PFF rates the Dolphins | Page 7 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

PFF rates the Dolphins

FinfanInBuffalo said:
Luck is the better QB but he is hugely over rated right now. He is being treated like the QB he is likely to become not the QB that he is now.

As for Wilson, I'm not the only one that feels that way. When you win games while going 9-18 for 103, you are being carried by your team. This was from one of the articles I linked:



Tannehill would have lost games with numbers like Wilson posted and been roasted on this forum for it.

I asked this in another post, have you watched a Dolphins game in the last 2 years and thought to yourself "Tannehill is off today, the running game will have to win it for them"? Seattle beat SF early in the season in a game where Wilson completed EIGHT passes. They scored 29 points when their QB completed EIGHT passes. There is no way that happens with the Dolphins. Similar games for Wilson have happened numerous times in the last two seasons. In those games, he played no better than Tannehill did against the Bills and Jets. The difference is that his defense and running game picks up the slack many times. I'm shocked that people can't see the difference.
Click to expand...

The so called negative passer rating PFF gives a qb with a 100 qb rating is just another reason I don't have a lot of respect for PFF. Seattle does have a better defense and can survive when the qb dosnt have a great game and a big part of the reason is Wilson does not turn the ball over a lot. When you only throw like 10 interceptions a year, you are more apt to win than lose because turnovers are what changes games. Teams that turn the ball over a lot don't win much. You average an interception basically every two games and you should be in good shape
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
And that somehow diminishes the fact that he has rushed for more than 2800 yards over the last two seasons? Team dynamics change over time. IMO, we can't fully judge Wilson until we see how he responds to being the focal point of the offense.
Click to expand...

We judge him on the job he does. Not every qb has to throw the ball 50 times a game to make an impact. Tannehill has twice as many interceptions and quite a few less touchdowns in two seasons.
You cant have your cake and eat it too. If Lamar Miller was putting up 1300 yards rushing and Tannehill had 27 tds and 10 interceptions you would not be saying we cannot judge him adequately.
Personally I think the numbers speak for themselves. I was never a fan of Wilson but I have to admit he is better than any qb in that draft at this point.
 
dlockz said:
The so called negative passer rating PFF gives a qb with a 100 qb rating is just another reason I don't have a lot of respect for PFF. Seattle does have a better defense and can survive when the qb dosnt have a great game and a big part of the reason is Wilson does not turn the ball over a lot. When you only throw like 10 interceptions a year, you are more apt to win than lose because turnovers are what changes games. Teams that turn the ball over a lot don't win much. You average an interception basically every two games and you should be in good shape
Click to expand...

And Wilson doesn't turn the ball over a lot because teams must play them honestly. They don't often fall behind because they have the #1 scoring defense. You are a lot less likely to throw INTs when you throw 20 - 25 passes a game under favorable conditions.
 
dlockz said:
We judge him on the job he does. Not every qb has to throw the ball 50 times a game to make an impact. Tannehill has twice as many interceptions and quite a few less touchdowns in two seasons.
You cant have your cake and eat it too. If Lamar Miller was putting up 1300 yards rushing and Tannehill had 27 tds and 10 interceptions you would not be saying we cannot judge him adequately.
Personally I think the numbers speak for themselves. I was never a fan of Wilson but I have to admit he is better than any qb in that draft at this point.
Click to expand...

If that were true, there wouldn't be common terms like "game manager" and "care taker" for QBs in an offense that doesn't ask much of them. You cannot pretend that this isn't a common way of viewing QBs in the league. You may not subscribe to it but it is quite common.

Let's have this discussion again when Tannehill has 4 or 5 games in a season where he completes 10 or 11 passes or less and still wins or when Wilson has no running game and must throw on every down. Until then it is all speculation.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
If that were true, there wouldn't be common terms like "game manager" and "care taker" for QBs in an offense that doesn't ask much of them. You cannot pretend that this isn't a common way of viewing QBs in the league. You may not subscribe to it but it is quite common.

Let's have this discussion again when Tannehill has 4 or 5 games in a season where he completes 10 or 11 passes or less and still wins or when Wilson has no running game and must throw on every down. Until then it is all speculation.
Click to expand...

I like talking with you but you are one of the types that thinks you have to take qb's and switch teams to judge them. He is more than a game manager, he has 52 touchdown passes in two seasons compared to Tannehill who has like 38. ANY QB THAT HAS has to throw very down will probably be doomed even Peyton. It just seems when its a player or a coach on any other team people make excuses for their success and excuses against our lack of success. Yes Seattle is good enough to overcome a bad game or two from their qb but that doesn't take away that he is a very good qb and has far from elite weapons at wr
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
When you start a post with an incorrect assumption, you are likely to conclude it with an incorrect allusion.
Click to expand...
And so the basis of your view of Andrew Luck is what? Your personal opinion only? If so, that's fine, and we can end there.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
If that were true, there wouldn't be common terms like "game manager" and "care taker" for QBs in an offense that doesn't ask much of them. You cannot pretend that this isn't a common way of viewing QBs in the league. You may not subscribe to it but it is quite common.
Click to expand...
Alex Smith was in that role this year with Kansas City. Compare his numbers to Wilson's.

---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------
FinfanInBuffalo said:
And Wilson doesn't turn the ball over a lot because teams must play them honestly. They don't often fall behind because they have the #1 scoring defense. You are a lot less likely to throw INTs when you throw 20 - 25 passes a game under favorable conditions.
Click to expand...
So then there should be a correlation between Wilson's play and the play of his defense and running game. Is there, or is this just your personal theory and opinion?
 
dlockz said:
I like talking with you but you are one of the types that thinks you have to take qb's and switch teams to judge them.
Click to expand...

That's not what I believe.

I believe you judge each QB based on more than just the stats. Agree or not?

I believe that football is a team game and different teams put different burdens on their QBs. Agree or not?

I believe Tannehill was burdened more than Wilson over the last two season. Agree or not?

Wilson's weapons last season were better than Tannehill's. Agree or not?

This season they were more comparable. Agree or not?

What happened? The TDs were closer this season. This is true.

That is not an accident, IMO.

BTW, I'm not saying that Wilson CAN'T carry a team, just that he hasn't had to. Based on his attitude it seems like he will certainly get better. I just can't be excited about a QB who's typical game is 14-22 for 180 because without a running game and the #1 defense, that's good enough to get you beat. I also can't ignore the 2nd half against the Saints. Wilson was awful, at least as bad as any half of football that Tannehill has played.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
BTW, I'm not saying that Wilson CAN'T carry a team, just that he hasn't had to. Based on his attitude it seems like he will certainly get better. I just can't be excited about a QB who's typical game is 14-22 for 180 because without a running game and the #1 defense, that's good enough to get you beat. I also can't ignore the 2nd half against the Saints. Wilson was awful, at least as bad as any half of football that Tannehill has played.
Click to expand...
Actually with the 8.2 YPA that corresponds to, you'd be in a great position to win a very high percentage of games, regardless of the strength of the other areas of the team. And you certainly wouldn't need anywhere near as strong as the #1 defense in the league to create the kind of YPA differential with opposing teams that would make that likelihood of winning even more strong.

I think your issue here is that you have an inadequate understanding of what exactly is most likely to make teams win, and that's efficiency in the passing game, coupled with the kind of defense that makes opposing teams less efficient in the passing game, and you certainly wouldn't need the very best defense in the league if your quarterback was pumping out 8.2 yards per attempt on average.

That's where the contemporary NFL is, and Russell Wilson is certainly holding up his end of that bargain overall, despite the inevitable poorer performances here and there.

Is Ryan Tannehill holding up his end of that bargain so far? No. And there's no objective evidence that's attributable to anyone but him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom