Is Ryan Tannehill Going to Become a Franchise QB?

He's ok despite the garbage around him.

 

Why not make life easier for him? Why do you have to over complicate everything?

 

I already did. Better players around him=better Tannehill.

 

I don't see why it's such a big deal. As long as it's not witihin our first 5 or so picks, who cares?

BPA baby.

 

He did a mediocre job with mediocre players around him.

 

OK. So where does that leave us? Are you advocating we don't try and upgrade talent at the offensive skill positions (WR/TE)? Do we not need to? Do we draft another QB this year and let him have a go with our current offensive roster? Not trying to be too much of a smart ***, but I'm not exactly sure where you POV leads us. Regardless of who our QB is, surrounding them with a great supporting cast is ideal. If in the upcoming 2-4 years, Tannehill doesn't evolve with the talent around him (assuming we actually place talent around him), then we get someone else who comes into an offense with high talent, giving them a better chance to succeed.

At the end of the day, our WR core is deficient in a number of areas. Speed, explosion, and physicality. Hartline and Bess aren't going to change their spots. They're what they're. They have a niche. They're good role players. Neither are taking our offense to the next level regardless of QB. None of the elite QB's in the NFL (Brady, Rodgers, Manning, Brees) could come in here and have the type of success they have with their current teams. Would we be better with them? Obviously. Tannehill is a rookie with (now) 2 and 1/2 years of actual QB play. That said, the future is unwritten for the kid.

 

What if Matt Barkley falls to the second round and he's available for us to pick? Do we take him?

 

I do not really care who they pick, where. The reality is, that given our track record in the draft, they probably will not be on the team 3yrs from now.

 

Yeah, I would have no issue with them selecting a QB in the later rounds but our team has far greater issues that need to be addressed early. I really liked what I saw from RT this season considering his experience level, I believe.

 

There is a decent chance he will be available to us in the 2nd. I have brought this up before.

 

I don't think there is anyway that happens. The demand for a "potential" qb is too high.

 

I still think Barkley's going to be really good. It's going to be hard watching us pass on him.

 

Don't agree. Context matters. If we had Andrew Luck and he played like Ryan Tannehill, I'd say that was mediocre. However, Ryan Tannehill playing like he did given his specific circumstances (only 1 and 1/2 year of being a legitimate QB) did pretty well. He's the same guy every analyst said needed to sit for a number of years like Rodgers, had no chance to be a week 1 starter. His total QBR puts him right in the middle of the NFL, ahead of some much bigger names (Cutler, Dalton, Bradford, Vick, etc...) who had more talented offensive players.

Very little experience + mediocre talent = Things went better than expected. Now let's see what he can do with more talent and a year under his belt.

 

Why waste a pick on a QB?

Franchise QB's found outside the 1st round are rare. Tom Brady's, Kurt Warner's, Russell Wilson's, etc... are not available every year. With the CBA structured the way it is, QB's are being pushed up the draft board's much higher than they should be as it is (Gabbert, Ponder, Tannehill, Weeden). Finding anyone outside the first round is even harder.

We've drafted Tannehill, we have a young Devlin, who the coaches really like, developing behind our starting QB. Maybe bring in a vet (like DG) to compete, but don't waste more picks.

 

Great article. Lets draft a center too, just in case Pouncey falls off.

 

From the 4th round on I have no issue with them drafting a QB. If there's one out there they like, and he's far enough ahead of other players at positions of need, then take him. We need a 3rd QB anyway, so why not take one that the coaching staff can develop.

I don't want any part of any QB in the first 3 rounds though.

 

I do not think back up QB is a pressing needs, when he have so many holes to fill in the starting line up.

 

All this article points out is that it is no sure think that Tannehill is the answer at the QB position. I see nothing wrong with taking that view at this time.

The reality is that Tannehill did not really improve much from the start of the season until the end of the season. Perhaps better players around him on offense and a years experience at the NFL level will improve his play next year. Of course many people felt that Henne was the long term answer at the QB position after his first year as the starter with the Dolphins. Hopefully Tannehill will be the long term answer, but until he proves he is, the Dolphins should continue to look at QB's in the draft and in free agency who can come in and be an effective starter in case Tannehill ends up being another Chad Henne.

 

Unfortunately, this. Jeff Ireland's track record from the 3rd round on down is terrible.

 

Don't we already have a developmental QB in Devlin? Agree with an earlier post on adding a vet to back up Tannehill if Moore leaves and Devlin isn't considered ready yet.

 

I think it's a good idea. A project guy with upside. Someone who can push Tannehill. Make him feel just a little uncomfortable. Competition breeds a better product.

And while I've always touted and generally agree that it's hard to find a quality QB who can perform in the NFL outside the 1st round, we have to consider the fact that it's becoming easier to pass in the NFL. The rules favor it. This makes the transition from college to the NFL much easier for QBs than it once was. That's why it's no coincidence every year we see more and more rookie QBs making an immediate impact. The media and fans tend to ignore this and treat it as if it's just an amazing occurrence every year more than a current NFL trend based on enforcement and creation of rules that favor offenses and the passing game.

The best QBs will continue to be found in the first round. But as rules continue to favor passing, it will become increasingly possible to find serviceable QBs in mid to late rounds.

 

Which doesn't contradict anything else I said, in fact lines up exactly

That doesn't count against the receiver at all in my formula. Targets/attempts vs completions is not factored into my score in any way. You cannot fault incompletes/drops on either player in a constant precise way or without subjectivity. There are far too many variables that we have no access to that all could have caused the incomplete. When the data is tainted or isn't objective, its thrown out.

This study doesn't need to be expanded to say the things I said.

 

Dunno? Down year? But I can tell you that my scoring system does not factor in someone's name. I think you'll find, that Fitz's numbers were probably a shade better than Hartline's, hence the score.

Hmmm no. First of all, I should have said he's one of the worst of all #1 WRs. So not clarifying that way was my misspeak. However, Tannehill was not 31st in QB play as Hartline was in #1 WR play.

I'll also say again, I don't think for the most part WR skill is going to affect the QB all that much positively or negatively because there's a lot of similarity, unless we are talking a WR playing out of his mind or the WR is just that much worse than everyone else.

 

That's my point. I was responding to Adam who assumes we do and assumes Hartline was open in the endzone as much as VJ. I was asking that question to get him to realize that he doesn't know that so he can't assume it.

 

Drafting a QB every year is preferable. But there needs to be a distinction made between taking a QB to be your franchise guy and taking a QB for depth and future trade bait.

 

SUN-SENTINEL: Dolphins Should Draft Another QB in 2013

My thoughts exactly

 

I think conversely, how can Hartline have produced so poorly for a #1 and it be as much Tannehill's fault as Hartline's, and Tannehill still be projected to be at least franchise quality?

At some point, you have to look at the argument overall to see if it makes sense. And arguing that Hartline's play is direct result of Tannehill's flaws, then you'd have to conclude Tannehill won't be good at all or your argument doesn't gibe.

i just think when you look at QB rating and see Tanny & Luck aren't that far from each other but their actual production numbers are you have to look at opponents, offensive system and surrounding talent to explain the discrepancies. The biggest difference between the two is surrounding talent. I have very clearly illustrated the difference between the #1 & #2 receivers for both QBs. That illustration shows a drastic difference between Miami & Indy. If not conclusive, it is certainly a very big arrow pointing at surrounding talent and away from QB skill.

 

I made this during last year's off season.



FTR, I think Tannehill is franchise.

 

2nd through 4th rd, 5th through 7th is actually fairly decent.

I personally like Devlin, BUT think it is poor cap management to not look at replacing him, why let him sit 4 yrs only to then have to pay him 'backup Qb money"? of 2.5 million or so?

 

Hey lets forget we need these this offseason WR, CB, S, Pass Rusher, TE & OL. Back Up QB is our pressing need, I say we use our 1st round pick, 2nd round and 3rd round pick all on QB's. Because some people on this forum, liked what Luck, Griffin & Wilson did this season. Because they had a better 1st season then Ryan Tennehill. Lets forget they had better weapons also, but hey our team is so deep in talent. Let's fix the back up QB.


[bangs my head against the wall]

 

1st I think Rt will shiw hhe is a franchise qb.

Haviing said that if a qb rd3 on is there and bpa, you take him. Losing moore creates a void needing filled

 

This article falls in the "and water is wet" category. Of course we should draft a QB. It's not a priority, but you don't pass on talent at the most important position in the draft when the opportunity arises. We don't want to use an early pick unless he's just the best player by such a wide margin, but the best drafting teams prioritize talent over need. And we do have a need for a back-up QB. I also don't believe in taking a QB who's ceiling I see as "back-up". I would always take a guy I think may develop into a starter.