How is Tannehill Stacking Up With The 2012 Rookie Class | Page 5 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

How is Tannehill Stacking Up With The 2012 Rookie Class

Wildbill3 said:
did you just dude me?
Click to expand...

68ce649cjpg505x650_q85-1.jpg


The Dude Abides
 
Wildbill3 said:
I think you're barking up the wrong thread. No one is abosolving Tannehill of contributing to the offensive woes, they are just (in this thread at least) saying he has shown enough that he can improve. It is first and foremost a team game, which is why I personally hate blaming any one player for a loss (even a kicker.)
Click to expand...

Oh, you better believe they are. Tannehill can literally do no wrong for some people. Anything that puts their dream of a Super Bowl winning quarterback in jeopardy is instantly disregarded.
 
JJM_7 said:
The anti-Tannehill brigade is hilarious. They can't stand when people create positive threads about him, like they MUST show these "blind homers" the truth about how Ryan Tannehill is a bust.

At the end of the day, whether Ryan succeeds or fails, we'll find out soon enough. But in the meantime, if people want to stay positive and create these threads about him, what's the big deal? Is it a crime to hope Ryan develops into our franchise QB? Is it THAT horrible to want to be patient about a guy that shows some potential? If Ryan doesn't pan out, we all lose. The team, the fans, everyone. But I guess some people will see it as a personal win, because they'll get to say "I told you so" in a message board. I just don't get that mentality. At all.
Click to expand...
Sorry for wanting pesky things like "objectivity" on this board. I guess that's too much to ask.

I'm not saying people don't go over the top with negativity, but ridiculous homerism should not get a pass just because it's "hopeful". People should be held accountable for being homers.
 
shouright said:
One of the greatest things in the world is that, regardless of what someone else thinks, you still get to think whatever you want. :up:
Click to expand...

The only problem is, people almost never seem to do the things you think should be done... no matter how excellent your thought process is.

I think Tannehill is a Top 10 QB and he compares well with all the other QBs in the league. I also think people should hang up on their agenda to run him off. The first thought I have, has some basis in fact. The other, unfortunately, is wishful thinking because the Tannehill haters will never give up.
 
Oronde said:
People should be held accountable for being homers.
Click to expand...

You sound very serious. "Objectively" speaking, what do you think would be the right punishment for these abhominable homers you talk about? Surely they mustn't get away with their horrendous homerism.
 
To me there are 3 numbers that jump out at me about Tannehill's stat line--his interceptions, his fumbles and his sacks. His interceptions are higher than expected, and most are his fault. He needs to do a better job in that regard. He also needs to take better care of the ball and avoid fumbling, but to keep that one in perspective he has 1 more fumble than Peyton Manning who has an excellent OL, and Tannehill has only suffered 1 fumble since Martin was replaced by McKinnie. So, while he needs to learn to keep two hands on the ball more often, he seems to be improving on that one. Finally, his sacks are the big differentiator. Were they result of pressure, I would be more worried, but Tannehill has shown exceptional production when blitzed. The problem of getting sacked with 3 and 4 man rushes means his teammates aren't doing their jobs. The WR's will always have trouble winning against heavy coverage schemes with only 3 or 4 rushing the passer. But if that kind of weak pass rush is getting to the QB, the fault lies squarely on the OL. Tannehill's OL is inferior to all of those to whom he is now being compared. As a result, we also have no running game.

Where are all those idiots trying to say that losing Jake Long would be beneficial? Where are all those idiots claiming that re-signing Jake Long would be the worst move in franchise history? Where are all those idiots claiming Jonathan Martin was superior to Jake Long? Where are all those idiots claiming Jonathan Martin could easily add power? Where are all those idiots who claimed Jonathan Martin was the answer? Without Jake Long our running game utterly disappeared milk-carton style, and our pass protection sank to worse than the Arizona Cardinals. It may not all have been because of losing Jake Long, but there was no bigger shadow cast than Jake Long's, and those big shoes were never filled.
 
Digital said:
To me there are 3 numbers that jump out at me about Tannehill's stat line--his interceptions, his fumbles and his sacks. His interceptions are higher than expected, and most are his fault. He needs to do a better job in that regard. He also needs to take better care of the ball and avoid fumbling, but to keep that one in perspective he has 1 more fumble than Peyton Manning who has an excellent OL, and Tannehill has only suffered 1 fumble since Martin was replaced by McKinnie. So, while he needs to learn to keep two hands on the ball more often, he seems to be improving on that one. Finally, his sacks are the big differentiator. Were they result of pressure, I would be more worried, but Tannehill has shown exceptional production when blitzed. The problem of getting sacked with 3 and 4 man rushes means his teammates aren't doing their jobs. The WR's will always have trouble winning against heavy coverage schemes with only 3 or 4 rushing the passer. But if that kind of weak pass rush is getting to the QB, the fault lies squarely on the OL. Tannehill's OL is inferior to all of those to whom he is now being compared. As a result, we also have no running game.

