Tannehill QB rating 107 today, Luck 79 | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Tannehill QB rating 107 today, Luck 79

Tannehill did have the winning game today, but the difference between the performance was not near as much as the QB rating would suggest. Luck's ability to move the chains with his feet and pocket presence doesn't shown up there, and Tannehill's fumbles and inferior ability to avoid the rush also isn't accounted for. Those two things are what made this a game decided by a 4th down sack deep in our own territory and not a landslide like the rating would suggest.
 
DphinBillkiller said:
Tannehill has lead his team to two consecutive victories. Half the leagues QB's haven't accomplished that. The guy certainly can makes the plays and has been very cool under pressure.

Tannehillsiggif-1.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes he has. I think he'll be ok. He's just going to get better.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------
Sirspud said:
Tannehill did have the winning game today, but the difference between the performance was not near as much as the QB rating would suggest. Luck's ability to move the chains with his feet and pocket presence doesn't shown up there, and Tannehill's fumbles and inferior ability to avoid the rush also isn't accounted for. Those two things are what made this a game decided by a 4th down sack deep in our own territory and not a landslide like the rating would suggest.
Click to expand...
Difference being that Luck's been groomed at the position. RT is still gaining a comfort level at it. And he's learning on a tigt curve while WINNING as often as he's lost
 
It only seems that way because Luck extended plays and made quicker decisions in the pocket. I like RT, but Luck is clearly the superior QB. He gets rid of the ball faster (for the most part) and he knows when to run. RT is a good athlete, so I don't understand why he seems reluctant to tuck it away and run. On at least 2 of his sacks and had a lane to run, but he stuck in the pocket and allowed it to collapse.
 
GoonBoss said:
Difference being that Luck's been groomed at the position. RT is still gaining a comfort level at it. And he's learning on a tigt curve while WINNING as often as he's lost
Click to expand...

When discussing their performance on the field today, how long they have been playing the position is irrelevant. Both QB's played well today, and when it comes down to it the deciding factor was probably not either team's QB, but our front seven's ability to prevent Luck from having a chance to make plays at the end of the game.
 
Sirspud said:
When discussing their performance on the field today, how long they have been playing the position is irrelevant. Both QB's played well today, and when it comes down to it the deciding factor was probably not either team's QB, but our front seven's ability to prevent Luck from having a chance to make plays at the end of the game.
Click to expand...

When it came down to the deciding factor, one team scored more than the other one.
 
jlfin said:
It only seems that way because Luck extended plays and made quicker decisions in the pocket. I like RT, but Luck is clearly the superior QB. He gets rid of the ball faster (for the most part) and he knows when to run. RT is a good athlete, so I don't understand why he seems reluctant to tuck it away and run. On at least 2 of his sacks and had a lane to run, but he stuck in the pocket and allowed it to collapse.
Click to expand...

There's way more to being able to pick up yards on the ground as a QB than sheer athleticism. The better QB's in the league, athletic or not, develop a sixth sense for the pass rush that Tannehill simply doesn't have yet. Although it is incredibly frustrating to see Tannehill take sacks due to still developing pocket presence, I've seen enough bad QB play from athletic qb's to know that I'd rather have a QB run too little than one who runs too much and never learns to make plays with his, which is the key to long-term NFL success especially against higher competition in the playoffs.
 
GoonBoss said:
When it came down to the deciding factor, one team scored more than the other one.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the other team's QB was in scoring range and was taken down by our front seven before he could throw a pass. If you don't want to discuss the reasons why the score ended up the way it did, why don't you just check out the box score at NFL.com? I'm sure it has all you need.
 
Sirspud said:
There's way more to being able to pick up yards on the ground as a QB than sheer athleticism. The better QB's in the league, athletic or not, develop a sixth sense for the pass rush that Tannehill simply doesn't have yet. Although it is incredibly frustrating to see Tannehill take sacks due to still developing pocket presence, I've seen enough bad QB play from athletic qb's to know that I'd rather have a QB run too little than one who runs too much and never learns to make plays with his, which is the key to long-term NFL success especially against higher competition in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Whatever. Can't ever have a good day. Take a hike. Let the people that enjoy a win, take a win.

The guy is still a project, and he's already doing better than lots of guys that have been groomed for the position.
 
Sirspud said:
There's way more to being able to pick up yards on the ground as a QB than sheer athleticism. The better QB's in the league, athletic or not, develop a sixth sense for the pass rush that Tannehill simply doesn't have yet. Although it is incredibly frustrating to see Tannehill take sacks due to still developing pocket presence, I've seen enough bad QB play from athletic qb's to know that I'd rather have a QB run too little than one who runs too much and never learns to make plays with his, which is the key to long-term NFL success especially against higher competition in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

If you can't see the difference between the OL play of the Colts and the OL play of Miami... uh. um. seriously man.

Was Tanny's pocket presence as good as Lucks? No. But his OL was light-years worse in pass pro. You can't be serious, trying to puff Luck after this game.

Please. Give Tanny his due, with a crap OL and very little pass pro, he still made enough plays to beat a tough team in their own home.

LD
 
Sirspud said:
Yes, because the other team's QB was in scoring range and was taken down by our front seven before he could throw a pass. If you don't want to discuss the reasons why the score ended up the way it did, why don't you just check out the box score at NFL.com? I'm sure it has all you need.
Click to expand...

One teams QB lead their team to more points than the other QB.

Or am I wrong? Tannehill didn't do anything, right? We just ****ing WILLED ourselves into more points than the other team.
 
Ryan def outplayed luck today. Luck is a heck of a qb tho.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free
 
Im pretty sure we had 6 sacks, but yeah the man is a monster! ​



No, that's just what Dan Fouts said when he was talking out his you know what again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom