| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Who would you rather have? |
| Ryan Tannehill |
|
39% |
[ 33 ] |
| Russell WIlson |
|
41% |
[ 35 ] |
| To early to call |
|
19% |
[ 16 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 84 |
|
| Author |
Message |
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31454
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Tooki wrote: | Russell Wilson is a rookie though jrry. And he has improved a lot since Week 1. Russell Wilson isn't throwing the ball less because he can't, it's because it isn't in Pete's philosophy to do so when the game is close.
And in regards to playing on the road, he had a solid game against the 9ers. He even played well against the Lions, but the D kept giving up points.
The only things that Ryan Tannehill has over Russell Wilson is height. It's fair enough that you think Ryan Tannehill is better, but some people in here act like Russell Wilson is Derek Anderson. |
Russell Wilson isn't Derek Anderson, has improved and has made some gorgeous throws. But I think a lot of people see Tannehill having elite QB potential while they see Wilson in the same sort of vein as Alex Smith(i.e. game manager)...fair or not.
| SaveourSonics wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | SaveourSonics wrote: | | Pithy Radish wrote: | | Bednarik60 wrote: | LMAO! Is this thread for real?
Tannehill smokes Wilson.
Wilson would be flattered if Tannehill let him(make him) carry his jock yo.
Ryan's a better athlete with better arm strength and a hotter wife. |
Russell Wilson 62.1%, 1827 yards, 7.22, 15 TDs, 8 int, 90.5 rat
Ryan Tannehill 58.1% 2120 yards, 6.88, 6 TDs, 11 INTs, 70.8 rat
I don't know... it is kind of hard to see what you mean by "smoking" Wilson. |
Love how this gets ignored. The only thing Tannehill is better at is the amount he throws it  |
I could go compare Alex Smith statistically to a number of great QBs right now and argue that he's superior. And yet Alex Smith might just be benched for his backup.
Stats aren't at all the end all be all especially for rookie QBs. People are ignoring it because any idiot can google their name and find those stats on the ESPN or nfl.com pages that pop up.
Want something to be acknowledged? Do some real analysis. |
Stats are actually a great justification for the way a player is playing. You're really going to imply that they are somehow meaningless because they're easily accessible? You're really going to say that Wilson being better in literally every single category doesn't indicate anything?
Give me a break about analysis. I've watched 10 games of Wilson's and am known in the Seattle forum as one of his biggest doubters, yet even I can see that he's progressing quite nicely and playing damn well for a rookie. You don't even have the sample size to call what you do analysis. |
No, they aren't.
And I'm not going to imply anything. I'm going to bluntly say no one is going to give a post the time of day that links stats any idiot can find on google.
It tells us nothing that we didn't already know.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SaveourSonics
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 45445
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | SaveourSonics wrote: | Stats are actually a great justification for the way a player is playing. You're really going to imply that they are somehow meaningless because they're easily accessible? You're really going to say that Wilson being better in literally every single category doesn't indicate anything?
Give me a break about analysis. I've watched 10 games of Wilson's and am known in the Seattle forum as one of his biggest doubters, yet even I can see that he's progressing quite nicely and playing damn well for a rookie. You don't even have the sample size to call what you do analysis. |
No, they aren't.
And I'm not going to imply anything. I'm going to bluntly say no one is going to give a post the time of day that links stats any idiot can find on google.
It tells us nothing that we didn't already know. |
They aren't meaningless or they aren't a great justification? Because if you're saying the latter than I don't even know how to further this discussion. That is beyond reason. When a player is better statistically across the board, that does say something. Obviously it doesn't show the whole picture and "analysis" as you wish to call it is certainly needed, but don't tell me they're meaningless. The fact that they're easily accessible shouldn't damage their validity in a discussion such as this.
And with the way this thread has been going, I'm skeptical of the notion that everyone already knew those stats.
_________________
 '
Richard D!ck Sherman 4 Prez |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tooki
Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Posts: 9543
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
People just haven't watched him then. At his best, he will be Drew Brees 2.0 IMO. Although I like a lot of other people are very surprised by how he has adjusted to the NFL.
I do admit that Wilson needs the scheme to work in his favour, but in that instance he could be a Top-10 QB at least.
_________________
| sp6488 wrote: | | If the Chiefs finish ahead of the Ravens in the standings I will eat a printed copy of the standings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31454
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SaveourSonics wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | SaveourSonics wrote: | Stats are actually a great justification for the way a player is playing. You're really going to imply that they are somehow meaningless because they're easily accessible? You're really going to say that Wilson being better in literally every single category doesn't indicate anything?
Give me a break about analysis. I've watched 10 games of Wilson's and am known in the Seattle forum as one of his biggest doubters, yet even I can see that he's progressing quite nicely and playing damn well for a rookie. You don't even have the sample size to call what you do analysis. |
No, they aren't.
And I'm not going to imply anything. I'm going to bluntly say no one is going to give a post the time of day that links stats any idiot can find on google.
It tells us nothing that we didn't already know. |
They aren't meaningless or they aren't a great justification? Because if you're saying the latter than I don't even know how to further this discussion. That is beyond reason. When a player is better statistically across the board, that does say something. Obviously it doesn't show the whole picture and "analysis" as you wish to call it is certainly needed, but don't tell me they're meaningless. The fact that they're easily accessible shouldn't damage their validity in a discussion such as this.
And with the way this thread has been going, I'm skeptical of the notion that everyone already knew those stats. |
Meaningless in comparison to analyzing the actual games? Yes.
It says he's better statistically. That's about all it says.
This thread is Tannehill vs. Wilson, I'd say a lot of people are less concerned with stats and more concerned with who they'd rather have moving forward.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaveourSonics
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 45445
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | This thread is Tannehill vs. Wilson, I'd say a lot of people are less concerned with stats and more concerned with who they'd rather have moving forward. |
Which they are judging from their "analysis" Okay.
_________________
'
Richard D!ck Sherman 4 Prez |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31454
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SaveourSonics wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | This thread is Tannehill vs. Wilson, I'd say a lot of people are less concerned with stats and more concerned with who they'd rather have moving forward. |
Which they are judging from their "analysis" Okay. |
Well, if they were judging by stats, there wouldn't be many people for you to argue with...now would there be?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pithy Radish
Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 593
Location: In a dirt field somewhere.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | SaveourSonics wrote: | | Pithy Radish wrote: | | Bednarik60 wrote: | LMAO! Is this thread for real?
Tannehill smokes Wilson.
Wilson would be flattered if Tannehill let him(make him) carry his jock yo.
Ryan's a better athlete with better arm strength and a hotter wife. |
Russell Wilson 62.1%, 1827 yards, 7.22, 15 TDs, 8 int, 90.5 rat
Ryan Tannehill 58.1% 2120 yards, 6.88, 6 TDs, 11 INTs, 70.8 rat
I don't know... it is kind of hard to see what you mean by "smoking" Wilson. |
Love how this gets ignored. The only thing Tannehill is better at is the amount he throws it |
I could go compare Alex Smith statistically to a number of great QBs right now and argue that he's superior. And yet Alex Smith might just be benched for his backup.
Stats aren't at all the end all be all especially for rookie QBs. People are ignoring it because any idiot can google their name and find those stats on the ESPN or nfl.com pages that pop up.
Want something to be acknowledged? Do some real analysis. |
I did do some real analysis and it was completely ignored in this thread. Instead it went into some debate about stats and their merrits. I used the stats to illustrate that the Dolphins fan was way off base when he said "Tannehill is smoking Wilson". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31454
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pithy Radish wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | SaveourSonics wrote: | | Pithy Radish wrote: | | Bednarik60 wrote: | LMAO! Is this thread for real?
Tannehill smokes Wilson.
Wilson would be flattered if Tannehill let him(make him) carry his jock yo.
Ryan's a better athlete with better arm strength and a hotter wife. |
Russell Wilson 62.1%, 1827 yards, 7.22, 15 TDs, 8 int, 90.5 rat
Ryan Tannehill 58.1% 2120 yards, 6.88, 6 TDs, 11 INTs, 70.8 rat
I don't know... it is kind of hard to see what you mean by "smoking" Wilson. |
Love how this gets ignored. The only thing Tannehill is better at is the amount he throws it |
I could go compare Alex Smith statistically to a number of great QBs right now and argue that he's superior. And yet Alex Smith might just be benched for his backup.
Stats aren't at all the end all be all especially for rookie QBs. People are ignoring it because any idiot can google their name and find those stats on the ESPN or nfl.com pages that pop up.
Want something to be acknowledged? Do some real analysis. |
I did do some real analysis and it was completely ignored in this thread. Instead it went into some debate about stats and their merrits. I used the stats to illustrate that the Dolphins fan was way off base when he said "Tannehill is smoking Wilson". |
A) Bednarik is an Eagle fan
B) He said smokes Wilson
C) I'm fairly sure he was joking with you guys
D) Even if he wasn't, I doubt he was talking about stats
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
footy_29
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 11161
Location: The Frozen Tundra that is Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SaveourSonics wrote: | | footy_29 wrote: | Russell Wilson dancing around his pocket drives me nuts - feel so bad for his offensive line sometimes. He's got a nice deep ball, but other than some intangible aspects, it's hard to even compare him to Tannehill. As said, Tannehill has an inferior supporting cast (by a hefty margin) and has very well this season.
