Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Mike tanenbaum says colts have worst qb in the division.


Stephen

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

I would rank them

 

Watson

Tannehill

Wentz

Lawrence

 

Frank's got some work to do to get Wentz to pass the other two

I would prefer to have Wentz over Tannehill.  Therefore, I rank Wentz above Tannehill.  Lawrence is currently unrankable, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply
35 minutes ago, Stephen said:

I wonder if Seahawks  and Texans may switch qbs like the cutler  trade a while back

I hadn't seen that idea floated... I think that might have some attraction to 3 out of the 4 variables, but I dunno that Russ is agreeing to go to Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stephen said:

I disagree about tannehill  being  on 2017 wentz level this past year. 2017 wentz would have finished  with many more tds if he had played in all 16 games


Sure...if you cherry pick passing TDs. Wentz had a slightly higher TD % in 2017 (7.5%) vs. Tannehill in 2020 (6.9%). So assuming Wentz maintained that % (which is an outlier for his career)...he would have had 7 more passing TDs that season (so 40 vs. 33 for Tannehill). 
 

But he also would have had 60 more PAs. Give Tannehill 60 more PAs...and he throws 4 more TDs...so that difference is 3 TDs...since we are just extrapolating. 

And Wentz had 0 rushing TDs in 2017 and Tannehill had 7 in 2020...so that more than makes up the difference in passing TDs.
 

Also, Tannehill’s TD% in 2019 was even higher than Wentz’s in 2017. Tannehill has maintained a high % over nearly two seasons...and it was high in 2018 as well.

 

There is an argument for which of those two QBs was better...but it gets really subjective because Tannehill was awesome last season. To say otherwise is silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Flash7 said:

I personally would rather address a person's arguments rather than attack the person themselves.

 

:scoregood: 

 

I don't agree with Mike Tannenbaum and he probably said it to boost ratings and get folks riled up as we see here, but the personal attacks are unnecessary. It is the ad hominem logical fallacy.

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Lawrence - Jax has a lot of draft capital and can make TL's rook year/life much easier if they want. Will they? Anyway, I'm sure he flashes some, but doubt he looks pro-bowl first year. Now second year....

 

They have one of the worst defenses in the league, but I still think it would be smart to get Trevor some help on offense.  They are obviously not in super bowl or bust mode, might as build around the franchise player before worrying too much about defense 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BlackTiger said:

 

They have one of the worst defenses in the league, but I still think it would be smart to get Trevor some help on offense.  They are obviously not in super bowl or bust mode, might as build around the franchise player before worrying too much about defense 

They've got some good WRs, so I don't think they need to do a lot for him. 

 

And they have:

1, 25, 33, 45, 65, 97, 121, 129, 154, 193, 214

 

That's a HUGE haul. 

 

Their primary and secondary needs are

QB, OT, CB, TE

S, EDGE, WR

 

Given they have the 22nd ranked OL, I think they have to use 2 of the 5 early picks on OL to protect their investment.

I'd go 

1 - QB

25 and 33 - OT and CB'/DE

45 - OL

65 - TE

97 - S

 

I'd solve for CB/DE (whatever I don't draft with 25/33) in FA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Call me crazy, but I’d take this quarterback with this team over Andrew Luck and the rosters he had around him, and he was better than all of them. This is looking like a damn good team. 

Imagine if we had both.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

:scoregood: 

 

I don't agree with Mike Tannenbaum and he probably said it to boost ratings and get folks riled up as we see here, but the personal attacks are unnecessary. It is the ad hominem logical fallacy.

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

I seriously doubt MT was trying boost ratings or upset anyone.   QB is the most important position and in his view we have the 4th best QB in a 4-team conference.   There are very few ratings to boost in the AFC South.   Houston is the only major market.  The other three cities don’t move the needle much. 
 

A simple straight forward opinion.  He’s likely doing the same thing for the other 7 divisions.   It’s just the usual off-season talk,  nothing more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PRnum1 said:

I would rank them

 

Watson

Tannehill

Wentz

Lawrence

 

Frank's got some work to do to get Wentz to pass the other two

This is how I would rank them as well. Lawrence IMO will be very good eventually, perhaps great but not until like year 3 or so. He has a lousy team around him. Watson is the best QB by a landslide (top 5 in the league) but he may get traded. To me Tannehill and Wentz are close but Tannehill has played well for a year and a half now. I would say Tannehill is above average which is better than average. He does have Henry however which helps. If Wentz can get back to even 2019 Wentz he is basically on par with Tannehill at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

seriously doubt MT was trying boost ratings or upset anyone.   QB is the most important position and in his view we have the 4th best QB in a 4-team conference.   There are very few ratings to boost in the AFC South.   Houston is the only major market.  The other three cities don’t move the needle much. 
 

A simple straight forward opinion.  He’s likely doing the same thing for the other 7 divisions.   It’s just the usual off-season talk,  nothing more. 

 

I get what you are saying. My point was that the personal attacks against Mike Tannenbaum were not necessary. We see that too often when someone has an opinion with which we disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Call me crazy, but I’d take this quarterback with this team over Andrew Luck and the rosters he had around him, and he was better than all of them. This is looking like a damn good team. 

