Brace Yourselves... | Page 5 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Brace Yourselves...

You cant spot the Vikings defense 21 points in the 1st quarter and expect a win... QB play after that is irrelevant... Russel Wilson the elite QB didnt do better than Tannehill last week against the same D at home... And he's the magical pocket presence guy... Come the **** on...
 
I got to see the game in person yesterday. Going into the game my dumb ass knew the fins were going to see a heavy dose of cook and Murphy. The dolphins didn’t see that coming. To give them credit they figured it out after the first quarter. I also thought we would have to spread them out and get off some quick passes. I didn’t see this too much but after the first half I thought we were in the game. As for Tannehill I didn’t see much separation from the WRs and the protection was awful. I believe it was his 2nd pass he hit the dB in the shoulder because Amendola was no where near open neither were any other WRs. I would like to see what Tannehill can do with a competent OL and decent WRs but acknowledge we may have David Carr’ed him.
 
MrChadRico said:
Everyone so quick to blame the defense but when they did make a stop Tannehills offense would instantly go 3 and out.... that can wear out even the best defenses.
Click to expand...

haha you people trying to make this game about the offense not helping the defense are laughable. We were down 21-0 and the offense had run 6 plays. We gave up 41 points without an offensive turnover (we did have a turnover on downs). Even with the turnover on downs the vikings were just running the clock and still ran it in for a TD. You know how hard it is to score 41 points in the NFL without a defensive score, special teams score, or a turnover by the other team? It takes a truly terrible defensive performance to do that. They gave up 200 ****ing yards in the first quarter.

It takes the offense completely out of sync. On the road versus a really talented defense. Not good.
 
Yesterday was an abomination. But just for someone to jump on the excuse train, what were Russell Wilson's numbers vs. the Vikings the week before?
 
pmj said:
Yesterday was an abomination. But just for someone to jump on the excuse train, what were Russell Wilson's numbers vs. the Vikings the week before?
Click to expand...

Or rodgers At Minnesota - 17/26 for 198 yards 1 TD

Or Brees in Minnesota - 18/23 for 120 yards 1 TD and 1 Int

Or Jimmy G at Minnesota - 15/33 261 yards 1TD 3 Int

Or Josh Rosen at Minnesota 21/31 240 yards 0 TDs 1 Int

Or Matt Stafford at Minnesota 25-36 199 yards 0 Tds 0 Ints

Russel was 10/20 for 72 yards at home No Tds 1 int

But let the narrative that Thill isnt good overshadow the 41 points given up by the defense.
 
Rowdy1972 said:
Or rodgers At Minnesota - 17/26 for 198 yards 1 TD
Click to expand...

4 sacks...not 9.

Rowdy1972 said:
Or Brees in Minnesota - 18/23 for 120 yards 1 TD and 1 Int
Click to expand...

0 sacks...not 9.

Rowdy1972 said:
Or Jimmy G at Minnesota - 15/33 261 yards 1TD 3 Int
Click to expand...

3 sacks...not 9.

Rowdy1972 said:
Or Josh Rosen at Minnesota 21/31 240 yards 0 TDs 1 Int
Click to expand...

4 sacks...not 9, and this is with the worst o-line in the NFL.

Rowdy1972 said:
Or Matt Stafford at Minnesota 25-36 199 yards 0 Tds 0
Click to expand...

10 sacks...not 9. They ate their Wheaties on Stafford.

Rowdy1972 said:
Russel was 10/20 for 72 yards at home No Tds 1 int
Click to expand...

2 sacks...not 9.

Rowdy1972 said:
But let the narrative that Thill isnt good overshadow the 41 points given up by the defense.
Click to expand...

No...the narrative should be that Tannehill was directly responsible for 3 points in 60 minutes of football.

This is the JAG who MANY people were saying was better than Andrew Luck, they would take Tannehill instead of Luck, and some are actually trying to contrast Tannehill's wretched performance with those of two first ballot HOFers (Brees and Rodgers) and a potential HOFer (Wilson).

This is where reality becomes stranger than fiction....
 
Rowdy1972 said:
Or rodgers At Minnesota - 17/26 for 198 yards 1 TD

Or Brees in Minnesota - 18/23 for 120 yards 1 TD and 1 Int

Or Jimmy G at Minnesota - 15/33 261 yards 1TD 3 Int

Or Josh Rosen at Minnesota 21/31 240 yards 0 TDs 1 Int

Or Matt Stafford at Minnesota 25-36 199 yards 0 Tds 0 Ints

Russel was 10/20 for 72 yards at home No Tds 1 int

But let the narrative that Thill isnt good overshadow the 41 points given up by the defense.
Click to expand...

