Jump to content

ESPN: Is Tannehill better than Luck?


YoloinOhio

Recommended Posts

In looking at the link they provided of the full PFF top 10 Quarterback rankings I'm seeing far greater injustices than Tannehill ahead of Luck. Roethlisberger and Rivers ahead of Brady and Manning? I'd like to see how good big Ben would be without Antonio Brown.

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/08/27/ranking-the-nfls-top-10-qbs/

 

Uh...Ben won 2 Superbowls without Antonio Brown.

 

Brown was a 6th-round pick; I'd say there's a far greater argument that Ben makes Brown than vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Uh...Ben won 2 Superbowls without Antonio Brown.

 

Brown was a 6th-round pick; I'd say there's a far greater argument that Ben makes Brown than vice versa.

Someone could also ask Mike Wallace about leaving Ben.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tannehill's voice is much better than Luck's. Listening to Andrew is like fingernails on a chalkboard. He sounds like he's constantly gargling. It's brutal.

He looks and sounds like he is the runt of a family of giants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so ridiculous and moot, that only ESPN could be behind it. Who has the better supporting cast. Who has a schedule of opponents that can more be taken advantage by the possessed talent and skill set. Whose skill set best fits what the team is trying to do?

 

ESPN tries to boil things down to the lowest common denominator for the pleabians that watch their shows

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Uh...Ben won 2 Superbowls without Antonio Brown.

 

Brown was a 6th-round pick; I'd say there's a far greater argument that Ben makes Brown than vice versa.

By this logic Eli should be top 5 as well. I think it's pretty clear the Steelers won those Superbowls mostly because of their defense.

 

And being a 6th round pick means Brown isn't great? Dude is a beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luck is already great but he is not flawless. He is a gifted runner. But he throws INT's. He is closer to Roethlisberger or even Jim Kelly than he is Rodgers, Brady, or Manning at this point.

Guy's a force, doesn't let the mistakes bury him. One of the things that makes him special. What he's done in his first 3 years with that talent depleted roster is amazing. Give him Wallace like tannehill had and it would ha e been a much different story Edited by JTSP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guy's a force, doesn't let the mistakes bury him. One of the things that makes him special. What he's done in his first 3 years with that talent depleted roster is amazing. Give him Wallace like tannehill had and it would ha e been a much different story

 

TY Hilton's better than Wallace in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another example of why advanced analytics doesn't work for football?

 

Yep. PFF's QB rating system is clearly flawed if it has Tannehill ahead of Luck.

 

I'm not a big fan of ESPN's QBR system either.

This is so ridiculous and moot, that only ESPN could be behind it. Who has the better supporting cast. Who has a schedule of opponents that can more be taken advantage by the possessed talent and skill set. Whose skill set best fits what the team is trying to do?

 

ESPN tries to boil things down to the lowest common denominator for the pleabians that watch their shows

 

I'm not sure why this misunderstanding continues. ESPN did NOT conclude Tannehill is better than Luck. James Walker of ESPN wrote an article commenting on PFF's ranking system which had Tannehill ahead of Luck. Walker disagreed with the ranking.

 

ESPN itself uses the QBR system which does indeed rank Luck ahead of Tannehill though not by much - 61.5 versus 58.0.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

Edited by hondo in seattle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...