Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where was Parker? Stills?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Where was Parker? Stills?

    On a day when our offense was anemic where were these two high profile additions to the team? I think Stills was targeted once or twice but where was our star rookie?

  • #2
    Parker was only in on one (Yes I said ONE) play. No idea why and Stills just wasn't targeted much. No idea why to either of them.
    only a fool seeks peace by inciting violence

    Comment


    • TrueFinFan
      TrueFinFan commented
      Editing a comment
      My guess would be that they are brought back cautiously, to not get a dumb hammy from lack of top end game speed play.

  • #3
    Stills did miss most of the preseason, maybe that is why he didn't get very many targets. I suspect Parker is going to get babied at the start of the season. There is really no need to rush him into the offense since they do have Jennings, Landry, Matthews and Stills going and healthy.

    Comment


    • #4
      Both players were injured this offseason so I am guessing they are being cautious, at least with Parker. I am totally guessing here but I think they know they have great depth at the position and don't need to rush Parker on to the field. With Stills, it might be a little of the same thing as with Parker, or it could be that dreaded "chemistry" thing again. It seems Tannehill is uncomfortable throwing to people who are really fast and usually the "chemistry" is off on the players who are burners. Let's hope we don't have two decoys in Parker and Stills because of "chemistry" like we did with Wallace.

      Speaking of Wallace.........I am going to predict he gets 84 yards and at least 1 touchdown, possibly 2 touchdowns.

      Comment


      • #5
        Tannehill is uncomfortable throwing to people who are really fast and usually the "chemistry" is off on the players who are burners.


        Wow, when did he tell you he's "uncomfortable" throwing to people who are fast and how many "Burners" has he has bad chemistry with exactly?? LOL, talk about a stretch.
        only a fool seeks peace by inciting violence

        Comment


        • #6
          Originally posted by Dolfan1 View Post
          Tannehill is uncomfortable throwing to people who are really fast and usually the "chemistry" is off on the players who are burners.


          Wow, when did he tell you he's "uncomfortable" throwing to people who are fast and how many "Burners" has he has bad chemistry with exactly?? LOL, talk about a stretch.
          AHA! Yeah, I need to have a personal conversation with Tannehill to formulate an opinion that he can't throw to a target that is moving too fast for his brain to comprehend. I am NOT getting into this debate with you, again, and again and again. You and I don't see eye to eye on this topic but you insist on getting into this with me, every single time. I will NEVER agree with you, or anyone else, that Mike Wallace was the problem with their alleged "chemistry." He had CHEMISTRY issues with Hartline and then with Wallace. Why? It's because he can't throw accurately past 20-25 yards, especially when those receivers are FAST. "Hey, Tannehill ! Here's an idea for you. Try throwing with some FU**ING arc, huh!?! Does every pass you throw have to be low AND your hardest?"

          Bridgewater will prove tonight that Wallace wasn't the problem.

          Comment


          • #7
            LOL, maybe if you stopped trying to incite, it would all go away. LMAO!!
            only a fool seeks peace by inciting violence

            Comment


            • #8
              AHAHA! Trying to incite? That's funny! Nah, not trying to stir anything up, just stating an opinion that happens to differ than yours. You could skip the posts of mine that bother you so you don't get caught in my ACME trap that I apparently lay down just to incite trouble rather than just posting an opinion. BWAHA

              Comment


              • #9
                LOL, if it bothered me I wouldn't be laughing about it, right? It is you who always brings up Wallace though and then get upset when someone responds to it especially when it's me responding.
                only a fool seeks peace by inciting violence

                Comment


                • #10
                  Originally posted by Dolfan1 View Post
                  LOL, if it bothered me I wouldn't be laughing about it, right? It is you who always brings up Wallace though and then get upset when someone responds to it especially when it's me responding.
                  Let me get this straight. You question the fact that when I watch a football game and see one thing, that I must have a conversation with the quarterback of a certain team to know that my OPINION is correct BUT, you somehow know how I am feeling while I am typing without having a conversation with me? LMAO Okay, Kreskin, what emotion am I feeling right .......NOW? AHAHA

                  It doesn't bother me that you respond. It just make you a certain type of person. I have an opinion and if I post my opinion, you can't skip my post, you insist on STARTING an argument about it even though you already know that we disagree. THEN, after YOU start the argument you accuse me of instigating the argument. It's hilarious! Thanks for the laugh by the way.

                  BTW- When the F did the cost of car batteries DOUBLE in price?!?!?!?!?!

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    I am in between on this subject. I realize RT has accuracy issues that are magnified the longer the ball is in the air. So longer passes are harder to throw accurately than shorter darts. I also realize that a receiver can help or hurt a QB by how he runs his routes, judges the ball in the air and positions his body. A QB that struggles with accuracy doesn't need an inconsistent route runner like Wallace. I seem to recall Hartline having pretty good numbers from Tannehill and dare say he will never match those numbers again, he just isn't that good of a receiver. We will see how RT does with his new group and how Wallace does with his. Landry didn't have trouble exceeding Wallace's catch numbers in less than a full season as a rookie, from that same QB. But a couple of things that haven't been mentioned, why did the Steelers let Wallace go? Where were all the other NFL teams that needed good deep receivers when Wallace was available? Like New Orleans, Denver, Seattle, San Diego, etc, etc? None of them stepped up for Wallace either. So for those of us who don't like Wallace we have a lot of company in NFL front offices all over the league. In any event, we paid Wallace as the very best receiver in the NFL, something he never was and never will be. He may (or may not) become the Vikings #1 receiver, but he wasn't ours last year, and he would be about 4th on our current depth chart.

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      A) The Steelers had Antonio Brown who just happens to be arguably the best WR in the league
                      B) The Steelers didn't have Jeff Ireland as their GM (Aha)

                      Hartline did have good numbers, but only because of all those SHORT routes. Tannehill was sailing footballs all over the field trying to find Hartline when he was the Dolphins #1 receiver, and Hartline is a good route runner.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        P.S. Hartline "good numbers" as the Dolphins number 1 receiver only added up to ONE touchdown.

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by DolphinsFreak View Post

                          Let me get this straight. You question the fact that when I watch a football game and see one thing, that I must have a conversation with the quarterback of a certain team to know that my OPINION is correct BUT, you somehow know how I am feeling while I am typing without having a conversation with me? LMAO Okay, Kreskin, what emotion am I feeling right .......NOW? AHAHA

                          It doesn't bother me that you respond. It just make you a certain type of person. I have an opinion and if I post my opinion, you can't skip my post, you insist on STARTING an argument about it even though you already know that we disagree. THEN, after YOU start the argument you accuse me of instigating the argument. It's hilarious! Thanks for the laugh by the way.

                          BTW- When the F did the cost of car batteries DOUBLE in price?!?!?!?!?!
                          ================================================== ================================================== ============
                          Well almost all of this sounds like Psycho babble to me with you trying to turn it around on me being the instigator so good luck with that. As far as the price of batteries, I wish I knew. Cost me 200 bucks for a battery for the Goat
                          only a fool seeks peace by inciting violence

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            About the same he is projected for this year. If only the Steelers had known you can have 2 receivers on the field at the same time! Then they would have had the top two receivers in the league with Big Ben throwing to them, and no one can say he can't throw a deep ball. That sucker can sling it all over the park man.

                            Comment

                            Unconfigured Ad Widget

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X