Another one of his good qualities dismissed. His toughness, availibility and fighting spirit isn't a reflection of leadership nor does it mean anything because we aren't winning enough. I understand.
Wilson & Rodgers were beat by Newton & Palmer. I guess that means Newton & Palmer have stronger intangibles then Wilson & Rodgers. Only thing that makes sense, cause you know....intangibles.
Of course you say that. It shoots a giant hole in your stance that you can't fill in again, so you attack me. I guess that's your intangible.
Exactly. This is the definition of strawman. Wilson and Rodgers. Oh you know, perennial playoff participants, 3 super bowl appearances between them, 2 wins. But they lost ONE Game so any arguments about them are invalid. Because they lost.
You know that's how it works though right? You're arguing with guys errrr chronic adjusters who extrapolate greatness (or strip it away) based on singular events. They're waiting in the woodwork for that one moment to go "Ahhh ha!!!!!" even though there is a whole resume there to define the player. Nearly two decades of suckage has warped their minds. They must do anything in their power to protect their homerism. It's an addiction.
Whatever the case, we pretty much know Tanny is not viewed as the team's leader. Or maybe the team is full of druggies and Pouncey has the best "crazy" stuff (Bullygate) that's why he was voted the leader. Wonder how many first place votes Tanny got.
I mean, you can't even comment and enjoy the debates anymore because everyone would just rather be a prick to one another.
Tannehill debates have surpassed the Beck and Henne debates IMO. I've heard that the staff from another team's forum is actually using these threads for a case study. Things are getting interesting.
Actually didn't take that long. Yours beat it pretty quickly if you think Aaron Rodgers or Ben roethlisberger only gets one trophy playing for that strong a team. Hell, drew brees, Phillip rivers would have more than one. If you take out the QB and compare the rest of the team to other teams I think it would be universal agreed that they had the most talent the last three years. And even four years back they had a damn good team. So does Aaron Rodgers win more than one super bowl with that team if he's the QB of the Seahawks the Last four years
True. Dude is the second coming of Aaron Rodgers. Just ask Falco, Res, D, and the dude with Bruce Lee as an avatar. Rest of us are just blind. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The struggle to identify quality play at the QB position for these guy's has never been so evident as it is in this thread. Ryan to this point has played around a 15-20th teir QB. There are certainly some disadvantages he has to deal with, but that doesnt mean let's write him off as a victim and call it a day. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
True, and believe it or not I'm with you on this, yes I do join in, but when you get mud slung at you so many times eventually I sling back. I would love to just talk football, exchange ideas and theories with out being attacked because someone has a different theory, but there are a lot of posters on this board that attack instead of discuss.
Playing at the 15th level with that line, oc, underused running game and not being able to audible makes him a top 10 QB easy. The problem is you guys think a good QB can overcome EVERYTHING & ANYTHING. He can't. None can. Accomplishing what he has with the precious little he's been given....is astonishing actually. If they fix some of the utter crap he's had to deal with, then you'll see this coming season. I expect you and the Tannehater Brigade to be on here eating crow. Also FYI, that guy with the Bruce Lee avatar is a former scout.
Not one person has said that. Fin-o king of the straw man arguments. This is why you guys have had your *** handed to you for the last few years. You have to invent posts to make your own comments
No I don't. That's your analysis and in case I've not been clear in the past, I couldn't think less of your analysis on everything from football to politics. I've never, in my life, seen anyone more consistently wrong about everything, then you.
Not my analysis. It was in the club. I can send you a link Lol at being wrong. Nobody has apologized more on this forum than you. When it came to Philbin and Ireland you were scorched earth in their defense. How'd that work you you? I can't think of a single thing you've been right about.
"Outside of 15" is not My analysis. Again, I can point you to because it's obvious you tune out facts that don't suit your narrative. Again, you've been so wrong in your convictions if I was Tannehill I'd question my future in the league!
Ahh, I thought it was slick but I haven't seen him post about Tannehill enough to be labeled that way. Carry on.
What exactly has he accomplished? A few of the guys with worst OL's are way ahead of his range and honestly the majority if NFL teams have avg at best OL's. And that same former scout actually called Ryan a top 6 QB in the NFL.....soooo......yeah. I saw some late season flashes of what IMO he needs to do to get better, so lets not pretend I think he should be served a pink slip tommorw. I simply to this point do not see a QB who can elevate his own play on a consistent basis. I welcome the fact he is getting another year to try and catch on and become what some hope he will, but i also will not burt my head in the sand and pretend he has shown enough at this point for me to be "excited" about the QB position. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like when we talk about Tannehill, you guys like to isolate things like, "Lot's of QBs have bad olines, but are still successful." Or, "Lot's of QBs deal with poor coaching, and are successful." Or, "Lot's of QBs have poor receiving corps and are successful." Or, "Lot's of QBs have poor run games and are successful." Or, "Lot's of QBs have poor defenses and are successful." But never once have any of you given an example of a QB who's been successful when he has poor receivers, poor oline, poor coaching, poor defense, and poor run game.
typical. You get called out for making stuff up and you respond with insults. How many from your side have been banned already
Well, ole Alex Smith gave it a shot. No receivers left, OL playing poorly (qb running alot), bad coaching by Reid, defense wasn't getting ANY pressure, and they had their 3rd string RB. They should have used our game plan against the Pats Happens even to the A.Smith Brigade.
I was wrong about Philbin. I admitted it. I wasn't wrong about Ireland, because my argument was that he needed 3 years away form Parcells, to see what we got. I also maintain he's a solid talent evaluator just a horrible team builder. I was right about Parcells and Sparano. I'm right about the Pats and their cheating ways. I've done a good predicting records. I've even done a great job predicting you and your ilk's arguments. i'm right about Thill. I know you keep saying outside of 15 is not your analysis because you're clinging to a post in the Club. What I'm saying is that regardless of that post, isn't your analysis he's outside of 15 as well? yes or no? And no one here is going accept you saying anything other than yes, as you're a founding member of the Tannehater Brigade. Its a message board Counselor, no need to play lawyer ball.
You're being disingenuous. I keep pointing out that Thill is playing with more handicaps than just a horrible oline and you act like I'm insane. One more time, QBs aren't mythical creatures, they cannot overcome all the things Thill has to overcome. I can say that in full confidence, because none have....EVER. I ask again, if the problems get dealt with and Thill hits the level I anticipate, will you apologize for all this crap and admit you were wrong? I will if I am. You have yet to do that with Wallace.
Act like your insane? No, I have pointed out as many disadvantages as anyone. The difference is I do not throw my hands in the air and say thats the reason we have issues at the position. Akili Smith and Tim Couch had garbage situations. That doesnt mean they were good QBs handicapped by their surroundings, it means if your not apart of the solution you are apart of the problem. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Neither one of those guys ever played as well as Tannehill though. I know your point wasn't to compare them exactly and directly, but still.
It was a generalization to help some understand that just because the surroundings are bad that automatically the QB isnt also. I realize it wont be taken into account and the premise will go by the waistside....Ive posted here before. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk