Ryan Tannehill 21-22 as a starter

"dolphin25 wrote:

If you don't want me to say that Tannehill is Elite then don't shove the idea that he actually is. I'm sorry me not thinking that he is upsets you. He is an average QB, if the Dolphins can win with him, then i have no worries. and I totally agree with you that there are only 3-4 Elite QB's in the league.

I get sick of people claiming he is elite when the OC won't call plays where he has to throw the ball more then 15 yards.

I also find it funny how when he plays bad it is because of everyone else, but when he plays good it is because he is elite. It just doesnt work that way.

I honestly find it hard to imagine people like you actually root for this team when they spend countless hours trying to show everybody that the starting QB sucks without even enlightening us as to how we should go about finding a better one.

Ryan Tannehill must be messing around with a lot of men's wives to be hated as much as he is on this forum.

"dolphin25 wrote:

I find it amazingly interesting that people think others would go to all the trouble of having muliple signins just to piss them off. A touch of paranoia I would say.

I find it very naive and ignorant to think people who are banned from something on the internet don't work around the ban and come back. Multiple times.

Newsflash: happens more often than not.

Source: Several years as a sys and social admin on multiple outlets.

All these accounts created in November...very strange. And at last one I haven't seen posting until today...

"resnor wrote:

All these accounts created in November...very strange. And arty last one I haven't seen posting until today...

Nah man, No one makes more than 1 login or evades bans. Lol.

What games has he lost? Not games we could have won had he made the course of the game could have been diff but games we hadv won but a mistake by him cost us the game? Not the he lead us to 36 points but if he had lead us to 40 we would have won bs

Play by him that as result the team couldn't recover? Like we can say for the defense vs GB when 1 tackle in bounds clock runs out we win. That failure plus play that followed caused the loss offense couldn't do squat after that play.

Or last play vs Det or 1 or 2 stops in 2nd half vs Den we score enough to win. Then we are 8-3, 9-2 and if you complain bout that you are a troll

Now I understand wanting tannehill to pick up the team and overcome failures by others, to overcome and lead us to wins. But det and gb he had no shot after the d failures. But I digress, whether he develops that will determine him being elite vs a very good qb

"dcafiero wrote:

I'm pretty sure none of my post was referencing this thread at all, and even states multiple times i'm going off memory of what happpened previously with the bans, all while using past tense, lol. I'm talking back with the original name, and his original threads back THEN. I haven't read 1 word of any of this accounts stuff, So idk. I saw you had noted about how you didn't know he was banned and all, or know why, I was chiming in my 2 cents, because at the time of the ban(s) I, personally, could certainly understand why from my POV and didnt disagree with them. But there was/is gray areas.

tl;dr
If you saw any of his original threads. (all 37,000 of them with the exact same type of things in them.) before the first ban, you'd atleast understand where I was coming from.

I don't know who is who or whether for some reason we can't mention the names of the people we are talking about. I was talking about the poster formerly known as shouright. dolphin25 doesn't sound anything like him to me. As for shouright, I was very familiar with a lot of his posts and generally found them interesting and thought-provoking. I often disagreed with him, but this would be a very boring place if we all agreed all the time. Yeah, there may have been some repetitiveness, but that is probably true of everyone here. 90% of all posts are about one of 4 people -- the QB, the head coach, the GM and the "overpaid" guy (whoever that may be at a given time). So unless one's opinions about those people are constantly changing in dramatic ways, one will tend to express mostly the same viewpoint. That's pretty true of everyone here. Still doesn't seem like trolling or any kind of bannable offense.

"Brasfin wrote:

I honestly find it hard to imagine people like you actually root for this team when they spend countless hours trying to show everybody that the starting QB sucks without even enlightening us as to how we should go about finding a better one.

Ryan Tannehill must be messing around with a lot of men's wives to be hated as much as he is on this forum.

He said he's an average QB. He didn't say that he sucks or that he hated him. Just that he is average and not elite. I guess I don't see that as so controversial.

Yeah, I was referencing shouright, who came back as Dolphans Unite! My opinion that he is one of, if not all, these new guys. My money he's at least one of them. The others may be some other angry, banned person, or some current member's socks that he is using to rile people up. Shouright/Dolphans Unite! was definitely trolling. Stating an opposite opinion isn't trolling, but filling up the firm with thread after thread after thread, all saying the same basic thing, refusing to have honest discussions, IS trolling. As is creating alternate names to come back to a forum you were banned from.