Tannehill I see as a franchise QB, Russell Wilson as more of a below-average starter who is eventually phased out. |
Him dancing in the pocket was much more of an issue earlier in the year. The strides he's already made with his weaknesses is actually pretty astonishing. Sounds like you're basing your opinion off of nothing but early season play. Admittedly I'm not the biggest Wilson supporter, but some of the things being said in this thread about him just seem outdated or incorrect. |
I have seen 4 or 5 Seahawks games, and I cannot seem to remember two of his later games as the ones who made me think of the McNabb comparison. It was probably the NE and MIN games, but I cannot remember.
For me, the height is a huge factor. Maybe it's mitigated because Okung is a ~top 10 tackle, and the interior line is quite good, but it still requires a fair amount of creativity to give him the lanes to throw. But what do I know.
_________________
Blknite01's masterpiece |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pithy Radish
Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 593
Location: In a dirt field somewhere.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | Pithy Radish wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | SaveourSonics wrote: | | Pithy Radish wrote: | | Bednarik60 wrote: | LMAO! Is this thread for real?
Tannehill smokes Wilson.
Wilson would be flattered if Tannehill let him(make him) carry his jock yo.
Ryan's a better athlete with better arm strength and a hotter wife. |
Russell Wilson 62.1%, 1827 yards, 7.22, 15 TDs, 8 int, 90.5 rat
Ryan Tannehill 58.1% 2120 yards, 6.88, 6 TDs, 11 INTs, 70.8 rat
I don't know... it is kind of hard to see what you mean by "smoking" Wilson. |
Love how this gets ignored. The only thing Tannehill is better at is the amount he throws it |
I could go compare Alex Smith statistically to a number of great QBs right now and argue that he's superior. And yet Alex Smith might just be benched for his backup.
Stats aren't at all the end all be all especially for rookie QBs. People are ignoring it because any idiot can google their name and find those stats on the ESPN or nfl.com pages that pop up.
Want something to be acknowledged? Do some real analysis. |
I did do some real analysis and it was completely ignored in this thread. Instead it went into some debate about stats and their merrits. I used the stats to illustrate that the Dolphins fan was way off base when he said "Tannehill is smoking Wilson". |
A) Bednarik is an Eagle fan
B) He said smokes Wilson
C) I'm fairly sure he was joking with you guys
D) Even if he wasn't, I doubt he was talking about stats |
Talk about nit-picking  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31454
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pithy Radish wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | Pithy Radish wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | SaveourSonics wrote: | | Pithy Radish wrote: | | Bednarik60 wrote: | LMAO! Is this thread for real?
Tannehill smokes Wilson.
Wilson would be flattered if Tannehill let him(make him) carry his jock yo.
Ryan's a better athlete with better arm strength and a hotter wife. |
Russell Wilson 62.1%, 1827 yards, 7.22, 15 TDs, 8 int, 90.5 rat
Ryan Tannehill 58.1% 2120 yards, 6.88, 6 TDs, 11 INTs, 70.8 rat
I don't know... it is kind of hard to see what you mean by "smoking" Wilson. |
Love how this gets ignored. The only thing Tannehill is better at is the amount he throws it |
I could go compare Alex Smith statistically to a number of great QBs right now and argue that he's superior. And yet Alex Smith might just be benched for his backup.
Stats aren't at all the end all be all especially for rookie QBs. People are ignoring it because any idiot can google their name and find those stats on the ESPN or nfl.com pages that pop up.
Want something to be acknowledged? Do some real analysis. |
I did do some real analysis and it was completely ignored in this thread. Instead it went into some debate about stats and their merrits. I used the stats to illustrate that the Dolphins fan was way off base when he said "Tannehill is smoking Wilson". |
A) Bednarik is an Eagle fan
B) He said smokes Wilson
C) I'm fairly sure he was joking with you guys
D) Even if he wasn't, I doubt he was talking about stats |
Talk about nit-picking |
I didn't mention that wasn't real analysis at least.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
terbo559
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 2742
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| imani wrote: | | terbo559 wrote: | | I think Tannehill is a much more established pro quarterback. If he has the weapons Wilson has, he would be much better. |
I remember in the preseason, when it was pretty much general consensus that seattle had no playmakers or reliable weapons on offense. I'm trying to figure out what has changed since then |
I don't remember that but let's compare the offensive players on both teams.
Marshawn Lynch>Reggie Bush
Sidney Rice, Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin>Brian Hartline, Davon Bess & Marlon Moore
Zach Miller>Anthony Fasano
This explains more to what I was saying. Seattle is also leading Miami in offensive points, and yards per game. Also don't try to compare Brian Hartline 2012 stats with Sidney Rice 2012 stats and say Hartline is better, because we all know Rice is better. Plus Seattle is a run first offense.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FinNasty
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 387
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Bump...
These kids both put on a great performance yesterday! 
So glad we got one of the QBs from this draft...
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Totore
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 270
Location: Mexico
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ryan Tannehill
Guy is doing more with less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hieroglyphics
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Posts: 542
Location: University of North Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I'll take the guy with a higher ceiling, Ryan Tannehil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
