The Question of Ryan Tannehill - Bill Barnwell

[j-off-her-doll]

He failed to address how different that was from other QBs. Typical of the haters to want to add INTs to Tannehill's total and leave all the others alone.

You are the same way as the rest of the haters.

"Only a fanboy would compare a QB with a career QBR of just over 80 to a QB with a career QBR of 101"
"Luck or Wilson is a tough call"

Those two quotes exposed you as a hater. I'll remind you of it every chance I get.

Why don't you use the actual quote so that you don't butcher it? You can tell it's butchered, because I KNOW that Tannehill's career QBR is UNDER 80. In 2013, Andrew Luck had a better than 2 to 1 TD/INT ratio. He's responsible for 55 TD's in two seasons. Tannehill is responsible for 39. To date, Luck has committed 43 TO's. Tannehill has committed 48. Luck has carried his team to the playoffs in each of his first two seasons. It's true that Wilson has played better than Luck to this point, but multiple people have explained to you the difference between Luck and Tannehill. Luck was GREAT at Stanford - the best QB prospect in a while. Tannehill has never been great.

Every time you make a point, you're only exposing your own prejudice and ignorance. So, by all mean, keep it coming.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Why don't you use the actual quote so that you don't butcher it?

My bad. Here they are:

Save for blind fanboying, I don't understand the mindset that would even begin to compare a QB with less than 7 YPA with around an 80 QBR to Wilson.

I also agree that Luck/Wilson is a tough call.

I fail to see how it makes you look like any less of an idiot, but I stand corrected.

I got it confused with this equally ridiculous statement:

Knowing the value of the QB position, arguing for a QB with a career QBR of 79 over a QB with a QBR of 101 is just not reasonable.

Because, clearly the gap between 79 and 81 is huge.....

Every time you make a point, you're only exposing your own prejudice and ignorance. So, by all mean, keep it coming.

Hypocritical dolt.

 

[Vaark]

LOL

 

[72 silky]

Those four gifs.... ouch.
:bricks:

Love your credo but according to nike we bleed turbo green not aqua
http://m.nike.com/us/en_us/pd/miami-dolphins-elite-jersey-ryan-tannehill-football-jersey/pid-843674

 

[Sons Of Shula]

Love your credo but according to nike we bleed turbo green not aqua
http://m.nike.com/us/en_us/pd/miami-dolphins-elite-jersey-ryan-tannehill-football-jersey/pid-843674

Aqua:
http://nikeinc.com/news/miami-dolphins-unveil-new-refined-uniform-design-for-2013-season

"Today the Miami Dolphins unveiled the team’s new NFL Nike Elite 51 Uniform design for the 2013 NFL season. The uniform is a completely integrated system of dress featuring a refined color palette as well as updated numbers and fonts that represent South Florida's beautiful environment and the Dolphins' strong team heritage.

Miami was awarded an AFL franchise in 1965 and joined the NFL in 1970, a time when the city was booming with lights, sounds and colors. Travel was becoming more accessible and television presented a bold, eccentric new way to view the game of football. The Miami Dolphins uniform design of that era drew from the vibrant hues of the city — aqua, coral and white — a combination never before seen on the football field.

The newly redesigned Dolphins uniform stays true to its roots while harnessing the city’s modern, cutting-edge characteristics for a more refined head-to-toe look that embodies what it means to be a Miami Dolphin."

Aqua:
http://www.nflshop.com/Miami_Dolphins_Gear

"Miami apparel is available in the traditional colors of aqua, coral, navy Blue, and white"

Aqua:
http://www.ssur.org/research/TeamCo...onalFootballLeague/NationalFootballLeague.htm

Aqua:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Dolphins

Aqua:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...why-their-new-logo-is-actually-pretty-awesome

Aqua:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/miami-dolphins-new-unifor_n_3159410.html

Aqua:
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Glidden-...nterior-Paint-Sample-GLD-NFL175A-16/203756075

Aqua:
http://moncpc.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/nationalfootballleague_frc_2000_sol_srgb.pdf

Aqua:
http://colorwerx.blogspot.com/2013/05/miami-dolphins-nfl-2013-srgb-optimized.html



I bleed Aqua & Coral. :df81:

 

[j-off-her-doll]

Why don't you use the actual quote so that you don't butcher it?

My bad. Here they are:





I fail to see how it makes you look like any less of an idiot, but I stand corrected.

I got it confused with this equally ridiculous statement:



Because, clearly the gap between 79 and 81 is huge.....



Hypocritical dolt.

Andrew Luck had a QBR of 87 last season. He made the leap forward.

And, again, we're talking about two different things. My response to Awsi was about Luck's future prospects - NOT who is better now. My comments to you regarding Tannehill and Wilson were about who is currently better. See the difference?

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Andrew Luck had a QBR of 87 last season. He made the leap forward.

Okay sure.... now we're QBR as the sole measure of a QB and saying it is fine grained enough that the difference between 81.7 and 87 is so significant that it puts the 2 QBs in totally different groups that cannot be compared.....

And, again, we're talking about two different things. My response to Awsi was about Luck's future prospects - NOT who is better now. My comments to you regarding Tannehill and Wilson were about who is currently better. See the difference?

No the difference is that you said that Tannehill and Wilson shouldn't even be compared. That is a ridiculous statement that you cannot simply walk away from. I have no problem with people thinking Wilson is the better QB. I don't agree with it but I can certainly understand why others would. IMO, they are MUCH closer to each other than their QB ratings indicate for the myriad of reasons that I have given over and over. QB rating is a team stat. It is a measure of the offense's efficiency. While I agree that the QB has the biggest potential single influence, there is no denying that the supporting cast is a huge influence as well. Anyone denying that the Dolphin's OL, OC, and running game weren't a huge drag on the offense's efficiency is simply in denial. I am glad that the Dolphin's front office doesn't suffer from the same delusion.

Ask yourself a simple question - How pissed would you be if the Dolphins brought back the same OL and Sherman as the OC?

 

[truedolfan57]

and just replaced the qb with someone like Johnny Football.

 

[roy_miami]

No the difference is that you said that Tannehill and Wilson shouldn't even be compared. That is a ridiculous statement that you cannot simply walk away from.

Saying Tom Brady would have done no better than 8-8 on the 2013 Dolphins, which is essentially saying Tom Brady and Ryan Tannehill are equals, is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on these boards.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Saying Tom Brady would have done no better than 8-8 on the 2013 Dolphins, which is essentially saying Tom Brady and Ryan Tannehill are equals, is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on these boards.

It says no such thing. If I felt Brady and Tannehill were equals I would say it. I've said the opposite many times.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

and just replaced the qb with someone like Johnny Football.

Exactly. Seriously, NO TEAM would ever replace a 2012 first round draft pick with Johnny Football in 2014.....

The utter lack of logical thinking amongst the Tannehaters is hilarious.

 

[roy_miami]

Exactly. Seriously, NO TEAM would ever replace a 2012 first round draft pick with Johnny Football in 2014.....

The utter lack of logical thinking amongst the Tannehaters is hilarious.

No team would do that, huh? Might want to think a little harder on that statement....

 

[j-off-her-doll]

Okay sure.... now we're QBR as the sole measure of a QB and saying it is fine grained enough that the difference between 81.7 and 87 is so significant that it puts the 2 QBs in totally different groups that cannot be compared.....




No the difference is that you said that Tannehill and Wilson shouldn't even be compared. That is a ridiculous statement that you cannot simply walk away from. I have no problem with people thinking Wilson is the better QB. I don't agree with it but I can certainly understand why others would. IMO, they are MUCH closer to each other than their QB ratings indicate for the myriad of reasons that I have given over and over. QB rating is a team stat. It is a measure of the offense's efficiency. While I agree that the QB has the biggest potential single influence, there is no denying that the supporting cast is a huge influence as well. Anyone denying that the Dolphin's OL, OC, and running game weren't a huge drag on the offense's efficiency is simply in denial. I am glad that the Dolphin's front office doesn't suffer from the same delusion.

Ask yourself a simple question - How pissed would you be if the Dolphins brought back the same OL and Sherman as the OC?

Trying to stay on task and true to the heart of the conversation:

We seem to agree that Wilson was in a good situation.

We seem to agree that Tannehill was in a worse situation.

We disagree on the disparity and how much each QB thrived within his situation.

Here is my over-arching point (again): Tannehill has done enough to lead me to believe he has a legitimate shot to become a franchise QB. Wilson has done enough to make me believe he is already a franchise QB. I think part of the disparity here stems from what you want out of the QB position and what I want from the QB position - what IS a franchise QB. To me, a franchise QB is efficient, timely, and talented enough to win a SB with a team talented enough to win the SB. There are only three QB's in the NFL who (more-or-less) guarantee a postseason appearance despite their surrounding group (Rodgers, Manning, Brady), and that's assuming they stay healthy. Every other QB in the NFL is situation-dependent - including guys like Big Ben, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, and the young guys like Kapernick and Wilson. Luck has taken two really bad Colts teams to the playoffs, and I get the sense that he'll be more like that first group (playoffs guaranteed). But these other QB's have enjoyed just as much - if not more - playoff success as that group of 3. Once you get to the playoffs, you're team still has to be very talented. Of that initial 3, only Aaron Rodgers won a SB carrying his team with spectacular play. For Manning's SB, the D played very well in the playoffs. Manning struggled at times during that run. Brady was asked to protect the ball and move the chains with short passes during his SB wins. Those NE teams looked nothing like the NE teams since Moss and Welker arrived. Flacco played better in his SB run than either Manning during his or Brady in any of his.

Russell Wilson has proven that he is good enough to win at the highest level. Wilson has proven that he can play great football at the highest level.

I'm not condemning Tannehill for playing mediocre - given his situation and inexperience. I am saying that I think it's unreasonable to expect him to make a 20-point jump in QBR and 1.5 jump in YPA with an equivalent situation to Wilson - not to mention the timely play that led him to win more games over his first two seasons than any QB in NFL history. While I think Seattle is great, I don't think that they're so great that you should assume the QB with the most wins in NFL history over his fist two seasons was only a marginal contributor. All of their high-level efficiency stats tie back to Wilson. He's the one making the big plays for that offense, and he did it with a banged up O-line and below average WR's.

Tannehill has a chance to become a great player; Wilson has already put together great seasons. I'm just saying, let Tannehill ACTUALLY DO IT before seriously trying to compare him to a QB in Wilson who has been a historic success through two seasons.

 

[NBP81]

Trying to stay on task and true to the heart of the conversation:

We seem to agree that Wilson was in a good situation.

We seem to agree that Tannehill was in a worse situation.

We disagree on the disparity and how much each QB thrived within his situation.

Here is my over-arching point (again): Tannehill has done enough to lead me to believe he has a legitimate shot to become a franchise QB. Wilson has done enough to make me believe he is already a franchise QB. I think part of the disparity here stems from what you want out of the QB position and what I want from the QB position - what IS a franchise QB. To me, a franchise QB is efficient, timely, and talented enough to win a SB with a team talented enough to win the SB. There are only three QB's in the NFL who (more-or-less) guarantee a postseason appearance despite their surrounding group (Rodgers, Manning, Brady), and that's assuming they stay healthy. Every other QB in the NFL is situation-dependent - including guys like Big Ben, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, and the young guys like Kapernick and Wilson. Luck has taken two really bad Colts teams to the playoffs, and I get the sense that he'll be more like that first group (playoffs guaranteed). But these other QB's have enjoyed just as much - if not more - playoff success as that group of 3. Once you get to the playoffs, you're team still has to be very talented. Of that initial 3, only Aaron Rodgers won a SB carrying his team with spectacular play. For Manning's SB, the D played very well in the playoffs. Manning struggled at times during that run. Brady was asked to protect the ball and move the chains with short passes during his SB wins. Those NE teams looked nothing like the NE teams since Moss and Welker arrived. Flacco played better in his SB run than either Manning during his or Brady in any of his.

Russell Wilson has proven that he is good enough to win at the highest level. Wilson has proven that he can play great football at the highest level.

I'm not condemning Tannehill for playing mediocre - given his situation and inexperience. I am saying that I think it's unreasonable to expect him to make a 20-point jump in QBR and 1.5 jump in YPA with an equivalent situation to Wilson - not to mention the timely play that led him to win more games over his first two seasons than any QB in NFL history. While I think Seattle is great, I don't think that they're so great that you should assume the QB with the most wins in NFL history over his fist two seasons was only a marginal contributor. All of their high-level efficiency stats tie back to Wilson. He's the one making the big plays for that offense, and he did it with a banged up O-line and below average WR's.

Tannehill has a chance to become a great player; Wilson has already put together great seasons. I'm just saying, let Tannehill ACTUALLY DO IT before seriously trying to compare him to a QB in Wilson who has been a historic success through two seasons.

Seemed to me that your argument was getting out of hand... I liked the fact that you decided to respectfully put out a well thought out post instead of continuing the back and forth... Great post man!

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Trying to stay on task and true to the heart of the conversation:

We seem to agree that Wilson was in a good situation.

We seem to agree that Tannehill was in a worse situation.

We disagree on the disparity and how much each QB thrived within his situation.

Here is my over-arching point (again): Tannehill has done enough to lead me to believe he has a legitimate shot to become a franchise QB. Wilson has done enough to make me believe he is already a franchise QB. I think part of the disparity here stems from what you want out of the QB position and what I want from the QB position - what IS a franchise QB. To me, a franchise QB is efficient, timely, and talented enough to win a SB with a team talented enough to win the SB. There are only three QB's in the NFL who (more-or-less) guarantee a postseason appearance despite their surrounding group (Rodgers, Manning, Brady), and that's assuming they stay healthy. Every other QB in the NFL is situation-dependent - including guys like Big Ben, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, and the young guys like Kapernick and Wilson. Luck has taken two really bad Colts teams to the playoffs, and I get the sense that he'll be more like that first group (playoffs guaranteed). But these other QB's have enjoyed just as much - if not more - playoff success as that group of 3. Once you get to the playoffs, you're team still has to be very talented. Of that initial 3, only Aaron Rodgers won a SB carrying his team with spectacular play. For Manning's SB, the D played very well in the playoffs. Manning struggled at times during that run. Brady was asked to protect the ball and move the chains with short passes during his SB wins. Those NE teams looked nothing like the NE teams since Moss and Welker arrived. Flacco played better in his SB run than either Manning during his or Brady in any of his.

Russell Wilson has proven that he is good enough to win at the highest level. Wilson has proven that he can play great football at the highest level.

I'm not condemning Tannehill for playing mediocre - given his situation and inexperience. I am saying that I think it's unreasonable to expect him to make a 20-point jump in QBR and 1.5 jump in YPA with an equivalent situation to Wilson - not to mention the timely play that led him to win more games over his first two seasons than any QB in NFL history. While I think Seattle is great, I don't think that they're so great that you should assume the QB with the most wins in NFL history over his fist two seasons was only a marginal contributor. All of their high-level efficiency stats tie back to Wilson. He's the one making the big plays for that offense, and he did it with a banged up O-line and below average WR's.

Tannehill has a chance to become a great player; Wilson has already put together great seasons. I'm just saying, let Tannehill ACTUALLY DO IT before seriously trying to compare him to a QB in Wilson who has been a historic success through two seasons.

We'll just have to disagree on the amount of difference the supporting cast can make.

I'll add one other area where we seem to disagree on, how much Wilson is helped by not being the focus of opposing defenses. I think it is very significant and combined with the crap that Tannehill dealt with, easily can account for a 20 point difference. Tannehill at 91 with a better supporting cast and Wilson at 91 while being the focal point of the offense is not only possible but likely IMO.

So there we are, still. Let's let things play out over the next few seasons and find out. I'll add one more thing. I've said on numerous occasions that there is no guarantee that Tannehill improves significantly with a better supporting cast, but given what I have observed with my own eyes, I think it is likely.



---------- Post added at 11:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------

No team would do that, huh? Might want to think a little harder on that statement....

For the love of God look up sarcasm in the dictionary.