"dolphin25 wrote:

Seriously? I make 1, one, single comment and you go on a tyrant like that?

If you don't want me to say that Tannehill is Elite then don't shove the idea that he actually is. I'm sorry me not thinking that he is upsets you. He is an average QB, if the Dolphins can win with him, then i have no worries. and I totally agree with you that there are only 3-4 Elite QB's in the league.

I get sick of people claiming he is elite when the OC won't call plays where he has to throw the ball more then 15 yards.

I also find it funny how when he plays bad it is because of everyone else, but when he plays good it is because he is elite. It just doesnt work that way.

Brandon is far from a tyrant and the word you're looking for was either "tirade" or "rant". You should also think out your responses before typing them.

For your line of argument, I haven't seen anyone here referring to Tannehill as "elite". They may have said his recent play has been or that they think his potential ceiling may be that in the future, but the only one lobbing that word around is you.

Straw Man much?

"Fineas wrote:

I don't know who is who or whether for some reason we can't mention the names of the people we are talking about. I was talking about the poster formerly known as shouright. dolphin25 doesn't sound anything like him to me. As for shouright, I was very familiar with a lot of his posts and generally found them interesting and thought-provoking. I often disagreed with him, but this would be a very boring place if we all agreed all the time. Yeah, there may have been some repetitiveness, but that is probably true of everyone here. 90% of all posts are about one of 4 people -- the QB, the head coach, the GM and the "overpaid" guy (whoever that may be at a given time). So unless one's opinions about those people are constantly changing in dramatic ways, one will tend to express mostly the same viewpoint. That's pretty true of everyone here. Still doesn't seem like trolling or any kind of bannable offense.

Yes I was talking about Shouright, No I wasn't talking about dolphin25, oddly enough. I had my theories about others.

If Shouright posting the near-exact-same thread 5,000 times seemingly just to agitate people who were already well aware of his statistical stances didn't bother you, then that is absolutely fine, you're just in the minority. And I highly doubt people disagreeing with his POV and him "expressing his opinion" was the reason for each one of his bans. If that was the case you might as well ban a good chunk of the board right now. I respect you as a poster and find near all of your input/opinions here very informative, i'm not trying to combat you, I was just one of the people who was happy to see him go, for my own personal reasons. to each their own, though :knucks:

"resnor wrote:

Yeah, I was referencing shouright, who came back as Dolphans Unite! My opinion that he is one of, if not all, these new guys. My money he's at least one of them. The others may be some other angry, banned person, or some current member's socks that he is using to rile people up. Shouright/Dolphans Unite! was definitely trolling. Stating an opposite opinion isn't trolling, but filling up the firm with thread after thread after thread, all saying the same basic thing, refusing to have honest discussions, IS trolling. As is creating alternate names to come back to a forum you were banned from.

I don't see Shouright that way. Certainly never saw him unwilling to have an honest discussion. It seems like its the people who simply make accusations of trolling rather than responding to the issues raised that are the ones unwilling to have an honest discussion.

"dolphin25 wrote:

Seriously? I make 1, one, single comment and you go on a tyrant like that?

If you don't want me to say that Tannehill is Elite then don't shove the idea that he actually is. I'm sorry me not thinking that he is upsets you. He is an average QB, if the Dolphins can win with him, then i have no worries. and I totally agree with you that there are only 3-4 Elite QB's in the league.

I get sick of people claiming he is elite when the OC won't call plays where he has to throw the ball more then 15 yards.

I also find it funny how when he plays bad it is because of everyone else, but when he plays good it is because he is elite. It just doesnt work that way.

Did it ever occur to you that we are pretty much one O-line injury away from walking up to a random guy on the street and going "Hey would you like to protect our QB?" Actually.... We aren't TOO far from that now... (And no, I won't pretend that's the only issue at play here either, I'm just saying)

However....If I understand this correctly, you are saying the short and intermediate passing game is being run heavily only because tannehill can't make those throws? I'm not sure my mind can even muster up a thought provoking response to that.

I don't think anyone on this board honestly thinks Tannehill is Elite.... Why are you even acting like anyone does? He certainly has the makings to 'become' Elite. Those aren't the same thing.

There is a HUGE, MONUMENTAL difference between saying a quarterback is elite, and saying you feel he is good & needs work, but has not reached his ceiling yet which is sky high. Night and day.

