thebandit27 Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 In looking at the link they provided of the full PFF top 10 Quarterback rankings I'm seeing far greater injustices than Tannehill ahead of Luck. Roethlisberger and Rivers ahead of Brady and Manning? I'd like to see how good big Ben would be without Antonio Brown. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/08/27/ranking-the-nfls-top-10-qbs/ Uh...Ben won 2 Superbowls without Antonio Brown. Brown was a 6th-round pick; I'd say there's a far greater argument that Ben makes Brown than vice versa.
LB3 Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 Uh...Ben won 2 Superbowls without Antonio Brown. Brown was a 6th-round pick; I'd say there's a far greater argument that Ben makes Brown than vice versa. Someone could also ask Mike Wallace about leaving Ben.
YoloinOhio Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 Tannehill's voice is much better than Luck's. Listening to Andrew is like fingernails on a chalkboard. He sounds like he's constantly gargling. It's brutal.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 Tannehill's voice is much better than Luck's. Listening to Andrew is like fingernails on a chalkboard. He sounds like he's constantly gargling. It's brutal. But man that Luck can sure grow a beard CBF
Kirby Jackson Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 Tannehill's voice is much better than Luck's. Listening to Andrew is like fingernails on a chalkboard. He sounds like he's constantly gargling. It's brutal. He sounds like and ogre
LB3 Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 Tannehill's voice is much better than Luck's. Listening to Andrew is like fingernails on a chalkboard. He sounds like he's constantly gargling. It's brutal. He looks and sounds like he is the runt of a family of giants.
IslandBillsFan Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 ISLAND BILLS FAN: "Is Matt Simms better than Aaron Rodgers?"
bigK14094 Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 Tannehill is pretty good, but, ugh, Luck is REALLY good. No contest.
Adam Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 This is so ridiculous and moot, that only ESPN could be behind it. Who has the better supporting cast. Who has a schedule of opponents that can more be taken advantage by the possessed talent and skill set. Whose skill set best fits what the team is trying to do? ESPN tries to boil things down to the lowest common denominator for the pleabians that watch their shows
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 Tanny IS better than luck.... at facial hair, but not even close in footballing
Talley56 Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Uh...Ben won 2 Superbowls without Antonio Brown. Brown was a 6th-round pick; I'd say there's a far greater argument that Ben makes Brown than vice versa. By this logic Eli should be top 5 as well. I think it's pretty clear the Steelers won those Superbowls mostly because of their defense. And being a 6th round pick means Brown isn't great? Dude is a beast.
Dragonborn10 Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Luck is already great but he is not flawless. He is a gifted runner. But he throws INT's. He is closer to Roethlisberger or even Jim Kelly than he is Rodgers, Brady, or Manning at this point.
truth on hold Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) Luck is already great but he is not flawless. He is a gifted runner. But he throws INT's. He is closer to Roethlisberger or even Jim Kelly than he is Rodgers, Brady, or Manning at this point. Guy's a force, doesn't let the mistakes bury him. One of the things that makes him special. What he's done in his first 3 years with that talent depleted roster is amazing. Give him Wallace like tannehill had and it would ha e been a much different story Edited August 29, 2015 by JTSP
Deranged Rhino Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Guy's a force, doesn't let the mistakes bury him. One of the things that makes him special. What he's done in his first 3 years with that talent depleted roster is amazing. Give him Wallace like tannehill had and it would ha e been a much different story TY Hilton's better than Wallace in my opinion.
Charles Romes Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Luck becomes markedly better the more important the situation. That's an intangible that is often missed
Buffalo Barbarian Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Tannehill's voice is much better than Luck's. Listening to Andrew is like fingernails on a chalkboard. He sounds like he's constantly gargling. It's brutal. it's the neck beard
hondo in seattle Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) Another example of why advanced analytics doesn't work for football? Yep. PFF's QB rating system is clearly flawed if it has Tannehill ahead of Luck. I'm not a big fan of ESPN's QBR system either. This is so ridiculous and moot, that only ESPN could be behind it. Who has the better supporting cast. Who has a schedule of opponents that can more be taken advantage by the possessed talent and skill set. Whose skill set best fits what the team is trying to do? ESPN tries to boil things down to the lowest common denominator for the pleabians that watch their shows I'm not sure why this misunderstanding continues. ESPN did NOT conclude Tannehill is better than Luck. James Walker of ESPN wrote an article commenting on PFF's ranking system which had Tannehill ahead of Luck. Walker disagreed with the ranking. ESPN itself uses the QBR system which does indeed rank Luck ahead of Tannehill though not by much - 61.5 versus 58.0. http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr Edited August 29, 2015 by hondo in seattle
Recommended Posts