Where are all those idiots trying to say that losing Jake Long would be beneficial? Where are all those idiots claiming that re-signing Jake Long would be the worst move in franchise history? Where are all those idiots claiming Jonathan Martin was superior to Jake Long? Where are all those idiots claiming Jonathan Martin could easily add power? Where are all those idiots who claimed Jonathan Martin was the answer? Without Jake Long our running game utterly disappeared milk-carton style, and our pass protection sank to worse than the Arizona Cardinals. It may not all have been because of losing Jake Long, but there was no bigger shadow cast than Jake Long's, and those big shoes were never filled.
Click to expand...

That last paragraph ruined your post. If you want to have a serious discussion you don't call people, who you want to discuss with, idiots.
 
Digital said:
To me there are 3 numbers that jump out at me about Tannehill's stat line--his interceptions, his fumbles and his sacks. His interceptions are higher than expected, and most are his fault. He needs to do a better job in that regard. He also needs to take better care of the ball and avoid fumbling, but to keep that one in perspective he has 1 more fumble than Peyton Manning who has an excellent OL, and Tannehill has only suffered 1 fumble since Martin was replaced by McKinnie. So, while he needs to learn to keep two hands on the ball more often, he seems to be improving on that one. Finally, his sacks are the big differentiator. Were they result of pressure, I would be more worried, but Tannehill has shown exceptional production when blitzed. The problem of getting sacked with 3 and 4 man rushes means his teammates aren't doing their jobs. The WR's will always have trouble winning against heavy coverage schemes with only 3 or 4 rushing the passer. But if that kind of weak pass rush is getting to the QB, the fault lies squarely on the OL. Tannehill's OL is inferior to all of those to whom he is now being compared. As a result, we also have no running game.

Where are all those idiots trying to say that losing Jake Long would be beneficial? Where are all those idiots claiming that re-signing Jake Long would be the worst move in franchise history? Where are all those idiots claiming Jonathan Martin was superior to Jake Long? Where are all those idiots claiming Jonathan Martin could easily add power? Where are all those idiots who claimed Jonathan Martin was the answer? Without Jake Long our running game utterly disappeared milk-carton style, and our pass protection sank to worse than the Arizona Cardinals. It may not all have been because of losing Jake Long, but there was no bigger shadow cast than Jake Long's, and those big shoes were never filled.
Click to expand...
Im here... If Im an idiot because I don't want the team to spend 10MIL+ for an oft injured on the decline LT then so be it. I didn't realize Jake Long was the ONLY LT in the NFL available at that time. But if you think paying lineman such amounts of money is the key to building a football team, good for you, but I disagree and it definitely doesn't make me an idiot...
 
Oronde said:
Sorry for wanting pesky things like "objectivity" on this board. I guess that's too much to ask.

I'm not saying people don't go over the top with negativity, but ridiculous homerism should not get a pass just because it's "hopeful". People should be held accountable for being homers.
Click to expand...

I have to concur with the first part of that. Objectivity is usually a rarity on message boards. But personally, I don't mind ridiculous homerism. I love it. I consider myself a homer in a way, even though I can be very critical of the team. The thing that is annoying is not homerism, it's the intolerance to anyone holding a different view.
 
Originally Posted by shouright
What does that have to do with caring what anybody else thinks?

Wildbill3 said:
it has to do with the fact that there is a TOS and a way of doing things here. don't like it? there's the door. we're not changing policy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't think he's asking you to change policy, just to stand by it. To the site's credit, The TOS discourages "incivility, immaturity, and/or disrespect for the contributions and responsibilities of others." I appreciated his comment, because it's not a bad thing to suggest dialing down rhetoric directed at other people, rather than about football.

The thread started out positive, and then it was filled with people concerned about other people, instead of the Dolphins:

"dumb heat from the usual suspects..."
"they have to blame someone..."
"a lot of them also say..."
"I'll bet those guys stay out of this thread..."
"the anti-Tannehill brigade..."

And one even directed at me:

"uh dude...... HoneyB = They"

What's laughable is that I just got here. But I'll be lumped in someplace, because it's easy, and folks won't be happy unless they hate on someone.

Personally, I'd rather talk about football.
 
HoneyB said:
I don't think he's asking you to change policy, just to stand by it. To the site's credit, The TOS discourages "incivility, immaturity, and/or disrespect for the contributions and responsibilities of others." I appreciated his comment, because it's not a bad thing to suggest dialing down rhetoric directed at other people, rather than about football.

The thread started out positive, and then it was filled with people concerned about other people, instead of the Dolphins:

"dumb heat from the usual suspects..."
"they have to blame someone..."
"a lot of them also say..."
"I'll bet those guys stay out of this thread..."
"the anti-Tannehill brigade..."

And one even directed at me:

"uh dude...... HoneyB = They"

What's laughable is that I just got here. But I'll be lumped in someplace, because it's easy, and folks won't be happy unless they hate on someone.

Personally, I'd rather talk about football.
Click to expand...

Well you said your peace already and I agree I should have left out a couple of those statements in my posts in this thread....now stop crying about it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom