Fins72 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you can't see how repetitive your Tannehill
> diatribes are, you either are playing games or are
> in denial. Any time you're tempted to post some
> anti Tannehill comment, take a deep breath and
> know that we all know what your opinion is. No
> need to tell us again.


To you they are anti-Tannehill, to me they are just looking at the facts.

I'm not making crap up about Tannehill. I'm not pretending he is something he is not. I'm pointing out that he has a huge role in the performance of our offense, and the fact that he is playing now may be as much a part of the problems our offense is having as anything.

I get this is hard for you to accept, but if the best you can do is complain that I am writing something you don't like, then I guess I'm right. If I never mention Tannehill again, it won't all of the sudden make him good. That is not how that works.

------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DolfanKing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Thank you Dr. Bob Loblaw. We all know you are
> an
> > authority on this kind of stuff.
> >
> > Thankfully, few actually care what you think.
>
> LOL. As opposed to YOU?????????
>
> They are about to tar and feather you and run you
> out of town on a rail.

You and that other Orange joker have been saying this about me since day one. I still don't know what you mean.

------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

Why haven't you responded to my "What would you do" thread?

To you they are anti-Tannehill, to me they are just looking at the facts.

I'm not making crap up about Tannehill. I'm not pretending he is something he is not. I'm pointing out that he has a huge role in the performance of our offense, and the fact that he is playing now may be as much a part of the problems our offense is having as anything.

I get this is hard for you to accept, but if the best you can do is complain that I am writing something you don't like, then I guess I'm right. If I never mention Tannehill again, it won't all of the sudden make him good. That is not how that works.
---------
It's not that I don't like what you say. It's the incessant repeating of the same thing over and over again. Honestly, how about if all the posters on the board will add the following signature to all their future posts: "Yes Dolfanking, we know you think Ryan Tannehill is not a good QB." That way, you'll know that you've made your point.

Fins72 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> It's not that I don't like what you say. It's the
> incessant repeating of the same thing over and
> over again. Honestly, how about if all the posters
> on the board will add the following signature to
> all their future posts: "Yes Dolfanking, we know
> you think Ryan Tannehill is not a good QB." That
> way, you'll know that you've made your point.

Since I'm talking about today's game - "Tannehill's Day", I can't see how I'm repeating myself.

I think you just don't like what I have to say about Tannehill.

------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

Observations! Perception? Differences of opinion. All these threads collapse into sparring between posters. C'mon guys...life is too short.

The team is not a play off team--simple as that. Play from all of the players, collectively, produces a mediocre team. At times there are sparks of competitiveness. The bottom line is that the team is not going to make great strides and improve until the caliber of play and consistency in execution is considerably upgraded. That requires better players.

As many of us have observed and opined in the past, we need better players at all positions. Some of the people we have are pretty good, but if there's a better player we need to get him on the team.

Keep things in perspective. No matter what is done, Davone Bess is not going to be a deep threat nor is Hartline. Reggie Bush is not an every play back. We need a ground pounding RB. Tannehill is gaining in game experience and his progress is slow right now. So, the only way we could improve dramatically at the Qb position would be to get a Drew Brees, or one of the Mannings, or even Matt Ryan. Ah yes... but none of that will happen so, our investment is in Tannehill and we must continue with his development. Things will improve with him.

colonel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Observations! Perception? Differences of opinion.
> All these threads collapse into sparring between
> posters. C'mon guys...life is too short.
>
> The team is not a play off team--simple as that.
> Play from all of the players, collectively,
> produces a mediocre team. At times there are
> sparks of competitiveness. The bottom line is that
> the team is not going to make great strides and
> improve until the caliber of play and consistency
> in execution is considerably upgraded. That
> requires better players.
>
> As many of us have observed and opined in the
> past, we need better players at all positions.
> Some of the people we have are pretty good, but if
> there's a better player we need to get him on the
> team.
>
> Keep things in perspective. No matter what is
> done, Davone Bess is not going to be a deep threat
> nor is Hartline. Reggie Bush is not an every play
> back. We need a ground pounding RB. Tannehill is
> gaining in game experience and his progress is
> slow right now. So, the only way we could improve
> dramatically at the Qb position would be to get a
> Drew Brees, or one of the Mannings, or even Matt
> Ryan. Ah yes... but none of that will happen so,
> our investment is in Tannehill and we must
> continue with his development. Things will
> improve with him.

This team had plenty of opportunities to win. It did not. The QB play was a big factor.

------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

As it was stated before, everyone knows how you feel regarding Tannehill. Why is it you only rear your "I told you so comments" when they lose? You probably sit anxiously awaiting a Miami loss so you can be the first one on this site to post your comments that somehow make you feel empowered to remind us all Tannehill sucks?
I personally think you are a douche the way you come off as some wannabe Miami expert. Are you one those guys that takes pleasure in other peoples' misfortune or just some random d*ckhead that lurks around sites and interjects his opinions that generallly revolve around negativity?

Let me guess you don't have many friends do you.

Tannehill had some accuracy issues today no doubt about it, but he wasn't horrible. The throw that bothered me the most today was when Brian Hartline broke free wide open, nobody between him and a long TD, unfortunately Tannehill badly under threw the ball. Hartline had to come back for it, the defender caught up, and the ball was dropped. instead of a TD we didn't even get a completion... That pass hurt us the most, all the other accuracy issues I could live with, but not that one....When your WR breaks free wide open in a game against the Patriots, you have to make the throw IMO....

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Hey DK, I noticed that you've posted a lot today. Somehow, you didn't post anywhere near this much when Tannehill had a good game against the Seahawks. I wonder why that is.

I mean, there were plenty of "Facts" that played out during the Seahawks game, you just didn't comment on them last week. But Tannehill has a less-than stellar game against the Patsies, and all of a sudden you're prolific with your posting of "facts."

Is that just a coincidence?

I didn't see Tannehill audible at all. I missed a few plays but, I don't recall him changing the plays at the line. Was he possibly put on a short leash by the coaches? Also, where are the "no huddle" plays? The South Florida heat is the perfect place to pick up the tempo a bit and wear out the defense and it wasn't even considered. My concern is that maybe Tannehill can't run the "no huddle" very effectively and thus it isn't being utilized much. Before the season, Philbin was talking about 90 snaps in the game. What happened to that?
Look, I don't like DK's MO either, reminds me alot of MikeO's abrasive style, I mean a whole lot but, he raises valid points about the wisdom of rushing Tanny into the game. It might not be what you want to hear but, it is a POV. A couple of months ago BigNastyFish opined that Jake Long was getting manhandled alot and nobody wanted to hear that either. The view from the bandwagon was that Jake was the best in the game and one of the finest athletes in the NFL. Turns out BNF was correct and the posters piling on were not seeing it. It's a complicated game.

RT made some bad throws and they cost us today...no doubt. But Tom "all mighty great" Brady made quite a few very poor throws too...and he missed a wide open receiver in the end zone. We shouldn't over react about it...RT has largely exceeded expectations this season IMHO. He'll get better and more consistent with better players around him and more experience...I for one, don't want him to have to be the savior week after week. I want him to simply be another quality part, of an overall quality team...he's well on his way, but not there yet, to doing his part of that JMHO.

JC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey DK, I noticed that you've posted a lot today.
> Somehow, you didn't post anywhere near this much
> when Tannehill had a good game against the
> Seahawks. I wonder why that is.
>
> I mean, there were plenty of "Facts" that played
> out during the Seahawks game, you just didn't
> comment on them last week. But Tannehill has a
> less-than stellar game against the Patsies, and
> all of a sudden you're prolific with your posting
> of "facts."
>
> Is that just a coincidence?

Your comments here are weasly at best and disingenuous at worst. But I'll try and respond.

My frequency is a coincidence.

I don't always post during games, but I've posted during wins and losses at about the ratio of wins and losses for this team.

Last week, I was at the game, and I'm not going to bother posting when I'm at the game.