 

Good point. It is about the team, not any one player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Stephen said:

Mike said watson, tannehill,  and Lawrence  are all better than Wentz and we gave up too much to get him. He's  a former  nfl gm and said it on espn.

Well he’s not wrong about us having the worst QB. And I don’t fully agree with him about giving up too much but it really depends on how Carson plays this year. 
 

that said, we’ve beaten two of those three QBs and I still don’t trust the Jags not to screw up Lawerence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I seriously doubt MT was trying boost ratings or upset anyone.   QB is the most important position and in his view we have the 4th best QB in a 4-team conference.   There are very few ratings to boost in the AFC South.   Houston is the only major market.  The other three cities don’t move the needle much. 
 

A simple straight forward opinion.  He’s likely doing the same thing for the other 7 divisions.   It’s just the usual off-season talk,  nothing more. 

He absolutely was IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Well he’s not wrong about us having the worst QB. And I don’t fully agree with him about giving up too much but it really depends on how Carson plays this year. 
 

that said, we’ve beaten two of those three QBs and I still don’t trust the Jags not to screw up Lawerence. 

 

 

Does anyone actually think Tanny would be Tanny without that incredible assault weapon in his backfield?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

I know we can’t really rank or rate Lawrence or whatever, but if I had to start a franchise with one of those four guys I’d either pick him or Watson. Think he’ll be good right away, expecting a Herbert kind of rookie season for him. No idea if they’ll actually win games though.

I'm surprised more people can't look at it that way.  I would pick one of Watson or Lawrence and move on.

 

Honestly I would not even consider Carson for this one, though I think he will be fine for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this even a hot take, let alone a controversial one? Watson is great...Tannehill has been playing at a top 7 level for the past 1.7 seasons...and Lawrence is the most highly-regarded QB prospect since Luck.

 

The only question mark is Lawrence. But given how Herbert and Burrow were playing last season, I can see why there would be a very rosy outlook for Lawrence. 
 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, groundnpound said:

 

Fair enough, but i hear 2000 yd rushers have a bearing on your success level.

Very very true. But regardless, the stats stand. I mean Wentz May end up being best in the division or he may be the worst. No one can really say with any degree of accuracy, it’s all speculation at this point. Yeah, there’s a variety of factors involved. My point is, who really cares what some talking head says at this point in the off-season. No one knows. And the NFL is mostly unpredictable and anything can and will happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, groundnpound said:

 

 

Does anyone actually think Tanny would be Tanny without that incredible assault weapon in his backfield?

 

Probably not. But does it matter? Henry isn't going anywhere...so we have to assume that Tannehill will be Tannehill next season, as he has been for the past two seasons. And if we are looking at the QB situations in the AFCS...it's fair to say that the Colts could have the 4th-best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, groundnpound said:

Based on last season, yep, I would agree. But any QB that played last season even one snap is better than Luck was last season cause Luck is sitting on his couch or on his snow board and not playing. 

Just now, shasta519 said:

 

Probably not. But does it matter? Henry isn't going anywhere...so we have to assume that Tannehill will be Tannehill next season, as he has been for the past two seasons. And if we are looking at the QB situations in the AFCE...it's fair to say that the Colts could have the 4th-best.

AFCE? You mean AFCS right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, csmopar said:

Based on last season, yep, I would agree. But any QB that played last season even one snap is better than Luck was last season cause Luck is sitting on his couch or on his snow board and not playing. 

AFCE? You mean AFCS right?

 

Yes. Fat-fingered it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

I get what you are saying. My point was that the personal attacks against Mike Tannenbaum were not necessary. We see that too often when someone has an opinion with which we disagree.

“The personal attacks against Mike Tannenbaum”.  ???

 

I assume you meant BY Mike Tannenbaum?

 

MT is an analyst.   He’s analyzing the quarterbacks in our division.  His comments, whether anyone agrees with them or not, are NOT personal attacks.   They’re just analysis. That’s all.   Nothing more.  Nothing less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

How is this even a hot take, let alone a controversial one? Watson is great...Tannehill has been playing at a top 7 level for the past 1.7 seasons...and Lawrence is the most highly-regarded QB prospect since Luck.

 

The only question mark is Lawrence. But given how Herbert and Burrow were playing last season, I can see why there would be a very rosy outlook for Lawrence. 
 

 

 

 

Given how gadner minshew  looked like tom brady in our first game last year I could see Lawrence  beating  us in atleast one of our two matchups. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, groundnpound said:

He absolutely was IMO.

Mike Tannenbaum doesn’t have that kind of juice.    People don’t tune in for him.

 

He’s an analyst.  Offering opinions is the definition of his job.  What he said is NOT controversial.   It’s not a “hot take”.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

“The personal attacks against Mike Tannenbaum”.  ???

 

I assume you meant BY Mike Tannenbaum?

 

MT is an analyst.   He’s analyzing the quarterbacks in our division.  His comments, whether anyone agrees with them or not, are NOT personal attacks.   They’re just analysis. That’s all.   Nothing more.  Nothing less. 

 

No, you read it correctly; I meant against Mike Tannenbaum. If you go back to my original point, perhaps it will be easier to understand. Someone wrote that instead of attacking Mike Tannenbaum the person for what he said, it is better to attack what he said. I agreed. Many have written that because Tannenbaum failed as a GM, he should not make judgments on QBs in the AFC South (I'm paraphrasing). 

 

Anyway, I will leave it at that. There is no point in going back and forth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Im not reading that it would be a shock to anyone if Cooper went in the first.  Just likely the bottom third of the first.  Perhaps after pick 20.   He’s likely the best LB in this class. 
    • Honestly, it wouldn't shock me to see Edgerrin Cooper drafted on Day 1.  He is one of those players that has the "it factor" enough for a team to draft on Day 1.  Each year we see it happen and so-called professionals nowhere close to all those mock drafts.  
    • That's fair.   So, let's say AR pans out - are we serious Super Bowl contenders then? As the roster is right now, with a high-level AR?   I don't think so. I think our roster - disregarding the QB - is a ways behind other contenders. And even worse, I think the roster is just built wrong. This year Ballard has spent a lot of money making sure our defense can defend the run while everyone else are building to stop the passing game. Everything Ballard does is just contradictory to what works in the modern NFL.   So what about the other 9 guys I mentioned?   Wilkins would've been a Buckner level DT to seriously improve the pass rush up the middle. Huff had at least 28% more pressures than ANY of our guys (Buckner highest) while playing 161 FEWER pass rush snaps. And he was signed for a hair over $17m/year and you have "no idea why I'd think Ballard should have considered the 4 big name players who Ballard didn’t pursue"?   Do you think Geno Stone and Frankie Luvu are "bright lights"? I think they are affordable players who would improve this roster in areas of weakness. Same with the other 7 affordable guys I mentioned. The times the McLeod signings work out are so far between it's laughable, but the few who do workout somehow always make people forget the tens of 1 year jags he signs that don't.   We do know, but we also all see the results and that's what people want to see change.   I respect your opinion on this and I don't want to come off as harsh towards you (or anyone else). 👍  But I very much disagree that what Ballard is doing is working.
    • Kind of my own assessment as well with this year's RB Class.  What one lacks another has and so on. Not one complete back and maybe one worthy of being drafted on Day 2, none on Day 1. 
    • I think this is probably deserving of it's own thread, but I'll leave this initial response here. I'm happy to continue the conversation in another thread.   There are a couple of pertinent details that I don't think you're considering.   First, signing bonuses are due upon signing. They aren't necessarily paid upon signing. This article suggests signing bonuses can be paid over the course of 12-18 months. Some signing bonuses are paid in installments. So just because a player contract includes a $20m signing bonus doesn't mean the team is paying the player $20m the day he signs; the player might not receive that $20m for several months, a year, or longer. The pay dates for signing bonuses are almost never reported.   Second, a more comprehensive look at the contracts you mentioned would include roster bonuses. For example, while Buckner's contract did not include a signing bonus, it did include an $11m roster bonus. Spotrac shows the roster bonus was due to be paid on 3/20/2020, which was four days after Buckner's contract was signed. For cash flow purposes, there isn't necessarily a difference. (Ryan Kelly, $10m roster bonus; Kenny Moore, $8m; Mo Alie-Cox, $5.1m.)   Take a closer look at this. Buckner signed a four year extension for $84m, on top of his 5th year option, for a total value of five years, $96.4m. No signing bonus, but the $11m roster bonus, plus a base salary of $12.4m in 2020. The total cash paid to Buckner in the first year was $23.4m. The same day the Colts signed Buckner, the Niners signed Arik Armstead. His contract was five years, $85m, and included a $17.5m signing bonus (no details on the pay dates of the signing bonus). His base salary in 2020 was $2.5m. So the cash paid to Armstead in the first year was $20m, and that's assuming all of his signing bonus was paid out in 2020. In both cases, the Year 1 cash was about 24% of the total value of the contract.   Another example from the same year: Myles Garrett signed for five years, $125m, and his signing bonus and salary totaled $22m, less than 18% of the total value. The previous year, Frank Clark signed with the Chiefs for five years, $104m, with a $19m signing bonus, and a salary + incentives of $1.3m, totaling $20.3m in Year 1 cash, less than 20% of the total value.    There's also the funding rule, which requires that deferred money and fully guaranteed money is placed in escrow when the contract is signed, minus $15m. So if the Colts were offsetting lower signing bonuses with a higher percentage of guaranteed money, they would still need to fund the guaranteed money upfront. So there's really no cash flow benefit to the team; in fact, it would potentially cost the team more to fund the larger guarantees.    All of this put together, I don't think that the Colts are avoiding signing bonuses for cash flow reasons. I'm sure Irsay doesn't have the cash flow of the Rams or Broncos, etc., but I don't think the Colts are using contract structure to help cash flow. 
  • Members

    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 20,793

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • OhioColt

      OhioColt 385

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 16,969

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Solid84

      Solid84 6,065

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 6

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Zoltan

      Zoltan 3,102

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Superman

      Superman 20,075

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...