Greg Cote: Tannehill doesn’t need to be great — just consistently good | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Greg Cote: Tannehill doesn’t need to be great — just consistently good

Ilovemyfins4eva said:
exactly, when tannehill plays well, we win. its simple.

i feel like i have gotten into so many useless arguments on here about what is needed to win. everyone knows the qb is the most important position on an nfl team, obviously everyone needs to do there part, but those numbers that cote throws out in his article do not lie.

when tanny plays to an 85 plus rating, we win, because that means tannehill played well.

its not rocket science, and i am glad cote and most ppl do understand this.
Click to expand...

It would be like trying to win at poker while always running bad, while a lot of your opponents are always running good, if ~90 is running at about even.

I find it disturbing that 100+ barely cracks the top 10 anymore and league average is close to 91. I feel like those numbers are skyrocketing even from just 15 years ago, but I might have to look into that.
 
roy_miami said:
It would be like trying to win at poker while always running bad, while a lot of your opponents are always running good, if ~90 is running at about even relative to your opponents.

I find it disturbing that 100+ barely cracks the top 10 anymore and league average is close to 91. I feel like those numbers are skyrocketing even from just 15 years ago, but I might have to look into it.
Click to expand...

They are. This is because of the rules set up to help the passing game.

60% completions used to be phenomenal. Now 60% is just decent. If a QB is around 50% completions these days it is a horrible performance. All of the offenses feature many shorter passes and those can be quite easy to complete thanks to the rules against covering WRs.
 
roy_miami said:
It would be like trying to win at poker while always running bad, while a lot of your opponents are always running good, if ~90 is running at about even.

I find it disturbing that 100+ barely cracks the top 10 anymore and league average is close to 91. I feel like those numbers are skyrocketing even from just 15 years ago, but I might have to look into that.
Click to expand...

well i attribute that to all the rule changes that the nfl has put in, that basically outlaws defense in todays game.

it also ticks me off, the nfl was much better back in the day where defensive players were allowed to play there position, not be called for a flag every time they look at the qb the wrong way
 
Ilovemyfins4eva said:
wtf does matt ryan have to do with this?

we know wv is a matt ryan fan, which is fine, but he never mentioned matt ryan in this post, just simply made a comment on the article by greg cote, yet the only thing u can think of is matt ryan?

did greg cote say something wrong in this article, or should he have said tannehill can continue to be up and down and everything will be ok?

cotes article sums it up perfectly, and he also gives u stats of how when tannys qb rating is above a certain level, we are basically unbeatable, 90 was the rating i believe.
Click to expand...

What do you have to do with this? WV deserves all the crap he gets. You can go to the Falcons site with him. Take the rest of the haters with you.
 
how many times has Tannehill been sacked this year? 58 last year, and how many through 4 games this year?
 
Ilovemyfins4eva said:
exactly, when tannehill plays well, we win. its simple.

i feel like i have gotten into so many useless arguments on here about what is needed to win. everyone knows the qb is the most important position on an nfl team, obviously everyone needs to do there part, but those numbers that cote throws out in his article do not lie.

when tanny plays to an 85 plus rating, we win, because that means tannehill played well.

its not rocket science, and i am glad cote and most ppl do understand this.
Click to expand...


I haven't figured out what you understand about football yet. QB rating isn't a QB only stat. It is a (just one) measure of the passing offense's efficiency. It's not even a measure of its volume, just its efficiency. The dropped passes against the Pats lowered Tannehill's QB rating by 20 points. That had nothing to do with Tannehill's play at all. All it did was give twits ammunition to bring to retarded arguments.

---------- Post added at 09:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------
Ilovemyfins4eva said:
can u suggest a good falcons site for me to go to?

i want the best one out there.
Click to expand...

Www.biteme.com
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
I haven't figured out what you understand about football yet. QB rating isn't a QB only stat. It is a (just one) measure of the passing offense's efficiency. It's not even a measure of its volume, just its efficiency. The dropped passes against the Pats lowered Tannehill's QB rating by 20 points. That had nothing to do with Tannehill's play at all. All it did was give twits ammunition to bring to retarded arguments.

---------- Post added at 09:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------



Www.biteme.com
Click to expand...
so y dont u write to greg cote and tell him those numbers mean ****. do u think its a coincidence that we have a good record when he has a certain rating and **** when its below a certain number genius?

who the **** said it was the only thing to measure a qb by, although in the long run it tells a good amount of how well a qb is playing. u keep bringing up specific plays/ games though, dont focus on the big picture, whatever makes ur argument better.

o and www.biteme.com didnt work, can u give me another site, u got me excited for a second, but it said error unfortunately.
 
WVDolphan said:
He is correct. Some of us have said this all along.

And yes, the stats should have been gaudy. They werent. They were in the first half.

This was Tannehill's best game as a pro. He will never have a monster game like the elite QBs do. Hell, Matt Moore has several games in his career with better numbers than Tannehill has ever had despite having more starts than Moore.
Click to expand...

That explains why Tom Brady had poorer numbers last week vs. Oakland in New England's home opener.
 
Dolfan23 said:
Lousy opponent? Weren't the Raiders ranked 6th defensively and didn't they just hold the Pats to 16 points at home? Sure they're bad offensively but Tannehill wasn't throwing against their O.
Click to expand...
Yes Oakland is lousy they haven't won since nov 17th
 
WVDolphan said:
He is correct. Some of us have said this all along.

And yes, the stats should have been gaudy. They werent. They were in the first half.

This was Tannehill's best game as a pro. He will never have a monster game like the elite QBs do. Hell, Matt Moore has several games in his career with better numbers than Tannehill has ever had despite having more starts than Moore.
Click to expand...
It actually wasn't his best game as a pro.. We all know, yourself included no matter how much you want to deny it, that he's had and is capable of having better. At the minimum however he needs to be consistent, and that he definitely is not.

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------
Phinatic8u said:
We were up 24-7, the second half plan was obviously to run the clock out.

He would've had 300 yards and 3 tds if Sims didn't get called for PI.
Click to expand...
This is true
 
Ilovemyfins4eva said:
so y dont u write to greg cote and tell him those numbers mean ****. do u think its a coincidence that we have a good record when he has a certain rating and **** when its below a certain number genius?

who the **** said it was the only thing to measure a qb by, although in the long run it tells a good amount of how well a qb is playing. u keep bringing up specific plays/ games though, dont focus on the big picture, whatever makes ur argument better.

o and www.biteme.com didnt work, can u give me another site, u got me excited for a second, but it said error unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Now, let me see, why would we have a better record when the offense plays better..... Hmmmm......why, oh, why would that be?

Are you serious with this stuff?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom