SI: Cameron on Gase, RT17 & The Offense

"Fin D wrote:

No the **** it isn't.

If Thill should be able to rise above these handcuffs than who else ever has?

For god's sake what is wrong with you people?

If he had no arms and no legs, would you guys expect him to produce like Marino?

It absolutely is a non sequitor because your argument inherently absolves his role in anything. You are essentially saying the handcuffs in place had nothing to do with his own abilities.

How many great QBs didnt earn the trust of their coaches to audible? Name them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

"cbrad wrote:

Let's just say I think it's untenable to suggest if we had one of the elite QB's during the last 4 years that we wouldn't have made the playoffs at least twice, all other things being equal.

Point is, it's much harder to win the SB the way the Ravens did with Dilfer (Tannehill's way better than Dilfer, but the point remains) than the way most SB's are being won nowadays, namely with above average QB's.

I mean.. Dilfer became the first SB winning QB that was released after a SB win!! Shows you the Ravens thought they needed to improve there too. And he didn't make any major errors in the playoffs that year.

Not one thing to do with what I said.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

It absolutely is a non sequitor because your argument inherently absolves his role in anything.

How many great QBs didnt earn the trust of their coaches to audible? Name them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

It does not. That's horse****.

What you guys are suggesting is that he should be able to do the impossible. That is ridiculous.

"Fin D wrote:

It does not. That's horse****.

What you guys are suggesting is that he should be able to do the impossible. That is ridiculous.

Gaining the faith of your coaches and the ability to audible is not impossible.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Anyone who thinks that the anti-Tannehill posters are reasonable in their arguments, and that they actually want Tannehill to succeed, should read through the last two pages. It's clear that is not what they want.

Basically, the sentiment is what it was four years ago: if we don't have an elite QB then we should draft QB first every year until we have an elite QB.

But I haven't seen any of them be honest and advocate for that.

"resnor wrote:

Anyone who thinks that the anti-Tannehill posters are reasonable in their arguments, and that they actually want Tannehill to succeed, should read through the last two pages. It's clear that is not what they want.

Basically, the sentiment is what it was four years ago: if we don't have an elite QB then we should draft QB first every year until we have an elite QB.

But I haven't seen any of them be honest and advocate for that.

I dont think even the harshest posters who hold Ryan accountable WANT him to keep playing at an average level.

Just as I would hope some of you guy's would take an ugly 10-7 W with Ryan being average over him throwing for 450 yards and 3 TDS in a loss. (I think...)

"resnor wrote:

Anyone who thinks that the anti-Tannehill posters are reasonable in their arguments, and that they actually want Tannehill to succeed, should read through the last two pages. It's clear that is not what they want.

Every poster here wants Tannehill to succeed. You're putting words in people's mouths if you think otherwise.

The difference between you and them is where the threshold is for saying we should look elsewhere. No one knows what the optimum threshold is so that's opinion, but we all want Tannehill to succeed.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Gaining the faith of your coaches and the ability to audible is not impossible.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

One guy. Lazor. Of course he's not a fault. Its Thill.

Let me throw your won logic at you....whose getting paid more, Lazor or Thill?

And you're still ignoring the very simple concept....NO ONE HAS SUCCEEDED UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Nick Foles posted outstanding numbers with an OL that allowed more pressures than last years Dolphins, ran the ball 38% of the time and with a similar staff unable to change plays at the LOS.

Dont fall for the false narratives, its already been dropped in the water and disappeared.

He has been an average QB with bad surroundings. We NEED better surroundings and we NEED a better Ryan. Really is THAT straight forward.

Aaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnndddddd before anyone tries to post the lie they keep spreading (because I'm sure its coming) ....Foles had a bad oline, MAY have not been allowed to audible, and his team ran the ball for the 4th most attempts (1st in yardage) in the league. Miami ran it the fewest last year and and close to the fewest the year before that.

2013 Philly, ran the ball 500 times (4th)
2014 Miami, ran the ball 399 times (22nd)
2015 Miami, ran the ball 344 times (32nd)

So of the 3 requirements, Foles had:

- Bad oline, check
- not allowed to audible, don't know
- team didn't run the ball, no check.

At best 2 of the 3 requirements. Still doesn't apply.

"Fin D wrote:

One guy. Lazor. Of course he's not a fault. Its Thill.

Let me throw your won logic at you....whose getting paid more, Lazor or Thill?

Im not saying that is the case. I am merely pointing out how your question is a non sequitor.

A possible answer to your question is that the QB made his OL look worse than it was, and never led his coaches to believe he was capable of audibling. The fact that your question inherently implies neither of those to be the case.

To illustrate the point - ask yourself how many great QBs werent allowed to audible. It is just as easy to argue that Tannehill not being allowed to audible is a function of his own abilities as much as it is the coaches'.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

38% called run plays VS 34% called run plays...

And he did it with a worst OL, so lets be adults and not pretend that because they called running plays 4.5 more times in 100 play calls makes the difference. Thats laughable.

