The Fumble: Tannehill Checked Out of a Run Play

[enigmatics]

matt moore fumbled taking snaps from center like they were hot cakes...anyways tannehill is not even at a 1.0 clip per start as a fumbler...moore is a almost 1.5 per game guy there

big difference

Nope ..... While in Miami, Moore made 13 appearances with 14 fumbles. Again re-do your math.

Tanny is at .76/game which is still not acceptable.

 

[hoops]

and if you're wondering where i'm going with all that, is that tannehill is getting hit as much as a qb would get hit in almost a full regular season, and still more than moore did, in 6 games, than moore did in 6 games. meaning more hits increases the probability of the qb loosing the football, since the qb doesn't hold the ball like a RB, to protect it, when they are trying to pass...

sad you have to explain that...

---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ----------

Nope ..... While in Miami, Moore made 13 appearances with 14 fumbles. Again re-do your math.

Tanny is at .76/game which is still not acceptable.

i can redo my math if you give me the right number of starts vs fumbles for moore...not appearances...tanny doesn't have any appearances

 

[enigmatics]

and if you're wondering where i'm going with all that, is that tannehill is getting hit as much as a qb would get hit in almost a full regular season, and still more than moore did, in 6 games, than moore did in 6 games. meaning more hits increases the probability of the qb loosing the football, since the qb doesn't hold the ball like a RB, to protect it, when they are trying to pass...

Both were and have been hit at an unacceptable rate.

 

[truedolfan57]

So somehow 52 sacks is good? It's like you're telling me that dog crap smells better than cat crap.

no. and that analogy is crap.

 

[enigmatics]

sad you have to explain that...

---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ----------



i can redo my math if you give me the right number of starts vs fumbles for moore...not appearances...tanny doesn't have any appearances

So we don't count the San Diego game where Moore got his first action? He played most of that game. Again, 13 games played.

---------- Post added at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 PM ----------

no. and that analogy is crap.

Please tell me again how the O-line in 2011 was good giving up 52 sacks.

 

[hoops]

So we don't count the San Diego game where Moore got his first action? He played most of that game. Again, 13 games played.

how much he play??? 2.5 quarters??? i guess that's fine but tanny doesn't have any of those kind of thing unless we count his start vs the jets he left early in his favor

 

[MD]

You made the statement (along with Hoops) that Moore fumbled more often by non-contact. I said you were full of crap. You put the onus on me to disprove what you said. I would think you would've had the data as well.

Way to pass the buck.

---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------



He appeared in 13 games that year, started 12. Re-do your stat.

Wrong. If you can't get the chronological order of the thread correct we are wasting our time debating. You can have the last word.

 

[truedolfan57]

Both were and have been hit at an unacceptable rate.

i agree, but tannehill has been sacked more, and on pace to get sacked more, with less fumbles. even if he gets to the point of more fumbles, it's still probably less per sack than moore. i agree, both is pretty bad. i'll use your analogy. Moore was dog poop, maybe because of the line, maybe not. Tannehill is dog poop and cat poop. I lean more towards because of the line, because that's what my eyes are telling me, and the fact that he still has less fumbles, after getting pooped on by a dog and cat.

 

[enigmatics]

Wrong. If you can't get the chronological order of the thread correct we are wasting our time debating. You can have the last word.

Thanks for your permission ...... it's the least you could do since you can't show me the data you collected in order to make the statement Moore's fumbles were predominantly non-contact.

 

[truedolfan57]

So we don't count the San Diego game where Moore got his first action? He played most of that game. Again, 13 games played.

---------- Post added at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 PM ----------



Please tell me again how the O-line in 2011 was good giving up 52 sacks.

i never said the 2011 oline was good. ever. but how do you think an oline giving up half those sack totals in 6 games, out of 16, equal the same?

 

[enigmatics]

i never said the 2011 oline was good. ever. but how do you think an oline giving up half those sack totals in 6 games, out of 16, equal the same?

They're not the same ..... they're both terrible, one is just more terrible than the other. Both guys got harassed and hit a lot.

 

[hoops]

we are talking about a difference of about a half a fumble per game more on average from matt moore than tannehill...over the course of a full 16 game schedule that's 8 more fumbles...

in football terms that's not even close to the same thing...

not even taking into account the difference in the sack rate etc...

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

we are talking about a difference of about a half a fumble per game more on average from matt moore than tannehill...over the course of a full 16 game schedule that's 8 more fumbles...

in football terms that's not even close to the same thing...

He knows that. He's not here to talk football, he's here to get a reaction out of the people who are.

 

[truedolfan57]

lets see, moore has 14 fumbles and 36 sacks. tannehill has 7 fumbles in 26 sacks. if tannehill gets 7 more fumbles in 10 sacks, then we can start comparing. lol

 

[enigmatics]

He knows that. He's not here to talk football, he's here to get a reaction out of the people who are.

A comment made to try to get a rise out of me no-less.