NFL free agent Kirk Cousins vs. Dolphins QB Ryan Tannehill: Who’s better?

[39wildman]

Top 12?

Carson Wentz
Tom Brady
Matt Ryan
Ben roethlisberger
Matthew Stafford
Aaron Rodgers
Case keenum
Andrew luck
Marcus Mariota
Alex Smith
Kirk cousins
Philip rivers
Derek Carr
Drew Brees
Cam Newton
Jared Goff
Jameis Winston
Russell Wilson
Dak Prescott
(In no order)

All of those qbs are arguably better than tannehill, or a few of them are just as good.

Top 12, huh?

The reason why thill17 doesn't get love in NFL. Because he have not win anything.
I guess all of these QB have made playoff except Winston. and probowl. if thill17 start winning he will move up or else be replace.

 

[psfign]

Lol you always default to that. Dare somebody call him what he is: middle of the road. If somebody dare says that, you claim them to not be a Dolphins fan and to cheer for the team's demise. OF COURSE I WANT TANNEHILL TO PLAY WELL

I'm a fan of the team over a singular player. Go back in my post history. You'll see I'm a Tannehill supporter and fan. Just stop the madness of making him something that he's not. He will NEVER be an elite quarterback.

I can appreciate that Tannehill has some good games. But when a lot changes in the last 6 years, but one constant remains (Tannehill) and the team is still playing poorly, you start to question whether you should change quarterbacks.

Since you claim me to be some epic Tannehill hater, I welcome you to go into my post history and see the things I've said about Tannehill. I'm waiting.

I've also never been absent from this forum for a long period of time, neither the success nor failure.

Keep your head up, pumpkin. Maybe someday we'll have another Marino. Until then, we can pray for something miraculous (multiple playoff appearances in a row).

You probably won't follow through, because your agenda is that anyone who has a real take on your boy makes them a hater, a troll, someone who wishes this team to fail, somebody who wishes ill will on him, etc.

So childish...Pumpkin.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

You see, we all do. But I think SCLSU made a valid point to you above. Those of us who don't believe he's as good as you believe .. you call us haters etc. That's not the fact. We just have a differing opinion to you on Tannehill, we're more wary of him and hope he can do it. You talk about it like it's a completely sure thing and that we're all idiots for not seeing it. It's like you take it personally when anything slightly negative is said about Tannehill.

I'm sure you have .. but to me, it feels like the only posts I see from you on here are pro-Tannehill. I don't see you discussing other things - now, obviously you do, you've so many posts, how could you not have, but that's the impression I get because there are just so many!

People are free to feel how every they want about Tannehill. I will disagree when it doesn't match my opinion, but mostly I object to the different standards and rules that posters have for QBs other than Tannehill. I've read for years that Tannehill can't be any good because of the team's record. After all, good QBs supposedly make the players around them better. Early in this thread a claim was made that Cousins had a better year in 2017 than Tannehill has ever had (despite the Redskins going 6-10).0

I have a strong aversion to double standards. Generally, I am arguing that Tannehill is very similar to QB XYZ and it comes down to personal preference. Apparently, that is not an acceptable opinion on a Dolphins fan site......

A recent example is that I had the nerve to say that Tannehill and Stafford are on par with one another. Clearly I was out of my mind!!!!! Nevermind that they have nearly identical records and QB ratings..........

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

One thing I would note here is that Tannehill's 1st 2 years were his worst, and also where his skill positions were abmissal, in fact none of them are still in the league except for Wallace. And he's showing constant improvement... While I dont think Tannehill is Elite or anything, my stance is that he's good enough to keep an emphasis on building a team. When that team is built and you can clearly demonstrate that the QB is holding you back, then you spend rescources on the position. This way, the new QB comes in a good situation making him more likely to succeed...

Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[johngarryvo]

thread question is like asking which do you prefer: a Yugo or an AMC Pacer

 

[dirkey]

People are free to feel how every they want about Tannehill. I will disagree when it doesn't match my opinion, but mostly I object to the different standards and rules that posters have for QBs other than Tannehill. I've read for years that Tannehill can't be any good because of the team's record. After all, good QBs supposedly make the players around them better. Early in this thread a claim was made that Cousins had a better year in 2017 than Tannehill has ever had (despite the Redskins going 6-10).

I have a strong aversion to double standards. Generally, I am arguing that Tannehill is very similar to QB XYZ and it comes down to personal preference. Apparently, that is not an acceptable opinion on a Dolphins fan site......

