Tannehill on a shorter leash for 2014 | Page 27 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Tannehill on a shorter leash for 2014

flynryan15 said:
I will take your word for it I'm on my iPhone and don't have the patience to look through that year and break down when he was sacked. I do know he was sacked 8 times in the post season and the pressures, knock downs and hurries were significantly higher.
Click to expand...

No problem. If you want to make anything else up and post it here without bothering to check if it's true or not, feel free to shoot me a PM so I can fact check for you later. It's more enjoyable than actually replying to some of these trash threads right now.
 
Zounds said:
dude gets exempt from a no thanks button but will take every attempt to give me negative rep...and he wants to be taken seriously
Click to expand...

he doesnt want to be taken seriously...he wants to annoy to no end
 
hooshoops said:
he doesnt want to be taken seriously...he wants to annoy to no end
Click to expand...

As I've mentioned before, there are two possible explanations:

1. He really is just a complete moron.
2. He's trolling.

I tend to believe it's the latter since he's been banned from other boards for trolling and he ignored me once he realized that he can never get on my level. If he was really as stupid as his posts indicate, I doubt he'd be self-aware enough to realize that.

Oh, and the whole pretending to be a forensic psychologist until he got called out on flagrantly making stuff up about it.
 
J. David Wannyheimer said:
As I've mentioned before, there are two possible explanations:

1. He really is just a complete moron.
2. He's trolling.

I tend to believe it's the latter since he's been banned from other boards for trolling and he ignored me once he realized that he can never get on my level. If he was really as stupid as his posts indicate, I doubt he'd be self-aware enough to realize that.

Oh, and the whole pretending to be a forensic psychologist until he got called out on flagrantly making stuff up about it.
Click to expand...

I vote (3) all of the above.
 
J. David Wannyheimer said:
No problem. If you want to make anything else up and post it here without bothering to check if it's true or not, feel free to shoot me a PM so I can fact check for you later. It's more enjoyable than actually replying to some of these trash threads right now.
Click to expand...

I didn't make it up like I said when you factor in sacks, knock downs, hurries, collapsed pockets Green Bay was one of the worst and actually still is. I did have the year before the Super Bowl and Super Bowl season backwards as far as sack count.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
Hey, now..... just taking one for the team.... was hoping it would make him stop.
Click to expand...

Well, consider that he hasn't stopped after:

1. Lifting someone's work from another site, completely misinterpreting it to suit his Elmer Fudd-like obsession, and being called out on it by that person himself.
2. Making up bogus assertions about court orders on psychiatric records and then being called out on it by a clinical psychologist.
3. Being called out for posting directly contradictory statements within two posts of each other.
4. Being informed that one of the 'objective' stats he was using was actually completely and provably inaccurate. A rebuttal which was backed up by empirical evidence.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure the only thing that would stop him from posting his 4-5 regurgitated threads per week would be if he were simply stripped of the ability to do so. Worked for a couple of other boards, I'm told.
 
I wonder what was being reported about Brees after his second season?

How'd that work out for San Diego....
 
Since the Packers 2009 was brought up, and since we seem to use stats to determine what our eyes are seeing on this board, I offer the following:

The 2009 Packers had 51 sacks and yet finished 11-5 and made the playoffs...seems like an argument for the sacks don't matter crowd right?

The 2009 Packers started out 4-4......in those 8 games the QB was sacked 37 times.....in the second half of the season the O-line got it together only allowing 14 sacks and they went 7-1.

Hmmm...must be a coincedence that 37 sacks resulted in a .500 first half....and that 14 sacks produced 7-1 in the second half.


Lets look deeper at the first half of that season:


In the four losses Green Bay suffered they were sacked 26 times.


In the four wins, they were only sacked 11 times!


Thanks Ryan.........everything from Green Bays 51 sack season (which was 2009 not 2010) seems to back up the notion that its hard to win when your getting sacked at a high rate.
 
BlueFin said:
Since the Packers 2009 was brought up, and since we seem to use stats to determine what our eyes are seeing on this board, I offer the following:

The 2009 Packers had 51 sacks and yet finished 11-5 and made the playoffs...seems like an argument for the sacks don't matter crowd right?

The 2009 Packers started out 4-4......in those 8 games the QB was sacked 37 times.....in the second half of the season the O-line got it together only allowing 14 sacks and they went 7-1.

Hmmm...must be a coincedence that 37 sacks resulted in a .500 first half....and that 14 sacks produced 7-1 in the second half.


Lets look deeper at the first half of that season:


In the four losses Green Bay suffered they were sacked 26 times.


In the four wins, they were only sacked 11 times!


Thanks Ryan.........everything from Green Bays 51 sack season (which was 2009 not 2010) seems to back up the notion that its hard to win when your getting sacked at a high rate.
Click to expand...

so how come the big difference btw the 1st half and 2nd half in sacks allowed didn't result in more wins in 2013?

1st 8 games:
289 pass attempts, 35 sacks. 1 per every 8.3 attempts

2nd 8 games:
299 pass attempts, 23 sacks. 1 per every 13 attempts

1st half record: 4-4
2nd half: 4-4

and 7 of the 23 came in one game.
 
BlueFin said:
Since the Packers 2009 was brought up, and since we seem to use stats to determine what our eyes are seeing on this board, I offer the following:

The 2009 Packers had 51 sacks and yet finished 11-5 and made the playoffs...seems like an argument for the sacks don't matter crowd right?

The 2009 Packers started out 4-4......in those 8 games the QB was sacked 37 times.....in the second half of the season the O-line got it together only allowing 14 sacks and they went 7-1.

Hmmm...must be a coincedence that 37 sacks resulted in a .500 first half....and that 14 sacks produced 7-1 in the second half.


Lets look deeper at the first half of that season:


In the four losses Green Bay suffered they were sacked 26 times.


In the four wins, they were only sacked 11 times!


Thanks Ryan.........everything from Green Bays 51 sack season (which was 2009 not 2010) seems to back up the notion that its hard to win when your getting sacked at a high rate.
Click to expand...

Sure if you want to ignore the fact that Rodgers is one of the best in the league at buying time and making plays which certainly lead to the wins and less sacks. Can you think of Green Bay games when you don't see Rodgers avoiding pressure and making plays?

Our franchise QB had back to back weeks with the playoffs on the line to step up instead he turned in 2 terrible performances and that is where the doubts come from. By the way he was sacked ZERO times against the Jets yet could never substation drives. The fact that he regressed at the end of the season is worth questioning. You can use the excuse limited starts, lack of experience, etc but there are plenty of question marks on Tannehill and if he were a qb in Buf or New York most on here would sing a different tune.
 
flynryan15 said:
Sure if you want to ignore the fact that Rodgers is one of the best in the league at buying time and making plays which certainly lead to the wins and less sacks. Can you think of Green Bay games when you don't see Rodgers avoiding pressure and making plays?

Our franchise QB had back to back weeks with the playoffs on the line to step up instead he turned in 2 terrible performances and that is where the doubts come from. By the way he was sacked ZERO times against the Jets yet could never substation drives. The fact that he regressed at the end of the season is worth questioning. You can use the excuse limited starts, lack of experience, etc but there are plenty of question marks on Tannehill and if he were a qb in Buf or New York most on here would sing a different tune..
Click to expand...

Ryan...you'll never hear me say Ryan played well against the Jets in week 17...but I also will not give up on him based on one bad performance....I've seen the best to ever play have bad games.

That said I trust my own eyes more than anything...I saw the worst Dolphin O-line in the 43 year history of watching this football team.

I want to see this QB continue to improve, and I want to see him given a decent O-line to work with before I judge him to harshly.

---------- Post added at 12:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 PM ----------

Oh, and Buffalo just manhandled this pathetic O-line....7 sacks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom