cflames3412 wrote: When you look at the stats and don't watch the game

We'll see how they do this week. It's a brutal reality when you open the season against Seattle and then New England. Stats don't lie, for all you dreamers

Kagemusha wrote: I was not insulting you and anyway that shouldnt be a problem since only Stick and stones would Break your bones, right? I was trying to put a little context in some random things u said and helping you to form more well rounded opinions. As far as rating goes, over one game it is pretty ridiculous to base a judgement on it. For example if Stills catches that ball and scores(pretty easy) t-hill rating skyrockets to 102. I dont get why since the Bears suck(i dont follow them, dont care and dont know) you want to spread misinformed negativity over other teams but go on if you like

You didn't insult me, but you were trying to and it's there for all to see. It also didn't bother me, not even sticks and stones will break my bones. I am always amused when folks go to the indirect attempts and then try to deny it.

You put no context in anything and there was nothing random about what I said. Specifically, my opinion is that tannebomb is inconsistent and I elaborated on this a fair amount. His stats line was horrid last weekend. This is not one game either, it's been the entire time he has been in Miami. '...if stills catches that ball and scores....', well, that's a convenient way to look at it. If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, what a merry Christmas it would always be! Fact is, he didn't catch it. Which is where my 'dreamers' reference comes from

My reference to the Bears is only that they share a similar issue at the QB position. I'm glad that you admit to knowing nothing about the Bears, I follow all the teams, but obviously have different opinions than you do. 'Misinformed negativity'? The stats are fact, the rest is my opinion based on watching tannehill play. Stink, stank, stunk..........so yes, I will go on as I like.

I do root for them to replace tannehill, but I also have agreed to see what he does this season. So far it's one pretty average performance and the stats don't lie.

The guy who says "stats don't lie" thinks Tim Tebow was a good quarterback.

Kagemusha wrote: ahahahahahahahahahah https://imgflip.com/i/1an5y7

http://www.talk-sports.net/nfl/sucks.aspx/Ryan_Tannehill

Enjoy

[/Yes, there's actually a forum for this kind of 'misinformed' topicsize]Last edited on 2016-09-15 at 14:38

Gatr22 wrote: Whammy Business wrote: The guy who says "stats don't lie" thinks Tim Tebow was a good quarterback. Yeah, a couple of national championships to show for it and taking Denver into the playoffs. He was good, just not great in the NFL

Good????

Tebow had 47% completion in his career in the NFL with a 75.3 passer rating and throwing for a little more than 2400 yards overall. He barely had a NFL career, it's not that he wasnt great.

Your friend Johnny Manziel almost compares favorably to Tebow stats-wise: he has slightly lesser career rating but better completion % and played with less talent around him.