Also FWIW, I'm not really a Gruden fan by any means, But there is an article/interview with him posted today on ESPN titled "NFL: Gruden: Extending Tannehill an easy call" Where he goes on to talk about How Tanny has absolutely everything you could want in a QB with a ceiling as high as the sky. and Gruden has been a tanny fan since the Grudens QB camp... possibly longer. He always goes out of his way to praise him, and now he's trying to make a case for the dolphins to extend him YESTERDAY. Take it for what it's worth I suppose, I probably just value an opinion like that way more heavily than someone saying "Tannehill is 21-22 as a starter" as if that is even a slightly accurate measuring stick for how good or not good he is...It's not. Maybe it's just because It makes sense and Gruden actually uses his eyes. Idk.

edit: here it is http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11959007/why-giving-ryan-tannehill-contract-extension-easy-decision-miami-dolphins-nfl

"dcafiero wrote:

Yes I was talking about Shouright, No I wasn't talking about dolphin25, oddly enough. I had my theories about others.

If Shouright posting the near-exact-same thread 5,000 times seemingly just to agitate people who were already well aware of his statistical stances didn't bother you, then that is absolutely fine, you're just in the minority. And I highly doubt people disagreeing with his POV and him "expressing his opinion" was the reason for each one of his bans. If that was the case you might as well ban a good chunk of the board right now. I respect you as a poster and find near all of your input/opinions here very informative, i'm not trying to combat you, I was just one of the people who was happy to see him go, for my own personal reasons. to each their own, though :knucks:

I don't know what the bans were for. I never saw him insult anyone or do anything inappropriate. Like I said, we are all probably a little repetitive here. You obviously like Tannehill and he is one of the most important parts of this team. I'm guessing you have supported him in dozens, if not hundreds, of threads, and I suspect you have repeated some of the same things in many of them. Anyhow, I guess I am just bothered by the idea that someone who posts unpopular opinions, but well-stated and factually-grounded ones, is met with a chorus of accusations of trolling.

Dilfer was on Cowherd today, discussing QBs drafted of the last ten years who are top QBs. Cowherd listed off the usual suspects...Luck, Wilson, Ryan. Dilfer then says he forgot one...Tannehill.

I do like Dilfer as an analyst, so it's nice to hear him give RT some credit, although he has to plug the game tonight so have to consider that in all this.

Anyhow.....enjoy the game! Hopefully RT will make this thread look even more off base tonight.

"adamprez2003 wrote:

For all the stat guys did you know that drowning deaths go up proportionally with increased sales in ice cream. So I guess ice cream causes you to drownActually its because both are effected by summer.

It's true that correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but that doesn't mean statistics don't have meaning. Certainly we shouldn't think Dan Marino's 420 career TD passes are meaningless as a reflection of his ability as a quarterback, simply because correlation doesn't equal causation.

"adamprez2003 wrote:

For all the stat guys did you know that drowning deaths go up proportionally with increased sales in ice cream. So I guess ice cream causes you to drown

Actually its because both are effected by summer. Just watch the kid grow into the franchise QB we've been waitinng for since marino. He may not be as great when all is said and done but he'll be good enough. We had feeley, beck, culpepper, fiedler, rosenfels, brian griese, henne, lemon.....stop nitpiclking this guy and enjoy the facvt we finally have a QB

"Stat guys," i.e., guys who look for objective and factual information to support observations and hypotheses, understand very well that correlation and causation aren't the same thing. It's generally the people who have distain for stats that simply don't understand them. There is nothing inherently had or wrong with stats. They are just facts. It is the people who don't understand them that draw incorrect conclusions from them or are bothered by what they appear to represent on their face (without understanding what they really mean).

"Fineas wrote:

"Stat guys," i.e., guys who look for objective and factual information to support observations and hypotheses, understand very well that correlation and causation aren't the same thing. It's generally the people who have distain for stats that simply don't understand them. There is nothing inherently had or wrong with stats. They are just facts. It is the people who don't understand them that draw incorrect conclusions from them or are bothered by what they appear to represent on their face (without understanding what they really mean).

There are not very many, "guys who look for objective and factual information to support observations and hypotheses", on this site. There are however plenty of, "guys who look for objective and factual information to support preconceived and already held beliefs" though. Shou was one of them, unabashedly so, which made him so divisive, which is a major reason he is banned.

