Fin, I know you've been trying to do some weird side by side comparisons with tannehill and wilson..but none of it is really relevant..all the notions that wilson was a by-product have been squashed..ever since he was a third round pick inexplicably..so the comparisons or analogies, or trying to justify ryan in some way is just bad analysis because the level of player is wide imo..jmo..
No, what I'm trying to get through to you is that the effing rest of the team and coaching staff matters even with your Jesus. There has never been and never will be a QB that can produce under any and all circumstances. Not Wilson, not Marino, not Rodgers, not Manning, not Brady, not Untias....NO ONE.
its all relative..put ryan and wilson with the same everything and wilson is going to be that much better..is that so fu$$in hard to understand, he's the much better qb.....jesus... your using a qb that has had an unprecedented start to his career, the best first 4 years of all time and your somehow trying to discredit him while boosting ours..its stupid..all you gotta do is watch them play.. would wilson of succeeded with Philbin and Lazor, and sherman and this oline....yes..he would of..that much better than ryan.. doesn't mean ryan cant be a good qb just that he's not on wilsons level so lets stop playing the silly games.
SSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I didn't say they are same and would do the same under the same circumstances. You are inventing that because you cannot have a rational discussion about this. Pay effing attention. Wilson is better than Thill. Ok, is that effing out of the way now? Do you understand me saying that? Can you never again act like I'm saying anything different? Now, all I'm saying is that if Wilson played under the same circumstances as Thill he wouldn't be considered great. He'd be considered good (and even better than Thill has been considered) but not great, because ALL THE EFFING QBS THAT HAVE EVER LIVED cannot thrive under the circumstances that Thill has had to endure. If Thill had circumstances like Wilson he'd be considered franchise (and not as good as Wilson but still great). Great QBs aren't mythical creatures imbued with magic super powers. They have to have the talent to be great but also an environment in which they aren't stunted or handcuffed. Wilson has all of that, Thill does not and if he did, the gap would be closer but there's still be a gap. At this point, I don't give 3 ****s, 4 damns or 18 ****s if you agree or not, I just want you to effing acknowledge I'm not attacking Wilson nor am I saying he Thill are equals.
I think Fin agrees with you DJ, but is saying Tannehill would be better under more ideal conditions. Of course, anyone will be better under ideal conditions. Joey Harrington with a good oline and good coaching is going to be better than without. The question is, is it enough. Is Gase the man? Well he's almost certain to be better than Philbin. Let's see what he can do with Cutler. At the end of the day, Cutler cut down on his INT % but his TD % was down quite a bit too.
Was the Seattle run game not good without Lynch or something? As I recall, they still ran the ball a bunch, with pretty good success. I said what I said about not running, because Tannehill was coached for the first two years to not run. Why is it that you guys take everything, then try to twist it to the extreme, then have a massive fit, as if everyone else is being ridiculous? The fact is, REGARDLESS of how good Wilson or Tannehill are or aren't, Wilson has had many advantages, outside of his control, that Tannehill has not had. To act like those didn't help him is silly.
Agreed... NOT EVEN CLOSE... 2006 1 16 Jason Allen 2006 3 82 Derek Hagan 2006 4 114 Joe Toledo 2006 7 212 Fred Evans 2006 7 226 Rodrique Wright 2006 7 233 Devin Aromashodu 2002 3 90 Seth McKinney 2002 4 114 Randy McMichael 2002 5 161 Omare Lowe 2002 5 170 Sam Simmons 2002 7 241 Leonard Henry 2000 2 53 Todd Wade 2000 3 84 Ben Kelly 2000 4 117 Deon Dyer 2000 5 152 Arturo Freeman 2000 6 167 Ernest Grant 2000 7 232 Jeff Harris 1999 2 39 J.J. Johnson 1999 2 43 Rob Konrad 1999 3 72 Grey Ruegamer 1999 5 134 Cecil Collins 1999 5 142 Bryan Jones 1999 6 192 Brent Bartholomew 1999 7 232 Jermaine Haley 1999 7 244 Joe Wong
are you ready..your wrong again and before you start cursing and make me curse, here's my point even more simplified, when I say relative, I mean good evaluators imo can assess a players value and skill level even if the surroundings are bad, so my point remains the same, he would be the same great player as you see now..and the right people would say he's a great player playing on a team with bad coaches. see how not difficult that was.
I'm sorry, no he isn't, right here he's saying Wilson wouldn't be considered great..its bs..His improv game alone, the playmaking ability, doesn't need good surrounding variables, its a solo gig...his work and numbers from the pocket speak for themselves..
We all know how great Dan Marino's 1984 was. 48 TDs, 108.9 rating. However in 1985 his O-Line got banged up real bad. IIRC by the monday night Bears game he was down to one starting OL from the beginning of the season. What happened to his season? 30 TDs and 84.1 rating. I remember reading at the time one expert saying his 1985 was more impressive than his 1984, but still the removal of talent through injury dropped his passer rating over 20 points.
Well, you're wrong. You don't have magical powers. He doesn't have magical powers. The team matters. The coaching matters. No QB has ever thrived with poor coaching, oline, running game and not being able to audible. Its never happened.
If Wilson had to endure not being able to audible, not having a reliable running game and having ****ty coaches that handcuffed him, then he wouldn't have the wins, he wouldn't have the numbers he does now, he wouldn't have a ring. People would still think he is good. People would still be impressed with his poise and scrambling ability. People would still think he's an impressive leader. But people would also think, he's a really good QB, not elite. They'd view him in the tier with Matt Ryan and Rivers.
And if Tannehill had the perfect team around him he'd be probably viewed in the same light as a Matt Ryan. So one guy at worst is in the same tier as Matt Ryan and the other guy at best is in the same tier as Matt Ryan. Personally, Matt Ryan himself does nothing for me.
Except that we've seen Thill play at a higher level than that, when he's had one or two of his handcuffs removed.
It was a different era though, that 30 TDs led the league, and 84.1 was good enough for 5th best, that 1984 season remains as the best single year that any QB has ever had.
I think the point of Pauly's post wasn't that Marino played bad that year (he even mentions that many call it better than 84), just that there was a drop when the line got worse. Basically, the important part was that there was a drop.
Yeah, but I was just pointing out that 1984 was a freakish year, possibly never to be seen again, the stars aligned for that year.
I would say the more important part is he was still 5th in the league in passer rating and despite a terrible o-line was sacked less than any QB with only 18.
Don't want to assume here. Higher level than ... Matt Ryan? If so, no, he's never played to Ryan's peak yet.
Dude, Tannehill hasn't even had an AVERAGE team around him, and he's been good. Why you feel the need to go to an extreme, and say he needs a perfect team to be viewed as Matt Ryan. You're really just trying to start ****. If Tannehill had an average team around him, he'd be viewed as much better than Matt Ryan.
Didn't their line grade well in run blocking? Statistically, our run game averaged about the same ypc, we just ran it like 200 times less. No, I don't think the magical Wilson accounts for the run game, unless your prepared to say that Tannehill accounts for the Dolphins 4.3 ypc avg.
seattle runs most of their run game out of the zone read option, he had over 100 carries, he absolutely affects the run game.
He played at a Top 5 level in the league. If MRyan has done that, for more than one game and in a stretch, then I stand corrected.
Does he? They only averaged like .3ypc more than Miami. Also, I didn't say he didn't "affect" the run game, I said he didn't "account" for it. Do you not think Tannehill would have benefitted from a more balanced offense, with another 200-300 carries by running backs?
