I wonder if you could point what you said in the above article?
Not sure what it is your asking.. I did not write an article, I commented on one regarding these things being "Hype" (Exaggerated or extravagant claims).
The hype comes from media reports.. From the same exact source..
Ben Volin wrote:
Tannehill, meanwhile, has been one of the biggest surprises of the 2012 draft. Most observers thought he would need to sit on the bench this year after starting only 19 games at quarterback at Texas A&M. Instead, he has shown steady improvement since starting the opener and has been given a veteran’s responsibility at the line of scrimmage.
“The one thing that’s really stood out to me about Tannehill is he’s pretty advanced before the ball is snapped,” said NFL Films senior producer Greg Cosell. “He’s very comfortable, he recognizes pressure, he’s not frenetic in his play, he’s poised in the pocket and he’s willing to stand in there and deliver the ball.
“The coaching staff deserves a ton of credit, because this kid is playing like an NFL quarterback.”
So on Nov 3, Tanne was the biggest surprise, and the coaching staff deserves credit. Now its all hype....
Just pointing out the obvious flip flopping these guys do week to week. Wasn't a knock on you, you simply posted an article....
Sorry about my poorly written sentence. I was trying to ask if you could point out how you arrived at your position in regards to the posted article. Mea Culpa.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I was just wondering because it seems like my understanding of an article and others has been quite a bit different and I wondered where my disconnect was occurring.
It seems to be semantics in this case at least. I understood his use of hype in its more common form (at least as I understand it) to intensively promote something. There was a lot of promotion in the media ( and he was a part of it, it seems) about how good Miami was playing and even a fair amount of playoff talk. This was not just local but some national talk as well.
So his article praising Tannehill and one saying that players were believing the hype would not be contrary imo.
He even quoted a player who thought that the problem could have been that they bought into all of the good press so much that they did not come with the right mindset, the right intensity.
I took believing the hype as becoming complacent when you should be trying harder.
"One loss and we are back in the toilet, worst team in the league, Tanne is a bust, Philbin cant coach, and our coords cant call plays..." What you wrote there did not seem to bear any resemblance to what I thought the article was about, which I took it to be as, don't rest on your laurels but come with the same intensity that got you there. Don't believe you are good and let down in intensity but show you are good with effort and execution. That seems to go along with the players quote.