I'm not even trying to change anyone's opinion, just the rules of the debate.
Rank Tannehill Among Young QB's?
- Thread starter So Be
- Start date
I'm not even trying to change anyone's opinion, just the rules of the debate.
roy_miami
2020 cant get here soon enough
1. Lucks passer rating is better. And even if it wasn't who gives a ****, he's 22-10 and has won a playoff game
2. I'm not a fan of Newton but his passer rating is still better than Tannehill and his record was 12-4 in 2013
3. Wilson has been the pillar of consistency, 22 of 32 regular season games with a rating of 88+, second only to Manning. Him, Manning, Rodgers and Brees are the only players to average 100+ rating over the past 2 years. When people say consistent they don't mean as little variation from the mean as possible, they mean consistently good, meaning as many good performances as possible, the good part is kind of important. If you play 15 perfect games and one horrible game you will still be labeled as extremely consistent. And Wilson's record? 24-8
4. Tom Brady's passer rating fell back to earth a bit for him in 2013 (still better that tannehill), but his record? 12-4.
See the pattern?
Your'e going to hang your hat on a career rating of 2.4 points higher?
BUT HIS RATING AND RECORD AND PLAYOFF SUCCESS IS LESS THAN WILSON AND NOBODY ****ING OBJECTS THE THE LUCK - WILSON COMPARISON. WTF?????????????????
And what was "his" record for his first two seasons? (which is a fair comparison to Tannehill's first two seasons).
But that is not the situation with Wilson. He has played a number of POOR games, including the playoff game against NO. By some measures, he was below average for the entire last quarter of the season (a fact that is conveniently ignored). His ESPN QBR (where 50 is average) was 48, 49, 11, 26, 25, and 38 in the 6 games leading up to the SB. His TEAM'S record in those 6 games? 4-2
Sure the pattern is you and the other Tannehaters want to use team success (sometimes) as the indicator of a QBs play. I prefer to use team success as an indicator of the team's play. See the difference?
Last edited by a moderator:
Just so you know I'm not making this stuff up:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1923102-49ers-must-take-advantage-of-struggling-russell-wilson-in-nfc-championship
A STRUGGLING RUSSELL WILSON
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/shutdown-corner/greg-cosell-nfc-playoff-preview-examining-russell-wilson-210018029--nfl.html
Examining Russell Wilson’s slump
http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index.ssf/2014/01/seahawks_russell_wilson_not_concerned_about_qbs_recent_struggles_entering_nfc_championship_game.html
not concerned about QB's recent struggles
If you watched the games, his struggles were discussed during every Seahawks game at the end of the season. Please stop pretending he didn't struggle almost as must as Tannehill did. He just played on a better team. Period.
roy_miami
2020 cant get here soon enough
Well if Tannehill got us off to an 11-1 start I'm sure he would be forgiven for a "bad" 5 game stretch. Maybe you just don't understand that every QB has bad throws, bad quarters, bad games and even bad stretches of games. Every single one of them from the ****tiest ones to the greatest of all time. Thats why we look at season long averages and trends over years. And Russell Wilson's average puts him in the same category as QBs that are considered elite by most everyone. Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and Russell Wilson are the four QBs in that category.
You're not going to convince me that Wilson doesn't belong in that category. He passes they eye test. He passes the win/loss test. And he passes the stats test.
Based solely on what they've done so far as pros, Andrew Luck vs. Russell Wilson is not a tough call. It's Wilson by open lengths. Luck has been disappointing in several categories, like his overall yards per attempt, the high number of interceptions his first season, the sharp decline in yards per completion last year, and then the rash of interceptions in last year's playoffs when he nearly equaled his regular season total in two games.
It's ridiculous to ignore Luck's pedigree. He was fantastic at Stanford and slotted as the first pick for more than two years. If Ryan Tannehill shared anything similar I'd have far greater hopes for him. Instead, he was a wide receiver. A damn wide receiver.
I'm a huge believer in caliber of resume when it comes to top picks. If you take somebody that high it should align with long demonstrated greatness and a traditional path. Jamarcus Russell did it all in one season. The prior year he was only honorable mention All-SEC, with pedestrian numbers in terms of touchdowns and interceptions, and yards per attempt that wasn't in the top 30 in the country. Even Cam Newton, for as awesome as he looked at Auburn in 2010, I always kept in mind that he started out at Florida and transferred to a junior college before winding up at Auburn.
Wilson was great at two different schools in college. It was an odd move prior to his senior year. There was apparently a conflict in the coaching staff between Wilson and Mike Glennon, who was becoming uneasy. Coaches apparently worried Glennon would transfer if forced to sit behind Wilson in 2011. I remember reading a Peter King article that claimed Wilson was told to transfer. I'm not sure we've heard the full story. Wilson is such a solid and loyal guy he's not going to express any bitterness. Anyway, if Wilson were slotted as a premier pick I might have wondered about it. Since he's down the path in the second or third round there was no reason for concern. The Wisconsin example served as helpful evidence that Wilson could thrive in more than one offense and environment.
Obviously the stature played a key role in his evaluation. I remember posting a link to a column in the draft forum in spring 2012 that placed Wilson atop the quarterback list based solely on the most vital statistical categories. I think it was a Football Outsiders column. They had him first but dumped him outside the top tier based solely on height. Later they posted an article ripping themselves for the adjustment.
Wilson is essentially the opposite of Tannehill. He started from his redshirt freshman year and was excellent throughout his college career. Then he's subjectively downgraded. Tannehill couldn't get on the field and then was nothing special when he got there. His team lost many more games than the power ratings or halftime scoreboard suggested. Then he's subjectively shoved up the draft boards. I know which version I prefer.
That's been my theme for decades, long before I ever heard of the internet: Take advantage of undervalued excellence and stay away from happy upward adjustments. There's nothing wrong with atypical resumes as long as you don't pay a premium. When you do pay a premium, it's remarkable how dependably it won't work out. That's why when a guy like Tannehill or Weeden show up I don't bother to fully scrutinize every facet of their game. The tape will send you in the wrong direction time after time in situations like that. I'm very confident that I can apply a logical overview and end up closer to the truth than the guys who watch every play. Of course, everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. If you aren't a big picture guy then there's no choice but to analyze every play. ckparrothead is particularly impressive because he's like a hybrid, with ability to apply either version. In my early years here I thought he was overly tape conscious. Recently he started to effectively blend the other aspects. Frankly I think his increased focus on betting props and season wins, etc. has helped. When money is on the line it forces you to sit back and evaluate the true likelihood, as opposed to happy adjusting in the direction of your bias.
Back to Wilson versus Luck, it will be interesting to see if the Colts can forge an offense closer to what Luck enjoyed in college. I bet that team all the time and it was a pleasure. It reached the point I knew what to expect in terms of third down play action and underneath slide routes to the tight ends. Again and again. I would chuckle. How could they not be prepared to that? Luck was very seldom forced to throw deep into coverage without a run threat. That's why I didn't condemn the Colts for the Richardson trade. It made situational sense in terms of emulating a Stanford offense. Maybe Richardson was simply overstated.
Tannehill doesn't have Luck's football instincts or overall ability but likewise we need to maximize his opportunity by increased use of snaps from under center and play action. Have I already posted that in this thread? I lose track. There are so many threads like this. I don't always check to see if they are recent vintage or bumped from several months earlier.
It's ridiculous to ignore Luck's pedigree. He was fantastic at Stanford and slotted as the first pick for more than two years. If Ryan Tannehill shared anything similar I'd have far greater hopes for him. Instead, he was a wide receiver. A damn wide receiver.
I'm a huge believer in caliber of resume when it comes to top picks. If you take somebody that high it should align with long demonstrated greatness and a traditional path. Jamarcus Russell did it all in one season. The prior year he was only honorable mention All-SEC, with pedestrian numbers in terms of touchdowns and interceptions, and yards per attempt that wasn't in the top 30 in the country. Even Cam Newton, for as awesome as he looked at Auburn in 2010, I always kept in mind that he started out at Florida and transferred to a junior college before winding up at Auburn.
Wilson was great at two different schools in college. It was an odd move prior to his senior year. There was apparently a conflict in the coaching staff between Wilson and Mike Glennon, who was becoming uneasy. Coaches apparently worried Glennon would transfer if forced to sit behind Wilson in 2011. I remember reading a Peter King article that claimed Wilson was told to transfer. I'm not sure we've heard the full story. Wilson is such a solid and loyal guy he's not going to express any bitterness. Anyway, if Wilson were slotted as a premier pick I might have wondered about it. Since he's down the path in the second or third round there was no reason for concern. The Wisconsin example served as helpful evidence that Wilson could thrive in more than one offense and environment.
