When did Cutler ever in his career win games by himself? He's a career sub .500 QB. But, second half Sunday, he played his best ball since the Chargers game. That's what i want to see! I miss Tannehill too, but Cutler didn't exactly replace Brady. It's been five games and were 3-2. The offense is going the right way.
Cutler vs. Tannehill Season-Long Comparison Thread
- Thread starter <O>
- Start date
When did Cutler ever in his career win games by himself? He's a career sub .500 QB. But, second half Sunday, he played his best ball since the Chargers game. That's what i want to see! I miss Tannehill too, but Cutler didn't exactly replace Brady. It's been five games and were 3-2. The offense is going the right way.
Jimi
The World Is Yours
Most great QBs are more of a combination of the two. But favre and Marino come to mind right away.
Lol, Favre was the true gunlinger that other gunlingers want to be like. That guy had one of the strongest arms and didn’t care if his WR was double covered 70 yards down field. He was a lot of fun to watch.
lurking
Club Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,665
- Reaction score
- 16,811
The conversation was about limiting Cutler because of his inconsistencies. It had nothing to do with turnovers. You're the one that brought up the INTs to make Tannehill look bad to fit your narrative, LOL I just responded to what you posted just to put a little context into it. But your feelings got hurt and took it in a different direction. LOL.
<O>
☠️ Banned ☠️
28% of Cutler's games in his career have involved a passer rating of 100 or higher, which gives a team a fairly strong chance of winning a game. Cutler is 34-6 in those games.
By contrast, 22% of Tannehill's games have involved a passer rating of 100 or higher. Tannehill is 15-2 in those games.
On the other hand, 34% of Cutler's games have involved a passer rating of 75 or lower, which gives a team a fairly strong chance of losing a game. Cutler is 7-42 in those games.
By contrast, 28% of Ryan Tannehill's games have involved a passer rating of 75 or lower. Tannehill is 2-20 in those games.
So one can see here that Cutler is both winning and losing games himself more often than Tannehill. Tannehill on the other hand is managing games better than Cutler, and again permitting the rest of his team the chance to win the game themselves when he isn't winning it himself.
In the end they've been about equal, however, in terms of the likelihood they've given their teams of winning games. One does it via game management, and the other does it with a more risky, gunslinging nature.
hoops
Tua time!
you aren't throwing the ball at 5 yards per clip if you are a gunslinger...well maybe if you are a washed up one
<O>
☠️ Banned ☠️
And that's precisely the problem as I see it now. Cutler is now far more likely to lose a game for you than he is to win one. The benefits of his gunslinging nature now appear to be gone, which makes Tannehill the no-brainer better option.
And that also makes Matt Moore the better option, because we've seen no evidence that Matt Moore's gunslinging nature has eroded to the point that he's unable to win games anymore. In fact in his most recent sample of play he won critical games with that style of play.
hoops
Tua time!
if and when this team goes home it's gonna be because of the qb fellas. but hey with this defense who knows when that will be...but it's gonna be why whenever it comes
book it
I guess that's to be expected when you are left with plan b's and c's
I've seen a lot of bad qb play go further than it should because of high level defenses. maintain the run d and we could play a while
book it
I guess that's to be expected when you are left with plan b's and c's
I've seen a lot of bad qb play go further than it should because of high level defenses. maintain the run d and we could play a while
<O>
☠️ Banned ☠️
No doubt, and that's only because those defenses are able to limit the high-level play of opposing QBs.
You have to win it with your own, or win it by making the other one play poorly.
In fact the team won Sunday in large part because this defense made Matt Ryan play poorly in the second half. If Matt Ryan would've been his characteristic self in the second half, the Dolphins would've lost.
hoops
Tua time!
the worst part about all this is that this team would be a legit contender RIGHT NOW if tannehill was under center...I'm sure gase knows that
the execution and consistency of play would be MUCH HIGHER
the execution and consistency of play would be MUCH HIGHER
<O>
☠️ Banned ☠️
They'd be better, no doubt, but they'd still be hovering around average with all else equal, and with Tannehill's characteristic level of play.
So far the defense has surrendered an opposing passer rating of 102, which is 5th-worst in the league. Obviously Tannehill's characteristic level of play wouldn't likely afford a positive passer rating differential under those circumstances, and passer rating differential has accounted for 85% of the variation in win percentage in the NFL since 2004.
Now, you can make the argument however that with the better quarterback play Tannehill would provide, the defense would play better against opposing QBs as a roundabout byproduct of that, and then yes, there's the potential that they'd be doing significantly better.
hoops
Tua time!
this version of jay cutler reminds me of brett favre when he finished up with the jets
<O>
☠️ Banned ☠️
Exactly -- a guy who makes you lose far more often than he makes you win.
Unfortunately those gunslingers don't become game managers when their skills erode. They just become losers.
hoops
Tua time!
it could end up the same way too...but the x factor for me is adam gase and I do believe whatever cutler has left he will get it...will it be enough? I doubt it cause in the postseason consistency of qb play and turnovers from the position send you home more than anything.
but I wont even endorse matt moore cause I know he cant read coverage off anything other than motion based id's and you cant live 16 games off that without a top 5 defense and top 5 running game.