Dave Hyde - Is Tannehill's time sooner rather than later?

Somehow I imagine you look like him. Anyway I'm, stoked just to see him play on TV in preseason.

 

{tap tap} Hey, tired man. You got some on the wall there. Might wanna clean that up before the pants-wearer comes home.

 

Actually, I look like....





with spludge all over me

 

Also, more homoerotic.

 

Does spending extra time after practice with Chad, Reggie and Davone any inclination that they miht be open to the rook ?

 

That's interesting.

 

The vets may see the direction the wind is blowing and be on board early to develop chemistry with him (and have him think of them as a target he likes to throw to).

Another way to look at it is that if they want him to develop quickly it helps to give him extra reps like this.

By the way, Tannehill mentioned that between mini camps and training camps he had some of the WRs meet him places to practice throwing and catching. There's a good chance he has formed relationships with them now and some of these guys who stayed behind could be some of the same guys who met with Ryan for private practice sessions in July.

The biggest thing is, I have never heard of any first string players ever spending any extra time after practice catching for Pat Devlin, our former 3rd string guy. What that tells me is these vets see Tannehill is a totally different light, and definitely not as a long term backup or longshot.

My guess is they want to get used to his ball, since they expect to be catching it in games and want to reduce drops.

 

he purposely made sure he was the last man on the field...he didn't see bush go to the opposite side of the field after reps..

He looks to me like he knows how to be one of the guys, and players are gravitated towards him, theres definitely a coolness about him...Chad is not stupid, if it's true he wants to play a few more years, he's gonna recognize early and want to establish that chemistry early.

 

I completely agree with this.

It's easy to say guys like David Carr, Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, etc. were ruined because they were thrown into the fire too soon. But how do we know these guys wouldn't have sucked anyway?

Eli Manning came in and performed absolutely awful in his rookie year. He bounced back. Same with his brother Peyton. Drew Brees is another example. He bounced back and caught on.

People have asked for examples where guys have sat and failed after sitting. Henne sat his rookie year and then the first 3 weeks of his second year and he never developed. John Beck didn't start until week 11 of his rookie year. Heck he even got the opportunity to get a fresh start in a Mike Shannahan offense and still failed.

Why can't some guys just suck and some guys not suck? Why do we always take a first round failure at QB and blame the OL, or his coaching staff, or the organization for starting him too early?

Point being: I don't want a QB who can't bounce back from experiencing failure in his rookie season. IMO, that player in all likelihood would never have turned into the player we're hoping, the player we want to lead us to a Superbowl.

 

Absolutely awesome point that says it all. In reality, while circumstances around you can somewhat determine your overall level of success, either you can do it, or you can't. E. Manning and Brees are clearly in the category of those who looked awful at first, but were good deep down, and that eventually came out. Others, who have struggled early (Carr) simply just didn't have it deep down no matter how long they tried.

Unless Tanny simply looks awful the rest of the way in TC, and craps the bed completely throughout the preseason, he should start right away, and we'll know by 2014 what we have in the kid. I mean, if we look at this positively, and this kid is our future elite QB, let's get the future started immediately.

 

Let him play.

 

I would agree it's not as black and white as my post conveyed.

But taking the situation at hand with Tannehill. If this coaching staff mismanages him now. What makes us believe they wouldn't have mismanaged him next year making his initial appearance.

As for the Drew Brees mistake. That supports my theory even more. He sat and still performed bad initially. But then went on to become the player he is now.

 

I think you need to start a quarterback when they are capable of being successful. You can't throw them out on a ****ty team or to see what youve got or anything like that. I don't think you can afford creating bad habits or overwhelming them. I think we can probably do it pretty early if the run game and defense are clicking.

 

http://www.miamidolphins.com/media/...-Congemi/354adff3-ea33-4d78-8a5c-67054816dcd2

I guess he works for the dolphins but I don't think he's a Jess Alger type..he had some conviction behind his thought..

Really liked the point about Tannehill's both practices, shouts out to Fuller, Matthews, Martin, speed on D

Good listen, and accurate imo.

 

[video=youtube;HUMh8GQnDW8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUMh8GQnDW8[/video]

 

I don't think the run game will be clicking this year. WCOs never have dominant rushing attacks... unless they have Roger Craig. lol.

Packers were 27th in rushing last year. 24th the previous year.

So we're looking at relying on defense, and, honestly, we need big plays out of STs this year to go over .500 IMO.

Unless this WR crew shocks me.

