Phins Rock wrote:
So you're saying no player should be compared to another player since no 2 players are in the same exact situation?
Obviously Wilson has a lot more help than Tannehill. You can talk about that fact all you want. But that doesn't have to do with the ability he shows on the field to do what I've been saying he does, as compared to Tannehill.
I don't think he's saying two guys can't be compared, but they are two QBs in completely different situations. Wilson makes plays because his line gives him time, the backs take pressure off and the coaches don't put him in difficult spots.
How can Tannehill scramble as often as Wilson when his lanes to go outside are the ones being cut off because the tackles get beat and the backs whiff on picking up blitzes?
We saw what Tannehill did against the Jets, Pats and Steelers when he had something of a balanced offense and a defense that prevented complete shootouts (Pitt being a bit of an exception).
Tannehill had a deep ball issue with Wallace, but he made some pretty big plays in key situations to keep his offense in games where they should have been soundly defeated. How many games did Tannehill make plays, keep the team in it but it wasn't enough? Then look at the number of plays Wilson had to make in any given game but with the addition of a run game to keep defenses honest. Wilson didn't blow you away with numbers because he wasn't called upon to do so and therein lies the key to this debate. How many garbage interceptions did Tannehill have to throw because he just had to heave it? How many sacks did he take because his o-line couldn't handle a simple 4 man pass rush? How often did he have to try and win a game because the offense couldn't run the ball for more than 20 yards? When was Wilson ever asked to overcome things like this?
Sorry, I just don't think it is a fair comparison.