Yes, which is why nobody holds him to that standard. He's a rookie QB and the way he's played the last two games hasn't been anything unexpected for a rookie. But it is just as unfair to him to use his teammates as an excuse for his play. Suggesting that he can't be properly evaluated because of the team around, or that no QB could succeed is pretty lazy.
That's fair. But it seems like more and more people have been trying to hold Tannehill to that standard since the Tennessee game, and especially since the Buffalo game. The entire team, offense, defense, and special teams, have trailed off since the Jets game. Some more drastically than others.
absolutely absurd thread. unfortunately, most of the threads for the rest of the season will be like this. Our teams sucks big time, and we're ready to anoint our rookie QB a bust.
Let's take it position by position. Pennington vs. Tannehill: 2008 Brown vs. Bush: Tie Martin vs. Clay: 2008 Fasano vs. Fasano: Tie Camarillo vs. Bess: 2012 Hartline vs. Ginn: 2012 Long vs. Long: Tie Incognito vs. Smiley: Tie Satele vs. Pouncey: 2012 Ndukwe vs. Jerry: Tie Carey vs. Martin: 2008 Langford vs. Odrick: 2008 Soliai vs. Ferguson: 2012 Holliday vs. Starks: 2012 Wake vs. Porter: 2012 Roth vs. Misi: Tie Crowder vs. Dansby: 2012 Ayodele vs. Burnett: 2012 Allen vs. Smith: Tie Goodman vs. Carroll: 2008 Bell vs. Jones: 2012 Hill vs. Clemons: Tie I see an advantage for 2012 there.
If that's your interpretation of it, fine, that's your opinion. I'd argue that Ronnie Brown, Justin Smiley, and Renaldo Hill were all better in 2008 than Reggie Bush, Richie Incognito, and Chris Clemons have been. Either way, the level of improvement in terms of quality talent is minimal at best. That's not good.
Because their talent level was already that much better? Yes, you're probably right in that regard. Miami's still playing-catchup. But, off the top of my head from 2008 to now, I'd say that San Francisco and Seattle are both a lot better now than they were in '08. Atlanta, Denver, Philadelphia, perhaps Cincinnati. I'd consider all those teams to have improved their talent more than Miami has.
Pick the ones that were equal in talent and do a study on it. In four years you have a chance at roughly eight draft picks (those from the first two rounds) that have a decent chance to become starters, with those in the first round having only a 50% hit rate in that regard, and your free agent acquisitions. This amidst the free agents you stand to lose (i.e., Kendall Langford), as well as players who retire or leave their prime to the point that they're no longer viable (i.e., Vernon Carey). See how quickly teams at that level can improve, and then see whether it's due to improvement at QB or improvement of the rest of the roster.
See my response in the Club thread from Thursday night. Such a study is pretty fruitless, for either side, on this forum.
No, logically it's sound. It's what would ensue once a study like that would be posted regardless if it was in favor of Jeff Ireland or not. It's not going to be met with objectivity by 99% of the board. And again, for the record, that's not including shouright. I think he's pretty fair on most things. I fear that while it may be read, it's not going to stop the constant dithering on this forum.
Because people twist even objective evidence to fit their preconceived notions, and it's hard to divorce the success of the quarterback from the play of the rest of the team. However, what you could show is that players play uncharacteristically poorly when they have a poor QB, and then rebound when a better one comes along. Reggie Wayne is a good example. He caught 110 and 111 passes in 2009 and 2010, dipped to 75 last year when he had a very poor QB, and is now back on pace for 123 this year. That's an example that runs counter to the "playmakers make the QB" notion.
Of course people won't be objective, but that doesn't mean it would be fruitless. We can more or less prove evolution, but that doesn't mean everyone agrees with it nor does it make the studies used fruitless.
Again, the merit of evidence has nothing to do with the people that view it. Things either are or they aren't.
I understand that, and it wouldn't be fruitless to the small percentage on either side that would actually gain something from it. If I posted something, I'd probably do it in Club only, but the Club forum's been pretty dead this season. If I posted it in the main forum, well, I don't want to be partially to blame for whatever ensued after doing so.
I suspect there are people who gain things from such analyses, but they tend not to post in response at anywhere near the quantity of those who want to oppose them. Consequently you have an "argument" thread and not a "gee, that was cool" thread. Every now and then you have a "gee, that was cool" thread, but in my experience it happens only when something very solidly objective is posted in favor of something good about the team that just about everyone is believing already.
I don't post much anymore because people aren't changing their minds regardless. It feels more like a political forum honestly.
The last lengthy thread I posted was just after the draft trying to figure out how certain pieces fit into Kevin Coyle's defense. That was met pretty well both in the Club forum and in the main forum, but I'd attribute a lot of that to the timing of it. I think it was only a week or two after the draft concluded. Even then, it didn't generate much discussion afterwards. I feel like the exact opposite would occur now.
I give the bolded ties to 2008 and call Wake-Porter and Bell-Jones a tie. Porter ended about 4 wins with the game sealing sack....
Well, you can't call Jake Long versus himself anything other than a tie, unless you think Ireland should have replaced him between now and then. Do you? Bell versus Jones I'd give to Jones in a heartbeat. Jones is playing as well as the best safeties in the league right now. Bell never achieved that level IMO.
You think Jake Long in 2012 is as good as Jake Long in 2008? I don't... Jake was dominating from the word go. All of his injuries (which we had stupidly allowed him to play through despite the hopelessness of our team) have rendered him a much different player in 2012. EDIT: And to prove my point... "Jake Long is the culprit on the offensive line. Long is ranked as football's 44th best tackle this season, according to ProFootballFocus.com. By comparison, Long was ranked 21st in 2011, second in 2010, and second again in 2009. At 27, Long should be in the prime of his career. What's up?" - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000096102/article/stick-a-fork-in-em-2012-miami-dolphins Makes your theories on everyone exaggerating the lack of talent level, look exactly like it should...
I would rather have Ronnie Brown of '08 than Bush of this year. If we are just talking surrounding cast for the QB, I'll take a younger Fasano and Long. Not mention that Bess was on the team in '08, having a nice rookie season catching 54 balls and playing his true position. In '08 he was a bonus. I dont know that our overall pass rush was much better in '08. I don't recall
If Ryan still had the same stats, but didn't tend to flub the most important drive to bring the team back at the end of games, I wouldn't be as concerned. I agree that he has a lot working against him, and is a half-baked pie in terms of starting experience. Still, you can certainly see a certain air, authority and effectiveness in the cluthc with some guys that rise to the moment, and it's also easy to witness when it's not there. Was it unreasonable to hope for that from Ryan? Well, I didn't hope for it, until he started to play great for 6 games. By the time we hit Luck vs Tannehill I thought there was a chance we'd see Ryan prove to be in the saml caliber, though maybe not quite equal to Luck. No such chance. It's not just that Luck had Wayne, though that helped. It was also a sheer determination (the one I used to see in Marino's eyes. Elways's eyes. Like the mother****er was going to will you to victory). I just haven't seen that trait in Ryan. Yes, his skills will improve, but that mettle is something else. He may become a very talented QB, in fact I think he probably WILL. I'm just disappointed that his reputation of folding in 4th quarter comeback situations persists.
By the way... Pennington's forst three years he had 127, 79 and 104 QBR's.. but only became a starter (12 games) in his third of those years. He only had one 4th Qtr comeback in that starting year... of course, I don;t know how often they were down in the fourth qtr. In 2008... 19 TDs 7 INTs 2008 Phins Takeaway/Giveaway Differential +17 (1.1/g), 1st.
Basically 10 players on offense for us vs their 11 defenders every play, since Fasano and Martin must combine to play even an average Right Tackle.
Okay this kind of response just pisses me off. 1) I actually like Tannehill 2) I actually expect him to continue improving and be around awhile 3) FACTUALLY HE HAS STRUGGLED TO BRING TEAMS BACK IN THE FOURTH QUARTER WHEN DOWN. IN COLLEGE AND NOW IN THE NFL. Does typing it in all caps make it any ****ing clearer that this is something that's gone on with him and maybe *you* actually desire that in a QB so think this is not worth mentioning, but most do NOT look for that in their franchise QB, so if it beings to hint at that being the case it actually is an issue. So it is WORTH looking at. What the ****, man.
And,, by the way, to address any other hysterical over-responses before they come my way... A B-tier QB is NOT: 1) a bust 2) Someone anyone is trying to flush down a toilet. What a "B" is, is NOT an "A". Like Brady is an A. Manning is an "A". Luck has a chance to be an "A". Others (Eli, Matt Ryan) are debateable "A"s A guy like Flacco, or even Schaub is a B. They are starting calilber QB's but not special, not elite, not every-year Pro Bowl talent. So please cease with the over-reaction as if someone suggesting cutting ****ing Tannehill. You'd think I'd said your precious 3 year old daughter was ****ing ugly from how protective people are about Tannehill. Guess what folks?... He is not PERFECT! And we CAAAAAAAAAN dis-cuss that factually. TRY IT! It's ****ing fun when you actually DO it. God, grant me the serenity....
Great idea, doc. First off, 2012 Special Teams would win HANDS DOWN if not for Carpenter this year. Here's my opinion Pennington vs. Tannehill: 2008 (agree) Brown vs. Bush: Tie (agree) Martin vs. Clay: 2008 (agree) Fasano vs. Fasano: Tie (agree) Camarillo vs. Bess: 2012 (agree) Hartline vs. Ginn: 2012 (disagree... 2008... DESPITE Hartline's production, Ginn's effect opened the field for the WHOLE OFFENSE in 2008) Long vs. Long: Tie (Disagree. 2008 Jake Long beats the snot out of 2012 Jake Long) Incognito vs. Smiley: Tie (Agree) Satele vs. Pouncey: 2012 (DEF Agree) Ndukwe vs. Jerry: Tie (I give this to 2012 Jerry, but maybe you're right.) Carey vs. Martin: 2008 (Agree) Langford vs. Odrick: 2008 (Agree) Soliai vs. Ferguson: 2012 (Agree) Holliday vs. Starks: 2012 (Agree) Wake vs. Porter: 2012 (Agree) Roth vs. Misi: Tie (Agree) Crowder vs. Dansby: 2012 (Agree) Ayodele vs. Burnett: 2012 (Agree) Allen vs. Smith: Tie (disagree. 2008. I take Will Allen) Goodman vs. Carroll: 2008 (DEF agree) Bell vs. Jones: 2012 (Agree... except Bell had the secondary better co-ordinated as a WHOLE. Less blown coverage and people were doing the right things at the right times. He kept them sharp. So maybe HE was not as good, but he raised the effectiveness of the other three or four guys.) Hill vs. Clemons: Tie (Ugh. No comment. This has to be Ireland's greatest inability and sin. Finding a Free Safety.) So, in three cases I disagreed and felt 2008 was better. For whatever that's worth. lol. From my couch in Los Angeles.
The point of comparing was not evaluating if Ireland should have made moves at each position. It was SUPPOSED to be showing if Tannehill had more or less (or the same) talent level as a supporting cast. If his left tackle is playing far owrse than Chad Pennington's was, it doesn't matter if it's the same dude. The performance is what matters.
The purpose of the comparison is to evaluate what Jeff Ireland has done with personnel between 2008 and 2012. Unless you think he should've replaced Long during that period, you can't give Ireland a strike because Long has regressed.
Well, in this thread, we were discussing Tannehill and I thought it was raised as a corollary to saying Ryan had no talent to work with around him... which led to people saying Pennington did more with the same talent level... so we began comparing talent levels of supporting cats for the 2 QBs. I thought that was the gist of it in this thread. Obviously the same list you made could be used to assess Ireland, but that didn't seem to be the use here.
Fair enough. I guess we're using the same info for two different things. lol. COmparing rosters, to me, is relevant to whether Tannehil has the pieces around him to have a decent chance to perform well.
I used the word "corollary" to make you feel more at home in that post, SHou lol. seems like a Shou word.
Everyone has emphasized this guy's leadership and composure...not concerned that he can't execute a 99 yard drive to win the game yet. Get him some more starts, a WR that can spread the field, a TE that can expose the seam, and a OL that can run block...then yeah let's talk.