Class is over.

"resnor wrote:

Anyone who thinks that the anti-Tannehill posters are reasonable in their arguments, and that they actually want Tannehill to succeed, should read through the last two pages. It's clear that is not what they want.

Basically, the sentiment is what it was four years ago: if we don't have an elite QB then we should draft QB first every year until we have an elite QB.

But I haven't seen any of them be honest and advocate for that.

Ive absolutely advocated drafting QBs. It is the most valuable position in sports, and the trade market is rather robust. In fact, some of the best teams in the league with well established QBs draft QBs.

Im not sure why anyone would be offended at such an idea, considering how widely used it is as a strategy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Im not saying that is the case. I am merely pointing out how your question is a non sequitor.

A possible answer to your question is that the QB made his OL look worse than it was, and never led his coaches to believe he was capable of audibling. The fact that your question inherently implies neither of those to be the case.

To illustrate the point - ask yourself how many great QBs werent allowed to audible. It is just as easy to argue that Tannehill not being allowed to audible is a function of his own abilities as much as it is the coaches'.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Lazor is the ONLY guy that didn't let him audible. How many great QBs was Lazor the OC?

"Fin D wrote:

Aaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnndddddd before anyone tries to post the lie they keep spreading (because I'm sure its coming) ....Foles had a bad oline, MAY have not been allowed to audible, and his team ran the ball for the 4th most attempts (1st in yardage) in the league. Miami ran it the fewest last year and and close to the fewest the year before that.

2013 Philly, ran the ball 500 times (4th)
2014 Miami, ran the ball 399 times (22nd)
2015 Miami, ran the ball 344 times (32nd)

So of the 3 requirements, Foles had:

- Bad oline, check
- not allowed to audible, don't know
- team didn't run the ball, no check.

At best 2 of the 3 requirements. Still doesn't apply.

And Foles having one good season doesn't make him a successful QB.

"Fin D wrote:

Lazor is the ONLY guy that didn't let him audible. How many great QBs was Lazor the OC?

Im not suggesting Lazor was right to do so. Merely acknowledging the possibility exists.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Im not suggesting Lazor was right to do so. Merely acknowledging the possibility exists.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

We've all seen more from Thill that points to him being an excellent QB than we seen anything that points towards Lazor being an excellent OC.

"Stringer Bell wrote:

It absolutely is a non sequitor because your argument inherently absolves his role in anything. You are essentially saying the handcuffs in place had nothing to do with his own abilities.

How many great QBs didnt earn the trust of their coaches to audible? Name them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Philbin gave him the ability the audible. and then took it away. Philbin was a crap coach. But for some reason, felt the need to take it away.

"Fin D wrote:

We've all seen more from Thill that points to him being an excellent QB than we seen anything that points towards Lazor being an excellent OC.

Agreed. Doesn't really change the fact that your question was a non sequitor. You removed any chance of the circumstances you've cited being in part due to Tannehills own ability.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

"Stringer Bell wrote:

Agreed. Doesn't really change the fact that your question was a non sequitor. You removed any chance of the circumstances you've cited being in part due to Tannehills own ability.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Stop.

You're wrong.

Its a legit question because you want Thill to something no one has ever done. What you want is as ridiculous as a Rodgers to win 6 SBs in a row. No QB has ever done it.

"jdang307 wrote:

Philbin gave him the ability the audible. and then took it away. Philbin was a crap coach. But for some reason, felt the need to take it away.

Lazor took it away.

"cbrad wrote:

Then I predict it'll be used as an excuse.

Personally, I prefer a QB that can rise above his circumstances. And in general I prefer to take responsibility than saying I can't succeed because my environment. People can change their environment to some degree you know and that's true for QB's.

Anyway, for me this is absolutely the last year I'll entertain the idea Tannehill should be our QB if he doesn't produce at an above average level. Doesn't have to be elite but I want to think of our QB as a reason we win and not just another player on the team because I think it's MUCH harder to win by getting all the other pieces right in this salary cap era than getting the QB position right and having some deficiencies elsewhere.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Luckily you have no say. Except in Madden. And I'm sure you lose there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we have NO CLUE if (B) exists how can we say with such certainty that no-one has "ever" accomplished something with (B) in it?

Sounds silly to me.

"Shane Falco wrote:

Luckily you have no say. Except in Madden. And I'm sure you lose there.

Never played Madden.

But what I said about SB winners is true. Just look at the QB's of recent SB winning teams. Since Brad Johnson won it with the Bucs in the 2002 season, you've had Brady win it 3 times, Peyton and Eli Manning both win it twice, Roethlisberger twice, and Wilson, Rodgers, Brees and Flacco once. Even understanding Peyton's last one was due to the defense, that's 13 years of elite or above average QB's on the SB winning team.

So yeah in this era you are not very likely to win a SB with just an average QB and a solid surrounding cast. That's not Madden, that's reality.