All you did was say Phillip Rivers. You weren't right. You just pulled up a name. Then it became common knowledge that 17 wasn't allowed to audible, which is a significant handcuff in dealing with a defense. So, again, what QB has had to deal with all of that and thrive. I'm still waiting.
No... I'm saying you're greatly overstating how bad his surroundings have always been. I laid out a clear argument against the OC excuse. Like Fin O said, the audible excuse is no longer valid. The guy had one of the worst games I've ever seen a QB have. It's just one game but it's so indicting that I'm going to take the leap and say this explains why he was never trusted to audible. Bad OL, yes. Bad guards specifically and a case of bad luck health wise for our tackles. But there's other QBs with similar or worse OLs that have played better. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So I'm clear, the entirety of your point in this argument with me in this thread is based on 2 things: - Stats that you know are unreliable - And one game you know is too small a sample size. And no, you didn't lay out a clear argument about the OC. You gave opinions based in nothing but you wanting to be right about Tannehill.
I've already clarified what I meant. Passer Rating is just as unreliable as the OL rankings. Anybody think Dalton is as good as his Passer Rating shows now? There's a lot of variables that complicate those stats but there's objectivity and their method is open source. It's not just based on one game. It's based on Sherman never trusting him to audible, the guy who didn't trust him to start in college for a while. It's also based on Lazor not trusting him. Those two saw more of him making audibles than we have. Tannehill didn't give them the confidence to allow him to audible. Based on what I've seen so far, I can't blame them. Not one bit. I already have. You're choosing to ignore it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, I was right (you must be used to that) because Rivers has a worst rated OL, had a terrible run to pass ratio and still is playing outstanding football. After I gave you this example you conveniently added the audible option once your theory was burned to ashes. Neat trick. So why did Ryan who finally got the benefit of these things Sunday have a game that Geno Smith would laugh at??? Why did he suck? He had all these advantages and was playing at home vs a garbage defense. So again, why did he suck? Easy question...why not answer it?
why would a coordinator not allow a qb in his 4th year not to audible?..taking into account the qbs success is directly related to his jobs security?
According to him, the only game we've ever seen him allowed to audible isn't enough evidence. Neither is the fact that Sherman and Lazor didn't trust him to audible despite their experience with him and their jobs being tied to his success. They're just bad OCs, so they wouldn't be able to tell if a QB can audible. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your knowledge is incorrect. That's funny, because Fin D said it earlier in this thread. I quoted it on the last page if you'd like to read it for yourself.
You weren't right. At best that was 2 of the three criteria at the time. There was also nothing to back it up, just you saying it was so. The 4th piece of criteria was added because it was just a few minutes after it was confirmed Tannehill can't audible. This was all explained and proven to you then. So at the time, Rivers met 2 of the 3 criteria, then a fourth piece of criteria came to light, that he doesn't also meet. That's not my fault nor is it some nefarious attempt to screw you over. Its just simple fact...no QB has thrived under these 3 conditions: - Bad OL - Bad OC - Easily abandoned run game Then no QB has certainly thrived under these 4 conditions: - Bad OL - Bad OC - Easily abandoned run game - Can't audible
I didn't declare him anything. I said when he had average aggregate oline play he played at a Top 5-10 level. That isn't me just declaring something into existence, it actually happened. I didn't dream that up.
But, I thought we judged QBs on wins and losses? Further, what advantages? He could finally audible? He silk had a crap oline, see Tannehill heeding sacked by the guy he pointed out presnap, who still didn't get blocked. He did have a run game, finally.
Because I wouldnt call his OC "bad" becasue I have no idea if he is the best OC in football kr the worst. Thats the difference in us, I dont call my opinions facts then base an entire argument on it. And you know what? 1 game IS a bad sample size for anything, but when you pawn off Ryans struggles on everything under the sun then be prepared to hear it when these mythical reasons Ryan has struggled are brought ro the surface. He's had bad OL's, bad OC(imo), not being able to audible out of the options provided is a disadvantage.....BUT Ryan has also played QB at an extremely low level in 2015 and nobody should be searching for reasons to let him off the hook just because you like him or need to feel secure at the QB position. Because you shouldnt. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He had an exceptional run game, his OL graded out as having I believe their 2nd best game of the year (for whatever thats worth) and he had the freedom to change plays. Are these great advantages? I dunno, you tell me. But if they are the sole DISADVANTAGES that have made Ryan what he has been in 2015 then how can it not matter when he is finally afforded these things?? Reason is, there is a common denomenator and its a QB who has been a huge disappointment to all of us this season. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not pawning anything off. You yourself have said the oline is bad, Lazor and Sherman were bad, abandoning the run is bad and that not being able to audible is bad. You know these things and have freely admitted them. Why does it make you so upset when I merely point out that no QB has ever thrived while dealing with things you yourself have not only pointed out but agree are major problems?
