Luck's QBR is low, but what he's done for/with that team, especially some comebacks in the 4th quarterback really end the discussion.

I agree with Philbin on Tannehill's decision making. He may miss some reads and he may not choose the right guy at times, or not wait long enough for a play to develop, but he makes great decisions on where to throw the ball so it isn't in a trouble area.

 

Luck has been fornuate. Guy should have about 25 picks. In the comeback win, he threw into double coverage in the end one on the last drive. Should have been picked off. Context.

 

The fact that Tanny has a slightly higher passer rating than Luck illustrates the limitations of that stat.

It's certainly useful, but there is no one who has watched both quarterbacks and the way their teams have performed and conclude that Tanny is better than Luck.

And that's nothing against Tanny.

 

Yeah, i wouldn't hold my breath on that. Just yesterday Omar laid one of his many pearls of wisdom, on us lowly followers.

 

If Tannehill was black, he won't be as harsh. Yea I said it.

 

That's the difference right there. Their teams.

 

As someone who endlessly points out the lack of talent on this team, you seem to negate the importance of surrounding talent when picking between Luck & Tannehill.

The stat isn't as limited as your bias makes you.

 

I've said that myself, THill is very streaky when he is off the Receivers really have to work to make it happen.

 

Tannehill was throwin passes to Javorski lane, marlon Moore, Marcus Thigpen, and A binns..with Mastrud, Lamar Miller and Charles clay getting major playing time.....

Brutal..

 

Ahh come on Dj...

Any of those guys would be starters on a lot of winning teams...

 

And that is captured by the WPA stat on this page, where Andrew Luck is 4th in the league, despite his QB rating:

http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?pos=QB

Tannehill is 19th.

Fortunately, in this case (unlike others), there is a stat that confirms what "your eyes" are telling you.

 

Oh...So that would explain why, at times, they CATCH a direct pass to them, DON'T fall from said catch or the angle at which the catch was made, then, regain composure, and turn to start running upfield and THEN, either fall for no reason, or go backwards with an open field ahead of them or without............ Because.......... the pass wasn't 'accurate' enough.

hrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggg

 

Yeah. Apparently Padre also shares the same train of thought as dear ol' Omar.

 

gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

 

I think where I see most improvement is the way he's working up and maneuvering in the pocket. He rarely, if ever, did this in the first half of the season.

Each week he's getting better and better at it. That's the most encouraging for me. And as a result he's had better results.

Funny thing is, I've watched Henne closely the past few games, and it's amazing. The guy is still the same guy that played against the Bills in 2009. Other than improving his straight line speed, he's the same player, making the same safe check downs, never threatening a defense, all while being a statue in the pocket.

 

And New England has one of the worst defenses in the NFL.( statistically ) LMAO. Would take Luck in a half a heart beat over Tannehill, maybe a 1/4 of a heartbeat. Like comparing the moon and Venus

 

Charles clay couldn't sniff delanie walkers jock.

It's a positive sign for Tannehill, earlier this year I thought about the theory of learning the position from the inside out, it was a little strange to me, the constricted pocket theory that is, but the long terms advantages of learning the game with below average skill players was interesting as hell.

 

Didn't you make a thread about wanting to move the team to LA?...... Let me fix that for you, because I now know from reading some of your posts that the English language is a bit rough on you. "I would take lucks weapons in a heartbeat over tannehills weapons."

 

Charles Clay is about as smart as a sponge. He could not learn a play book if you locked him in a room and made him read it for a year. Lamar Miller is also in the sponge family. You could lock Miller in a room with a playbook for two years and he still would be unable to understand it.

If you add up the mentality of Clay and Miller you come up with the total knowledge of a snail. Send both of them up the NY, Sparano will sign them and they will be no different. Huge waste of time and energy expecting either of them to become legit NFL players.

 

Jackiechan.jpeg or facepalm.jpeg....... You decide, America!!!

 

Egnew as well is in question at this point.

I'd like to see some players with strengths in the intangibles dept get aquired more frequently..

We're about to break the record for least amount of turnovers ever..if we finish 8 and 8 that will mind fu$& me.

 

and Luck currently leads the league in batted balls... lol

 

LOL. Delaine Walker is nothing special. He's a superior blocker to Clay but he's not a threat in the passing game like Clay.

 

Is that true?

 

Luck might be better, but tannehill Wasn't supposed to play this year

Give tannehill a HOF wr, better TE, some speedster wrs and a running game...boy that'd be nice...

 

No. Fewest takeaways in our history, not in the history of the NFL.

 

Still pretty bad. That's downright embarrassing given the league used to be 12 and 14 game seasons...

 

FWIW, our previous low was 19 in 2010.

 

We would CRUSH the Fins record of 19. I have no idea what the NFL record is. Its bizarre how bad this team is at taking the ball away. Other than Jones, not a single man on D seems to even try. Dansby & Burnett: 0 int, 0 FF, 0 FR. Thats a lot of money for a couple of run stuffers.

 

It's more like comparing Pluto to Uranus.

 

I thought JJ Watt was. :shifty:

 

Why stop there? Go for zero heartbeat and do us all a favor. :shifty:

 

Lack of turnovers are also a symptom of an unproductive, unthreatening offense allowing an opposing offense to play more within their own comfort zone and less pressed to take risks.

 

No it isn't. Maybe lack of interceptions, however there are also fumbles. 3 is very low.

 

Yes, it is. ...... and I didn't say it's the only symptom. Don't you watch all the turnovers that happen late in games when one team is trying to play catch up or at any point in the game where it's a few score deficit to where defenses have a chance to play more disruptively & aggressively and call plays more conducive for turnovers?

But even with fumbles, if you're playing from a uncomfortable deficit, running backs will frequently feel more pressure to fight for those extra yards where fumbles can often occur.

 

if it is a symptom it is a very small symptom.

I have seen those, however I have also seen many turnovers when offenses don't do much and the game is close.

 

No, it's a decent symptom, and I never said you can only have one or the other, as it's difficult to create a lot of turnovers if one dimension is missing. An offense scoring points creates defensive situations that are more conducive for creating turnovers, just as getting liquored up creates a situation more conducive for accidents. We obviously need to do a better job forcing turnovers when opposing offenses are operating within their comfort zone, but that doesn't detract from how many turnover opportunities we're deprived of simply b/c our unproductive offense doesn't force opposing offenses out of their comfort zone to where they're mistake prone, more predictable, and to where our defense can play more aggressively.

 

Lack of fumbles really makes me think we are cursed.