This week the weather sucks. I'm sitting on the sofa, watching the game with a laptop, and so I'd have been posting a lot win or loss. And I would have posted good comments about Tannehill had he connected on those TD passes, but that was not the case. Tannehill was off target when it counted most.

And I usually don't post much win or loss. But that truth certainly won't stop ridiculous questions like this one, trying to unravel the grand anti-Tannehill conspiracy.


As for my "facts" - your quotes imply that I'm making things up. Really, you can see the stats on NFL.com. And if you deny that Tannehill missed 2 long passes that would have probably been TDs, and another pass in the end zone that would have certainly have been a TD, then you probably didn't watch the game.

------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

DolfanKing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You seem to be happy about Tanny's failures and
> > unhappy about his successes. (Which far
> outweight
> > the failures).
> >
>
> You are wrong on two accounts:
> 1. I'm happy about his successes.
> 2. Right now, his successes do not far outweigh
> his failures. He has a losing record and a sub-70
> QB rating. But he is a rookie.


He has out thrown Dan Marino in his rookie year with a team that is Not superbowl calibur. Remember the 82' team went to the dance. This is also our Coaches rookie season unlike dan and Coach shula.

Does this garantee greatness? Of course not. But to see you week in and week out not even give the kid any benifit of the doubt is disgraceful. it proves an illigical bias you refuse to admit. You ENJOY when he does not do well . a feww weeks ago when he was killing it there was barely a peep from you on this board.

I hope you hold to that. Tanny will be great and I hope you don't ever show your face around here again when he does. Because you will never admit how wrong you were/ARE.

chatafkup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As it was stated before, everyone knows how you
> feel regarding Tannehill. Why is it you only rear
> your "I told you so comments" when they lose?


You are wrong. After the Raiders and Rams wins earlier this year, I said that Tannehill had little to do with the wins, and that the only reason the team won was because of Ronnie Brown and the defense.

I was posting comments that people didn't like when they win as well.

You are making things up to make you feel superior. But I've yet to read one explanation as to why its OK to name Tannehill the starter when the result is a miserable QB rating and losing record.

------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

DolfanKing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chatafkup Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As it was stated before, everyone knows how you
> > feel regarding Tannehill. Why is it you only
> rear
> > your "I told you so comments" when they lose?
>
>
> You are wrong. After the Raiders and Rams wins
> earlier this year, I said that Tannehill had
> little to do with the wins, and that the only
> reason the team won was because of Ronnie Brown
> and the defense.
>
> I was posting comments that people didn't like
> when they win as well.
>
> You are making things up to make you feel
> superior. But I've yet to read one explanation as
> to why its OK to name Tannehill the starter when
> the result is a miserable QB rating and losing
> record.


Ronnie brown? WTF season are you in?

And you have read several creditable statements as to why tanny is the starter over some Journeyman QB. You just refuse to see or hear any of them . Its part of your sickness.

Ronnie Brown!? really? His Name is BUSH. Reggie Bush. Do us all a favor and come back when you get your head out of your ass and 2010.

TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DolfanKing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > You seem to be happy about Tanny's failures
> and
> > > unhappy about his successes. (Which far
> > outweight
> > > the failures).
> > >
> >
> > You are wrong on two accounts:
> > 1. I'm happy about his successes.
> > 2. Right now, his successes do not far outweigh
> > his failures. He has a losing record and a
> sub-70
> > QB rating. But he is a rookie.
>
>
> But to see you week in and week out not even give the
> kid any benifit of the doubt is disgraceful.


Benefit of the doubt is for losers.

I have two eyes in my head, I see what I see. I'm not going to lie to myself just because this team needs a QB. If the QB we have isn't cutting it, then I'm going to say something.

Its not all as bad as you and others are making it out. I have praised Tannehill on several occasions. But, unfortunately, his failures do far outweigh his successes.

You are just too sensitive.