An OC being good or bad is an opinion, what evidence do you have the Philip Rivers has a good offensive Cordinator? And upset?? Stop it. Its a message board, if you want to not hold Tanny accountable then why even click on these threads if all your going to do is dismiss his poor play and blame it on anything but him? Its weird. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn't say he was good or bad. So we can't say if the Charger's OC is good or bad because that's an opinion, but you can say Tannehill sucks because that isn't an opinion? Yes, upset. You're clearly upset, and you didn't address what I asked you. Why does it make you so upset when I merely point out that no QB has ever thrived while dealing with things you yourself have not only pointed out but agree are major problems?
While true, it was by far and away the worst passing performance we've seen out of him in quite some time. This coming on the heels of him supposedly having more input on the gameplan as well.
For some posters, there is too much personal pride in predicting a QB's future greatness, so they'll dig into their fox hole and defend at all costs. It borderline moves them into bigger fans of said QB than the actual team the QB plays for.
Stop. No one on this site is willing to eat crow when they are wrong more than me. I've done it numerous times. I'm asking a simple question and everyone is getting upset over it and making accusation after accusation yet they aren't answering it..... Name one QB that has thrived dealing with all 4 of those issues.
Nah, that one game has been linked in here with everything else that has gone on to illustrate the overall body of work. I mean c'mon we're talking about what was arguably one of the biggest games of his career in the face of his critics and he sh*ts the bed (vs. poor competition too). It should have been an F-U game for him to shut everyone up ..... all he did was give more ammunition.
Why was that one of his biggest games? It wasn't. This is another problem I've pointed out in the past, false benchmarks.
Ya right. All year long all we've heard was that Lazor was holding him back (the latest scapegoat for his struggles) and putting him in a bad position because he couldn't audible. Ironically the same OC that "manufactured" Tanny's best year.
And you were using five games of about 60 to try to convince people that Ryan Tannehill is an elite quarterback he has good blocking. Your problem is it's not that some of your excuses are wrong, your problem is you're doing everything you can to save face in this argument that you have clearly lost. If the roles were reversed, what you would do is say there is no evidence Bill laser is a bad offense of Cordinator because we've never seen him struggle at playcalling until you have Ryan as a quarterback. That's the type of ridiculous counter you guys would have. Everyone is wrong about evaluations from time to time take it on the chin pick yourself up dust yourself off and live to fight another day. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's why it's a real slippery slope playing the blame game. Lazor's last season calling plays in Philly was a huge success that saw Nick Foles with a 119.2 QB rating and a 73.82 QBR. But yet he's a big reason for Tanny's struggles? Where does that game begin and end? EDIT: My error. Forgot he was QB coach not OC.
Let's think about this from an honest level. Let's forget everything we've stood our ground on in the past in regards to Tannehill...what makes more sense: Considering that he plays considerably better against non division foes than division foes is it more likely: - That he just for some reason, plays worse against these teams because he has some genetic flaw that makes him play bad against them. OR - Because our division is headed by defensive coaches, they don't have a problem going up against an offense they've called predictable, with a horrid pass protecting oline, that is usually one dimensional because they go away form the run, and the QB can't even audible based on the looks the defense gives. And with all that, they've played us enough times to know whatever tendencies we have pretty well. If we're being honest, the second one not only makes perfect sense on logical, rational and common sense levels, its absolutely what is most likely.
And Ryan was allowed to audible...it was just into another variation of the same play. Its laughable the grasping of straws by these guys. Best believe if Ryan comes out and plays well Monday night we will see things like "look what he can do with X". Its ok to support your QB and to look at him in the most positive light you can....its quite another to be ignorant about his abilities. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not sure why you're latching onto one game to defend your position. Yes, the oline played better, but was that because they ran the ball a ton? I'm sure the fact that we have an interim coach, and an interim offensive coordinator has zero impact on the functionality of our offense. Again, I'll point out, Tannehill is on pace for 28 tds, one more than last season, yet our scoring is down. Why is that?
Just stop, this isn't about me or you. I haven't won or lost anything. Neither have you. I'm not playing a game. I'm not doing the back and forth bickering with you, because, quite frankly, I'm tired of being the only one that gets in trouble for it. I'm not trying to convince people he was elite with good blocking. I'm saying he did in fact play at a high level when he had average blocking. That actually happened. I'm not making that up. I'm bringing it up because its evidence that supports the point that he plays better with better oline protection. That isn't crazy. That isn't irrational. Its not even uncommon for QBs. And for the third time: Why does it make you so upset when I merely point out that no QB has ever thrived while dealing with things you yourself have not only pointed out but agree are major problems?
Naw what's laughable is the idea Bill Lazor called plays in Philly that helped Foles with his magical 27-2 season (TD's to int's). That's wrong, you can't even debate that like all of your meaningless opinions of Tannehill, it's simply a lack of knowledge lol.
This is ridiculous. Two OCs lost their jobs because they were tied to Tannehill's success. They've seen him audible many times, especially Sherman. Would they bet their jobs on someone who clearly sucked making audibles? No, and they didn't. Judging by the only game we have to judge on, can you blame them for making that decision? I definitely can't. That was one of the worst QB performances I've ever seen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
