Tannehill's Valiant Effort Comes up Short.

[Mythos27]

16 hours ago, TerryBoats said:

1999 was the last time the average YPC was under 4.0.  It's steadily increased since then, and Henry has been below the league average the past two years. 

 

Given the increase in QB efficiency , I really think RBs need to be above the 4.5 YPC threshold to be considered efficient enough to shoulder a heavy workload

So if we arbitrarily decide to change the cut off for what inefficiency mid-conversation is we can call anyone inefficient? You don't say...

[big2033]

16 hours ago, IowaOiler said:

 

We only go as far as Henry takes us?  How did he carry us to the #1 seed last year when he spent half the season on IR? 

 

In the playoffs? Yes. Again, check the playoffs. 

 

This is why we aren't doing much in the playoffs. Cause Tannehill isn't stepping up. Only hope is a Running back. Which I acknowledge is almost impossible.

 

But when left up to Tannehill what do we get? 3 INTs.

 

Our playoff wins and losses of late have been predicated on Henry's performance. Where's the lie? 

[IowaOiler]

19 hours ago, Mythos27 said:

My point is irrefutable because it's factually correct. It's not an opinion. Being #24 in yards per attempt does not make Henry inefficient because the long-accepted threshold for efficiency in the run game is 4.0 yards per carry and he's well clear of that. The fact that there are a bunch of other backs doing as well is irrelevant. He isn't inefficient and you are wrong on that front. Period. My point only gets stronger when you add the context that he's had less help than any other back by virtue of being stuck on literally the worst offense in the league while playing the most dependent position on the field. This is not an argument you can win.

 

And we didn't do "just as good" with other backs as you admitted yourself in your post before this one when you said, and I quote again "Nobody is saying Foreman and Hilliard replaced him perfectly "  before being forced into a new argument about value because you couldn't defend the production point once the difference in scoring was pointed out. Now you want to shift into a new argument about how the state of the team last year makes you right while completely ignoring that the state of the team is just as bad this year and yet Henry is still not only out-performing what Hilliard and Foreman did despite this but is also playing well in general. The irony of it all is amusing. Just let this one go. It isn't going well.

 

Btw, I love how you're talking about context but when listing Henry's YPC as 24th you leave out the fact that 4 of the rushers above him are Quarterbacks and that the difference in YPC between spots 20 (where Henry actually ranks) and 13 is only .2 ypc. Surely you didn't mean to mislead by making the difference between he and his peers bigger than it is right?

 

Lol...whatever you want to believe, man.  The argument is a hilarious one with you leaving our context.  As far as Henry been #24, yeah 4 are QBs.  So your efficient RB is 20th.  My bad.  Your excuse making is similar to what it was when you were deep-throating Mett and he was shitting the bed.  It's your thing, and I don't want to get in the way.  Enjoy.

[IowaOiler]

3 hours ago, big2033 said:

 

In the playoffs? Yes. Again, check the playoffs. 

 

This is why we aren't doing much in the playoffs. Cause Tannehill isn't stepping up. Only hope is a Running back. Which I acknowledge is almost impossible.

 

But when left up to Tannehill what do we get? 3 INTs.

 

Our playoff wins and losses of late have been predicated on Henry's performance. Where's the lie? 

 

The lie is that Henry has anything to do with it.  If Tannehill doesn't throw 1 of those INTs, we win against the Bengals...despite Henry going 20 for 60.  That's how little he mattered in that game.  As far as Tannehill's INT, yeah, they were bad and even he has admitted it.  How many have admitted that running Henry that game over Foreman, was a joke and totally on meathead and his coaching staff?

[big2033]

1 hour ago, IowaOiler said:

 

The lie is that Henry has anything to do with it.  If Tannehill doesn't throw 1 of those INTs, we win against the Bengals...despite Henry going 20 for 60.  That's how little he mattered in that game.  As far as Tannehill's INT, yeah, they were bad and even he has admitted it.  How many have admitted that running Henry that game over Foreman, was a joke and totally on meathead and his coaching staff?

 

HE DOES HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. Tannehill threw INTs in that game because we couldn't rely on Henry. The less Henry does, the more Tannehill has to do and the worse the result. Chicken and the egg. This is what teams want and it shows in the playoffs.

 

When Henry plays well in the playoffs we won, when he didn't we lost.

 

I don't want to rely on Henry or a RB to win us playoff games. But we have Tannehill so we have no other choice.

 

But believe what you want. We've said enough. 

[Mythos27]

3 hours ago, IowaOiler said:

 

Lol...whatever you want to believe, man.  The argument is a hilarious one with you leaving our context.  As far as Henry been #24, yeah 4 are QBs.  So your efficient RB is 20th.  My bad.  Your excuse making is similar to what it was when you were deep-throating Mett and he was shitting the bed.  It's your thing, and I don't want to get in the way.  Enjoy.

You could stand to bow out a little more gracefully next time but I won't hold it against you. I think is as close to "you're right, I was wrong" as your pride will allow you to come so I'm proud of you!