[quote]red04 wrote:
The Tannehill signing is great for the Fins whether or not you think he’s some stud. “The Market” is about to get blown the fuck up when Wilson and Luck get their paydays, so anyone with a young QB is smart to get them inked before there’s the albatross contracts out there for them to point to. This happens all the time within each position.
That’s also why the Hawks probably need to get Wilson inked soon as well. Sources are saying he wants top QB in the league money, which while expensive anytime, is about to get much more expensive.[/quote]
I mean I guess, but if I was Miami I’d be like, “You aren’t Wilson or Luck so no…”
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Also, team owners are listening to 3 different proposals to change the PAT over the next few days.
From MMQB:
The NFL competition committee proposes moving the PAT kick attempt back to the 15 yard line. A blocked PAT or a fumbled/intercepted 2 point attempt could by run back by the defense for 2 points. This would be a 1 year trial. Kicking PATs succeed about %98 of the time whereas 32 yard FGs succeed %90 of the time.
New England’s proposal is the same as the NFL’s CC except the defense can’t score and the rule would be permanent.
Eagles want the line of scrimmage for the 2 point attempt to be at the 1 instead of the 2. One year trial period.
[/quote]
Just wish they would quit screwing with an unbroken product.
Unless you think the 'fins should have spent some of that money on cancer research…
[/quote]
Before Strungoutlapdog comes along and cheerleads your fallacy some more. Don’t “bow out” of a conversation and then come back with cheap shot.
You know your entire post was a fallacy, that’s why you scooted off in the first place, but now you want to try and ride a internet high horse with this bullshit?
[quote]red04 wrote:
The Tannehill signing is great for the Fins whether or not you think he’s some stud. “The Market” is about to get blown the fuck up when Wilson and Luck get their paydays, so anyone with a young QB is smart to get them inked before there’s the albatross contracts out there for them to point to. This happens all the time within each position.
That’s also why the Hawks probably need to get Wilson inked soon as well. Sources are saying he wants top QB in the league money, which while expensive anytime, is about to get much more expensive.[/quote]
Especially if you look at all the QB’s the Dolphins have had since Dan Marino. What other options do they have?
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
In 2014, Tannehill started every game and completed 392-of-590 (66.4 percent) passes for 4,045 yards with 27 touchdowns and 12 interceptions, for a 92.8 passer rating. He also added 56 rushes for 311 yards and one touchdown. His completions, attempts, completion percentage, passing yards, passing touchdowns, passer rating and rushing yards were all career highs.
Further, his 92.8 passer rating was the fifth-highest single-season figure in Dolphins history, his 392 completions set a franchise single-season record, his 66.4 completion percentage was the second-highest single-season completion percentage in team history, his 4,045 passing yards were the seventh-highest single-season total by a Dolphins player and most since 1994, and his 27 touchdown passes were the sixth-most in a season in Dolphins history and also the most since 1994.
The QB market is tight. If you have someone you think you can build around, you lock them in.
Unless you think the 'fins should have spent some of that money on cancer research…
[/quote]
I was not aware of his stats. I completely agree with you about the QB market and how to handle it.
You can win a NFL championship with Tannehill at QB. Not as a caretaker either. As a QB that is the center piece of the offense.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
I’d take Tannehill over john football anyday.[/quote]
If I was a GM, I wouldn’t trade Tannehill for Johnny Football. Because I wold know I could win with Tannehill. If I was drafting from the QBs in the league right now, I would take Johnny Football over Tannehill.
[quote]red04 wrote:
The Tannehill signing is great for the Fins whether or not you think he’s some stud. “The Market” is about to get blown the fuck up when Wilson and Luck get their paydays, so anyone with a young QB is smart to get them inked before there’s the albatross contracts out there for them to point to. This happens all the time within each position.
That’s also why the Hawks probably need to get Wilson inked soon as well. Sources are saying he wants top QB in the league money, which while expensive anytime, is about to get much more expensive.[/quote]
I mean I guess, but if I was Miami I’d be like, “You aren’t Wilson or Luck so no…”[/quote]
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Also, team owners are listening to 3 different proposals to change the PAT over the next few days.
From MMQB:
The NFL competition committee proposes moving the PAT kick attempt back to the 15 yard line. A blocked PAT or a fumbled/intercepted 2 point attempt could by run back by the defense for 2 points. This would be a 1 year trial. Kicking PATs succeed about %98 of the time whereas 32 yard FGs succeed %90 of the time.
New England’s proposal is the same as the NFL’s CC except the defense can’t score and the rule would be permanent.
Eagles want the line of scrimmage for the 2 point attempt to be at the 1 instead of the 2. One year trial period.
[/quote]
Just wish they would quit screwing with an unbroken product. [/quote]
That’s the way I feel. Why mess with a good thing?
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Makes it more exciting. Kicking PATs succeeded something like %99 of the time. [/quote]
So there will be about a total of 100 PATs missed over the course of 512 games? Once every five games someone will miss a PAT? Is that worth screwing with the game. If excitement is really the key, just move the kickoff back again so every kick isn’t a touchback.
It’s a player safety issue. %43 of kickoffs were touchbacks in 2012, up from %16 in 2011, after the league moved the kickoff from the 30 to the 35.
There was some talk of moving the 2 point PAT attempt to the 1 yard line, but they kept it at the 2 because the league didn’t want QBs creamed every time they tried a sneak.
[quote]red04 wrote:
The Tannehill signing is great for the Fins whether or not you think he’s some stud. “The Market” is about to get blown the fuck up when Wilson and Luck get their paydays, so anyone with a young QB is smart to get them inked before there’s the albatross contracts out there for them to point to. This happens all the time within each position.
That’s also why the Hawks probably need to get Wilson inked soon as well. Sources are saying he wants top QB in the league money, which while expensive anytime, is about to get much more expensive.[/quote]
The word up here is they are not going to ink Wilson this year and will likely franchise him the next two years if he keeps to his demand to be the highest paid ever.
[quote]red04 wrote:
The Tannehill signing is great for the Fins whether or not you think he’s some stud. “The Market” is about to get blown the fuck up when Wilson and Luck get their paydays, so anyone with a young QB is smart to get them inked before there’s the albatross contracts out there for them to point to. This happens all the time within each position.
That’s also why the Hawks probably need to get Wilson inked soon as well. Sources are saying he wants top QB in the league money, which while expensive anytime, is about to get much more expensive.[/quote]
I mean I guess, but if I was Miami I’d be like, “You aren’t Wilson or Luck so no…”[/quote]
I would take Tannehill over Wilson.[/quote]
Ya, but we all know you’re a bit off your rocker when it comes to football…
[quote]red04 wrote:
The Tannehill signing is great for the Fins whether or not you think he’s some stud. “The Market” is about to get blown the fuck up when Wilson and Luck get their paydays, so anyone with a young QB is smart to get them inked before there’s the albatross contracts out there for them to point to. This happens all the time within each position.
That’s also why the Hawks probably need to get Wilson inked soon as well. Sources are saying he wants top QB in the league money, which while expensive anytime, is about to get much more expensive.[/quote]
I mean I guess, but if I was Miami I’d be like, “You aren’t Wilson or Luck so no…”[/quote]
I would take Tannehill over Wilson.[/quote]
Ya, but we all know you’re a bit off your rocker when it comes to football…[/quote]
Wilson is overrated. As the Seahawks start to lose players on their roster to free agency it will be obvious to everyone they should have tapped the breaks before classifying him as elite. He is on par with the dude in Cincy (can’t think of his name right now) but with better mobility. Second teir QBs at best. You could plug in 20+ QBs in the league in Seattle and have the same success the past three years. They did add a great receiving TE who is a match up nightmare though.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Wilson is overrated. As the Seahawks start to lose players on their roster to free agency it will be obvious to everyone they should have tapped the breaks before classifying him as elite. He is on par with the dude in Cincy (can’t think of his name right now) but with better mobility. Second teir QBs at best. You could plug in 20+ QBs in the league in Seattle and have the same success the past three years. They did add a great receiving TE who is a match up nightmare though. [/quote]