Seattle has the 8th best scoring offense in football and the highest scoring offense over the past 5 games....yet you are trying to imply their defense is the reason they are a great team. Do you understand why nobody gives that meaningless stat any credence?? THEY HAVE THE 8TH BEST SCORING OFF IN FOOTBALL! End of story
Uh, no. The three seasons previous their defense was the reason. I'm merely asking about this season, why their record is as bad as ours in games where opponents score 20 or more. So you don't blame Wilson for not putting the team on his back, and making plays to win those games?
Actually no... Here is where they ranked in regards to points scored since Wilson blessed the team with his prescence. 9,8,10,8... Incase it escapes you, thats a top 10 scoring offense every year Wilson has been the QB... Thanks for playing
[/QUOTE] What is your point? He has led a top 10 scoring offense for 3.5 years with a bad OL, his OL sees a stretch of good play and they start scoring over 30ppg. So yes...they had a very good offense for 3.5 years and now thanks to the OL and Thomas Rawls they are a GREAT offense. I agree.
Top 10 scoring offense every year in the league. No I don't blame ANY Qb for not putting a team on their back, thing is it is nice when on occasion they actually can. We wouldn't know anything about that as Phins fans.
Fin O, don't even bother. This Wilson vs Tannehill debate is worn out. We're beating a dead horse. Let these two be the guys at the bar in a couple of seasons that rant to strangers about how Tannehill could've been so much more if he had Wilson's help. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not him!!!!! Remember, he thinks that Lazor sucked, not being able to audible is a ridiculous shackle to put on a QB with a crappy oline that he agrees we have..... ...ok then the argument changes and ignores all of that.
Ive watched him play for 4 years, I think I have a good feel of what he can and can not do. No need to google stats, he is what he is.
I don't think all of that, I KNOW all of that. I brought it up when you were still fighting to prove Joe Philbin was a quality coach who needed time. Difference is I can recognize his surroundings and also realize he has played poorly at the same time. You guys just use it to excuse his poor play.
You don't read anything, do you? I believe you have a preset list of responses, and you click Reply With Quote on my posts, and insert the preset response that has a similar topic in it. For instance, I post a question about team records of Miami and Seattle, specifying that Wilson played great in most of those losses, and you reply with "Tannehill vs Wilson dead horse debate! Derp derp derp!"
Yep, that's me. I'm derpy but you and Fin D will be the guys at the bar ranting to strangers about how Tannehill could've been so much more. You're almost there. You're ranting to an entire forum trying to find any little factoid to somehow favorably compare Tannehill to Wilson. I'm done trying to convince you how ridiculous it is, so yes, I'm not reading it anymore. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My point was that before the switch on the oline Wilson averaged a 88.3 qb rating and after the switch he averaging a 127.84 qb rating. Tannehill's QB rating this year........88.3.
Here's an idea: instead of trying to read all these insidious things into my posts, just take my posts at face value. There is literally nothing here comparing Tannehill to Wilson. I haven't once said that Tannehill is playing great this season. I even specified that in this set of games, Wilson had played great, having over a 10ypa in several of them. The problem for you, is that to answer my question, you'll have to refute other things you've ranted against myself and others for in regards to Tannehill. So, you resort to pathetic strawman arguments, so that you can argue with me without answering the question. But I'm the guy in the bar ranting.
Yes, you and Fin D are the guys at the bar ranting about how Tannehill would do so well if not for X, Y, Z. At some point you're going to have to admit he's not good enough. He can't elevate any team. Wilson does. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again, ignoring the conversation, and continuing your rant about comparing the two. I'm not comparing them. Derp derp.
Your math is off...he had a 91.4 rating and the skyrocketed to a 140 avg after today. He also has a career rating of 100.3 with that bad OL for 3.5 years.....you can't win this because its about as fictional as Joe Philbin just needing some continuity.
Oh, we have? I didn't realize we'd talked ad nauseum about Seattle being just as bad as Miami when opponents score 20 or more, even when Wilson plays well.
1-5 isn't just as bad as 1-7. Go ahead and list the games for each. Are you basing this on just this season? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, you're right. One is 20% win percentage, one is 14% win percentage. Huuuuuge difference. I like how you picked on the one time in the conversation I didn't say they were "basically the same." It was based on this year, after I was looking at the screenshots you posted.
So post the games then. I'm curious to see what the deficits were. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did you happen to notice that 4 of the 5 losses by Seattle they were within a TD, and the other game lost by 10, and how we lost by at least 10 points in all but one of the games?
Seattle's deficits in a chronological order: 3, 10, 3, 4, 7. Miami's deficits in a chronological order: 3, 27, 13, 29, 16, 10, 18. In Miami's defense, the 27 and 13 point losses were when we had Coyle. If anybody cares to analyze the statistics in context and compare the losses, go ahead, but I'm not doing all that this late. From what I remember about those games, Tannehill wasn't competitive half the time. He had terrible ratings in those losses. Also, don't forget that last game against the Jets. Garbage time. Wipe your butt with that 84.8 rating. Wilson, on the other hand, only had one bad rating in those five losses. More evidence that he's better by far. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So he went from a 91.4 average rating (well below his career average) to a 140 average rating (super far above his career average) AFTER making the changes on oline....and that somehow disproves my point?!!?!?!?!?!??! That's effing ridiculous on your part whether I screwed up the math or not.
If your point is his OL play improving helped his play then I already said I agree. If you are hinting that when his OL is bad he is the same QB as Ryan Tannehill then you are just flat out wrong. Its really that simple....not sure what you are not understanding. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, I wasn't hinting anything and I never do. I'm not a subtle person. I would think that's obvious by now, especially after my recent banning. I'm saying fixing the oline dramatically increased Wilson's effectiveness. Why wouldn't it also dramatically help Tannehill. Fixing the oline raised Wilson's rating by 40 points. What if fixing the oline raised Tannehill's 20 or 30? No one would be *****ing. No one would talking like he's ****. No one would take a 7th round pick for him. Here we have proof that even a QB that is widely considered better than Tannehill gets a ridiculous boost when his oline improves. Its just more evidence to what some of us have been saying all along.
You could make that claim with ANY QB in the league....from Blaine Gabbert to Johnny Manzeil naturally a QB will be better with better protection. This isnt news to anyone. And Wilson is a great QB and all but these 5 games are just a hot streak....he wont be playing at this level consistently because its not possible. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No you can't make that claim with ANY QB, because most QBs don't have bottom of the league olines. You can't have bottom of the league olines if every QB has the same **** oline, by definition.
