I'm out on Tannehill

Exactly this. And with Tannehill, this is what we will get, like I said a few posts ago.

 

Wallace, Hartline, Landry, we have some dang good receivers. Would love to see what Rodgers, Wilson, Luck would do with them.

 

Prove RT caused the 8-8 and I'm with ya.

 

7.45 from 2004 to 2006, just before Moss arrived in 2007, and certainly Tannehill's can increase, but it hasn't yet.

 

Absolutely. The alternative is to search for another quarterback, who may prove not to be as good, and then you're possibly looking at worse than 8-8, even if the surrounding talent is better!

 

Why not search for another QB and let the best one play? Why does searching for another QB inherently entail getting rid of Tannehill?

 

Tannephins, the POINT is, that had we been looking at Brady after the 2003 season, we'd be saying the EXACT same things about Brady as people are saying about Tannehill. Literally, they are like carbon copies. LOL. Now, that in NO WAY is me saying that Tannehill is going to turn out like Brady, just that we need to stop thinking that we know the future. That is what literally is keeping this stupid argument alive. These people who are saying that Tannehill will not get any better than he is right now. If we took Tom Brady from the end of 2003, and stuck him on the Dolphins, the same people would be saying the same stuff...and they'd be dead wrong.

 

What if Tannehill threw for 5000 yards, 45 tds, and 15 picks, but we still went 8-8. Would people finally put some blame on the defensive side of the ball where it belongs? Seriously, why do such smart people refuse to understand that win totals is not on the QB completely?

 

I think at some point you have to make a decision to pay him, and then it becomes less practical not to stick with him. Certainly you can take low-risk flyers on other QBs, but you won't be able to pay two of them big money, and spending 1st-round picks on them runs counter to the need to surround Tannehill with the talent necessary for the team to win.

We're talking about a developing weakness of the league here. The game is centering so much on quarterback play at the present time that teams with mediocre QBs are indeed "stuck" in this way, lest they get lucky with a Russell Wilson or a Tom Brady.

 

Is Tom Brady's developmental course the norm, or the exception to the rule? Do you know?

 

Except nothing. My point is teammates matter. I disgree with your analysis of Tannehill, but that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

 

Tannephins, is Tannehill's the norm or the exception? Do you know? Regardless, it has nothing to do with my point. Too many people think that they can predict the future, even ignoring the elevation in play that Tannehill has shown each and every season. They should all go play the lotto, they'd probably be millionaires by now.

DJ, I'm just saying that wins/losses are not purely defined by the QB. A QB can play well enough to win a game, but if the defense doesn't do their job, they can lose.

 

How many times has this been achieved, and a team didn't make the playoffs? The rules are actively being changed to inherently mitigate defenses. The NFL has explicitly said they plan on changing the rules even more to favor the QB.

 

Do you realize how poor the rest of the team would have to be for that to happen? Much poorer than it is now.

 

I think if anything, once you pay him big money, it becomes much more practical to try to replace him.

 

We don't yet know Tannehill's full developmental course. We know Brady's.

 

Jesus you fell for that pretty bad. Lol

 

Yeah, I bet Rodgers was on the sideline looking across the field wishing that he could trade receivers with us.

 

Yeah, it's been a tough day at work. LOL

 

As long as he isn't the reason we keep going 8-8. As long as his play keeps improving, and as long as there isn't a better option. It's a team sport, you need a team to win. QB is the most important position, but it isn't the only position.

 

Oh, I thought since we were making up fictitious situations, I could play too.

What does that have to do with people evaluating Brady after his first three years?

 

How is that so?

 

Because if for every Tom Brady there are let's say 50 Kyle Ortons, obviously the odds are against any one QB's having a career similar to Brady's, even when his first three years may be similar.

 

Because paying a QB $3M/yr. is a huge advantage over paying him $20M/yr., all things being equal. Having a QB play at a high level on his rookie contract is a goldmine.

