Why there is no question about Ryan Tannehill and his $17.5 million | Page 6 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Why there is no question about Ryan Tannehill and his $17.5 million

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING

why did you leave this part of @Krateness 's quote out?
I'm curious to see how he performs without Zek but still having that offensive line is more than Tannehill has ever had in his previous years.

and whether Prescott is a 1 year wonder or not still remains to be seen. However there's no denying he's had a better 1st year than many QBs including Tannehill, Rivers, BigBen, Dalton, Wilson, etc have had career-wise and certainly a better 1st year than the above, Brees, Ryan, and certainly Brady.

Considering the year that Prescott had compared to most anyone, if viewed in a vacuum, attempting to use Tannehill as the straw dog is a big fail!
 
I dunno about "alone," especially when the Fins OL in '14 and '15 was ranked #32 and #31. The FO bought those limited groceries.

Lazor's scheme had a lot to do with the o-line's inadequacies. And who hired him? The Head Coach.
 
This isn't fantasy football.

Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien, Troy Aikmen, Joe Flacco, Doug Williams, Brad Johnson all have super bowl rings. Your thought process is fatally flawed.


I'm not taking a position either way in the argument, but Barry Swtizer, Weeb Ewbank, Don McCafferty, Gary Kubiak, Brian Billick, Tom Flores, and George Seifert also have Super Bowl rings.
 
I'm not taking a position either way in the argument, but Barry Swtizer, Weeb Ewbank, Don McCafferty, Gary Kubiak, Brian Billick, Tom Flores, and George Seifert also have Super Bowl rings.

Yeah . . . not following you here at all.

Billick, Kubiak, Switzer, and Seifert are all legitimate and damn good head coaches. I can't comment on the others because I am not familiar with them.
 
why did you leave this part of @Krateness 's quote out?


and whether Prescott is a 1 year wonder or not still remains to be seen. However there's no denying he's had a better 1st year than many QBs including Tannehill, Rivers, BigBen, Dalton, Wilson, etc have had career-wise and certainly a better 1st year than the above, Brees, Ryan, and certainly Brady.

Considering the year that Prescott had compared to most anyone, if viewed in a vacuum, attempting to use Tannehill as the straw dog is a big fail!

Based on his tape, I'm willing to bet the farm he's not a 1 year wonder.
 
Based on his tape, I'm willing to bet the farm he's not a 1 year wonder.

You're probably right, but couldn't that same argument be made after RG3's first year also? Remember, he galvanized a much less talented Redskins team than the Cowboy team with which Prescott had to work.

Only time will tell. But holding Dak up as a pantheon of QB'ing based on one year might just be a tad premature.
 
You're probably right, but couldn't that same argument be made after RG3's first year also? Remember, he galvanized a much less talented Redskins team than the Cowboy team with which Prescott had to work.

Only time will tell. But holding Dak up as a pantheon of QB'ing based on one year might just be a tad premature.

Not really. RG3 thrived in a spread scheme that had just been newly implemented in the NFL. After the league caught on, it exposed him.
 
Nope. Yours is.

Gary Kubiak 61-64 and no sniffs at a championship without an elite QB. 21-11 and a SB ring with one.

So Manning played elite in '15 now, huh? You're impressed with 9 TDs to 17 INT's?

I believe Manning helped manage that offense as one of the best under center, but his play was far from what you are trying derive from it.
 
So Manning played elite in '15 now, huh? You're impressed with 9 TDs to 17 INT's?

I believe Manning helped manage that offense as one of the best under center, but his play was far from what you are trying derive from it.

Game. Set. Match. And let's not even mention the elite defense!

However I could tell he came to a gun fight with a butter knife when the post began with the "I know you are but what am I" rhetoric.
 
Game. Set. Match. And let's not even mention the elite defense!


And that's actually why the quarterback is most important, however, because you'll be hard-pressed to find a Super Bowl-winner since 2004 -- the year the league changed the rules to favor the offensive passing game -- that didn't feature either an elite QB, or an elite defense that could stifle the opposing QB.

Either way, the QB drives the bus, whether it's your own or what you can do to the opposing one.

The correlation between passer rating differential and win percentage since 2004 is a whopping 0.92. That means 85% of the game in terms of winning and losing can be predicted on the basis of passer rating differential.
 
And that's actually why the quarterback is most important, however, because you'll be hard-pressed to find a Super Bowl-winner since 2004 -- the year the league changed the rules to favor the offensive passing game -- that didn't feature either an elite QB, or an elite defense that could stifle the opposing QB.

Either way, the QB drives the bus, whether it's your own or what you can do to the opposing one.

The correlation between passer rating differential and win percentage since 2004 is a whopping 0.92. That means 85% of the game in terms of winning and losing can be predicted on the basis of passer rating differential.

Does the QB also provide his own pass protection and catch all those TDs he's throwing too?
 
Does the QB also provide his own pass protection and catch all those TDs he's throwing too?


No, but better QBs vary from year to year at a level significantly higher than worse QBs.

So when Aaron Rodgers for example has an off year (for him) because his pass protection or his receivers are poor that year, his off year is still significantly better than the off year of let's say Matthew Stafford, if Stafford were to suffer the same detriment in his surrounding talent.

What that says is that the QB's individual talent drives the bus on his own performance, over the course of his career.
 
No, but better QBs vary from year to year at a level significantly higher than worse QBs.

So when Aaron Rodgers for example has an off year (for him) because his pass protection or his receivers are poor that year, his off year is still significantly better than the off year of let's say Matthew Stafford, if Stafford were to suffer the same detriment in his surrounding talent.

What that says is that the QB's individual talent drives the bus on his own performance, over the course of his career.

That's poor. Rodgers to Stafford is apples to oranges. Rodgers is one of the better QB's in NFL history, of course his impact is greater.
 
Back
Top Bottom