Obviously the stature played a key role in his evaluation. I remember posting a link to a column in the draft forum in spring 2012 that placed Wilson atop the quarterback list based solely on the most vital statistical categories. I think it was a Football Outsiders column. They had him first but dumped him outside the top tier based solely on height. Later they posted an article ripping themselves for the adjustment.
Wilson is essentially the opposite of Tannehill. He started from his redshirt freshman year and was excellent throughout his college career. Then he's subjectively downgraded. Tannehill couldn't get on the field and then was nothing special when he got there. His team lost many more games than the power ratings or halftime scoreboard suggested. Then he's subjectively shoved up the draft boards. I know which version I prefer.
That's been my theme for decades, long before I ever heard of the internet: Take advantage of undervalued excellence and stay away from happy upward adjustments. There's nothing wrong with atypical resumes as long as you don't pay a premium. When you do pay a premium, it's remarkable how dependably it won't work out. That's why when a guy like Tannehill or Weeden show up I don't bother to fully scrutinize every facet of their game. The tape will send you in the wrong direction time after time in situations like that. I'm very confident that I can apply a logical overview and end up closer to the truth than the guys who watch every play. Of course, everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. If you aren't a big picture guy then there's no choice but to analyze every play. ckparrothead is particularly impressive because he's like a hybrid, with ability to apply either version. In my early years here I thought he was overly tape conscious. Recently he started to effectively blend the other aspects. Frankly I think his increased focus on betting props and season wins, etc. has helped. When money is on the line it forces you to sit back and evaluate the true likelihood, as opposed to happy adjusting in the direction of your bias.
Back to Wilson versus Luck, it will be interesting to see if the Colts can forge an offense closer to what Luck enjoyed in college. I bet that team all the time and it was a pleasure. It reached the point I knew what to expect in terms of third down play action and underneath slide routes to the tight ends. Again and again. I would chuckle. How could they not be prepared to that? Luck was very seldom forced to throw deep into coverage without a run threat. That's why I didn't condemn the Colts for the Richardson trade. It made situational sense in terms of emulating a Stanford offense. Maybe Richardson was simply overstated.
Tannehill doesn't have Luck's football instincts or overall ability but likewise we need to maximize his opportunity by increased use of snaps from under center and play action. Have I already posted that in this thread? I lose track. There are so many threads like this. I don't always check to see if they are recent vintage or bumped from several months earlier.
roy_miami
2020 cant get here soon enough
I was wishing Luck would turn out to be a bust and karma would bite Indy fans in the ass, but its not to be and its almost a lock that Luck will be as advertised. I love Luck, tough as nails, he's a football player and understands situational football, he wins, and I love his cadence, he sounds what I envision an army general from the 1800's sounded like barking out commands on the line. He so easily could have been ours. WHY IN THE **** DID MATT MOORE HAVE TO BE SO GOD DAMNED AVERAGE!!!?!!!!?!
And you'll never convince me that Wilson has been individually great so far. He has been a good QB in a great situation.
I watched him come up small against NO. If it weren't for the running game and defense carrying him for six consecutive games, the book on him would be that he is a very promising but still developing young QB, which is exactly what I consider him.
Wilson was no better at NC State than Tannehill was at A&M. One story is that the coaching staff was going to start Glennon over Wilson. As to why Wilson started as a redshirt freshman and Tannehill didn't, you simply have to look at the play of the other QBs on the rosters. Daniel Evan's career stats are 54% completion %, 5.9 YPA, 19 TDs, and 29 INTs. Jerrod Johnson's career numbers are 58.6 % 7.2 YPA 7. 67 TDs and 27 INTs.
Wilson's college career was a good predictor of his pro career so far. Put him on a team that centers around the passing game (NC State in 2010) and his completion % was 58.4 and his YPA was 6.8. Put him on a team that is run first (Wisconsin in 2011) and his completion % jumps to 72% and his YPA jumps to 10. Good luck keeping a dominant running game for 10 or more years.