It’s not a narrative.
 
zach attach said:
Then you gotta throw in excuses for Oline play, receivers drops, defense, etc.
I see what you're saying, Gase, Loggains and Tannehill MUST have dump off plays to receivers before he gets crushed in 3 seconds. Other QBs do it.
Click to expand...
No, they do t have those plays. Gase is so arrogant that he knows his creative play calling is going to work so there is no reason to design a safety valve into the play. I mean when your QB is getting hammered and it’s 3rd and 1 and you’ve been pounding the ball, the defense is stacked up for the run and you call play action that requires the QB to turn his back to a stacked line while he’s been hit or sacked every other play! That’s the best play call in the world!

Why would Gase stop doing that? His guys just have to execute (even though they have proven they can’t). He has to call the play because it’s the greatest play ever and “F” the safety valve, he can just shake his head and point out “if the OL hold their block and one guy doesn’t miss his assignment) he had a guy running wide open for a TD!! Isn’t it better to point out how brilliant the play call was at the losing presser than including a safety valve so the drive can stay alive along with the hopes of winning the game. It’s the better option if your name is Adam Gase!
 
BlueFin said:
I agree...Tannehill can play at a high level when everything is good around him...but he is not a big game...crunch time player....period.

7 years is enough to evaluate...good person...tough...hard worker...physical talent...lacks great field vision...slow to get the ball out(increasing the hits he takes)...fails too often in big situations.

Bring him back next year...but starting today seek and find his replacement...and figure out how to acquire him.
Click to expand...
Nick Foles... SB winner looking for a place to start won't get it in Philly.
 
Martel13 said:
He played a big part too come on. D gotta pick six and we had a 75 yard TD run. The passing game did absolutely nada. The vikes are just better but to just absolve the guy who has the ball on every play of any wrong doing isn’t fair
Click to expand...


I do. He was such a non factor I can't blame him. From beginning to end he was but a glorified Brock Osweiler that no one can argue would have mattered in the 4th quarter.
 
DPhinz_DPhinz said:
View attachment 14450
Click to expand...

Nope...if Tannehill wants to be a top QB, he needs to throw the ball accurately to whomever is open within .04 seconds.. consistently.

If you actually watched the game, and still feel the need to place the loss on Ryan, then power to you.

I guess having a QB rating over 100 in the NFL is pretty easy, even with many of your weapons out for the season, and your O-line playing like it was 2015.
 
DPhinz_DPhinz said:
4 sacks...not 9.



0 sacks...not 9.



3 sacks...not 9.



4 sacks...not 9, and this is with the worst o-line in the NFL.



10 sacks...not 9. They ate their Wheaties on Stafford.



2 sacks...not 9.



No...the narrative should be that Tannehill was directly responsible for 3 points in 60 minutes of football.

This is the JAG who MANY people were saying was better than Andrew Luck, they would take Tannehill instead of Luck, and some are actually trying to contrast Tannehill's wretched performance with those of two first ballot HOFers (Brees and Rodgers) and a potential HOFer (Wilson).

This is where reality becomes stranger than fiction....
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what point you are making here? These QB's had a lesser number of sacks AND had this abysmal of statistics? I think you are making the opposite point that you are attempting to get across.

I also have no idea why you feel the need to throw in any type of rationale that MANY (your words) compare Tannehill to Luck as if it makes your strange point somehow more valid. There are lots of posters who like RT and lots who hate him...…..that isn't going to change and frankly, who really cares? The bottom line of the post you are quoting is that a lot of QB's struggle against that Minnesota defense....especially in Minnesota. I don't think that is debatable. If you somehow think that 7 sacks instead of 9 would have made the outcome any better.....good for you! But you are also failing to consider how many times the Vikings defensive line blew up runs at the LOS or behind it because they were living in our backfield most of the day. We had a few good runs, but also had more than our fair share of third and long situations to deal with.
 
DPhinz_DPhinz said:
4 sacks...not 9.



0 sacks...not 9.



3 sacks...not 9.



4 sacks...not 9, and this is with the worst o-line in the NFL.



10 sacks...not 9. They ate their Wheaties on Stafford.



2 sacks...not 9.



No...the narrative should be that Tannehill was directly responsible for 3 points in 60 minutes of football.

This is the JAG who MANY people were saying was better than Andrew Luck, they would take Tannehill instead of Luck, and some are actually trying to contrast Tannehill's wretched performance with those of two first ballot HOFers (Brees and Rodgers) and a potential HOFer (Wilson).

This is where reality becomes stranger than fiction....
Click to expand...

Not sure what the sack numbers has anything to do with what I posted. That defense is tough at home. The defense couldnt give up 41 points and expect us to win.
 
NBP81 said:
You cant spot the Vikings defense 21 points in the 1st quarter and expect a win... QB play after that is irrelevant... Russel Wilson the elite QB didnt do better than Tannehill last week against the same D at home... And he's the magical pocket presence guy... Come the **** on...
Click to expand...
Yes it was 21-0, then it was 21-17 without barely a contribution from him, and then he continued to contribute nothing the rest of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom