CSBill Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 nope. He has no talent around him, no line, no run game, what do you expect, he'd look like a superstar on this team. I wondered when you would get in here to defend your good name?
3rdand12 Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 being similar to Alex Smith is not sucking balls, but he's not great either. Can't hit the long ball, who knows if he ever will. Fitzy : those long throws are still as I recall. Kinda painful to watch : )
Dorkington Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 It's kind of interesting... you're either a top 10 QB, or you're ****. Seems there's no middle ground, which is where I feel QBs like Tannehill sit.
eball Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 At this point in his career Tannehill is pretty much the definition of mediocre. It's his 4th season and he has started 51 games so the "he's still developing" argument really falls upon deaf ears. 24-27 W-L record with decent talent around him, 84 QB rating, <7 yards/attempt...nothing stellar about those numbers. Can't hit the deep ball, relies almost exclusively on quick, short passing game. Has also failed in clutch late season opportunities when Fish could have pushed for a playoff spot. He has protected the ball rather well (68/45 TD/INT ratio) but that's not completely surprising when you look at the sort of passes he throws (low risk). Tannehill is the sort of QB whose stats will look decent at the end of the season, but never wows you or is a difference maker.
4merper4mer Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 nope. He has no talent around him, no line, no run game, what do you expect, he'd look like a superstar on this team. He would not look like a superstar on this team.
GunnerBill Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 At this point in his career Tannehill is pretty much the definition of mediocre. It's his 4th season and he has started 51 games so the "he's still developing" argument really falls upon deaf ears. 24-27 W-L record with decent talent around him, 84 QB rating, <7 yards/attempt...nothing stellar about those numbers. Can't hit the deep ball, relies almost exclusively on quick, short passing game. Has also failed in clutch late season opportunities when Fish could have pushed for a playoff spot. He has protected the ball rather well (68/45 TD/INT ratio) but that's not completely surprising when you look at the sort of passes he throws (low risk). Tannehill is the sort of QB whose stats will look decent at the end of the season, but never wows you or is a difference maker. Exactly how I feel.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 After years of touting Tannehill. And after a bunch of us, not just me, saying, "nah," I think you owe us--and by "us," I mean everyone with a freaking sane mind on this board (so like 3 people)--an "own up." He's not good, he wasn't good, and he really never will be good. Still love ya, my man. not to derail the thread . How many other QB's were people suggesting for Buffalo in the offseason? And how well are those others doing
Offside Number 76 Posted September 28, 2015 Author Posted September 28, 2015 At this point in his career Tannehill is pretty much the definition of mediocre. It's his 4th season and he has started 51 games so the "he's still developing" argument really falls upon deaf ears. 24-27 W-L record with decent talent around him, 84 QB rating, <7 yards/attempt...nothing stellar about those numbers. Can't hit the deep ball, relies almost exclusively on quick, short passing game. Has also failed in clutch late season opportunities when Fish could have pushed for a playoff spot. He has protected the ball rather well (68/45 TD/INT ratio) but that's not completely surprising when you look at the sort of passes he throws (low risk). Tannehill is the sort of QB whose stats will look decent at the end of the season, but never wows you or is a difference maker. Perfect. It's kind of interesting... you're either a top 10 QB, or you're ****. Seems there's no middle ground, which is where I feel QBs like Tannehill sit. He's about as "middle ground" as one can get. Barbarian's been touting him as a star since he was at A&M, which is why I found it necessary to needle him a little bit. No big deal either way. not to derail the thread . How many other QB's were people suggesting for Buffalo in the offseason? And how well are those others doing 1. Good, let's not. 2. Irrelevant.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 (edited) 160 passes w/o an INT!! Come on man that is good. The next 18 for 3 INT's was bad. Lets not get crazy because we witnessed another 3 INT game, only this one against the opponent. Edited September 28, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever
Maury Ballstein Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Op is dead wrong. 4merper is dead wrong Tannenhill would be a beast on the bills. He certainly doesn't suck. Prisoners of the moment goin ham again. Give tanny an OL and he's cash money.
PromoTheRobot Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Op is dead wrong. 4merper is dead wrong Tannenhill would be a beast on the bills. He certainly doesn't suck. Prisoners of the moment goin ham again. Give tanny an OL and he's cash money. Hype dies hard.
Maury Ballstein Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Hype dies hard. What hype ? He's a college wideout who has transformed into a quality starting qb. Let's be homers about it because he's in our division.
PromoTheRobot Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 What hype ? He's a college wideout who has transformed into a quality starting qb. Let's be homers about it because he's in our division. I guess you don't see the double standard. If Tannehill was a Bills QB, you would be demanding he be cut by now. But because he's a Dolphin you keep fluffing him up even after the turd he laid yesterday.
Maury Ballstein Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 I guess you don't see the double standard. If Tannehill was a Bills QB, you would be demanding he be cut by now. But because he's a Dolphin you keep fluffing him up even after the turd he laid yesterday. He threw for 4,000 yards last year. What in the world are we talking about ? FC WAKE UP BRO, I need backup.
DC Tom Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 I think Tannenhill's overhyped. But let's be reasonable...he went up against one of the best pass rushes in the league yesterday.
PromoTheRobot Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 He threw for 4,000 yards last year. What in the world are we talking about ? FC WAKE UP BRO, I need backup. Oooh, 4000! Fitz only threw 3500.
Maury Ballstein Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Oooh, 4000! Fitz only threw 3500. 27tds vs 12 ints too. Take the L bud. He's solid and will only get better. Unlike Fitzpicksix.
PromoTheRobot Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 27tds vs 12 ints too. Take the L bud. He's solid and will only get better. Unlike Fitzpicksix. You hope.
eball Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 27tds vs 12 ints too. Take the L bud. He's solid and will only get better. Unlike Fitzpicksix. 51 starts, dude. He is what he is.
MDH Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 If Tyrod Taylor throws for 4000 yards, 27 TD's 12 INT's and completes 66.4% of his passes, will you call him mediocre? #Mediocre #e.g.Fitz Well, if we're going to go just by stats then yeah. Those stats gave him a QB rating of 92.8 which ranked 14th in a 32 team league. That's barely better than middle of the pack and middle of the pack is the definition of mediocre. If we're not going to go by stats but on other things as well - like winning, come from behind wins, drives in the 4th quarter that help negate his poor play from earlier in the game - it pushes him further down that list behind guys like Flacco and E. Manning. I'd take guys like Dalton and Cam over him as well. Dalton is almost a wash but I'd still take him. Mediocre seems to be a perfect word to describe Tanny. As starters go he's neither good nor bad. He's right there in the middle. Not sure why there's a debate about this. Half the teams would like to have a middle of the pack guy.
Recommended Posts