Honest Question: Would we have won with Ajayi?

[<O>]

Basing him off last season, he would’ve threatened the defense a hell of a lot more than Cutler did.

Cutler had good numbers and still left plenty of plays on the field. Ryan would’ve made some of them.

Cutler's game Sunday was the equivalent of one of Tannehill's better games (let's say 85th percentile for Tannehill). For the game to have gone the way you're stating it would have here, it would have taken one of Tannehill's best games (95th to 99th percentile for Tannehill).

What is the likelihood that would've happened?

 

[tcdrover]

Cutler played very well in that game.

I am constantly surprised by the posts on here.

I don't think RT had many games in his career anywhere near as good statistically as Cutler just did & he is still getting trashed.

They almost won the game. If they had a better defense for the Raiders TE they would have won, or if the OL didn't get all of those idi0tic penalties they would have won.

The biggest take away I got was just how much better Gase's offense is when they have RBs that can really catch the ball.

Having Ajayi in there was really showing your hand play calling wise. He seldom fumbled to his credit, but he sucked as a pass catcher and blocker.

 

[Gsmack_42]

Cutler's game Sunday was the equivalent of one of Tannehill's better games (let's say 85th percentile for Tannehill). For the game to have gone the way you're stating it would have here, it would have taken one of Tannehill's best games (95th to 99th percentile for Tannehill).

So what is the equivalent of bogus stats.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

I don't think RT had many games in his career anywhere near as good statistically as Cutler just did & he is still getting trashed.

Well here we are, it's another damn Tannehill thread, and I guess I'll participate.

I don't look only at box scores when I determine if a player was good or bad in a football game that I watched in its entirety, and then watched a second time to more fully digest.

I said Jay Cutler had a good game, and was a credit to the team, and he did and he was. But at the same time, when I find multiple instances of Cutler leaving plays on the field, or making routine throws so poorly that he limited the receiver's ability to extend the play after the catch, then I have to point that out. So, it's possible for me to say that the quarterback played well enough for the team to win (he did) and that overall he played well (he did), while also saying that he left a lot of plays on the field (he did) and that some of the plays that we did make could have been better if he had simply set his damn feet in a fine pocket and given his guys a chance to turn upfield with the football.

In my opinion, this is really the crux of the debate over Ryan Tannehill: Expectations vs reality. I think back to the game at New England in 2013, the game is tied in the third quarter, Ryan Tannehill throws a beautiful ball to the pylon away from coverage, and dumb-ass Mike Wallace breaks his route into coverage, directly toward the safety. That's the easiest damn six points of his life if he makes the obvious coverage read and breaks to the outside. He doesn't, we don't score, it crushes momentum, and we lose a close football game. Fans after the game: "AWFUL THROW."

Now we watch Jay Cutler throw a 'deep ball' to Devante Parker that might be one of the worst throws you'll see in the NFL this year, and the comment is "Well at least he's trying to throw deep to keep the defense honest." I'm sitting here scratching my head. This is like some mass psychosis going on.

So Jay Cutler had a good game, but why the double standard for his performance?

 

[<O>]

So what is the equivalent of bogus stats.

Feel free to refute them. Show how Cutler's performance Sunday was really the equivalent of Tannehill's norm.