Jump to content

Comparing a few QBs, round 2


Jamalisms

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, IowaOiler said:

 

Oh, is that why when Henry was out for half the year, Tannehill struggled en-route to the #1 seed alongside a bunch of guys off the street?

Yeah Henry only had a thousand yards in 8 games that year and Foreman got 600 on 3 starts you fucking moron. You know what happened in Act II of this play? 

 

Tannehill had to go to therapy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SleepingTitan said:

Yeah Henry only had a thousand yards in 8 games that year and Foreman got 600 on 3 starts you fucking moron. You know what happened in Act II of this play? 

 

Tannehill had to go to therapy. 

 

Yeah,  Henry had a shit ton of yards because meathead had him on track to crush the season carry record, you fucking douchebag.  Also the fact Foreman got 600 yards, when he's done very little since, only further proves that the running game success was because of defenses having to respect the passing game.  

 

As far as Act II, are you talking about the playoff game where Tannehill threw 3 picks, but we still would have won if Henry hadn't looked like post-turf toe Eddie George on his 20 fucking carries.  Hillard had more yards on 4 carries.

 

Get back to the children's table with Bongo Jr and the other retards, kiddo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OILERMAN said:

 

You mean a complement to Tanny?

Sure that too.  I like our QBs, and honestly most of the skill positions too.  But games are won and lost in the trenches.  You’d think a former DE would get it, meathead or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

You guys are crazy if you don't think Levis performing up to Tannehill's standards and better is not only an indictment against Tannehill but also a strong case for Levis being a good QB. 

Let me flip the logic with the assumption that Tannehill is as bad as people, maybe not you @IsntLifeFunny, but certainly some, make him out to be.

 

How is Levis performing on the level of a mediocre quarterback who is now in decline "a strong case for Levis being a good QB"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pat said:

Let me flip the logic with the assumption that Tannehill is as bad as people, maybe not you @IsntLifeFunny, but certainly some, make him out to be.

 

How is Levis performing on the level of a mediocre quarterback who is now in decline "a strong case for Levis being a good QB"?

He's performed significantly better than Tannehill over 2 games so your point doesn't make any sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's so obvious Levis has traits that tannehill lacked.  just overall speed when playing the game.

also obvious Levis while fully capable of hitting the broad side of a barn may have issues if the barn is actually moving.

that was not an issue for tannehill.

 

but Levis has youth on his side so it's his turn

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

You guys are crazy if you don't think Levis performing up to Tannehill's standards and better is not only an indictment against Tannehill but also a strong case for Levis being a good QB. 

If Levis goes on a tear and the team wins of course it'll be fair to consider that indictment. I think everyone understands this. What no one seems to want to engage with is what does it mean if this doesn't happen...

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

If Levis goes on a tear and the team wins of course it'll be fair to consider that indictment. I think everyone understands this. What no one seems to want to engage with is what does it mean if this doesn't happen...

Depends on the context. He played well enough against the Steelers to win despite some mistakes. The coaching and OL let him down. I won't make any excuses for him, but there isn't much to be done when your coach thinks a 3 point lead means it's time to pucker up and you have an OL of scrubs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Depends on the context. He played well enough against the Steelers to win despite some mistakes. The coaching and OL let him down. I won't make any excuses for him, but there isn't much to be done when your coach thinks a 3 point lead means it's time to pucker up and you have an OL of scrubs. 

I didn't mean what it would mean for Levis. Levis's evaluation is almost Independent of the rest of the team. What I meant is that if Levis can't do shit with this roster either, it will be clear that Tannehill wasn't a primary problem with the offense/team. It's the natural opposite to Tannehill being a primary problem if a QB switch is all it takes to fix them offense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

I didn't mean what it would mean for Levis. Levis's evaluation is almost Independent of the rest of the team. What I meant is that if Levis can't do shit with this roster either, it will be clear that Tannehill wasn't a primary problem with the offense/team. It's the natural opposite to Tannehill being a primary problem if a QB switch is all it takes to fix them offense. 

Good point. I made one similar yesterday but kind of the invers. Pat said 'what does it mean if nothing changes under Levis?'. Well, seeing as I think Tannehill is a plus QB it would mean the rookie is playing well. 

 

I don't think Tannehill was a primary problem. I think his lack of mobility this year was glaring because our OL is the worst in the league at protecting the QB. The age, injury situation, and record to go with his contract situation are what led to the switch. Might as well rip the bandaid off. 

 

To go back to Levis, if he performs with this OL and staff then we've got our guy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...