 

Players should be evaluated by individual play. Coaches and front office staff by team or unit play. It seems fairly self evident to me. I don't get why seems to be a struggle to understand this. DJ's criticism are of Tannehill's play. I consider them relavant, even if I disagree. Others, not so much.

 

Oh OK. I meant having to pay him big, not $3M a year. The other problem is that these mediocre quarterbacks are going to start making more money than usual, due to supply and demand. Imagine for example if Teddy Bridgewater bombs in Minnesota, and Ryan Tannehill hits the free agent market around that time. He's liable to be offered a great deal by a team like Minnesota, just to make up for the mistake, get people in the seats, and give the team a fighting chance.

 

Kyle Orton has never had a season where he started where he had a quarterback rating over 90.

 

Precisely, and so if for every 100 QBs who play their first three seasons like Tom Brady, 25 of them have careers like Tom Brady, while the other 75 have careers like Kyle Orton, where do the odds lie for Ryan Tannehill and players like him?

In other words, like I originally asked, do we know if career developmental courses like Tom Brady's are the norm, or the exception to the rule? If they're the exception to the rule, then it hardly makes me feel good to know that Ryan Tannehill is playing like Tom Brady did in Brady's first three years.

 

Ryan Tannehill is already better than players like Kyle Orton.

 

Yes he is. But that isn't the point.

 

I'm convinced that if these people were Texans' fans they would have defended David Carr and rode him out 10 years and still blame the everything but David. Guy had good stats too, in an era where it wasn't as pass dominant as it is now. In an era where 1000 yards was a meaningful bench mark for receivers unlike now due to the stupid rules the NFL has put against the secondary.

There's a gigantic difference between Luck, Wilson and Tannehill. Tannehill is not even in the same tier, not even remotely close. You can salivate over his stats all you want but if an AVERAGE quarterback like Kyle Orton can record 3000 yards and 16 TD's in only 12 games, then you have to start evaluating the quarterbacks in different measures and that comes down to WINNING. Is Tannehill creating, improvising winning plays in the fourth quarter to get us over the hump? Can you rely on him to close out a game or to comeback down a touchdown in the 4th quarter and win?

Statistics showing Tannehill being on the bottom 5 in the NFL in fourth quarter in winning percentages, third downs, first downs, yardage, completion %, etc, says no.

Until he learns how to win, he's not the franchise quarterback. Which he doesn't know how to win by the way, the guy has never won a meaningful or big game in his life, some car wash sponsored bowl game by Meineke against a ****ty Northwestern team was his biggest win ever.

 

Carr was never as successful as Tannehill.

 

you cant be serious. david carr and good stats don't go together. david carr best season was 16td 14 int 3,531 yards 61% completion with a 83 rating, tannehill is leagues ahead of carr and thats not even remotely debatable.

 

I'm convinced that people are unable to separate hindsight on other QBs from their evaluations of still developing QBs. That was the point of the Tom Brady comparison. It was a comparison of how people viewed them.

 

wow this thread is still going.

 

This thread wouldn't end even if we won the SB.

 

Except you're blatantly making up statistics here, and arguing them as facts. Your statistic of 1/4 of them turning out like Brady may be extremely generous, it may be extremely low. Either way, doesn't really matter, as it's completely made up. Not to mention, that based on your stated opinion, if we had Brady here, with his stats that he had after his first three years, you'd be preaching to get rid of him because you'd think he was in the 75% that don't turn out to be Brady. And you'd have been foolish to get rid of him.

So, all I'm saying is, we don't know the future. We can only look at a few things (list is not exhaustive):

1. How has the player progressed each year
2. How has the rest of the team progressed each year
3. What weapons does the player have at his disposal? Are they effective weapons?
4. How has the coaching progressed each year? Does the coaching have a track record of being effective?

If you answer those honestly, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Tannehill has reached his ceiling.

 

Right, which is why I asked, is it the norm, or is it the exception to the rule?

I still haven't seen an answer, and that's the crucial piece of information to consider in deciding whether an early-career trajectory like Tom Brady's is anything to get excited about.