Jump to content

Brady to Titans Rumors


Mercalius

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, scine09 said:

I understand that.  And I am for keeping him.  But if you read this board you'd think we're talking about someone on Patrick Mahomes's level.  We're not.

 

I've probably said this 10 times.  If the Titans choose to move on, whether it be for Brady or someone else, there's a reason for it.  They've seen this guy in practice.  They know exactly what he is capable of.  Or at least they have as good an idea as anyone.  If they choose not to re-sign him it's because they think that last year was a mirage and helped out a great deal by the running game and that it came be replicated by someone else.  And that if the running game is shut down that he can't carry the team.

 

I think there are legit arguments on both sides of this.  As well as on Brady.

He just had a higher QB rating than Mahomes ever had in his career.  He had nearly as many TDs in 4 fewer games.

Edited by abc2330
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If they let Tannehill go and sign washed up Brady we're total retards    

I’m so tired of these Monday Morning QB takes after every playoff game. Whoever wins, we should’ve gotten them, or they’re way better, or they don’t choke like our guy.    What happened to the

They may call it free agency season but let’s be honest on this board it’s @AussieTitanFan08 season.

Posted Images

2 hours ago, smokeater said:

Toxic situation in Miami.  It’s obviously not a toxic situation in NE. We got very lucky. 

Right  because of all the QB’s available, Tannehill is the only franchise QB.  This fan base is delusional.  Tell me how many QB’s who were paid for 1 year of success panned out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, abc2330 said:

Why were Suh, Landry,Stills, Tunsil, and Fitzpatrick available?  The owner answered this question.  What they were doing wasn't working and they weren't winning, so they blew up a bunch of contracts , got what they could and started over.

Not playing this game with you.  The statement was if Brady was a franchise QB, he wouldn’t be available.  The same logic goes for every other QB in FA right now then, including  Tannehill.  And Brady is choosing to leave.  Tannehill was traded.  The real statement should be if Tannehill was a franchise QB he wouldn’t have been traded (for a 4th and the team ate much of the salary).

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, abc2330 said:

That guys with high numbers are good?

It's a relatively meaningless stat.  Always has been.  I don't feel like having this argument again.

 

So if the Chiefs decided they'd trade Mahomes for Tannehill straight up you're say no, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Righteous said:

Not playing this game with you.  The statement was if Brady was a franchise QB, he wouldn’t be available.  The same logic goes for every other QB in FA right now then, including  Tannehill.  And Brady is choosing to leave.  Tannehill was traded.  The real statement should be if Tannehill was a franchise QB he wouldn’t have been traded (for a 4th and the team ate much of the salary).

Is Brees a franchise QB?  His former team let him walk.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, scine09 said:

I understand that.  And I am for keeping him.  But if you read this board you'd think we're talking about someone on Patrick Mahomes's level.  We're not.

 

I've probably said this 10 times.  If the Titans choose to move on, whether it be for Brady or someone else, there's a reason for it.  They've seen this guy in practice.  They know exactly what he is capable of.  Or at least they have as good an idea as anyone.  If they choose not to re-sign him it's because they think that last year was a mirage and helped out a great deal by the running game and that it came be replicated by someone else.  And that if the running game is shut down that he can't carry the team.

 

I think there are legit arguments on both sides of this.  As well as on Brady.

Sure, in reality  I can’t argue with a lot of what you say here.  The overstatedness is just because guys are trying to make a point on the internet-you overstate it to get your point across to someone who disagrees-happens a lot in the world today. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brees situation is not even remotely the same.  

 

Here's what happened with Brees.  He was drafted in the second round, didn't show much in his first three years so he wasn't getting the benefit of the doubt since the Chargers had their pick of QBs and he wasn't a first round pick to begin with, then he had a great year so the Chargers had to make a decision.  Then he gets hurt in 2005 which made the decision easy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BudAdams said:

I do find it interesting that many of the pro Brady folks were Mariota nut huggers......

 

Seeing Brady as a viable alternative to Tannehill is about Brady's resume, not Mariota's.

 

Fwiw, I'm not pro Brady or pro Tannehill. I don't have a dog in the fight either way. My dog got his hind legs ran over by some mean bastard ass mail carrier, who I hope gets bitten by a rabid pit bull.

 

So anyway, I'm good with whoever JRob decides is a better fit. He's earned the benefit of doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, scine09 said:

It's a relatively meaningless stat.  Always has been.  I don't feel like having this argument again.

 

So if the Chiefs decided they'd trade Mahomes for Tannehill straight up you're say no, right?

That's A really dumb argument, tbh.  Maybe if you compare QB ratings now to those of which 20 years ago, but it's anything but meaningless.

 

Anyone would trade anything for a young guy with Mahomes talent and upside.  But he's also playing for one of the best offensive coaches of all time.  For Tannehill to put up similar efficiency and production numbers per snap on an offense which was such a slouch before he took over is extremely impressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Jonboy said:


Statistically, he was among the best. 

He was. But should 10 regular season games playing for a new contract overlook the fact that he was mostly mediocre the previous 7 seasons?

 

I'm all for keeping Tannehill, but I can also see why you'd want to hedge your bets on him at this point on jim truly being a franchise QB. Nick Foles got hot at the right time and rode a SB win to a big contract. Now he's on the bench.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, abc2330 said:

That's A really dumb argument, tbh.  Maybe if you compare QB ratings now to those of which 20 years ago, but it's anything but meaningless.

 

Anyone would trade anything for a young guy with Mahomes talent and upside.  But he's also playing for one of the best offensive coaches of all time.  For Tannehill to put up similar efficiency and production numbers per snap on an offense which was such a slouch before he took over is extremely impressive.

Who is better?  Tannehill or Mahomes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...