Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by yoge, Oct 7, 2015.
Not what I argued.
He was stuck with a guy that didn't fit the system. Yet that pair produced 114 qb rating. If arguing a guy who didn't fit the system isn't being hampered than just throw the English language out
Noticed you put AT ALL in caps to emphasize how bad of a fit he was.
I'm sorry I missed the part where resnor differentiated 2013 and 2014 let me go back.
Oh wait he didn't. Our posts discussed careers. Follow along
He didn't fit at the time he was "given the speedster". The speedster had to change.
If I gave you a sweater that didn't fit, but then you had it altered so it would, does that mean I gave you a sweater that fit? No.
You're not following the context of the argument. The argument who had more weapons on offense through their careers. Resnor did not say Wallace was poor in 2013 and great in 2014. Because that doesn't fit the narrative. In 2014 Wilson threw to Baldwin, Lockett and Kearse and ... Yeah.
Tannehill had Landry and Wallace two receivers he had 100+ ratings throwing to.
So what part of resnor's post, the one I replied to, mentions Landry and Wallace 2014 in discussing weapons each qb had.
I'll wait while you check. Shouldn't be long it's right there ^^^
The bigger problem in my opinion is that he still seems to have an inability to multi-task between progressing through his reads and recognizing and evading the pass rush. The better QBs can sidestep and evade pressure while simultaneously progressing through their reads. Tannehill can do only one or the other at a time, and it appears to be why he succumbs to pressure so easily and so often. In essence, he's deficient in playing the position in that way. Playing the position well involves that sort of multi-tasking, and he can't do it.
I'm following it just fine.
He was recounting the history of his weapons. He mentions what he had his first year........and guess what....he uses the word "then". Wallace didn't fit the system. That never changed. He had to change to kinda fit. He was never the right piece for this offense. Wallace changing negated Wallace's strength. You're trying to win an argument on semantics, which is your favorite tactic. The problem is it doesn't prove you right, it just proves you have a weak argument.
Wallace wasn't a good fit. We were paying him way too much money for what he brought to the offense.
Wallace wasn't brought in to be a red zone target, he was brought in as a deep threat...a role he was not good at, in a timing based offense.
Passer rating between a QB and WR is overstated. Landry was a rookie slot receiver, and Wallace was a "one-trick" pony who'd developed a few more tricks in the short game. I wouldn't put them far above Seattle's receivers, because in the grand scheme of things, there isn't much of a difference. Seattle's guys are pro, NFL receivers, and unless they have an inordinate amount of drops compared to the average, the dropoff to them from our best guys or any other team's best guys is negligible...in neither case do you have GOAT type guys, so the differential is minute. Not everybody has a Megatron or ODB, nor is it necessary...when was the last Super Bowl win by a team with a big name, elite, #1 WR?
By the way, Baldwin graded higher than Landry AND Wallace, FWIW.
It's about chemistry and continuity.
JD has Res dead to rights, but Res and his crew will never admit it.
Yes. Definitely. Biggest problem.
He gave a half *** history and ignored 2014.
Why? Because 2013 helps his argument, 2014 doesn't.
So I filled in the blanks. That is all. Again, try to keep up.
Exactly...YOU filled in the blanks that YOU thought were there. YOU created what YOU thought he was talking about, then argued with him based on what YOU thought he meant.
How do you not see that problem? And more importantly, why does that seem to be the S.O.P. of so many of the posters I have the most fights with?
You don't get it. Wallace was a terrible fit for the offense. A deep threat who runs poor routes, and catches with his chest. Last season, sure, he changed and improved in some areas, but he was still not a good fit, given what he was brought in to do.
Him and Landry were still better than what they had in Seattle last year. And that was the argument. Don't move the goal posts now.
Without Wallace Tannehill doesn't break 90 in qb rating. Was he the best fit? No. But he was good last year.
"Skip Bayless and Mel Kiper have a love child and name it Ryan Tannehill"
Very insightful!! I'll watch for that. Bottom line is that he doesn't have the natural ability to play quaterback, IMHO.
The ability to sidestep pressure, is only useful when there's a place to side step, or slide to...