Tannehill vs Luck

[tay0365]

Please Luck is a once in a decade talent... he will win multiple super bowls.

Tanny is just another in a long line of mediocre QB's we've trotted out since Dan.

What tells you this, because of what he did in College, then I guess Peyton Manning was a once in a lifetime QB, but guys by the name of Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger all should never ever be spoke in the same sentence as Manning?

Manning is a far more physically talented QB then QBs like Brady or Brees, but guess what, I would love any one of the three.

Luck is going to be great, but he has not to this point distanced himself from any of the other three, and unless you decided to not watch either of the Luck/Tannhill games, you had to have seen that Tannehill was matching Luck play by play (With Tannehill having a much better final drive in game 2 then Luck did).

 

[shoveyjoe2442]

Again, you're stuck in the land of theory. Next. :)

What tells you this, because of what he did in College, then I guess Peyton Manning was a once in a lifetime QB, but guys by the name of Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger all should never ever be spoke in the same sentence as Manning?

Manning is a far more physically talented QB then QBs like Brady or Brees, but guess what, I would love any one of the three.

Luck is going to be great, but he has not to this point distanced himself from any of the other three, and unless you decided to not watch either of the Luck/Tannhill games, you had to have seen that Tannehill was matching Luck play by play (With Tannehill having a much better final drive in game 2 then Luck did).

Don't bother

 

[Shouright]

How are direct quotes from the Colts OC a theory? He states his offensive philosophy, which directly disproves your prior post that the Colts offense is tougher to run than the Fins, as the philosophies behind the two are almost exactly the same. Some of the things you post when you are proven wrong are just asinine.

Like I said to begin with, after you smarted off during your initial volley here, a quote says nothing about how often Andrew Luck is passing the ball, or how often he's passing the ball downfiled, which was the basis of one of the threads of mine you quoted originally, when I showed that Luck, much more so than the other rookie QBs last year, was running an offense that passed the ball more, and passed the ball downfield more.

Do you really think a quote from someone definitively tells us he's passing the ball less, and passing the ball downfield less, this year?

 

[tay0365]

I am tired to death of this topic so I'll just say this once. Luck was the once in a generation QB that Dan Marino, Brady, Manning, and Montana were. You only get so many of these QB's and every year they're contenders. They carry their squads, make something out of nothing, and have the "it" factor.

So Elway was not on that level according to you I assume, because if I can remind you, in the 1983 draft, Elway was supposed to be what everyone is expecting Luck to be, and Marino was an overrated QB, that most the brilliant GMs thought might be an OK QB in the right situation...how did that work out for everyone not called Broncos? Oh and nobody thought much of Brady, until his 3rd year, where he proved everyone that he was the real deal, but yea, Tannehill has no shot... have fun continue believing that thought. You must have been very confused while the none IT factor Tannehill had the final drive to win the game against the Colts.

Ryan Tannehill does not have this factor. He has no feel for the pocket collapsing. He has no passion for the game. He probably couldn't tell you the teams in every division. He plays the QB position like a guy who used to be a WR.

Wow, then I feel bad for Luck, because this WR playing QB has looked as good as him when they played, and been rated around the same as him, I guess Luck is not going to be that one in a lifetime talent you guys think him to be.

From year 1 to year 2 he's still staring guys down, still using the same "go go" snaps, still turning the ball over at alarming rates, and still under .500. Sorry, Luck and Tannehill are not close in talent or ability.

No from year one to year two, you know what Tannehill has done, he has improved from the year before, something that you home of your young QB, especially when he does not have as much experience as the guy that everyone know will be a superstar eventually. I guess you guys will see what you want, and those wins Miami got were just mirages, just a figment of our imagination...never happed, because we don't really have a QB, but a receiver playing QB.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

Don't bother

True. Some people will see what they want to see, and nothing else.

 

[HumbleColtsFan]

Tannehill is a solid young QB, and was my 2nd favorite out of the draft before he even played a snap. Everyone on our forums wonder who will be the "Brady" to Luck's "Manning" and the general consensus is Tannehill, which I hope for. The skies in MIA are not as dreary as some think guys!!!!!!!!


Also as far as our offense. Luck is throwing the ball a lot less, but he is still taking his shots downfield.

 

[Shouright]

Tannehill is a solid young QB, and was my 2nd favorite out of the draft before he even played a snap. Everyone on our forums wonder who will be the "Brady" to Luck's "Manning" and the general consensus is Tannehill, which I hope for. The skies in MIA are not as dreary as some think guys!!!!!!!!


Also as far as our offense. Luck is throwing the ball a lot less, but he is still taking his shots downfield.

But doesn't it have to be Tannehill, if anyone? Weeden is a wreck, and the other two rookies from last year aren't in the same conference. Of course it's possible that Luck becomes "Manning," and nobody from that QB class becomes the "Brady."

 

[Heinegrabber]

I have an issue with his lack of passion. When he turns over the ball he just walks to the sidelines like nothing just happened. I understand putting it behind you, but dude have some kind of passion about what's going on during these games. I've seen more passion from pick up games. As a fan that's emotionally invested in the game, I'm usually irate. I'm not saying he has to throw a fit, but at least walk up the sidelines and boost the morale of your teammates. Dude just looks like " I wonder if it's meatloaf night tonight" right after throwing a pick 6 or fumbling the game away.

He is more like Eli than Peyton. I have not seen fire from him unless its a td celebration.

---------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

But doesn't it have to be Tannehill, if anyone? Weeden is a wreck, and the other two rookies from last year aren't in the same conference. Of course it's possible that Luck becomes "Manning," and nobody from that QB class becomes the "Brady."

He can be Eli. Eli plays big when he has to.

 

[royalshank]

Luck is a stud - he was born to be a world champion QB. RT is still figuring out if he is an NFL QB. As others have pointed out Luck has been money in the clutch. He's already a top 5 QB...

 

[mnphinfan]

Like I said to begin with, after you smarted off during your initial volley here, a quote says nothing about how often Andrew Luck is passing the ball, or how often he's passing the ball downfiled, which was the basis of one of the threads of mine you quoted originally, when I showed that Luck, much more so than the other rookie QBs last year, was running an offense that passed the ball more, and passed the ball downfield more.

Do you really think a quote from someone definitively tells us he's passing the ball less, and passing the ball downfield less, this year?

LOL, now you are trying to change the argument. My beef is that you said that Luck was running a much tougher offense that Tannehill. Here is your quote.

Luck's play in the clutch and playmaking ability overall was much better than Tannehill's last year, and it is again this year, and that has been while running a more difficult offense from the standpoint of the quarterback's role. See here, for example:

When in fact that isn't the case, per his quote from the offensive coordinator, it is the exact same philosophy as that of the Fins. A west coast based system that attacks the D horizontally instead of vertically. Also, both QB's are also give 2 plays, a run and a pass and based on the defensive alignment the QB choses which play they run at the LOS. So based on this information tell me how is it that Luck is running a more difficult offense than Tannehill? Now, an argument can be made statistically wise that Luck is playing better in the same system, due to his ability to escape pressure better, even though the passing stats are almost identical, but to say it is tougher system for the QB is flat out wrong.

 

[Kencoboy]

The major difference to me between Luck and Tannehill is that the Colts management surrounded Luck with players to help his growth...receivers and OL. While the Dolphins have tried to do so at present the mission has failed, especially in the OL phase. If you put Luck on this team at present he would be laying on his back picking up his teeth just like Tannehill with a 3-3 record and most of you would be whining about how we should have drafted RGIII or Bubby Brister or whoever. I don't think Tannehill was a reach...the real sin of the front office is to not have put the pieces in place to help him out.

 

[HumbleColtsFan]

But doesn't it have to be Tannehill, if anyone? Weeden is a wreck, and the other two rookies from last year aren't in the same conference. Of course it's possible that Luck becomes "Manning," and nobody from that QB class becomes the "Brady."

Now you are the one caught up in theory my man. In theory it could be Bridgewater who the Jags could easily draft, or any other unknown QB not in the league. Even if there is no real "Brady" to Luck's "Manning" the NFL will likely find one, simply because it sells tickets/gains viewers.

In simpler terms though Tannehill is looking to be that guy so far, whether it will hold true remains to be seen.

 

[roy_miami]

Its silly but one thing I love about watching Luck is his cadence, especially on the road. I imagine its what a field marshal barking out commands to the troops on the battle field from the 1500's would sound like.

 

[Shouright]

Now you are the one caught up in theory my man. In theory it could be Bridgewater who the Jags could easily draft, or any other unknown QB not in the league. Even if there is no real "Brady" to Luck's "Manning" the NFL will likely find one, simply because it sells tickets/gains viewers.

In simpler terms though Tannehill is looking to be that guy so far, whether it will hold true remains to be seen.

Ah, well I thought since you said something about "second favorite out of the draft," you were talking about the draft in which Luck and Tannehill were taken, only. I mean sure, at some point some good quarterback is going to come along. :)

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

LOL, now you are trying to change the argument. My beef is that you said that Luck was running a much tougher offense that Tannehill. Here is your quote.


When in fact that isn't the case, per his quote from the offensive coordinator, it is the exact same philosophy as that of the Fins. A west coast based system that attacks the D horizontally instead of vertically. Also, both QB's are also give 2 plays, a run and a pass and based on the defensive alignment the QB choses which play they run at the LOS. So based on this information tell me how is it that Luck is running a more difficult offense than Tannehill? Now, an argument can be made statistically wise that Luck is playing better in the same system, due to his ability to escape pressure better, even though the passing stats are almost identical, but to say it is tougher system for the QB is flat out wrong.

Did you go ahead and "see here, for example," or not? That's what provided the context for my statement, the thread linked just below that.

 

[HumbleColtsFan]

Ah, well I thought since you said something about "second favorite out of the draft," you were talking about the draft in which Luck and Tannehill were taken, only. I mean sure, at some point some good quarterback is going to come along. :)

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

Did you go ahead and "see here, for example," or not? That's what provided the context for my statement, the thread linked just below that.

That was a stand alone opinion haha. Sorry for the confusion.