I'd also like to put a finer point on stats as objective and factual info...they are absolutely important. They are however NEVER the whole story, but merely a part. They can also be twisted to support an agenda. Anyone who uses only stats to form or justify their opinion is doing it wrong. Anyone who uses purely subjective data to form or justify their opinion is also doing it wrong.

"Fineas wrote:

I don't know what the bans were for. I never saw him insult anyone or do anything inappropriate. Like I said, we are all probably a little repetitive here. You obviously like Tannehill and he is one of the most important parts of this team. I'm guessing you have supported him in dozens, if not hundreds, of threads, and I suspect you have repeated some of the same things in many of them. Anyhow, I guess I am just bothered by the idea that someone who posts unpopular opinions, but well-stated and factually-grounded ones, is met with a chorus of accusations of trolling.

I'm a Tannehill fan first and foremost, but a lukewarm one and will admit I kinda gave up on him, but was happy to see him rebound and flourish in the new system, I do not go around white-knighting for him as I know some do, that's not my thing, but I get the point you are making.

And again, as far as Shouright is concerned, I firmly don't believe that he was banned just for having a different opinion or even an unpopular one. You keep saying that however the point I was making is that his threads got so ridiculous and repetitive it became baiting, and like him or not, down the stretch before Shouright was banned, it was TOTALLY baiting, and it became obvious. That's not just "offering an unpopular opinion and defending it", that was shoving information down peoples throats whether they liked it or not, and then proceeding to argue with near everyone who attempted to contribute to the thread or disagreed with him. It's cool you seemingly had good back and forths with him and shared opinions, but that wasn't the case for, well, near everyone else. Could people have avoided the threads? Sure. Unfortunately the whole point to a message board is not really to avoid the threads that make it a board in the first place, however. Especially the ones that had 'seemingly decent' face value.... Not to mention that there were quite a few threads per week, sometimes multiple ones per DAY of the exact same thing.

Funny thing is it's all probably irrelevant because he was probably banned for other things as well as his baiting. Either way it's just an agree to disagree thing at this point. You liked him and thought he contributed, Me and some others are thoroughly convinced he was a cancer here that had/needs to be removed.

Ok...T-Hill is not a top QB and with his level of experience it would be unreasonable to expect that he would.

The best signs of encouragement are the facts that he started at QB for not even two years in college, was thrown to the wolves in an unenviable position in the pros yet he is still here three years later.

He still makes a hair-brained decision now and then (pick vs Det) or stares down a receiver now and then (1st pick vs GB) but these mistakes are becoming fewer and fewer.

With more experience and better weapons he'll be trusted to close out games like GB and Detroit and maybe finally we'll have a top level team and an elite QB.

"Fineas wrote:

"Stat guys," i.e., guys who look for objective and factual information to support observations and hypotheses, understand very well that correlation and causation aren't the same thing. It's generally the people who have distain for stats that simply don't understand them. There is nothing inherently had or wrong with stats. They are just facts. It is the people who don't understand them that draw incorrect conclusions from them or are bothered by what they appear to represent on their face (without understanding what they really mean).

Stats in footbal can never tell the whole story, other players factor in individual stats. An int counts even tho its a perfect pass, A rb that runs the wrong way thereby leaving the qb high and dry is still a sack or tackle for loss by the qb etc. baseball batting avg, HR rbis are ind stats, but td passes arent. A wr makes a diving td grab is still a pos stat for the qb even tho it was not a good pass, rather a great play by the wr, there isnt any error stat that counts the TD on teh scoreboard but removes the TD from the qb individual stats. There is also no sacrifice for the qb who throws it away or spikes the ball or whatever where he is doing the betterment of the team vs padding stats.

Fin D is right, stats cannot be ignored but must be measured in balance with contributing team factors.

"Fineas wrote:

"Stat guys," i.e., guys who look for objective and factual information to support observations and hypotheses, understand very well that correlation and causation aren't the same thing. It's generally the people who have distain for stats that simply don't understand them. There is nothing inherently had or wrong with stats. They are just facts. It is the people who don't understand them that draw incorrect conclusions from them or are bothered by what they appear to represent on their face (without understanding what they really mean).

That hasn't been the case on this board.

"Fin D wrote:

There are not very many, "guys who look for objective and factual information to support observations and hypotheses", on this site. There are however plenty of, "guys who look for objective and factual information to support preconceived and already held beliefs" though. Shou was one of them, unabashedly so, which made him so divisive, which is a major reason he is banned.

I'd also like to put a finer point on stats as objective and factual info...they are absolutely important. They are however NEVER the whole story, but merely a part. They can also be twisted to support an agenda. Anyone who uses only stats to form or justify their opinion is doing it wrong. Anyone who uses purely subjective data to form or justify their opinion is also doing it wrong.

I don't think that is fair at all. Obviously, when using stats in an argument (here or elsewhere) tyhe person using them is using them to support a point/opinion. Whether that point/opinion is preconceived or was conceived based on the stats plus subjective data is a question that only that person knows the answer to. So, for example, your conclusion that Shouright used stats only to support preconceived opinions appears to be based on your preconceived notion that he is/was a troll. But in truth, you have no idea when or how he conceived his opinions or what objective or subjective data he used to develop those opinions. Unless, of course, you know him personally and he told you.

It is very, very rare that I have ever heard/seen anyone here rely only on stats. Nobody ever says Player X rushed for more yards than Player Y and is therefore better. Or anything like that. What I do see here is a poster claiming that Player X sucks and someone else pointing out that his performance, as measured in terms of statistical production, is actually quite good. I see nothing wrong with that. Nor do I see anything wrong with someone concluding, based on those stats and watching the player, that he is indeed a good player.

On the other hand, I regularly see people here denigrating stats and "stat guys" or "Stat monkeys," and claiming they know from their own observation that Player X or Coach Y sucks. But I'm sure there are few of us who watch every game of any team other than the Phins and unless we are actually watching the games multiple times and really focusing on certain players with knowledge of the play call and the player's assignment, we really have limited information from which to make a purely subjective opinion/assessment.

Obviously, some stats are better or more meaningful than others. For example, a RB's total yards or even ypc don't necessarily mean much because so much depends on blocking, playcalling, etc.. But something like yards after contact means more. I RB with a lot of yards after contact may not be a great overall back because he may have poor vision, or poor decisionmaking, but he is doing something largely on his own. If he combines a high ypc with a high yards after contact, he may not be a truly great back, but you can conclude that he is at least a productive one.

"JMHPhin wrote:

Stats in footbal can never tell the whole story, other players factor in individual stats. An int counts even tho its a perfect pass, A rb that runs the wrong way thereby leaving the qb high and dry is still a sack or tackle for loss by the qb etc. baseball batting avg, HR rbis are ind stats, but td passes arent. A wr makes a diving td grab is still a pos stat for the qb even tho it was not a good pass, rather a great play by the wr, there isnt any error stat that counts the TD on teh scoreboard but removes the TD from the qb individual stats. There is also no sacrifice for the qb who throws it away or spikes the ball or whatever where he is doing the betterment of the team vs padding stats.

Fin D is right, stats cannot be ignored but must be measured in balance with contributing team factors.

And nobody here has ever claimed that stats do tell the whole story. Not sure why it is even necessary to say that. That said, the people who are really into stats and use them the most are generally the ones that are most aware of the better, or more refined, stats. So while a given TD pass might have been a bad pass on which the QB got bailed out by a great catch, a QB who has an elite TD%, completion percentage and yards per attempt over a 14-yr career, with a low INT%, can pretty safely be said to be a quality QB. He may not be as good as another guy whose stats are not quite as good, but there'd be pretty strong demonstrative evidence that he doesn't suck and didn't just get lucky repeatedly and continuously for 14 years.

Here's the thing: Tannehill, a third year QB, who was a good sized project coming out of college, is playing like a top 10 QB in the league, RIGHT NOW. People who are posting negatives about him are discounting all the evidence we have, and arguing that Tannehill is at best, an average quarterback. Too prove this, they are going on stats from his first two years. Or trotting out win/loss records. Or blaming him, irrationally, for receivers blatant drops, going back to A&M. It's bizarre that supposed fans of the team are so dead set to prove that Tannehill is not very good. It just doesn't sit well with a bunch of posters here. I could see if Tannehill was absolute trash, like Sanchez in New York, but he's not.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

That hasn't been the case on this board.

I don't agree. I think it has. In fact, when someone mocks the whole notion of stats it is a demonstration that he doesn't understand them. They are just facts. Mocking facts is stupid. It may be fair to mock the conclusions that a given person draws from certain stats, but mocking stats themselves is silly.