FireChan

The rule to revoke trademarks based on it's offensiveness is ambiguous, and ambiguous rules stink. I'm okay with this

Cassel.

He was mediocre against the Bears. I think ya'll scapegoat Marrone too much. Where's the rule to not tell young QB's to not turn to ball over? Are they supposed to tell him turnovers are great? Chuck Pagano isn't a great coach, Luck did fine. Norv Turner is brutal, I don't see anyone blaming him for Teddy's mistakes. Tony Sparano, a horrific coach, doesn't get blamed when Carr makes a mistake. Marty for Geno? Where's the defense that he has an idiot coach? I've never heard it. Also, all the WR's mutinied on EJ. That's who cares how he looks in practice. I mean, wasn't Marrone editing the tapes because EJ was getting picked off all the time in practice? Is that Marrone's fault or EJ's fault? Who sees that? His teammates that would rather have Orton playing QB? Are you blaming Marrone for keeping EJ healthy? You know why he only has 14 games right? It's because he got hurt 3 separate times. Now, Marrone says, "don't take chances with your body," and he's a bad coach because of that? EJ has never been a big runner. Not in college, not in the NFL. His injuries are a key reason why he has so few games to evaluate his play. And you want his coach to let him get hurt more. Genius.

That's a very good point. Maybe they should compare the differences betwen first and second seasons for both QB's.

I assure you, the market will pay that. Ask Cutler, Dalton etc. etc. etc.

What does that have to do with anything? Word diarrhea again? That's what I thought. Shocked to discover otherwise. Geno vs. EJ is devil you know. They are mirror images. Geno may end up being the better QB, but EJ is more conducive to winning now. I think I'd stick with EJ. Yeah, I was having a discussion with someone else and he sorta ignored the grand point, so I had to make it to you.

So you think that you'd know the "problem isn't solved" and Whaley wouldn't?

Yes, you've said that. Problem is, we're already in "no mans land." 75% would rather have Tanny as the starter, apparently.

Because I'm asking if you'd trade one of them for Tanny. This topic is a great vessel for discussion because it sets borders. Most QB topics end up with consensus being, "we don't know, we'll find out." Which is fine, if not a little ambiguous for my taste. With this topic, the dilemma is clear. Do you take an unproven guy, or a proven average guy? With only a year difference, it's hard to say Tannehill can't improve too. It's risk analysis. Bird in the hand vs. two in the bush. How much do you have to believe in EJ to reject a trade like that? Now, the arguments against it are also indicative of the general vibe here. Not a lot of guys tried to prove that EJ is a better QB than Tanny (indicative that Tanny is better), and I find that an interesting concession. The salary cap argument is an interesting one, as it does give the keep-EJ side more ammunition. If I had said, "all cap/salary being equal," I think the poll would've been even more one sided. So you want to know why I'm trying to close the book on EJ? I'm not. At least, not, outside the purpose of this hypothetical. I just know the odds. And even though there's a risk that we trade for Tanny, and EJ turns into a top 10 guy in Miami, I'd take that risk any day of the week.

What was the last law or act that the federal government wrote or created that actually limited its own power? I honestly can't remember.

So, no answer. Okay.

Right. Totally okay with that. The problem with the argument that a QB like Tanny isn't good enough falls flat when you look at those numbers. Once the playoffs start, by math, the average QB's that make the playoffs have an infinitely higher chance of winning the Super Bowl compared to an EJ or a Geno. And when I say infinite, I mean it. Why not? How many did EJ have his second season vs. his first? Was there a noticeable downward trend?

Do you know how rare it is for QB's to get offered $100 million contracts? Call me when EJ commands that.

We agreed that those guys win enough regular season games to keep their staffs from looking too hard for replacements. A lot of it is about them. Any of them as the Bills QB in 2014 brings us to the playoffs.

Okay, I'll take Kaep out. Would you be okay with saying that Dalton/Smith/Tanny make the playoffs 30-40% of the time?

Okay. I figured you meant top 10 figuratively, I just had to make sure. Let's talk average QB's. The Dalton's, Smith's, Kaep's and Tanehill's of the world. Do those guys fulfill that definition of average for you? Also, if I said that in their prime, they'll make the playoffs 30-40% of the time, would you agree with that?

This is a similar discussion we had earlier. Give me your top 10 list, and we can discuss it in detail.

The unknown factor also means that they can be worse than average, right?

A "loser Dolphin QB." And you call me a hater. lol.

So you answered no to a question this poll didn't ask? So you voted no? I'm unclear here. You quoted Biscuit with "This. 1000%" but he voted that he would trade EJ for Tanny. So I'm lost.

You voted to trade for Tanny?

So, you voted yes? So, you answered what? I'm lost here.

I don't know about you, but I'd take 6-10 years getting close and hoping we get a lucky break and a Lombardi, than a 10 years like we've just had. It is an interesting discussion. Is a team like KC fooling themselves by sticking with a guy like Smith and hoping for a lucky/great year? Or are they theoretically worse off than a team like Buffalo or the Jets who are still actively trying to find a guy?

The real question is, does trading EJ for Tannehill increase or decrease our odds for hitting on a guy that can carry a team? Personally, I'd say increase at best (because I think Tannehill has a better shot to be that guy than EJ) and not decrease it at worst (because trading for Tanny doesn't mean we can't draft a guy anyway, and this roster is too talented to get a top 5 pick, Tanny or no).

Totally get that. The only problem is that in 3-4 years, we'll be losing some of the roster due to age/FA anyway. If we're "banking" on getting a Russel Wilson in the draft who can be a day one winner, the odds are even lower, IMO. I disagree that our odds aren't good enough with Tanny. I think they'd be the best we could get. But you made a good argument.