Tannehill's numbers are BETTER in almost every category when put in similar situations (run/pass mix). Simply compare Wilson's numbers in 2010 and Tannehill's numbers in 2011.
IMO, this will be the pattern for Wilson's career.
Seattle's running game isn't predicated on dominance as much as commitment. With the injuries to the O-line, Seattle only averaged 4.3 YPC in 2013 - which was only slightly above average (tied with the Colts for 12th in the NFL). In 2012, Seattle averaged 4.8 YPC (5th in the NFL). Behind Lynch, Seattle has Michael and Turbin - each talented and about 220 lbs. What's more, assuming he's being honest, Russell Wilson understands the importance of balance in an offense. When asked about increased passing attempts - in light of a healthy Harvin and their two rookie WR's - Wilson always maintains the importance of being a physical football team and a balanced football team, and for the offense, that starts with a commitment to the running game. Seattle is built for multiple runs at a SB. I believe only 4 QB's have won the SB within their first two seasons in the NFL - Kurt Warner, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, and Russell Wilson. Pretty good company for Wilson, and Wilson has put up better numbers than Brady or Roethlisberger did in their first two seasons. Wilson has absolutely benefited from an organization operating at the highest level, but he's made the most of it. When you put his performance in the context of the history of the NFL, you couldn't ask him to do anything more. In the simplest terms, Wilson has played great on a great team, and Tannehill has played below average on an average team. When in the history of sports would you take the guy with Tannehill's credentials over the guy with Wilson's?
As far as Seattle's continued success, I see two obstacles - the NFC West and Pete Carroll's age.
This is bullsh1t, especially the average team part. If you honestly believe that the rest of the Dolphins offense was average, then you need to take off the homer glasses.
Wilson played very good under nearly ideal circumstances and Tannehill played good under the worst circumstances.
Twitches Brew
Active Roster
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 1,263
- Reaction score
- 5
Seattle pre-Wilson: 7-9, 7-9
Seattle w/ Wilson: 11-5, 13-3
Miami pre-Tannehill: 7-9, 6-10
Miami w/ Tannehill: 7-9, 8-8
But yea, for talking about homer glasses...lol. How many non-Dolphins fans would take Tannehill over Luck and Wilson? My guess is zero.
Phinatic8u
Club Member
Look I'm not here to argue, I have more important things to do, but you can't put that record on Wilson alone. Have you seen that defense?
Obviously not.
That defense carried that team since Wilson was drafted. Carroll and the GM have built a elite dominate defense in 3 short years. With or without Russell Wilson.
Twitches Brew
Active Roster
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 1,263
- Reaction score
- 5
In 2011 before Wilson got there they were top-10 in total defense and ppg. They won only seven games. Wilson shows up and they win 11. In what world is a QB (by far the most important player on the field) not given credit for a team's 4-game turnaround?
He has to bring the INTs down. I think preseason last year, most would have been happy with 24 passing TDs (I think the Jets game just left a very sour taste in a lot of people's mouths), and while not all 17 INTs were on him, there were a few that were him just waiting a second or two too long.
The question, as I've said all offseason, is how will Ryan Tannehill adjust to Bill Lazor's offense. Again, while Tannehill must shoulder his fair share of the blame from last year, I have also been very vocal in my displeasure with how Mike Sherman ran things on offense.
Oh and people have to stop trying to downplay Russel Wilson because of the defense. Yes it helps him a lot, and in a lot of ways Wilson is protected by the system he runs, BUT he doesn't make many mistakes. He also is smart about when to use his athleticism to extend plays. Honestly, I wish we had the system that Seattle did at times, but we didn't have the physicality on offense to do that.
The question, as I've said all offseason, is how will Ryan Tannehill adjust to Bill Lazor's offense. Again, while Tannehill must shoulder his fair share of the blame from last year, I have also been very vocal in my displeasure with how Mike Sherman ran things on offense.
Oh and people have to stop trying to downplay Russel Wilson because of the defense. Yes it helps him a lot, and in a lot of ways Wilson is protected by the system he runs, BUT he doesn't make many mistakes. He also is smart about when to use his athleticism to extend plays. Honestly, I wish we had the system that Seattle did at times, but we didn't have the physicality on offense to do that.