Is Ryan Tannehill Going to Become a Franchise QB?

If we completely fix the WR issue in free agency/round 1 then i say go for it from Round 2, otherwise you need to use that second round pick on a WR. If the following names are in Round 2 you take them....

Matt Barkley
Lanndry Jones
Tyler Wilson
Tyler Bray

 

Mike Glennon is better than Matt Barkley. And he will be available later.

And Brandon Fields was like second in punting distance average with like 4-5 games left when I checked. He's pretty solid. Then again, I'm pretty sure you were kidding anyway. At least I hope so.

 

Dennard Robinson FTW! Then hire Shannahan as OC. That was a joke BTW.

For the record, I think, along with OP, that Devlin has showed us good things, more so than any 4th round or later QB that I can think of. With the amount of holes we need to fill this year, maybe it isn't the right draft to look for an insurance policy.

We are married to Tannehill for a minimum of three years anyway. Give it strong consideration for next year's draft.

 

You should always take a QB in the later rounds, but only IF a good prospect is there.

 

I've always been a fan of your flow chart and generally agree with it. Where I disagree is to say definitively that Ryan Tannehill is a franchise QB. I just don't see how anybody could look at his production in 2012 and say, "That's a franchise QB." I think you can easily say, "There's a QB with franchise potential" but he's not there yet.

Whether you agree or disagree, it almost seems like your model needs "does current QB have a X% chance of becoming a franchise QB?" or maybe it's just as simple as changing the first question to "Do I have a franchise QB or a QB with the potential to become a franchise QB?" Of course then it becomes very subjective.

 

That's question highlights the limits of using stats as a prediction tool. Your evaluation should be based just on what the QB did and not on the production that is affected by other players. How often did he make the right/wrong reads? Was he throwing into double coverage too often? Was he inaccurate? Was he able to adapt? Did he show a sense of pocket awareness? Did he know when to run? When to throw it away? Did he show leadership skills? Did he show improvement in any problem areas as the season developed. I was very encouraged by what I saw this year. Arguably, he may have thrown the fewest passes into double coverage of any rookie QB (given his level of responsibility) I've ever seen. And that includes Luck this year. I would say both Wilson and RG3 also made great decisions on where to throw the ball this year. With RG3 my praise is much more muted b/c his read responsibility was more limited. Wilson made excellent decisions too, but had to make fewer of them b/c he had such a good running game and his receivers had more separation. (Actually, Wilson's decision making was more spotty over the first half of the season, but was really good over the second half). Accuracy wise, I would say that RT was as accurate as any of the top 10 QBs. I think the people that criticize his accuracy must only watch the highlights of other QBs. I was critical of RT not recognizing when he should just run early on, but by the end of the year (and after he had the brace removed) I thought he showed great improvement there. I don't have any doubts about his leadership and comments from Philbin and the team lead to me to believe they don't either. There's more obviously, but the point is that evaluating the player rather than crunching numbers is what will tell you where we're at with RT. And IMO while he (and every player) will still have to continue to develop, I don't think you could have asked for more from him. I was high on him before the draft, but after watching him for one season, he has exceeded my expectations in terms of his level of development and his potential.

 

QB is too important to simply sit back and hope that someone keeps developing as you expect them to. Until you have a QB that is certifiably in the top 5-10 range, it should always be a need IMO.

 

Agree and disagree. The chart can't really be applied to a rookie QB. Tannehill may not be a franchise QB yet, but he has shown the potential to be one, and I don't think that can be questioned IMO. Therefore, most rookies will skew this flow chart because of the unknown development or skill ceiling that player is capable of reaching.

 

You think, but are you certain?

 

Fixed that for him.

 

I think very few teams should be certain they have a franchise QB. Manning is reaching the point of his career that he could start to fade and his injury history is such that the fade could come quickly. Most of us were certain we still had a franchise QB in Marino when he was done. Even Brees, who is one of my favorite QBs, made a ton of really bad decisions this year. I wouldn't say he played at a franchise level this year. Luck, RG3, Wilson etc. all have to continue to develop to reach franchise QB levels. I'm not "certain" about any of them. I'm pretty confident in all of their potential (to varying degrees) however. And I don't have anymore confidence in any of their potentials than I have in RT's. About the only two teams that I think should be "certain" they have a franchise QB are NE and Rodgers and even then they probably shouldn't be "certain" beyond a two year window. That's just the nature of the sport.

 

Draft Robert Marve, position fixed!

 

Which is why all those teams should be drafting QBs. Broncos spent a 2nd round pick on one. The Redskins spent a 4th rounder on one. Patriots spent a 3rd on Mallett.

 

Potential just means you haven't done anything yet. There's still a chance that Tannehill will never be anything more than a mediocre QB.

 

Given all the needs on this team you dont draft a backup higher than the 7th.

 

There's still a chance that Luck will never be more than a mediocre QB.

 

i disagree. you rank your QBs. if you see one at high value in 4th round or later you consider it. doesn't mean you have to pull the trigger, especially if there's a high value pick at a position of need (CB, WR, guard). but to just ignore it is very shortsighted. very likely with Tannehill's style that he may miss a couple of games a season. Moore is likely gone and whether it's showcasing Devlin or a rookie QB, they can either win games for you or bring a high draft pick via a trade later on.

 

No way.

 

Absolutely. Right now he's an average NFL QB. If he never progresses, he's mediocre.

 

It doesn't matter in my score. I'll say again, my score determines how effective the WR is with the ball in his hands. You want to discount that score for showing what he does without the ball in his hands.

No I'm not. Dropping the ball does nothing to illustrate what the WR does with a catch, since a drop is the opposite of a catch. I'll say again, my score isn't telling us how great a WR is, its telling us how good a a WR is with the ball in his hands.

I clarified that statement about Hartline. You've neglected to account for that correction, since you didn't acknowledge it. I'm not sure why. However, I did in fact show that Hartline is the 31st #1 WR in the league with the ball in hands. Which would make him one of the worst.

If Hartline was one of the worst #1 WRs in the league then following your stance Tannehill would have to be one of the worst QB's in the league.

By far? Yes. 100%? No. That's what I'm trying to get you to accept. There are discrepancies in the analysis of Tannehill. How can his and Luck's QB rating be so similar yet their production numbers be so different? You don't appear interested in answering that. I am. Gauging surrounding talent is a big clue. A clue you refuse to bother with and I'm not sure why.

Right. Do you understand the problem with your take yet? You cannot with any confidence tell me Tannehill's numbers were not a result of Hartline's poor play. I can with confidence and evidence tell you Hartline did less with the ball in his hands then 30 other #1 WRs.

For the 1000th time, you only say he didn't play like a franchise QB this year because you're basing it on numbers heavily colored by his surrounding talent and his surrounding talent is inarguably poor. My argument is that Tannehill could have done everything the same and had his #1 WR been a VJ instead of a BH, he'd have similar numbers to Luck and have been deemed to have played like a franchise QB.

RWayne 2011 = 14.49
RWayne 2012 = 16.51 (which is with the 3pt bonus I gave him for +100 receptions)

Basically the difference between the two years is he was targeted more this year. He basically did less with more catches this year than last year. I'd also like to point out, that he wasn't the #1 WR in 2011 either. Garcon was targeted more than he was.

 

Dude led 7 game winning drives and took an awful team to the playoffs. He's not mediocre now and never will be.

 

Why doesn't it include anything that the WR does before he gets the ball???

 

I think there is definitely something to be said about the wisdom of drafting a QB when you already have a franchise one or think you already have one.

For one, it lessens the pressure on the drafter, and on the draftee. If you NEED a QB, then there is that much pressure on the player to deliver, and on the drafter to not mess up the pick. That leads to reaches, under-performing, busts, etc. If you need a QB and whiff on a pick, then you set your franchise back multiple years.
Opposite, if you already have a franchise QB or think you have one, then there is less pressure around the idea of drafting a new one. You can look for a certain mold of player; You can let the value come to you, as opposed to reaching for the player out of desperation; You can let the player sit and learn for multiple years; You can evaluate the player's development from the sidelines and determine future potential, and replace the player again without incurring mayor setback to your team; You can even develop the player and flip it for higher picks later.

So yeah it is a smart course of action to think about drafting a QB even if you have a franchise player, or think you have one.


That being said, i believe that is not a wise course of action for the Dolphins THIS year. We have multiple needs, and despite or favorable cap situation and multiple high picks, all those needs will NOT be filled. Add that to the fact that you are set with Tannehill with one more year at the very least, and your paramount responsibility to surround him with quality talent to ensure his best chance for success.
If Tannehill struggles next year with better surrounding talent, and we see a lack of progress or worse, a recession, then you can think about investing a pick on a QB while maybe allowing Tannehill a 3rd year to further evaluate him.

IMO the team has a responsibility to give Tannehill all they can muster in offensive surrounding talent. You need to remove the bottleneck of talent he is facing in order to truly evaluate his present and future potential. Picking a QB this year hurts Tannehill in more ways than one.

 

And game winning drives tell us what exactly? That he's often losing early in the game? Do they have any predictive value?

From all my research, net YPA has the most predictive value and Luck was decidedly average this season.

 

For the same reason WPA doesn't factor in who has the best hamburgers.

 

Yes they have predictive value, he made plays to win the game. Our guy has a history of doing the opposite in those situations.

 

I'm waaaaaaaaaaay closer to yes than no. Like 85% sure Tannehill is the guy we've been waiting for.

 

Based on what?

 

The problem with that line of thinking is that filling other needs doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot if you don't have the QB figured out. Also, having a franchise QB can mask a lot of weaknesses on a team. In today's passing league, you have to have the franchise QB or the other positions don't really matter. And when I say that, of course they matter, but having franchise talent at those positions doesn't matter.

 

Making plays to win the game isn't necessarily predictive of future performance. Winning isn't the most predictive measure.

 

What I've seen and what I've factored up on his surrounding talent.

 

Exactly. So there is a 15% chance he isn't. And the QB position is so important IMO that you always need to hedge against that 15%. JMO.

 

Well said.

 

Great players make great plays in key situations.

 

Didn't you say the same thing about Chad Henne and Johnny Fruit Loops (Beck)?