There were a few nut jobs saying Mitchell was better than Marino and was the future of the franchise .... but that didn't last too long. I believe they sobered up rather quickly.
Manning out ...next Brady
- Thread starter fisi
- Start date
There were a few nut jobs saying Mitchell was better than Marino and was the future of the franchise .... but that didn't last too long. I believe they sobered up rather quickly.
Oh yeah.
What derailed Mitchell here IMHO was when he got hurt and Deberg had to step in. Had Mitchell stayed on that year people would've been calling for it even more. Shula would've never done it mind you but it was going to be more than just murmurs and a reporter or two talking about 'possibilities'.
People here didn't respect what they had. If the guy didn't throw 4 TDs a game they got pissed off. From like 1991 on, I remember reading articles about who's the next guy who will take his place and it really started with Mitchell, then Erickson for awhile, then Huard.
Back in '92 the rage was about how would this be his last best shot at a Super Bowl (AFC championship against Buffalo) and when is he going to retire. Like wtf....what was he at the time in his late 20s/early 30s? I heard no one asking that about Manning or Brady when they were in that age range, then again I don't live where they play...
I already have.
Edit: you know what, let me make this very clear...
You said can't compare numbers between Tannehill/Brady because that was another era, but the difference is only the way the receivers are being covered, Tannehill has proven to be a very adaptable QB, he learns quicky, and succeeds, so it's very possible that numbers would have been pretty much the same.
You said that Brady is in your top 5, but if we go with your theory of nut comparing numbers, 1st off you can never put Brady's name in the same sentence as Marino, because in his time, the QBs were not protected as well as they are today, also if we are continuing your can't compare QBs from a different era, then those QBs I mentioned did it in a tougher time for QBs to succeed.
Odds are you still will not understand, and continue to be confused, and will bring up the "What does stats have to do with Marino and Brady, but we are not talking stats, Stats is only to show how similar they are, and how Tannehill continued to get better, and how Brady started good, but never got better in those 3 years.
If your still confused, I can't help you.
Last edited by a moderator:
hoops
Tua time!
same thing happened with matt moore and tannehill
you are confused. re-read my posts.
fisi
Active Roster
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,449
- Reaction score
- 23
You are absolutely out of your mind! Tannehill had a better yer than Luck other than team success. Indy was built to be successful, Miami is not. I mean coaching players and of course a terrible division.
Hey I like Ryan Tannehill. I have defended him from his detractors on this site. I think he is a really good young quarterback. With that being said, this post is ridiculous. First of all, it's a little soon to be closing the book on Brady- especially after what we saw this past Saturday. Also, no way should we be mentioning Ryan Tannehill in the same sentence with these guys at this time. The kid is good, but you are comparing him to the league's elite at the position.
phins_4_ever
E12 FH Tailgate Gang
Do you know who said the phrase "stats are for losers"?
You can hide behind stats. I can tell you what the difference between Luck and Tannehill is. The intangibles like being willing to take the team on his back. No matter how bad his OL plays or how horrid the running game is Luck is a risk taker. That is a sign of a franchise QB. Facing 3rd and long (over 10 yards) his throws beyond the 10 yard maker far outweight the little dump offs. For Luck these short throws are last resort and for Tannehill a safe way not to risk an INT. But I want my franchise QB too take risk on a regular basis and I forgive him a 2 INT game if those INTs come on 3rd and a mile or a deep pass.
Guys like Luck will their team to victory. For them failure is not an option. You see that philosophy in every franchise QB: Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Luck, Wilson.....u name them.
Can Tannehill make throws like Luck? Yeah, occasionally. But so can the Ortons, the Daltons, the Sanchez' etc. The question is: can they do it regularly like a franchise QB?
Luck stands out on his team. It is his team. Tannehill goes under with the team. He is one of them. Stat's are for losers because a franchise QB has the attitude of a franchise QB. People call it the 'it' factor.
I don't even want to approach the subject 'crappy division'. You act like the AFC East is a world beater division. Please.
hoops
Tua time!
Luck and tannehill are working under different offenses...there's no doubt luck takes more shots down the field but lucks offense doesn't incorporate a lot of throws designed to be at or around the Los like the one miami does under Lazor...
There's a reason the miami staff has emphasized getting the ball out quickly and luck is also working under the same offense since he came into the league so he's also more familiar with the route combinations relative to coverages etc than tannehill who has essentially started anew there from anything he ran in college or his first 2 years as a pro
There's a reason the miami staff has emphasized getting the ball out quickly and luck is also working under the same offense since he came into the league so he's also more familiar with the route combinations relative to coverages etc than tannehill who has essentially started anew there from anything he ran in college or his first 2 years as a pro
hahahahah
hahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha
ahahaha
ahahhahahaha
ahahahaha
ahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha
lolololololololololololololololol
I like Tannehill, but let's be real: Tannehill is not in the same galaxy as Luck.
He is a different breed. He was born to play quarterback.
Tannehill is a good QB that will have some success in this league, but once his career is over he will be an afterthought in NFL history while Luck will be mentioned among the greats.
You didn't see the Minnesota game then.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2004
- Messages
- 5,928
- Reaction score
- 11,028
Not sticking up with the tannehill better than luck argument but you are correct about the offensive skeam and the throws on or around the LOS. Watch philly and you see the same thing...I was surprised how close they look.
Luck is head and shoulders above any QB I have seen drafted since Manning. I'm just thankful we didn't sell the farm for RG3.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2004
- Messages
- 5,928
- Reaction score
- 11,028
Your right but johnny U late 60's early 70's brought a lot of attention to the Colt's and we did play them in the championship game being one of his last great moments.
The Jets and Pats were always hanging around the bottom, kind of a thorn in our side and hoping to be a spoiler. Everything has change since 2000...
What? That red-headed yutz has gone to 4 straight playoffs. Yeah they always lose in the first round but you can't say Tannehill is better when he's had less success.