 

I think we have to remember that the coaches owe it to the players to play the QB who gives the team the best chance to win, and it would be highly unlikely IMO that a rookie quarterback would give the team the best chance to win in the regular season, even if he "beats out" Garrard and Moore in camp and in the preseason, where there is no combination of game speed and defenses scheming against a rookie QB.

I think you go with Garrard or Moore until such time as you believe Tannehill has developed to the point that he gives the team an equal or better chance to win, whether that's due to his own development or the substandard play of Moore or Garrard. That's how you coach a team responsibly IMO.

You don't throw the team to the wolves because you're excited about Tannehill's ability. In the end he'd still be a rookie QB and prone to rookie mistakes.

 

Critics of Tannehill routinely knocked him for his general lack of experience and knocked us for drafting him solely on potential. However, I always felt his lack of experience etc wasn't a factor, quite the contrary really b/c I thought the byproduct of it served as an indicator that Ryan would learn the NFL quickly and make up lost ground even quicker.

People penalized him b/c of the little time he spent at QB, whereas I felt he deserved serious attention based on how much he accomplished in such a short period of time. It's interesting how people can look at one situation and come away with two completely contradictory interpretations.

 

Maybe I didn't take that into account enough when I was evaluating his college play..

To continue talking about this accuracy that I've Been trying to describe, Garrard and Moore just don't have this quality I'm talking about, its the way he's throwing it,and not only releasing it, but directing the ball so you can visibly see it come off his hand differently, he's changing the angle and flight plan of the ball to place it just where the receiver would want it, the others are just throwing to the receiver..I see this quality in the great ones.

 

This is what people did not seem to understand about Henne's deficiencies. A big group kept arguing "if the QB gets the ball near enough the WR for his hands to reach it, it's a good throw, an accurate throw, he DID HIS JOB". Meanwhile Henne would do **** like put the ball on the back hip of receivers on quick slants, killing any chance for a clean catch and run, or he'd lead them into contact.

Location means so much. And I am SO thrilled Tannehill has it.

THIS is why it's great that he played WR. He GETS it.

 

It's not entirely accurate either when people say he spent little time at QB. He spent two years playting as the QB, yes... but he spent FIVE years at Texas A&M and fromt start to finish he was taking meetngs as and studying to be a QUARTERBACK. So he has a lot of knowledge, learning and mental preparation around playing the QB position that far exceeds the "TWO years" people often talk about. what he lacks is GAME EXPERIENCE.

So, in that sense, seeing him practice well isn't NEARLY as meaningful as how he does in a real game, since that's the big question-mark.

 

I think that may be due to his past as a receiver, which very few QBs have. They don't understand the game from the perspective of a receiver like Tannehill probably does.

 

In this case doc, not only does the player have the understanding, but also the talent to execute it.

 

I think when he's throwing the ball he probably has both the experience of the QB and the experience of the receiver in his mind simultaneously, and his throws represent his moment-by-moment appreciation of that interplay as it happens. In the end you have a seamless connection between two players that comes from the quarterback's appreciation of the other player's experience.

 

keep talkin man, sounds good.

 

Wrote this before the draft..

" The thing about Tannehill that makes me question some of my own analysis, is the rare combination of prototype size with the athleticism of an unprototype size player, and how he uses these two qualities inside the red zone, defenses cannot key on one aspect of his game, because he has the talent to do both things very effectively."

Man did they have a moving pocket for him, ( something that a few of us talked about at length a while back, and how it would be a must to get him going going to his left as well, for he is just as dangerous) ..he must of worked that sideline 15 times in his reps.

 

I loved drafting tanne was all in. I also saod his bust risk is higher than the other 1st rd qbs including weeden. I think tannes ceiling os ^ than weedens tho

Miami had to go for it, it looks good sp far

 

I don't think the coaches can determine the starter yet until giving Garrard and Moore every opportunity to win the starting job. Being so early in the TC process, I cannot know whether Tannehill's reported success is due to his unique familiarity with the offense. I would like to wait until the end of the offseason, or at least until the 3rd pre-season game, to determine whether Tannehill should be the starter. Maybe Garrard can displays some of these same efficiencies with more time. I hope Tannehill continues to improve and blows everyone away moving forward, but I'm not in a hurry to make any declarations.

 

LMFAO at the guy in back grabbing a towel off the bench. Timing is everything.

 

**** it, if we're going to suck this year anyway and it'd be good for Tannehill then start him. We'll either still suck or he'll surprise people.