The Titans went to the AFC Championship game and was up on the Chiefs 3-0, 10-0, 10-7, 17-7 before the Chiefs woke up in the 2nd quarter, got their offense finally going and their defense finally shut down the Titans. So you can’t really say Tannehill didn’t win in Tennessee. The Titans made the playoffs 3 years in a row with Tannehill at the helm, going 2-3 in that stretch.
He didn't win the SB in Tennessee. That was the entire context of Pauly's post I responded to. This is not debatable. I can forgive Tannehill for not beating the Chiefs. But what you cannot forgive, and what the Titans can't forgive — I remember this was the general sentiment on Titans message boards after the game — was being the primary reason they lost the 2021 division championship game when the Titans had the #1 seed. That Titans team was loaded, except at QB. And Tannehill bombed, with a 66.7 rating when the rest of the team was playing well. That's what did them in. I think it was finally clear to Vrabel after that game he couldn't win the SB with Tannehill. The rest is history, i.e., Tannehill became a backup in Tennessee (might actually end up without a team!) and Vrabel is no longer a HC because (among other things) he couldn't get the QB position right.
Sherman had 10 years where he was a HC or a OC in the NFL. Four of those years his O was top 10 in points, with 3 more where the team was top 12, one of which was Huston. His worst two years were in Miami, 26th and 27th in points respectively. So, trash in Miami, but had a sound history. You stated that Ryan "Learned a new offense like every other year." Which was demonstrably false as he ran the same offence, for the same coach, through all of his college time, and his first two seasons in the NFL. Where as Tua had a new OC and a new offense every year at Bama, and technically more than one new OC each of his first two years in the NFL. Remember, Gaily wasn't the first O coordinator signed that first year, and there were two O coordinators listed and possibly a third that also called plays his second year. Last year was the first time Tua had the same offence as his pervious year since high school, and that's an assumption on my part that his high school also ran the same O year to year. Flores's utter neglect of the offense is what got him fired.
Herbert cannot, or at least has not shown that he can process as quick as Tua. He doesn't have the same anticipation or pocket movement. I like Tua's vision better. Herbert does have a way better Arm, is way harder to tackle, a better scrambler. There are a lot of offenses he could run better, but the one in Miami isn't one of them. He also hasn't improved much since being in the league. He should have great coaching now though, and that matters.
His olines were no worse than Tua’s have been. And the numbers don’t support the idea that Tanny was better at passing the ball anywhere better than Tua. Tua also has better pocket awareness than RT ever had.
If hes coming in at vet minimum and has accepted his role as a backup quarterback, hes better than anything we have behind Tua .. so yes.. backup qb is important
I’m not going to defend Tannehill’s lackluster performance in the divisional game against the Bengals. Ryan played lights out during the regular season only to sh!t the bed in the divisional game, but consider… Had the Titans not gone for 2 instead of kicking the point after touchdown…+1 Had the Titans gone for a 52 yard FG and made it instead of going for it on 4th down…+3 That COULD have had the final score 20-19 over the Bengals instead of Cincinnati prevailing. At some point, blame has to be directed at the HC. I mean, don’t we call out McDaniel when he makes bad calls? Although I was one of the Tannehill defenders, I would never have categorized Tannehill as great (or elite depending on your lexicon) but Tannehill did give great quarterback play. That’s quite evident with how the Titans took off when Mariotta went down and Tannehill took over. That CANT be debated. But coming full circle back to the title of this thread, as much as I liked and defended Tannehill, there’s no way he would be a viable backup here in Miami. McDaniel’s offense is just not HIS game.
It says wonders that no team wants him even as a backup. He'll probably have to accept a vet minimum contract and still no one wants him. He was terrible last year. A 78.5 rating over 8 games is NOT good enough even for a backup QB. No I'd rather have someone new that has the potential to develop a bit. The Ryan Tannehill of today is not even a decent backup QB, especially in a system not designed to his strengths. My prediction: most likely outcome is Tannehill is forced to retire due to lack of interest. If that prediction turns out to be true that's utterly damning for the pro-Tannehill crowd.
lol.. yeah this is where market value really does not correspond to societal value. Like.. nothing close!
I'm not sure that "nobody wants him" is the correct take here. It's not uncommon for QBs, especially former/marginal starter types, to linger waiting to see if an established guy goes down, or a competition opens up, etc. They don't necessarily see it the way we do and immediately accept pure backup status, they want to compete and have a shot to start. Personally I wouldn't have any interest in him as a starter, but he is better than a LOT of depth chart guys. Not sure if he'd be right for our system though. I know here in Detroit he's getting a fair amount of mention as being a dude who could replace Nate Sudfield as the primary backup. It's also worth remembering that 1) Whatever we see on the field in a preseason game holds far less meaning than what the coaches see in the joint sessions and that 2) There is little to no cohesiveness, no scheming, nothing but vanilla plays ... it's all about just seeing if guys can win 1v1 or execute basics. So while our QBs today are on the struggle bus, most of the guys blocking for them, catching for them, etc are going to be janitors in a week or two.
Well.. it's true that nobody wants him for the asking price, which probably isn't that high given his recent form and current status, otherwise he would've already been signed. The scenario you describe would mean the conditions change from what they are currently, similar to what happened with Flacco. But if those conditions don't change — and often they don't — then the QB is "forced" to retire. Either way it's damning that he hasn't already been signed given how QB starved so many NFL teams are. We don't need to wait for the rest of the season to play out to say that at least.
Question: how many OCs did Tannehill have his first 4-5 years? He only started in college for two years right? Many people stated that they thought having Sherman as his NFL coach was actually a detriment (some thought it was good). Sherman was trash in Miami. End of story. Tannehill was having a new head coach or OC like every other year. That's really great for development. You guys acting like Tannehill had a good situation in Miami are completely off base. His best receivers were Hartline and Bess. Gimme a break. Then he had TRex arms man Mike Wallace. Never gave the young developing QB a good tight end. Tannehill wasn't a Hall of Famer, but he was certainly better than you guys give him credit for. Plus, most of you were never willing to put any blame anywhere but in Tannehill. Strangely different now though.
For the record: OFFENSIVE COORDINATORS Mike Sherman 2012-2013 Bill Lazor 2014-2015 Clyde Christensen 2016-2017 Dowell Loggains 2018 Head Coaches 2012-2015 Joe Philbin 2015 Dan Campbell 2016-2018 Adam Gase Yeah, look at all that coaching stability for Tannehill (while getting undermined by coaches, also). So that's 4 different OCs in 6 years, and 3 HCs in 6 years. Also, many of you blamed Tannehill for the failures of trash coaches.
For perspective, the average tenure of an NFL HC is 3.2 years. So what Tannehill experienced in terms of HC turnover isn't that unusual, especially considering Campbell was an interim HC. It's close to NFL average. And one reason it's that short is because they don't get the QB position right. Also, Dan Campbell is turning out to be a really good coach in Detroit.
Dude. I liked Campbell. I bring him up to show the total amount of turnover. Generally speaking, cbrad, the way to support a young developing QB is not by having that much turnover at key coaching positions. That is the only point I'm making. Also, your average includes coaches who never get another head coaching gif, some wash out of the league completely. You need to look at coaches that are successful and Kim at their average. That being said, average length of coaching, or whether or not Tannehill experienced something abnormal or not, isn't really relevant to there point I'm making. 1. Consistent coaching turnover is associated with losing franchises, so I really don't think we should be defending that. Lol 2. The point I'm making is that Tannehill was not given a great atmosphere in which to grow and flourish, and they early on coached him out of leaving the pocket.
Basically, my perspective is that the guys I've been arguing about Tua with, who make every reason/excuse for him, were largely the same ones who I argued about Tannehill with, and they refused any reason/excuse for Tannehill. Or so it seem to me.
Tannehill was an average Qb. I lobbied to move on once I saw the ceiling which was the year Mahomes came out, and wanted him. Is that so bad?
Right now it looks like you were right. Personally I'll need at least another season or two from a stats point of view to be more certain, but it definitely looked really good last year. Campbell needs to be smarter about when to be aggressive and when not to though. He actually went beyond what stats say you should do on 4th down lol. But he seems like the type of guy who will learn.
I agree he didn't have a good environment to develop. My primary disagreement with you is what a better environment would have likely led to. In the end innate talent tends to shine through, and I doubt Tannehill would have ended up much better even had he been in a better situation. You really can't be taught how to overcome bad team play. Not sure about others but I just go by stats. I make no excuses for Tua or for Tannehill. For Tannehill stats said get rid of him after 2016, and that would've been the right decision in retrospect. For Tua stats say keep him, at least for now. We'll see if that turns out to be the right decision.
I get that. Hiring Philbin was a huge mistake, thinking he could duplicate the magic he had with Rodgers in Green Bay. Oh, wait…Philbin inherited a great offense and great players. He didn’t have to do a thing. The Dolphins as an organization was such a CLUSTER F LI CK at the time, Tannehill or any other quarterback we could have had would have been DOOMED. Tannehill’s turnaround in Tennessee is a testament to how terrible our entire organization was.
Dont think we’re gonna bring anyone in, Tua seems to like Mike white and he helps him get ready for games
I’m glad you bring this up. The AVERAGE tenure of HCs in the NFL. The thing though Brad is only AVERAGE coaches last 3.2 seasons. Head coaches with TENURE have success. Shula, Noll, Landry, Gibbs, Cowher, Belichick, Carroll, Coughlin, Tomlin, Reid…all of then TENURED and all of them reaches the pinnacle of NFL success. Now knowing your analytics, you’re probably going to go straight to topic of quarterbacks and while that may be a significant contributing factor, it’s far from THE factor. Great head coaches find a way to bring out the BEST in the players they have the success every NFL team strives for. Sure, did Belichick benefit from the diamond in the rough he found with Brady? He sure did, but Coughlin found that same success twice with an average quarterback in Peyton’s little brother…beating Belichick for that title twice! Shula benefited from having the greatest passing quarterback ever but never won the title while his counterpart in DC won the Super Bowl 3 times in 4 years with 3 different average quarterbacks. My point is this, it’s great coaching that makes the difference in players and a team’s success. You can have great players with average coaching and they’ll never reach that pinnacle of success where you can have average players with great coaching and those players become household names everyone remembers. Tannehill in Miami didn’t have that benefit of great coaching. His potential was never truly realized, not for lack of talent or ability…his tenure in Tennessee negates that argument. He, and the team as a whole suffered through the fiasco that the Dolphins organization was by failing to get the Head Coach position right.
It would have been evident that we had a great Qb with a **** coach. You can differentiate the two very easily.
Would it? Would it really? With our turnstile offensive line at the time and superstar receivers in Hartline and Bess (sarcasm), the analysis of Mahomes would have been… “a quarterback with elusive abilities to get out of trouble but unable to make plays needed to maintain offensive drives” In other words, with Mahomes in Miami under Adam Gase, Mahomes would be Kyler Murray…and last time I checked, no one gives the Cardinals a second thought. And even if the organization realized Gase wasn’t the answer, fired him and hired Flores, the Dolphins inability at the time to attract quality coaches on the offensive side of the ball would have resulted in continued mediocrity. I mean, does anyone really think with the Dolphins talent at the time, Mahomes would have flourished under the obsolete offensive scheme of Chan Gailey? Can’t look at players in a vacuum. Real life NFL teams are not a Madden video game.
It's a major factor, even if what you say about HC's is generally true. Can't just focus on Tannehill not having the right environment. It's as much true that the coaches he played under didn't have long tenure because he helped get them fired. No, Mahomes would have likely made us into a consistent winner with Philbin or with Gase, both of whom would have likely had longer tenure as a result. Look at what Deshaun Watson did in 2018 with an OL far worse than anything Miami has had. He took 62 sacks!! And he puts up a 103.1 rating with a 11-5 record. That was with Bill O'Brien who is nothing more than an average HC.
Wow the PTSD with Tannehill is very real. Come to think of it, as polarizing as Tua has been, I feel like people argued far more about Tannehill than we have about Tua....So far anyway.
It's not damning at all. If he retires, then that's a 12 year career. That's like 3x the average, since you love average car lengths. If he retires, then Tannehill had a decently lengthy career, and he posted at elite levels for a couple seasons.
No it's not. But, that wasn't what I was arguing, and I don't include you in the group of posters I used to argue with about Tannehill.
Yeah I know that you fall back on stats above all else. I don't think you can say that his first 4 years didn't negatively affect his development to the point that he never was able to truly realize his potential. It's like you guys just forget how awful his lines were, and how many big hits he took.
That wasn't the topic. The topic was bringing in Tannehill as a backup given his current form. It is absolutely damning for everyone suggesting we sign Tannehill as a backup that no team is willing to sign him even as a backup.
No one is forgetting how bad the lines were. What you don't seem to realize is you can't teach the things Tannehill isn't good at. You cannot teach the ability to overcome bad team play. That's innate talent (or lack thereof). Doesn't matter if the environment Tannehill was in was much better. In the end his talent (or lack thereof) would have shown. The difference would have been his first few years. Maybe he does better there. But not overall. Overall he would have been a slightly above average QB, just like he ended up.
No, you are saying that something that may happen now is somehow relevant to decisions made 6 years ago. That simply isn't true. He's 6 years older. There isn't the same value to him that there was 6 years ago based solely on age.
