Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 800
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The guy on the turf should be in a postal worker uniform.   Kinda like this...    

If I was underage you'd really love Henry then! Then you could vote for him!

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, OzTitan said:

CMC is a modern offense's dream RB. His problem is health, but skills wise he is ideal.

 

He's another Marshall Faulk, who also missed games with injuries. He's all time elite

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

 

I wouldn't laugh too hard after you just said you'd take the guy with more TDs and more yards and then picked the guy with less in both categories

Henry has 127 total rushing/receiving TDs. McCaffrey has 98

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/3117251/christian-mccaffrey

https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/3043078/derrick-henry

 

Like I said, I'm all set. This isn't an argument. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

Like I said, I'm all set. This isn't an argument. 

 

 

Kyle Shahanan traded a monster draft package for McCaffery and he also has gotten paid way more than Henry has come close to getting paid. The Ravens reportedly offered a 4th for Henry, the same as Demonte Jones

 

Gee, I wonder if the 9ers would give up that draft package for Henry? I wonder if a team would sign Henry to what McCaffery got paid? Fuck no, one team was interested in Henry. 

 

You're an inch away from saying Levis threw 4 TDs because of Henry vs the Falcons

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mythos27 said:

It's only weird because you see Henry similarly to how they do. That you see this conversation and think we're the ones being unreasonable is insane. Usually when someone tells you that the best player to every play for your franchise is an overrated bum, yeah, you're going to say something about it. We're supposed to let that foolishness go unchecked? 

Easy there, cowboy. I’m a Henry fan and I’m speaking about both sides of the argument. 
 

The conversation has reached extreme levels on both ends. I personally think CMac is the more versatile back, and he impacts the game more when he is in the game than Henry does due to the versatility. But I also think Henry is an absolute game changer and is one of my favorite Titans of all time (I have multiple pieces of memorabilia from his time here). 
 

On the flip side, Tannehill is catching strays when he was a damn good QB while with TN. 
 

It’s just gotten to the point where it’s extreme for both sides, in my opinion. It’s stupid for some to come in here after Henry has a bad game and claim victory and it’s silly for the other side to come in and claim victory with a very obvious still-great Henry. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

 

Kyle Shahanan traded a monster draft package for McCaffery and he also has gotten paid way more than Henry has come close to getting paid. The Ravens reportedly offered a 4th for Henry, the same as Demonte Jones

 

Gee, I wonder if the 9ers would give up that draft package for Henry? I wonder if a team would sign Henry to what McCaffery got paid? Fuck no, one team was interested in Henry. 

 

You're an inch away from saying Levis threw 4 TDs because of Henry vs the Falcons

Yeah, I've heard all of this before. It changes nothing. All the appeals to authority in the world won't distract from the fact that seriously think Tannehill was just as good a QB as Henry is a RB. I've known for a while you had to believe that but I can't believe you actually said it out loud. I honestly feel stupid for even having entertained these conversations with you all of these years. What a massive waste of time. I'm all set my guy. Believe what you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

Yeah, I've heard all of this before. It changes nothing. All the appeals to authority in the world won't distract from the fact that seriously think Tannehill was just as good a QB as Henry is a RB. I've known for a while you had to believe that but I can't believe you actually said it out loud. I honestly feel stupid for even having entertained these conversations with you all of these years. What a massive waste of time. I'm all set my guy. Believe what you want.

 

I thought you'd jump off that McCaffery nonsense and bow out on that

 

And yes for 2+ years Tannehill did play QB at an elite level. It was posted numerous times he had better number than Mahomes, when Mahomes was playing at his best. I'm sorry thats true

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, FireInTheHole said:

Easy there, cowboy. I’m a Henry fan and I’m speaking about both sides of the argument. 
 

The conversation has reached extreme levels on both ends. I personally think CMac is the more versatile back, and he impacts the game more when he is in the game than Henry does due to the versatility. But I also think Henry is an absolute game changer and is one of my favorite Titans of all time (I have multiple pieces of memorabilia from his time here). 
 

On the flip side, Tannehill is catching strays when he was a damn good QB while with TN. 
 

It’s just gotten to the point where it’s extreme for both sides, in my opinion. It’s stupid for some to come in here after Henry has a bad game and claim victory and it’s silly for the other side to come in and claim victory with a very obvious still-great Henry. 

That's more than fair. My bad. Btw, let it be known; I absolutely loved Tannehill when he was here and I think McCaffrey is an absolute stud who definitely makes the hall if not for injuries. No one defended Tannehill more fiercely than I did. I don't mean toss any strays towards either; I just personally think that Henry still being better than those two studs says more about Henry than it does about the others. 

Edited by Mythos27
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

 

I thought you'd jump off that McCaffery nonsense and bow out on that

 

And yes for 2+ years Tannehill did play QB at an elite level. It was posted numerous times he had better number than Mahomes, when Mahomes was playing at his best. I'm sorry that true

At his absolute best Tannehill played with top 5-8 efficiency and did so for a very short period of time. At his best, Henry played at a top 1 level, is easily the best RB of his generation, and will walk into the hall of fame easily. I'm sorry you actually believe those two things are comparable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

At his absolute best Tannehill played with top 5-8 efficiency and did so for a very short period of time. At his best, Henry played at a top 1 level, is easily the best RB of his generation, and will walk into the hall of fame easily. I'm sorry you actually believe those two things are comparable.

 

I clearly said Henry had longevity and Tannehill's elite window was short, but 4th highest rated season ever is huge accomplishment and a 2 year stretch on par with Mahomes in his prime years. 

 

Nothing about that is wrong

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

 

I clearly said Henry had longevity and Tannehill's elite window was short, but 4th highest rated season ever is huge accomplishment and a 2 year stretch on par with Mahomes in his prime years. 

 

Nothing about that is wrong

 

 

It's wrong because the correct answer from anyone that isn't you is "Henry is a better RB than Tannehill was a QB". All the qualifiers and mental gymnastics you're doing are completely unnecessary unless on some level you disagree with the statement in quotation marks and anyone that doesn't categorically agree with the statement in quotation marks frankly isn't worth discussing with on this topic. That's why I chose to withdraw from the discussion. It's completely fruitless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mythos27 said:

 That's why I chose to withdraw from the discussion. It's completely fruitless. 

 

You were honestly losing, especially concerning McCaffery

 

And Tannehill didn't at best play with top 5-8 efficiency, he had the 4 highest passer rating of all time, which measures efficiency. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

 

You were honestly losing, especially concerning McCaffery

 

And Tannehill didn't at best play with top 5-8 efficiency, he had the 4 highest passer rating of all time, which measures efficiency. 

No, I wasn't losing. I was accurate while you mistakenly believed McCaffrey had more TDs. We also both know McCaffrey, while great, is a long shot for the hall so I was right on both counts. Also, efficiency is an important part of elite play but it isn't all of it and Tannehill"s volume didn't match his efficiency; Henry has it all which is why Henry is an all time great and Tannehill isn't. Doing something that ranks you all time doesn't mean you are an all time player. Henry is an all time player. I hope you can appreciate the vast difference. 

Edited by Mythos27
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...