The Fumble: Tannehill Checked Out of a Run Play

[Austin Tatious]

The original post is misleading and the comments afterward bear that out. They mislead the readers into believing that Tannehill unilaterally decided on a pass after the coaches decided on a run. Philbin said that is not what happened.

Be careful what you post, because that's 100% not what happened, and there are a ton of misinformed people out there that read this thread.

It's not my job to go find you a link. Find the transcripts to what Philbin said or listen live.

 

[Zounds]

Now, by contrast, you're saying Tannehill was given an option to throw or pass based on the defensive front, and you've included no reference for that information. I'm happy to consider it along with the rest of what we've gathered here if it's coming from some sort of reputable source, however. :)

I gave you that reference yesterday in this very thread, a quote from Philbin's presser, and you and I both know you read it. Your ability to dismiss information is absolute proof that you made up your mind long ago and are just talking out of your ass here. This gets my vote for worst thread of the year...

 

[Zounds]

The original post is misleading and the comments afterward bear that out. They mislead the readers into believing that Tannehill unilaterally decided on a pass after the coaches decided on a run. Philbin said that is not what happened.

Be careful what you post, because that's 100% not what happened, and there are a ton of misinformed people out there that read this thread.

I told him the same thing in post #45 of this thread. He dismissed it like he does any other fact so good luck getting through to this donkey.

 

[Shouright]

I gave you that reference yesterday in this very thread, a quote from Philbin's presser, and you and I both know you read it. Your ability to dismiss information is absolute proof that you made up your mind long ago and are just talking out of your ass here. This gets my vote for worst thread of the year...

Well that's good to know. I'm sure we're all sitting around wondering what "Zounds" thinks is the worst thread of the year, rather than wanting to talk about the Miami Dolphins.

 

[Austin Tatious]

Thanks, Zounds. I read the beginning of this thread and then came down and posted that i hope someone else cleaned this up.

Sadly, many people read this thread and were misled into misunderstanding what happened. It's ironic that die-hards come to this site to be "extra informed" but ended up being --misinformed-- based on this misleading thread. They would have been better off not reading this thread.

 

[LandShark13]

Either way IMHO there is way to much emphasis on the call and not enough on the actual execution of the play. Some of the best teams in the nfl run plays the other team knows they are going to run. They just out execute the other team while running them.

 

[Shouright]

The original post is misleading and the comments afterward bear that out. They mislead the readers into believing that Tannehill unilaterally decided on a pass after the coaches decided on a run. Philbin said that is not what happened.

Be careful what you post, because that's 100% not what happened, and there are a ton of misinformed people out there that read this thread.

It's not my job to go find you a link. Find the transcripts to what Philbin said or listen live.

Well, certainly you don't think I'm going to scour the globe for contradictory information before I post something that's nothing other than a quote from an article. What, do you think it's my responsibility to prevent people from interpreting a certain way what's written in black in white?

Now, if you have contradictory information that's from a reputable source, I'm sure we'd all, myself included, welcome it as a valued addition to the thread. It's not like I posted the original information and then "locked" the thread. :)

---------- Post added at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 PM ----------

Thanks, Zounds. I read the beginning of this thread and then came down and posted that i hope someone else cleaned this up.

Sadly, many people read this thread and were misled into misunderstanding what happened. It's ironic that die-hards come to this site to be "extra informed" but ended up being --misinformed-- based on this misleading thread. They would have been better off not reading this thread.

Or they would be better off reading the thread and whatever post anyone else could've contributed that could've provided the contradictory information that you're saying exists. What, are people "locked in" to reading the original post, only? :unsure:

 

[Austin Tatious]

No, that's not what we have here. You took a bland vanilla quote that Tannehill checked into a pass and twisted it and falsely extrapolated a ton of meaning to the quote that doesn't exist.

We do not have contrasting opinions that are both valid.

You have a blatantly false premise that is twisted and wrong. My premise is 100% correct.

You took the responsibility to start a misleading thread. I didn't. We aren't equals here. Now, it's up to you to clean up your mess. And next time be a hell of a lot smarter and more careful with what you write, keeping in mind others may read it and believe your premise. Unless you don't give a crap about accuracy. That would undermine your credibility. As it is, now that you messed this up, we all will read your posts and say, "jeez what does he have wrong?"

 

[Shouright]

I did vote yes, but you are unfairly misleading people in that Tannehill had a choice in not doing what he was instructed to do. You might as well rephrase the poll to ask, "Should he have done his job the way he was coached to do?". That's probably a more fair question instead of trying to pin it on Tannehill's decision making.

I told him the same thing in post #45 of this thread. He dismissed it like he does any other fact so good luck getting through to this donkey.

Post #45 is above. There is no source at all referenced in it.

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:22 PM ----------

No, that's not what we have here. You took a bland vanilla quote that Tannehill checked into a pass and twisted it and falsely extrapolated a ton of meaning to the quote that doesn't exist.

We do not have contrasting opinions that are both valid.

You have a blatantly false premise that is twisted and wrong. My premise is 100% correct.

You took the responsibility to start a misleading thread. I didn't. We aren't equals here. Now, it's up to you to clean up your mess. And next time be a hell of a lot smarter and more careful with what you write, keeping in mind others may read it and believe your premise. Unless you don't give a crap about accuracy. That would undermine your credibility. As it is, now that you messed this up, we all will read your posts and say, "jeez what does he have wrong?"

You can say whatever you'd like with regard to my credibility in response to my posts. That isn't my concern one iota. :)

 

[Zounds]

Post #45 is above. There is no source at all referenced in it.

Nobody ever said there was any source referenced in post #45. Even still, I could drag you to Philbin's press conference, give you his DNA sample and fingerprint verification, and you could hear it straight from his mouth, given a notarized transcript, and you still wouldn't believe it.

This thread is beyond ridiculous and I'm not participating in your troll job anymore...

 

[Shouright]

Nobody ever said there was any source referenced in post #45. Even still, I could drag you to Philbin's press conference, give you his DNA sample and fingerprint verification, and you could hear it straight from his mouth, given a notarized transcript, and you still wouldn't believe it.

This thread is beyond ridiculous and I'm not participating in your troll job anymore...

Actually I would've given great consideration to anything that simply matched the level of authority of the source used in the original post, i.e., a quote from someone within the organization, with a link included. :)

The irony here is that I posted the actual information from the source, quoted it, and supplied the link, providing the reader with everything needed to verify the information independently, yet the couple of folks here who are of the mind that it was misleading are willing to provide nothing of the sort. Instead you must "take their word" for it. :unsure:

It actually takes a lot for me to click on the "thumbs down" button, but those posts earned it IMO. :)

 

[NY8123]

Actually I would've given great consideration to anything that s
imply matched the level of authority of the source used in the original post, i.e., a quote from someone within the organization, with a link included. :)

The irony here is that I posted the actual information from the source, quoted it, and supplied the link, providing the reader with everything needed to verify the information independently, yet the couple of folks here who are of the mind that it was misleading are willing to provide nothing of the sort. Instead you must "take their word" for it. :unsure:

It actually takes a lot for me to click on the "thumbs down" button, but those posts earned it IMO. :)

Bull****. This thread has twisted and tuned into a mess.

 

[Austin Tatious]

Again, you are ignoring that you twisted a simple quote. The quote from the article didn't say anything like you extrapolated. All Tanne said was that he checked into a pass in that article. You then extrapolated that he made that call all on his own, and that somehow it was Tannehill's fault and mis-reading of the situation. The title of the whole thread/poll proves your twisting.

Tannehill did no such thing. He was told by the coaches to run in a 7 man front and pass in an 8 man front.

You are in quick sand and falling deeper the more you try to argue.

 

[Shouright]

Either way IMHO there is way to much emphasis on the call and not enough on the actual execution of the play. Some of the best teams in the nfl run plays the other team knows they are going to run. They just out execute the other team while running them.

Actually when a single play makes the probability of winning plummet from 72% to 33%, and a great number of different kinds of plays probably would've done nothing of the sort, I think it's pretty proper to question the call itself, rather than the execution of the call. :)

---------- Post added at 02:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

Again, you are ignoring that you twisted a simple quote. The quote from the article didn't say anything like you extrapolated. All Tanne said was that he checked into a pass in that article. You then extrapolated that he made that call all on his own, and that somehow it was Tannehill's fault and mis-reading of the situation. The title of the whole thread/poll proves your twisting.

Tannehill did no such thing. He was told by the coaches to run in a 7 man front and pass in an 8 man front.

You are in quick sand and falling deeper the more you try to argue.

Thanks for the rundown. :up:

---------- Post added at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

Bull****. I provided every bit and more definition around the very topic you started and got nothing but crickets when I showed how the OP was wrong.

I'm sorry. I must have missed that. Can you point me back to the post you're talking about?

 

[NY8123]

Actually when a single play makes the probability of winning plummet from 72% to 33%, and a great number of different kinds of plays probably would've done nothing of the sort, I think it's pretty proper to question the call itself, rather than the execution of the call. :)

---------- Post added at 02:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

Thanks for the rundown. :up:

---------- Post added at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

I'm sorry. I must have missed that. Can you point me back to the post you're talking about?

It wasn't the OP it was your definition of time to pass actually. One of the many side bars that have arose from this thread. It has actually become impossible to keep track of the topic of this thread anymore.