23 sacks in 8 games sucks.............big improvement!
Tannehill on a shorter leash for 2014
- Thread starter Miami 13
- Start date
it's funny, all offseason I heard how talented you were but now b/c the team failed they weren't talented? look at your weapons, look at ours. we had the same record w/ half the talent.
he's been sacked 50+ times twice, both times led team to playoffs
2009: 50 sacks in 541 attempts, one every 10.8 pass attempts
2012: 51 in 552, 10.8
Ryan 2013: 58 in 588, 10.1
similar.
run games:
GB 2012: green/benson/starks: 277 carries, 3.5 YPC
Miami 2013: top 2 backs: 286 carries, 3.9 YPC
GB 2012 made div rd, scored 48 points in 2 playoff games
Mia 2013 lost to Buf and NYj scoring 7 points TOTAL in weeks 16 & 17 needing one win to make playoffs
Obviously it's not fair to compare him to Rodgers(even if he is a young, more athletic Tom Brady) but it is possible to win w/ a struggling OL and he had a much better D than GB too.
There is no correlation between sacks suffered on offense and the measures of QB play most strongly correlated with winning:
http://www.finheaven.com/showthread...h-NFL-Quarterback-Play-and-Winning&highlight=
And there was no correlation, game-to-game, in 2013, between the sacks the Dolphins experienced on offense and those measures of Ryan Tannehill's play. In other words, when the Dolphins were sacked less, Ryan Tannehill didn't play any better in those games, nor did he play any worse in the games in which he was sacked more, and he wasn't pressured any more often than the average QB on the season. In fact he was pressured slightly less often than the average QB in 2013.
This is a red herring, folks. Go 'round and 'round about it if you wish, but it's meaningless in terms of judging the play of Ryan Tannehill in 2013 or the future.
flynryan15
Club Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- 1,898
I wasn't **** slinging Flynn and Rodgers were two of the most pressured QBs when you figure in sacks, knock downs, and pressures that year and the year before and year after.
No...there is no correlation between getting hammered 58 times, losing your confidence in your protection, and your performance!
Sell crazy some place else....no one that matters agrees with you!
Tell Dan Marino after Supbowl 19 that it doesn't matter!
Sell crazy some place else....no one that matters agrees with you!
Tell Dan Marino after Supbowl 19 that it doesn't matter!
when you consider 7 came in one game yeah that was a huge improvement plus they played some really good Ds.
you guys can make all the excuses you want, plays were there to be made, games were there to be won and he failed. It wasn't all on him but if he played well they play in postseason.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 10,393
- Reaction score
- 13,265
Yep, just like I thought. It's a Dolphins vs. Jets thing
As always, "if you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness."
please explain how he lost his confidence winning 4 of 5 games including beating NE heading into those final 2 weeks?
---------- Post added at 11:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------
nope, just pointing out difference in talent.
According to Gravity/Shouright, we could field 6 players with no OL blocking and our Qb would perform just as well.
As always, "if you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness."
how come you don't have a lie button for your posts?
hoops
Tua time!
ok yeah 10-6 and i think that only got em in as the #6 seed...but i do remember rodgers was getting killed early that year...oline definitely the elephant in the room...remember thinking rodgers will never last with all that contact...hard contact too
---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 AM ----------
like i said no football common sense...he can shove that red herring crap up his ***
You mean all you're offering here is what the common man already thinks he knows? :unsure:
Well that is where it came from
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Messages
- 30,099
- Reaction score
- 15,369
As always, "if you can't attack the evidence, attack the witness."
Fortunately, when the witness has been proved to be a quack, it's actually a pretty good line of argument. It saves time. For instance, if you were to attend a conference on anthropology and/or archaeology and asked someone to comment on Erich von Daniken's latest dumbass hypothesis, you'd be laughed out of the room.
Nobody wants to waste their time arguing with a snake oil peddler over the merits of his latest offering that has the words 'CASTOR OIL' crossed out on the label and replaced with 'WONDER DRUG.'
Well, FinFanInBuffalo seems to enjoy it.
You mean all you're offering here is what the common man already thinks he knows? :unsure:
The common man is someone you should look up to.