Anyone here think Foles is better than Tannehill?

[dolphintodd]

Both. Tannehill did it for much longer (a 8 games vs 3), had a better winning % in the 8 game stretch, and was responsible for more yards per game and a higher completion %. Moore ran a much more limited offense than Tannehill because he is not nearly as good. Gase managed the situation well. He clearly understood that the future of the team was Tannehill not Moore. Not sure why you are having trouble understanding that.

yards and completion percentage....LOL How does points scored and TDs thrown look like in the 8 vs 3 game stretch?

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

yards and completion percentage....LOL How does points scored and TDs thrown look like in the 8 vs 3 game stretch?

How does winning % look?

 

[Travis34]

Yes we all know RT made Mike Wallaces career. We know this! Give it a rest

So you reply with sarcasm? You are the one coming in here spouting all these “facts” and then get shown the truth and have nothing else to come back with. That’s probably one reason people don’t take any credit in your arguments

 

[dolphintodd]

How does winning % look?

So you are in the QB wins club too?

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

So you are in the QB wins club too?

Only to counter those that use team stats to bash Tannehill. It's called fighting fire with fire.

 

[dolphintodd]

I guess you can flip flop when it benefits you, all good. I guess Matt Moore did score more points and throw more TDs.

 

[lurking]

I guess you can flip flop when it benefits you, all good. I guess Matt Moore did score more points and throw more TDs.

Yeah he did so well he earned the starting job when Tannehill got injured,
Oh wait no he didn't.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Yeah he did so well he earned the starting job when Tannehill got injured,
Oh wait no he didn't.

No, he beat out the rookie Tannehill who wasn't expected to play his first year, then got tons of offers of a starting gig in 2013 and 2016. Oh wait, those didn't happen either.

 

[Third Eye]

So you reply with sarcasm? You are the one coming in here spouting all these “facts” and then get shown the truth and have nothing else to come back with. That’s probably one reason people don’t take any credit in your arguments

I've provided stats ad nauseum. We can debate

67-862-10 plus all other stats lower
Vs
72-1017-4 plus all other stats higher

Forever. If it's all about TDs then we can go with that. I have no issue conceding here.

Perhaps the more relevant argument is why did Wallace numbers overall go down from Rothlisberger to Tannehill? Then fell off a cliff in Minn. Then arguably got back to Tannehill status/level with Flacco. Maybe Flacco is just Tannehill. And Finkel is Einhorn.

 

[Third Eye]

Which I take to mean Tannehill can't be THE problem.. I agree. QB can be upgraded, but QB isn't the deepest hole.

I have said repeatedly RT is not the biggest problem on this team. Many others much bigger. But an upgrade at QB would lift the entire franshise. Nothing says you can't work on the supporting cast AND the QB simultaneously.

I will hold to the fact that 37-40 is also partly on RT. And an upgrade or even significant upgrade here would make that 77, and the next 77, look different.

Dare to be great.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Perhaps the more relevant argument is why did Wallace numbers overall go down from Rothlisberger to Tannehill? Then fell off a cliff in Minn. Then arguably got back to Tannehill status/level with Flacco. Maybe Flacco is just Tannehill. And Finkel is Einhorn.

Why is it more relevant?

Why isn't the more relevant question - Why hasn't Wallace been able to duplicate his YPC numbers from the first 3 years of his career, Including the 4th year of his career when Roethlisberger was his QB? There was an important change in Pitt in 2012 (Wallace's last season in Pitt). They hired a new OC and Wallace's role in the offense changed. His numbers dropped because he is a one dimensional WR. The Steelers replaced Wallace with a string of receiving options that played the role of deep ball threat.

2013 - None
2014 - Martavis Bryant 21 ypc
2015 - Markus Wheaton 17 ypc
2016 - Sammie Coates 21 ypc
2017 - JuJu Smith-Schuster 16 ypc

Sorry, but Mike Wallace is what his is, a one trick pony that flashed briefly in an offensive system that suited his limited skill set. His own contract status forced a role change and Miami got burned trying to turn him into something he is not, a legit #1 WR.

 

[Third Eye]

Why is it more relevant?

Why isn't the more relevant question - Why hasn't Wallace been able to duplicate his YPC numbers from the first 3 years of his career, Including the 4th year of his career when Roethlisberger was his QB? There was an important change in Pitt in 2012 (Wallace's last season in Pitt). They hired a new OC and Wallace's role in the offense changed. His numbers dropped because he is a one dimensional WR. The Steelers replaced Wallace with a string of receiving options that played the role of deep ball threat.

2013 - None
2014 - Martavis Bryant 21 ypc
2015 - Markus Wheaton 17 ypc
2016 - Sammie Coates 21 ypc
2017 - JuJu Smith-Schuster 16 ypc

Sorry, but Mike Wallace is what his is, a one trick pony that flashed briefly in an offensive system that suited his limited skill set. His own contract status forced a role change and Miami got burned trying to turn him into something he is not, a legit #1 WR.

No one is debating the fact that Wallace is a one dimensional player. Same could be said for a Kenny Stills. There is a place for a player like this because it opens up other things for the offense.

IMO the reason his numbers with Pitt were so good is because of Rothlisbergers ability to extend plays. Big Ben has a tremendous pocket feel and because of his size he can shake off the rush and make many big plays.

 

[darefugee]

So it looks like this thread turned out OK after all.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

No one is debating the fact that Wallace is a one dimensional player. Same could be said for a Kenny Stills. There is a place for a player like this because it opens up other things for the offense.

The difference is that Wallace was making $60 million over 5 years and Stills is making $32 Million over 4 years. Wallace was the highest paid WR at the time. The Dolphins needed him to be more than that. They tried and it failed.

IMO the reason his numbers with Pitt were so good is because of Rothlisbergers ability to extend plays. Big Ben has a tremendous pocket feel and because of his size he can shake off the rush and make many big plays.

That was part of it, but not all of it. It was also due to his role.

Here is what was written about Stills after getting his extension from Miami:

Stills had arguably his best season last year with the Dolphins, helping the franchise reach the postseason for the first time since 2008. He was a home run with 17.3 yards per reception, which ranked third in the NFL, and nine touchdowns on 42 receptions.

After two successful years in New Orleans, including a league-leading 20 yards per reception as a rookie, he was traded to the Dolphins. Switching quarterbacks from Drew Brees to Ryan Tannehill didn't cause a decrease in his performance.

Now, why did Stills not have the drop off that Wallace did? His role didn't change when changing teams.

 

[Travis34]

I've provided stats ad nauseum. We can debate

67-862-10 plus all other stats lower
Vs
72-1017-4 plus all other stats higher

Forever. If it's all about TDs then we can go with that. I have no issue conceding here.

Okay then. You've conceded Wallace had a better season w/ RT than after.

But just for debates sake, how would you argue that~150 more yards is more valuable / a better season? It's not ALL about TDs, but with seasons like those being compared, those are a deciding factor.