What Makes a Franchise QB and Is Tannehill Really One?

Are we REALLY having this discussion?

I have seen the dreck we have rolled out there at quarterback since Danny retired. I've had the hope and the false hope. Most of it just to make me feel better.

Tannehill is different.

 

Well, keep in mind he did get pulled in this one, and I suspect we win more games this yr with MMoore, but we bid high for a Qb for a change, you have to stick it out with them.

Dolphins fans want to win, but reality is more like this than Luck or the Nacho's first two years.

EEgads, think of it this way, Sparano was a .500 coach, 2 yrs of Henne and we were 14-18, 1 yr with Nacho and they are 3-5 so far and saddled with him for years...

 

Tanny sucks cut him him immediately

 

He got "pulled" because the game was over. There was no sense in having him in there. Lets not make it seem like he was yanked at halftime, and Moore will start. There was what, 5 minutes left, down 37-3. No team would have put its starter back out there.

Tannehill's going to be fine. The kid is a rook, with limited starting QB experience.

 

I agree this is not a discussion. Tannehill is the answer. He had a rookie day given the circumstances. Those will happen and its likely to happen again this year and probably at least once next year as well.

When he does his rookie thing, its up to the rest of the team to pick up the slack. They didn't yesterday.

Thursday will tell me a lot about this team as its constituted and whether or not it was built with winners or not. If I was the owner of the team, that night will tell me if I keep a certain GM or not.

 

I agree with Philbin pulling him. No reason to risk any farther interceptions. Tannehill is so competitive he may have tried to do something really risky either with his arm or legs and Philbin didn't want to chance it.

But the other thing that gets me is that Tannehill doesn't have this experience thing.

I disagree.

He was ALWAYS a QB, even when playing WR. He played QB in High School, was recruited as a QB and sat in on every QB meeting at TAMU. But he is TOO GOOD of an athlete to have sitting on the bench. He can help your team while the upperclassman plays QB. I think we all saw what an athlete and football player he is when he ran down that interception and made that tackle. It was the only highlight of the game and it was on a bad play but Tannehill made me smile on that play.

Trust me, this guy is the real deal.

 

This board, like most fans, is very guilty of judging a player based only on his most recent game.

Give the kid time. Let's discuss his franchise potential after he has a full season under his belt.

 

Tanny is a good player, and hopefully will be great, but let's not mince words, he was absolutely horrible yesterday.

He didn't get much help from his teammates either. Just a horrible performance by everybody.

But seeing Tanny's struggles makes what Luck is doing all the more impressive. What Indy went through last eyar was well worth it for them.

 

I have been wondering this myself. At first I thought they were coaching it out of him to not use it as a crutch. But at this point he is basically a zero scrambling threat.

 

had him out of the first round 2 years ago..

 

it's seemingly far out of his repertoire at this point...the most frustrating thing about Tannehill this far for me.

 

Don't forget Russell Wilson is having an excellent rookie campaign.

How many years has Pete Carroll been up there? How many years has Ireland?

Just kidding.

 

Not really. The game Tannehill had yesterday was basically the same as the games Luck had against the Bears and Jets. All QBs have bad games from time to time. Especially rookies.

 

You mean teams with good defenses?

And I am not denigrating Tannehill, nor is it blasphemy to simply point out the obvious that Luck is better than him.

Tannehill was horrible eysterday, on top of getting no help. Pathetic performance by the entire offense against a team whose defense had been a sieve. 6 quarters without a TD against average to poor defenses. Not good.

 

Jets HAD a good defense

 

Still better than the Colts and Titans.

Our offense has regressed and seems ill equipped to move the ball against even average defenses. Even some of the games we won, like against STL, we didn't really do anything spectacular on offense, we just did enough while our defense played great.

 

There's nothing special about the Jets' defense. I didn't say it is blasphemy to say Luck is better than Tannehill, but the idea that Tannehill's one bad game yesterday somehow makes what Luck is doing seem more impressive is nonsense considering that Luck has had bad games like that too.

I agree that the whole offense, Tannehill included, was bad yesterday. And the defense and special teams were no better.

 

You expect Tannehill to have rough games against the Texans and possibly Jets. You expect Luck to have rough games against the Bears and possibly Jets. You DON'T expect Tannehill to have a rough game against the Titans. That simply shouldn't happen. He has played well enough against similarly bad teams that we expect more in a game like that, and a home game to boot.

Unfortunately for Ryan, the Dolphins don't have the talent to overcome poor performances by anyone. They don't have a great running game for him to fall back on, nor do they have a WR who can house it on any play, nor do they have a playmaker on defense who can make a big play. For the most part, they need to be almost perfect in every phase just to compete. We saw that in the Jets game. Offense, defense and special teams were for all intents and purposes perfect, mixed with the Jets being the Jets = Blowout. Conversely, we saw yesterday what happens when all three phases are downright horrible.

 

Actually, Luck has only one 3 INT game, in his first game ever, at Chicago. Otherwise, no, he hasn't a game like Tanny's yesterday.

Luck has taken a 2 win team and turned it into a likely playoff team, while not having much of a running game or defense.

The guy is great, and might already be a Top 10 QB.

 

But wait, I was operating under the assumption that the fact that Ryan Tannehill plays for my team made him insusceptible to such games?

 

I think it's only fair to consider the opponent. If we're comparing bad games, we should point out that the Bears defense >>>>>>>>>> Titans defense. You know, for comparison sake.

 

The Jets' defense is as bad as the Titans. Especially after losing Revis.

Either way, this comparison is silly. Both QBs are statistically about the same, and there is still a lot of football left this season.

 

They're not that statistically similar. Luck has 10 TD 9 INT, Tanny has 5 TD, 9, INT. Luck has double the TDs and same amount of interceptions.

Luck is at 79 rating, Tanny at 73. Plus Luck has actually used his athleticism and done some nice things rushing the ball while Tanny hasn't yet learned to use his athleticism to get out the pocket judiciously yet.

Plus Luck already has 3 4th quarter comebacks.

None of this is to suggest that Tanny isn;t good, or that he won't eventually be great. But Luck is betetr than him and likely will always be better than him. That's nothing against Tanny, much like it's nothing against Dwyane Wade or Kevin Durant to point out that LeBron is better than them.

 

Their QB ratings are pretty damn close, and their net YPA is essentially the same.

 

Let's also put into perspective that Tannehill's best receivers are complementary guys in Bess and Hartline. Hartline is the quinntissenital #2/#3 and Bess is a possession-type receiver, #3/#4. And this is no knock on them - that's what they are. They will make great catches, and make some big plays from time to time, but the problem is you can't get those types of plays consistently. And when teams start attempting taking away what they do well (as the Colts sorta did, and the Titans seemingly did yesterday), it gets harder for them to succeed. Gaffney is a stop-gap, but could provide some upgraded playmaking in spots, and boy do we need it.

After that, you look to your TE and - again - we have a decent one in Fasano, but one who is more suited to being the #2, blocking TE, who will also contribute 2-3 catches/game. But we don't have a playmaker at the position. Our best playmakers on the offense are RBs, and their contribution to the passing game is more dink-and-dunk type stuff. You're not throwing fade routes to Bush or Miller.

All of the other rookie starting QBs have better receivers than we do (especially Luck). I think Tannehill has done and shown enough given the tools he has for us to have confidence in him. He had a good game just 8 days ago, and I think he'll bounce back just fine Thursday night. But he'll be limited until he has weapons! True weapons.

Honestly, we won't be able to truly judge Tannehill until he has a true #1 to throw to, or even a nice collection of #2 types (like Green Bay). And a true threat at TE. Imagine what Tannehill could do w/ Matt Ryan's targets. Or a Gronkowski type at TE. We could go over this and that and blame this guy/that guy for why we're in this situation (there's plenty of threads for that), but the bottom line is, we just don't have the weapons for Ryan to truly succeed. I think he's doing pretty well w/ what he has, though, which shows me there's something to believe in, and I do!

 

Well considering the pateince brigade has been arguing for weeks that our weapons are actually really good and that we have a super team, I think your post won;t find too much traction.

But yes, Indy has better weapons than we do, and had them last year when they were 2-14. The only significant difference is Luck.

And I don;t think anybody is knocking Tannehill or suggesting he isn;t good based on yesterday. I think he's good and still have very high hopes for him, but Luck is on a different level. He just is.

 

His game against the Jets was equivalent -- 22 of 44, 2 INTs and a lost fumble and no TDs on a team that scored no offensive TDs. But I guess if you consider interceptions to be the only relevant stat and ignore the fact that fumbles are as bad or worse . . . . So, yes, he has had other games like the one Tanny had yesterday.

Luck looks very good. He was the best QB prospect of all time and is living up to it. But the Colts 2 wins last year was largely a fluke (if they weren't actively sucking for Luck) -- that team averaged 12+ wins per season over the previous 8-9 years.

 

I don;t even understand what we're arguing about.

Is it controversial to suggest that Luck is better than Tannehill and has been better overall this year? Is this a minority opinion?

All I said in my original post was that seeing Tannehill just look completely lost against a bad team was surprisiing considering how good he'd been and made what Luck is doing even more impressive as I don;t think he's looked rthat lost against any team, even the games where he played poorly.

 

Absolutely Luck is on a different level. That's why we all wanted to suck for him last year. He's THAT good and a once-in-a-generation talent. We'd be crazy if we didn't want him.

But we have Tannehill, and in any other Luck-less year, it would probably seem better than it does right now. Even so, it's good to have him. I think he's doing some amazing things despite our lack of playmakers, and the whole "only 19 college starts" thing. Luck was as seasoned as they come coming out, in addition to the obvious mental and physical talent. Tannehill may just catch up in due time for all we know. And even if he doesn't, I think he'll be more than good enough for us to compete for division championships and more year in/out, as long as we increase the talent around him.

Matt Ryan had Roddy White his rookie year. The next year, they added Gonzalez, and last year, Julio Jones. They kept adding to his stable of talent. God, let's hope we add at least two playmakers next year. It's not like we won't have the $$ to spend, or the draft picks to get them!

 

Ummm...and a brand new coaching staff???

 

They also have a completely different defense. My Colts fan friend is weirded out by how many big people are actually on the Defense.

 

It doesn't kill Miami's playoff chances. It just makes them improbable. Miami still can go to the playoffs if they win out. Chances are, that isn't happening. However playoff hopes are not dead.

 

Are they really improbable at this point?

 

I haven't crunched the numbers.

 

They'll need to take five of the last seven to have any shot at all. Four of the last seven are against the Pats, 49ers, and Seahawks. And another tough one is coming in mere days on the road against a team that is better than the one that just stomped us. It does seem improbable unless they go out and do a complete 180 on Thursday night and beat Buffalo decisively.