In that Suck for Luck sweepstakes that we totally sucked at, imagine if the Dolphins and Colts went neck and neck all the way. Colts had the tiebreaker, so they'd take Luck and we'd take RG3. Now, granted you can't predict injuries, but mobile QB's tend to get hit over time, but it looks like we really lucked out in not getting RG3 instead of Tannehill.

 

You are right, but I think Miami was all in on Tannehill at that point..they probably would have tried to trade out of two and drop a little back and still taken Ryan..of course that is my humble opinion is all.

 

Not really sure how relevant that is, considering that the league average is continually climbing.

 

Why do we think we would have taken RG3, as opposed to trading back with the Redskins?

 

Its funny.....when Tannehill ranks among the best in the NFL, that stat all of a sudden becomes meaningless. Its like he's aids for stats.

 

Where?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

Jesus, here we go with the hyper sensitivity. Comparing historical records for passing is pretty silly for any QB, this isn't unique to Ryan Tannehill.

If he ranks among the NFL beat, just cite his ranking. Don't compare his numbers to QBs in the 80s and 90s.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

How am I hyper sensitive? All did was make an observation. You made one too, I guess we're both hyper sensitive.

 

Yes, I'm sensitive about using data in bad context. You're sensitive about Ryan Tannehill.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

So, the whole "Jesus, here we go with the hyper sensitivity." crap you started your post with was self reflection? Ok got it, that's big of you to acknowledge it.

 

It was reflection on your inability to have a debate over the point I made, and instead becoming defensive over Ryan Tannehill.

Again, I'm not hyper sensitive over another person. I'm hyper sensitive over mis-leading stats. I own what I am. Will you own your hyper-sensitivity over Ryan Tannehill?

 

Lmao.

 

That was the fan sentiment (get either Luck or RG3), as far as I know the general consensus of what the Dolphins would do if they ended up picking 1st or 2nd, and everyone seemed to put those two QB's on nearly equal footing with all other QB's of lower quality. Also, Rams didn't need a QB anywhere near as much as the Colts and Dolphins did, so they could afford to trade back, especially for what the Skins paid.

Now if you can find some source that says we would've seriously considered trading back if we came in 1st or 2nd in that Suck for Luck sweepstakes, I'd be interested.. because I don't remember any such sentiments expressed.

 

I didn't address you.

I'm not so much hyper sensitive about Tannehill (which would be no more or less negative then your hyper sensitivity). I am hyper sensitive about negative narratives. For example, that's not misleading stat. The stat was accurate and there were no conclusions made based off that stat so there was nothing misleading. You can't mislead with a stat if you don't offer up a conclusion based on it.

Secondly, it is big deal. I mean I get that you simply invented the notion that it isn't, but then again, its been over 2 decades since we've had a QB that can do that. So, maybe, just maybe, it is a tick in the right direction.

Third, Tannehill was in the Top 5 of completions last year, with nobodies like Brees, Ryan, Manning & Big Rape. Which, if you take your hyper sensitive self back to my post, you'll see I was actually commenting on that part of it.

Lastly, judging by your post calling me out, it sure does seem like you are hyper sensitive over a person, namely....me.

 

I never labeled the stat as misleading until you started talking about the stat being meaningless. All I did was question the relevancy of citing a number that has been continually inflated as the NFL has changed its rules.

Agree to disagree. Breaking a passing record that was set in the 80s is not a big deal IMO. The average completions in 2014 was 350. The average in 1984 was 280.

You simply could have posted Tannehill's ranking in the top-5 from last year, and you would have had a very valid point. Instead you posted:

 

I don't think that the franchise record for completions was a particularly noteworthy achievement, considering that our offense threw the ball a heck of a lot in a short passing attack. I think the 'good' takeaway from that stat is that it shows that Ryan Tannehill was able to carry the vast majority of the offensive load on his shoulders.

 

And now my quota for QB threads in the mains has been filled for the month of July.

 

Tannehill was 5th in the league in completions.

Of course everyone above him as 700-1000 yards more, and Tannehill ranked in the bottom 3 in air yards per pass, but still. We need to hold onto something.

 

That's true but RT17 was 5th in the league this year in completion which makes it impressive in this day and age.

 

Umm, there was a conclusion and Stringer took issue with it.

Sceeto wrote:

That is a conclusion Fin D. Sceeto is entitled to his opinion, and Stringer his.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that he had an awesome completion percentage, no doubt about it.

However, I think the question has always been, what does completion percentage tell you? Does it mean anything by itself? Do you have to weigh it with other factors and if so, what are those other factors and how well did RT17 measure up in those areas?

There are loads of ways to do that obviously, we all know that.


Without doing any real analysis, my guess has always been that RT17's completion percentage was high because the riskiness of his throws were low. I also doubt that completion percentage does much to help an offense if the offense can't stretch the field. I would imagine there are lots of guys with impressive completion percentages who still don't threaten or scare opposing defenses. I remember Chad Pennington being a perfect example of that. Just my opinion of course.

 

Not sure how 'relevant' breaking franchise records is? Now ive heard it all.

what a ****ing joke.

 

If we had been throwing aggressively downfield, I would agree with you. But we weren't. We were throwing 3 yard passes to Jarvis Landry on a lot of those. That is NOT a criticism of Ryan Tannehill. He did a good job of executing the offense that Bill Lazor wanted to run, and especially given the limitations on personnel at certain positions (*cough* Hartline, OL *cough*).

But I don't think that him completing more passes than Marino did when he was running a different offense in a different era is something to really hang your hat on.

 

Edit: herp.

 

I would imagine Fin is referencing himself as those wee the two parties involved. If Stringer did have an issue with some one else posts then that would have likely been made pretty evident, as he would have quoted Fin D's post.

 

Arm strength doesn't intimidate. Ask Jamarcus Russell and any litany of other strong armed quarterbacks who couldn't win. I think a QB who finds ways to win intimidates more than a strong arm. Getting beaten is the only thing that really matters from a fear perspective. More losses = no playoffs and FA money, so getting beat to me is far more important.

 

I assumed Stringer was taking objection to some assumed predictive quality of the stat and not a poster's opinion of "that's impressive" when he was talking about misleading stats. If his objection was Sceeto saying that's "impressive", then his stance is even more ludicrous and he is beyond hyper sensitive.

But hey thanks for jumping in and trying to JDang the situation up.

 

I did not even quote another poster initially. I took issue with what the author wrote.

 

Yeah no. Stringer brought up a valid point, only questioning the relevance of a stat comparing apples and oranges.

In any event, Ryan Tannehill completed a boatload of very short passes. Yay!!?? ;)

 

Calling it impressive to break a franchise record over someone like Marino isn't comparing apples to oranges. Even if the records are 50 years apart. No one outside of jaded fans or people with agendas think this way.

but sure, RTH threw for 4000 yards because of YAC on 3 yard passes. ROFL.

 

And? You still said it was misleading. What difference does it make when you said it?

And yet, no one came close in all that time. THAT is the part that is significant.

You also simply could have done X, but you did Y. What's your point? I said he ranks among the best in the NFL. I said enough. My point wasn't changed.

 

Pretty close. 3.53 yard passes.

Rk QB Tot Yac Air Aypc % air % yac
11 Ryan Tannehill MIA 4,045 1,965 2,080 3.53 51.4% 48.6%

Hope you are still ROFL'ing. ;)

 

I too can google sporting charts.com, and yes I definitely still am histerically laughing at the notion. His average passing distance was about 7 yards and thats all things considered. Your stat is showing YAC on short yardage passes that are designed and ran to get YAC in the first place, AKA a joke. Oh he got yac on plays designed for it? Gasp. That has absolutely zero bearing on the throws he made that werent, nor is it even saying thats "all he did" like you would like it to.

Please, by all means tell a pro player or pro qb like tannehill that him breaking a franchise record over MARINO of all people in something such as completions ( while throwing 4000 yards ) means nothing because of the year we are in, or the play designs hes told to run. I would love to know the response. Again, No one thinks this way outside of agenda riddled miami fans. ;)

 

Huh? You laughed at the notion he threw all 3 yard passes and the rest was YAC. You were close. On all his completions, he averaged 3.53 yards through the air. The rest was yac. Tops in the league is Romo with 4.7 air yards per completion. Than Peyton, Hoyer and Big Ben

You even got the ypa stat wrong.

I don't think you know what that stat means or how it's calculated based on the argument you present.

 

Lol, I like how we all know each so well we use everyone names, kinda like family...you don't find that really in any other place with team forums and I've been to all of them, you'll hear a few here and there but this site is the closest bunch of folks anywhere even though we argue..

 

There's two things working against you:

1. The overwhelming negative narrative that when challenged calls forth the Grumpstapo to ensure the negativity thrives.
2. I'm on your side, which fuels many of the individual members of the Grumpstapo to go above and beyond. When they see my posts, its like hitting the nitrous button.

 

Oh look a Tannehill thread!



QUEUE THE FIGHTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!