QB record is one of the worst stats bandied around I can think of.

 

Pretty sure what he is saying is that you can't put everything on the QB.

 

It's a good record. It's not like we went 4-12 and can't find our way for 3 straight years. He's playing well. Drew Brees is 23-22 with a 7-9 and 4-7 seasons in that span.

We are still stuck we some inconsistent receivers, and Oline needs to improve on the right side.

 

Please look up the definition of 'teams sports'.

 

So David Woodley was a better Qb than Archie Manning?

 

And you want to measure ONE player based on the result of 53 players?

 

I'm saying that when you are considering the performance of an individual player, your primary focus should actually be on the performance of that player.

Not by attributing wholly to the individual a binary measure of performance of a rolling cast of 50+ players over multiple years and an indescribable number of variables. It's lazy and reductive.

 

This guy doesn't stop. He'll come into one thread, and act like he supports Tannehill, then start a thread like this. Such a troll. What is your point with this thread? It's not like the Dolphins have been this juggernaut team with Tannehill being the anchor holding them back...but you would think that was the case reading some of these posts throughout the last two seasons.

 

It isn't an awful record. This is classic internet over stating.

 

And?

 

:lol:

 

So according to your comments over the past week, the Dophins need to upgrade their inconsistent WR's, improve the right side of the OL, and replace all the players on the defense.

With all those needs, Philbin doesn't appear to have much job security and it isn't likely Tannehill is going to have much success in improving his won-lost record anytime soon.

 

Seems realistic. Take one extreme example, treat that as the norm and then apply that to every other situation as if it were the same.

 

Hate it when people compare Tannehill (a 1 year college starter as a QB) to the best prospect to come out of college since Peyton Manning... why don't we start by comparing him to the last 10 or so QB's the Dolphins have had?

 

The reason they were 1-15 is that Curtis Painter was their quarterback.

 

1. Whether the record is good or not isn't the question. The question is whether or not it's because of Tannehill. Let's say that the defense does what it gets paid to do this year, and their record was 9-2. That would make the overall 24-19. Is that more palatable? How about last season with an historically bad oline? That Tannehill's fault also?

2. Anyone who believes that the Colts were legitimately 1-15 bad are delusional.

 

In 2012, our WRs included Legado (No holes in his game) Nanee, J Gaffney, Ant Armstrong, and A Binns. Remember these guys? Then in 2013, we had to deal with the worst OLine in Fins history that hovered around the 32nd ranked line in the NFL and coupled with the 26th ranked rushing game. Tannehill actually starts to look even better considering what he has had to overcome. The knock is the lack of downfield connections with Wallace now.

He was raw and inexperienced and wasn't even supposed to play in 2012. They wanted him to learn ala Rodgers from the sideline, but circumstance intervened. I was really down on him at the beginning of this season, but he is progressing again for the 3rd straight NFL season.

Todd McShay is looking rather prophetic in regards to Tannehill.

 

With all the crap RT had to deal with in his first two seasons, between lack of talent around him, a horrible OL, a bad OC and the scandal, not to mention Philbin, who's certainly not an elite HC, I think he's showing that when we have some other real talents around him on offense, he'll be killing it.

And yes, McShay was always totally in RT's corner and has proven to be spot on. I was thinking just the other day how he must be feeling to be so right about a guy most other people were so cold on.

 

Dan Marino went 60+%, 4,700+ yards and 44 TD's in 1986...the team was 8-8. Dude had the 2nd best statistical season in league history, numbers that at the time were stunning.

W-L record when discussing QB's, starting pitchers and starting goaltenders is not the only number you can use. It is a number that can be discussed but it is not the barometer that is the end all be all.

A quarterback can be a great player, and never win a damn thing. A goaltender can be the best in the league, but due to no goal support and ****ty defense have a poor W-L record. A starting pitcher can win a Cy Young, with a record barely over .500.

 

This is beyond ridiculous.

You take a team stat, attribute it to an individual then you turn around and ask if someone is saying personal stats are more important than team stats? I mean you really just did that.

 

U sure?

I just checked the standings and I didn't see Lucks's name anywhere.

 

Everyone at this point should be able to openly admit that Indianapolis tanked for Luck. They were a 10 win team, then lost Manning who they replaced with Kerry Colins, Curtis Painter, and Dan Orlovsky. They go 2-14 and not even the good players play well. The very next year they're an 11-5 team behind a QB with a 54.1 completion percentage and 76.5 passer rating.

 

Troll

 

Plus Marino never won a Super Bowl.

What a scrub.

 

Facts are facts, now I'd suspect things get worse when record v winning teams at the time are compared.

Not a slam at THill, rather it does speak for itself, granted 21-22 is not textured, ie, opp W/L, was there a lead in the 4th Qtr late the D surrendered etc

 

i knew they were during the season, and said so..word came from the front office..moves by the gm and owner were obvious and completely cancerous to the spirit of winning..

 

If we miss the playoffs this year and next year, we should continue rolling with Tannehill because ______________________________________. Fill in the blank please.

 

Don't feed the troll.

 

Whatever you do, don't completely ignore all the other things that wet into that scenario or anything. :lol:

 

i actually think that a qb of that caliber can make a huge swing like that..obvioulsy that team was not motivated to play their best ball, but Luck is special.

just look at the stats from todays game..moncrief and fleener both over a 100, a product of the qb.

 

How are they a product of the QB? One had catches where he was wide open behind the D and had to stop for underthrown balls, and one was breaking tackles and making guys miss. Too bad Wallace can't slow up for an underthrown ball...

 

dude, what is it your trying to say about luck in all this hidden nonsense you keep talking about...

What im saying is, do you remember his starting five wide receivers last year and running backs?

He's now taking different receivers and making them up and comers..no run game, bad oline...

And here you are citing an underthrown pass as some sort of indictment on the guys talent..

He's an elite qb period, if you can't see the talent level of this player and just continue to throw out random occurrences then your indicting yourself.

 

This thread is proof why we can't have nice things.

 

Or a high graduation rate from high school. :wink2:

 

No. What he is saying is that football is a team sport. To assess wins and losses solely to the quarterback is abysmally ignorant of that fact. Wins and losses are an indicator of the entire team effort (including the coaching staff and front office.)