------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DolfanKing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > chatafkup Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > As it was stated before, everyone knows how
> you
> > > feel regarding Tannehill. Why is it you only
> > rear
> > > your "I told you so comments" when they lose?
>
> >
> >
> > You are wrong. After the Raiders and Rams wins
> > earlier this year, I said that Tannehill had
> > little to do with the wins, and that the only
> > reason the team won was because of Ronnie Brown
> > and the defense.
> >
> > I was posting comments that people didn't like
> > when they win as well.
> >
> > You are making things up to make you feel
> > superior. But I've yet to read one explanation
> as
> > to why its OK to name Tannehill the starter
> when
> > the result is a miserable QB rating and losing
> > record.
>
>
> Ronnie brown? WTF season are you in?
>
> And you have read several creditable statements as
> to why tanny is the starter over some Journeyman
> QB. You just refuse to see or hear any of them .
> Its part of your sickness.
>
> Ronnie Brown!? really? His Name is BUSH.
> Reggie Bush. Do us all a favor and come back when
> you get your head out of your ass and 2010.



I mixed up Reggie Bush and Ronnie Brown's name. So what? Not unexpected you to go off on some silly rant about it.

Doen't change the facts that the Running Back, not QB, was responsible for those wins.

------------------------------------------------------------

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

Second time you did that, DK.

Use the "search" function and type in "Your next stop, the twilight zone" but you used the "edit" function to change Ronnie Brown back to Reggie Bush.

But you're right. Why in the hell are we hassling you?

After all, they even have the same initials.

JC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey DK, I noticed that you've posted a lot today.
> Somehow, you didn't post anywhere near this much
> when Tannehill had a good game against the
> Seahawks. I wonder why that is.
>
> I mean, there were plenty of "Facts" that played
> out during the Seahawks game, you just didn't
> comment on them last week. But Tannehill has a
> less-than stellar game against the Patsies, and
> all of a sudden you're prolific with your posting
> of "facts."
>
> Is that just a coincidence?




BINGO.......you just won a stuffed DolfanQueen.

DolfanKing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your comments here are weasly at best and
> disingenuous at worst. But I'll try and respond.
>

Thanks for trying!

> My frequency is a coincidence.
>

Okay. so if Tannehill would have had a great game today, you'd have made JUST as many posts acknowledging his accomplishments, with the SAME degree of fervor? Good to know.


>
> Last week, I was at the game, and I'm not going to
> bother posting when I'm at the game.
>


Aha..fair enough...I'm surprised you didn't offer up that perspective in your posts. You know, the way that TCPF gives his reports after a game he attended. I'm not saying you'd have the same content as he, but I'd have been interested to see what you thought Tannehill looked like in person (that is, unless you go to most of the home games and have already seen him a few times live and in person).

So tell me, did seeing him in person make you more or less confident in his capabilities?


> As for my "facts" - your quotes imply that I'm
> making things up. Really, you can see the stats
> on NFL.com. And if you deny that Tannehill missed
> 2 long passes that would have probably been TDs,
> and another pass in the end zone that would have
> certainly have been a TD, then you probably didn't
> watch the game.


No, I put the word "facts" in quotes, because I was quoting YOU where you said previously that you posted facts.

I'm not denying anything. Just noticed that you seem to be a lot more prolific with your posts after Tannehill has a loss.

Oh I get it now!! Dolfanqueen........

You MEANT Chad Henne but keep confusing him with Ryan Tannihill! is that it? And you keep confusing the 2011 season with 2012. is that it? makes sense now. Your still a Dbag though. But at least it makes sense now.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crowder I had forgotten that pass.
>
> My thoughts on it were, at the time,
>
> 1) If Tannehill had thrown it perfectly, we have a
> touchdown
>
> but
>
>
> 2) like you said "the ball was dropped"
> ,.......but, it still would have been a long
> completion but for the drop.

Chyren, that play was 100 percent on Tannehill, it was so poorly under thrown, the drop was not on Hartline.. He did his best to make a play on a horrible pass at the worst time

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Thats how I felt. yeah Tanny could have thrown it behind him and caught him in stride.....but he still threw it to him and Hartline had his hands on it and let it drop. Tannys fault it wasn't a Touchdown, but it was Hartlines fault it wasn't a catch.

Precisely.

Tanny underthrew hartline on a pass but even like that the pass hit hartline right on the chest when hartline came back for the ball.