It's interesting that you talk about the comment that Tannehill can't be any good because of the team record in a disparaging tone. Yet ... then you mention the Redskins record when speaking about Cousins, and use it as a reason he can't be better than Tannehill - or at least imply that.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

It's interesting that you talk about the comment that Tannehill can't be any good because of the team record in a disparaging tone. Yet ... then you mention the Redskins record when speaking about Cousins, and use it as a reason he can't be better than Tannehill - or at least imply that.

I'll have to highlight my sarcasm more clearly in the future.......

 

[dirkey]

I'll have to highlight my sarcasm more clearly in the future.......

Yeah, you probably will, because it didn't really come through loud and clear to me in that post to be honest. Things get lost in translation in text sometimes.

As to your point, I completely get that you'll disagree with people when it doesn't match your opinion. And calling out double standards is all well and good too.

My take though, is that sometimes your posts on the matter come across in a certain way, in a way that says "Anyone who disagrees with me on this is an idiot" and you call people haters if they don't completely agree with your take on Tannehill.

I hope to God you're right about Tannehill. If there's a Dolphins fan, who doesn't want Tannehill to be as good as you believe, I would ask ... well, is that person a true Dolphins fan. At the same time, I don't personally believe he's as good as you believe. I hope I'm wrong. Does it make me a hater (a phrase I hate, ironically enough)?

I don't think so. It just means I have a different opinion.

 

[gregorygrant83]

If the NFL was like NASCAR, with each offense was stock and put together fairly similar talent wise, I would say Brady would have an edge over all AFC qbs (maybe Rothlisberger too), but after that Tannehill is in the mix. If surrounded by similar talent at o-line, rb, wrs and supporting defense as his opposing qb I think Tannehill is just as good or better than the other 13 AFC qbs.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Yeah, you probably will, because it didn't really come through loud and clear to me in that post to be honest. Things get lost in translation in text sometimes.

As to your point, I completely get that you'll disagree with people when it doesn't match your opinion. And calling out double standards is all well and good too.

My take though, is that sometimes your posts on the matter come across in a certain way, in a way that says "Anyone who disagrees with me on this is an idiot" and you call people haters if they don't completely agree with your take on Tannehill.

I hope to God you're right about Tannehill. If there's a Dolphins fan, who doesn't want Tannehill to be as good as you believe, I would ask ... well, is that person a true Dolphins fan. At the same time, I don't personally believe he's as good as you believe. I hope I'm wrong. Does it make me a hater (a phrase I hate, ironically enough)?

I don't think so. It just means I have a different opinion.

Well, your posts don't come across the same way as those with whom I use the "hater" label. You come across as someone expressing their opinion. I don't get the sense that you are monitoring the threads for any positive mention of Tannehill and pouncing when you find one. There are plenty of those posters around. You also don't make it your mission to start numerous anti-Tannehill threads. We have plenty of those as well.

I have often stated that while I think Tannehill is in the 12-15 range, I can understand people ranking him lower. I also have stated multiple times that I believe the difference between QBs in the 10-20 range is not significant and that the difference between rest of the teams and coaching staffs probably plays a bigger role than the the difference between the QBs. I am a big believer that the impact that the rest of the team has on the QB is huge. Very good QBs can be made to play poorly in tough situations. Pass pressure and down & distance being two of the biggest determining factors.

I see that you are new here. You are stepping into an argument that is going into its 7th season. There were anti-Tannehill posters from the day that it was rumored that Miami was interested. Every year there is some other QB that we should have instead. Never mind that that list changes from year to year as the darlings become less desirable from season to season.

We were also told early on that the team around Tannehill was much better than we suggest. If only Tannehill could be more efficient, the team would be a contender. The bar of a 90 QB rating was set. When Tannehill eclipsed that mark and the team's record was still not good enough, there were other reasons created for blaming Tannehill. It was the deep ball. If only he didn't suck at the deep ball. When he because a top deep ball thrower, it was a new reason again.

Clearly you are sensing the frustration.

 

[dirkey]

Well, your posts don't come across the same way as those with whom I use the "hater" label. You come across as someone expressing their opinion. I don't get the sense that you are monitoring the threads for any positive mention of Tannehill and pouncing when you find one. There are plenty of those posters around. You also don't make it your mission to start numerous anti-Tannehill threads. We have plenty of those as well.

I have often stated that while I think Tannehill is in the 12-15 range, I can understand people ranking him lower. I also have stated multiple times that I believe the difference between QBs in the 10-20 range is not significant and that the difference between rest of the teams and coaching staffs probably plays a bigger role than the the difference between the QBs. I am a big believer that the impact that the rest of the team has on the QB is huge. Very good QBs can be made to play poorly in tough situations. Pass pressure and down & distance being two of the biggest determining factors.

I see that you are new here. You are stepping into an argument that is going into its 7th season. There were anti-Tannehill posters from the day that it was rumored that Miami was interested. Every year there is some other QB that we should have instead. Never mind that that list changes from year to year as the darlings become less desirable from season to season.

We were also told early on that the team around Tannehill was much better than we suggest. If only Tannehill could be more efficient, the team would be a contender. The bar of a 90 QB rating was set. When Tannehill eclipsed that mark and the team's record was still not good enough, there were other reasons created for blaming Tannehill. It was the deep ball. If only he didn't suck at the deep ball. When he because a top deep ball thrower, it was a new reason again.

Clearly you are sensing the frustration.

That's a very valid point, that I'm new here and coming into an ongoing argument. I can imagine it is frustrating, to be making the same points over and over again.

I must say, I agree with a lot of your post here to be honest. The bit about other players on the team and coaching playing a huge aspect for - not just QBs - but any player. Coaching in particular. Take someone like Alex Smith - I know I'll be torn apart for saying it, but I've always felt he has been kinda unlucky. Didn't he have a new OC every year in SF? I might be wrong on that, but it felt like it. So every year, he had to learn a new offense. Then when he gets some stability and good coaching, he can show he's a pretty good QB. OK, he's not elite. But he's not as much of a bust as some people label him.

I've often wondered about the busts, the high profile players - I guess QBs for the most part, and how would they have done with a different franchise, better coach? It's an intriguing argument.

It would certainly be nice if the FO could put a good, consistent team together, and the staff could coach them well, and call good plays, set good schemes.

Am I confident it'll happen? Personally, I'm not. Not with Tannenbum in charge, not with his history, and not with the amount of money he's tied into underperforming players.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

That's a very valid point, that I'm new here and coming into an ongoing argument. I can imagine it is frustrating, to be making the same points over and over again.

I must say, I agree with a lot of your post here to be honest. The bit about other players on the team and coaching playing a huge aspect for - not just QBs - but any player. Coaching in particular. Take someone like Alex Smith - I know I'll be torn apart for saying it, but I've always felt he has been kinda unlucky. Didn't he have a new OC every year in SF? I might be wrong on that, but it felt like it. So every year, he had to learn a new offense. Then when he gets some stability and good coaching, he can show he's a pretty good QB. OK, he's not elite. But he's not as much of a bust as some people label him.

I've often wondered about the busts, the high profile players - I guess QBs for the most part, and how would they have done with a different franchise, better coach? It's an intriguing argument.

It would certainly be nice if the FO could put a good, consistent team together, and the staff could coach them well, and call good plays, set good schemes.

Am I confident it'll happen? Personally, I'm not. Not with Tannenbum in charge, not with his history, and not with the amount of money he's tied into underperforming players.

In any case, I look forward to your views. I apologize in advance for getting too caught up in any heated discussions.

 

[tay0365]

Most would agree that Cousin's is the better QB. Tannehill just fits Miami's style much better.

Actually if Cousins had to deal with the same problems having one of the worst pass-blocking O-lines brings, he would have been far behind Tannehill.

If Tannehill is able to come back healthy, I have no doubt he will look better then not just Cousins, but most of the QBs in the league.

 

[superphin]

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Agreed it is obvious that Tannehill had horrible weapons/coaching and its equally obvious that Mariota/Winston didn't have a stacked team their 1st 3 years either. Mariota also had 2 HC and 2 OC his 1st 3 years, same for Winston. Tannehill is not the only player in the NFL who has been held back by poor/incompetant coaching. As we saw with Jared Goff and the Rams, coaching matters.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Agreed it is obvious that Tannehill had horrible weapons/coaching and its equally obvious that Mariota/Winston didn't have a stacked team their 1st 3 years either. Mariota also had 2 HC and 2 OC his 1st 3 years, same for Winston. Tannehill is not the only player in the NFL who has been held back by poor/incompetant coaching. As we saw with Jared Goff and the Rams, coaching matters.

So then opinions about QB play is more nuanced than many are willing to admit.