it [emoji41] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
