Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 67

Thread: Why does Tannehill only have 6 td's?

  1. -51
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2011
    Posts:
    272
    vCash:
    1907
    Thanks / No Thanks
    As the season shakes out, other teams are stacking the box on us and daring Tannehill to throw more , would be my guess (waiting for his mistakes to come to them). Also a lack of turnovers by our Defense, making it a longer game of field position for us. Not sure what to expect, but if we play like we did against the Titans, you can't count this game as an easy loss against Seattle. We also should have beat the Bills bad defense.

    -ucfpf13
    Quote Quote  

  2. -52
    AdamC13's Avatar
    Awe "Tight End" my favorite position!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2009
    Posts:
    2,184
    vCash:
    1227
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Tannehill's numbers shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Among 115 college QBs last year Tannehill was 45th in TD%, 64th in INT%, and 56th in QB rating.

    Where other rookies drafted in round 1 ranked last year:

    Luck...6th in TD%, 47th in INT%, 5th in QB rating

    RG3...5th in TD%, 12th in INT%, 2nd in QB rating

    Wilson...1st in TD%, 5th in INT%, 1st in QB rating

    Weeden...28th in TD%, 34th in INT%, 9th in QB rating

    If he couldn't excel in college it is highly unlikely he would excel as a rookie in the NFL. Texas A&M did have some decent talent at the collegiate level last year between Fuller, Swope, Nwachukwu.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -53
    DolfanISS's Avatar
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2002
    Posts:
    8,384
    vCash:
    3065
    Loc:
    Bellingham, MA
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Why does Tannehill only have 6 td's?

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamC13 View Post
    More accurately, Atlanta didn't win Arizona lost it. It wasn't because Atlanta has playmakers, which they do, it was because Arizona does NOT have a quarterback.
    Yeah Arizonans offense without Kolb, as hard as that is to believe is putrid. If Atlanta played an average offensive team they'd have lost.
    Andrew Luck VS New England

    0-3 with 6 TD's and 8 picks. Not sure "Suck for Luck" helps in our division. Maybe we stop the "meaningless wins" talk.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -54
    DolfanISS's Avatar
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2002
    Posts:
    8,384
    vCash:
    3065
    Loc:
    Bellingham, MA
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Why does Tannehill only have 6 td's?

    Quote Originally Posted by AZStryker View Post
    We're not going to win any of the remaining games with this conservative offense. So if we're going down, wouldn't you rather go down swinging? A 14 point loss isn't any different than a 3 point loss. Plus, who knows, we might actually elevate our game due to the creativity and start to win again.
    I see your point, especially against the Pats. However avoiding putting our d in bad spots may not be a bad idea for the rest of the games. I just have no confidence in this offense.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -55
    AdamC13's Avatar
    Awe "Tight End" my favorite position!

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2009
    Posts:
    2,184
    vCash:
    1227
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Fintastic2124 View Post
    We need a playmaker with he ability to break a tackle or juke in open field and take it to the house. Our yac is pretty bad.
    Can you support that?

    Bess is 38th, Bush is 48th, Hartline is 57th, Thomas is 97th...considering there are 32 teams in the NFL the average would be to only have two players in the top 64, Miami has three while they are 24th in the NFL in passing yardage. Seems their yac is better than average.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -56
    jason_taylor's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2004
    Posts:
    4,150
    vCash:
    8393
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by number1fin View Post
    T.O. and Plax aren't legit WR's anymore. Hence why they're not in the league...
    ask pittsburge , there gettin ready to sign plax as we speak. yeah BOTH T.O and Plax are still very good receivers and can still play in this league, and sure as hell better than what we have..

    Quote Quote  

  7. -57
    jason_taylor's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2004
    Posts:
    4,150
    vCash:
    8393
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Canadianfishfan View Post
    I'm going on a limb here and point out something not mentioned in this thread.. how about PLAYCALLING!

    How about getting a little more creative Mr. Sherman!
    its hard to get creative when you dont have anything to get creative with.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -58
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2004
    Posts:
    2,576
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Miami
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamC13 View Post
    Can you support that?

    Bess is 38th, Bush is 48th, Hartline is 57th, Thomas is 97th...considering there are 32 teams in the NFL the average would be to only have two players in the top 64, Miami has three while they are 24th in the NFL in passing yardage. Seems their yac is better than average.
    So we suck at YAC?
    Quote Quote  

  9. -59
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2004
    Posts:
    6,007
    vCash:
    13614
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamC13 View Post
    Tannehill's numbers shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Among 115 college QBs last year Tannehill was 45th in TD%, 64th in INT%, and 56th in QB rating.

    Where other rookies drafted in round 1 ranked last year:

    Luck...6th in TD%, 47th in INT%, 5th in QB rating

    RG3...5th in TD%, 12th in INT%, 2nd in QB rating

    Wilson...1st in TD%, 5th in INT%, 1st in QB rating

    Weeden...28th in TD%, 34th in INT%, 9th in QB rating

    If he couldn't excel in college it is highly unlikely he would excel as a rookie in the NFL. Texas A&M did have some decent talent at the collegiate level last year between Fuller, Swope, Nwachukwu.
    I completely understand your position of being cautiously pessimistic but that last statement is ridiculous! I reeks of agenda and totally washes away the objectivity of your post. If that is decent talent, then the other guys had extraordinary talent around them. It's too bad because otherwise it was a well researched, insightful post.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -60
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2004
    Posts:
    2,576
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Miami
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamC13 View Post
    Tannehill's numbers shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Among 115 college QBs last year Tannehill was 45th in TD%, 64th in INT%, and 56th in QB rating.

    Where other rookies drafted in round 1 ranked last year:

    Luck...6th in TD%, 47th in INT%, 5th in QB rating

    RG3...5th in TD%, 12th in INT%, 2nd in QB rating

    Wilson...1st in TD%, 5th in INT%, 1st in QB rating

    Weeden...28th in TD%, 34th in INT%, 9th in QB rating

    If he couldn't excel in college it is highly unlikely he would excel as a rookie in the NFL. Texas A&M did have some decent talent at the collegiate level last year between Fuller, Swope, Nwachukwu.
    Forgot how john beck lit up the NCAA. I am sure David Kingler (sp?) tore up the league when he got there.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-04-2013, 04:36 PM
  2. Caption Contest - Tannehill & Bess (Priceless look on Tannehill's face)
    By marino2duper73 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 09-06-2012, 04:20 PM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 12:36 AM
  4. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 03-02-2012, 11:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •