1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tannehill, Palmer, Flynn and Kolb

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Ohio Fanatic, Apr 1, 2013.

  1. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I will disagree with that statement, but I will also say that head to head that game, Tannehill played his best game of the season in that game, and it shocked me that he was going toe to toe in SOME aspects of the game with Luck.

    Luck was brilliant in that game, Ryan was good..

    It's all about the ability to make plays individually , Luck can make them from the pocket, and by having the talent to sense and evade pressure with uncanny sense and athleticism..Ryan at this point makes good throws from the pocket, individual playmaking was pretty scarce in the repertoire last year for Ryan..
     
  2. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Marino is the best pure passer ever but he was not that great of a QB. Let's face the facts.

    Will his team to win. Luck performed better, and when it counted.
     
  3. Bruzer

    Bruzer New Member

    1,015
    469
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    Idaho
    As much as I like Tannehill and his potential, when I watched Andrew Luck I was driven mad by how good he was in the pocket for a rookie and his poise. I really believe Tannehill can work past his issues and a big part of that for me is Philbin & Co. He hasn't proven himself for me yet but I was never near as excited watching Henne despite the similarities in seasons. Call it a vibe whatever not saying I'm right but I have felt better about Tannehill than most of miami's recent qbs. I'm excited and worried about this season if it works out we do have good team but if it doesn't I really don't want to watch another 3-4 years of trying to fix it again.
     
    azfinfanmang likes this.
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    13,969
    3,367
    113
    Jul 5, 2009
    I don't see how this is true? How Is he not that great of a QB if he was the best pure passer ever.
     
  5. azfinfanmang

    azfinfanmang Premium Member Luxury Box

    29,745
    11,512
    0
    Nov 23, 2007

    This post is refreshing. Very accurate!
     
  6. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Wow Andrew Luck had exactly 1 receiver worth mentioning and NOTHING else?

    Wow, that would make me want to point out someone is using Anti-Dolphin goggles and creating a reality that doesn't exist to try to prove a point. ONE?!?!
     
    Justright and Fin D like this.
  7. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    ^This
     
  8. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Andrew Luck was head and shoulders above Tannehill in many aspects of his game. Andrew Luck was also head and shoulders above almost all rookie quarterbacks during their first season. Andrew Luck is arguably the best rookie quarterback to have played the game.

    So the thing we know most about Tannehill is that he will not be the best rookie quarterback
     
  9. Bruzer

    Bruzer New Member

    1,015
    469
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    Idaho
    Oh I agree as good as I felt about Tannehill at times watching Luck was unreal. I just couldn't in any way believe I was watching a Rookie. Watching us try to take him down and he throws 15 yards falling, he drove me nuts so he deserves the recognition for sure.
     
    djphinfan likes this.
  10. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,521
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Luck was great at times. the dolphin game was one of those. But he also struggled at other times. He had 4 games with a passer rating below 60. He had 9 games in which he completed less than 52% of his passes. I don't see a strong argument for his being the best rookie quarterback ever -- he was no better than the 3rd best rookie QB in his draft class.
     
    eltos_lightfoot and Justright like this.
  11. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    Luck was a rookie and it showed, but what also showed that with the game on the line, you believed he would get it done, because he did, alot. I love Tannehill and think he is a franchise qb. Luck is special, period.
     
  12. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Luck was the third best QB in the rookie class IMO.

    Just shows how strong of a QB class it was. Will likely go down as the greatest in history.
     
  13. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    That is an opinion we do not share.
     
  14. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    I agree with this. Based on performance, I would say:

    1. Russell Wilson
    2. Robert Griffin, III
    3. Andrew Luck
     
  15. Anonymous

    Anonymous Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    13,969
    3,367
    113
    Jul 5, 2009
    That's my list as well. Damn Russell Wilson. He might actually be the best one to come out of this class.
     
  16. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Marino was a lousy student of the game. He's no Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. If he studied the game half as much as either of those two he'd be the best ever. He was notorious for sleeping in sessions and film study. When Sage Rosenfels asked him for advice, Marino said find the open guy and let it rip.

    He was a phenomenal talent, terrible student of the game. It is what it is. Still my favorite passer ever. When Brett Favre passed him up in the TD dept. he even said it, Marino, the best passer ever.

    But he wasn't much of a QB.
     
    Stringer Bell, Fin D and Anonymous like this.
  17. Anonymous

    Anonymous Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    13,969
    3,367
    113
    Jul 5, 2009
    I see what you mean now. I agree. I read he didn't even know how to read defenses, lol. I find that funny given how important it is now.
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  18. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    He was just so good at a young age he didn't need to ... but we wished he did.

    As old age caught up you could tell. It's painful, but look at his later years. They're Joe Flacco numbers.

    The rules were different, so you look at his high INT's and you can't compare them to today obviously, but they were nothing compared to his earlier days.
     
    Anonymous likes this.
  19. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    Why cherry pick stats? Use all meaningful QB stats. And what did I write that made you think I was a homer? Can you show me anything that I've written where I've said anything at all about Tanny...other than that he and Luck had similar seasons (stat wise)? You don't even know my opinions on Tannehill. I could think he's a bust for all you know.

    QBR:

    Tanny: 76.1

    Luck: 76.5

    If Luck had played so much better, as you seem to believe, his QBR would be a lot higher than Tanny's right?


    Luck completed 54% of his passes. Tanny completed 58%. Luck's INT% was 2.9. Tanny's was 2.7. Each had a Y/C average of around 12.

    Tanny started how many college games compared to Luck?

    Again, I'm not saying that Luck's ceiling is or isn't higher than Tanny, but based upon how each played last season they played similar.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  20. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    QB's never play "head-to-head" because they're never on the same field at the same time. "Head-to-head" is a creation of the media to sucker in fans.

    Each QB has their own weaknesses and strengths. I do think that Luck will have the better career. However, I could be wrong because the NFL is changing (has changed?) from the pocket QB (Luck) to the athletic QB (Tanny). IMO, and maybe because I'm old school, good to great QB's have to be able to stand in the pocket and fire strikes. However, it seems that today's players can run around and throw the strikes..AND...and this is big...they are smart. Can they stay healthy? It looks like we're going to find out (Tanny, RG3, Wilson, et al)
     
    GMJohnson likes this.
  21. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    Your post is confusing. A QB's best weapon his his arm. You just said that Marino had the best arm EVER, but wasn't a good QB? Can I ask how old you are? No offence. Do you remember watching Marino play? I can't say that Marino was the best QB ever, but he's top 5. What he did during his career changed football. It changed defenses, offenses, coaching...everything. Ask Bill Walsh about Marino. Yes, the Bill Walsh who coached Montana. Where do you have Montana ranked?


    So Luck is some sort of wizard? He's magic? He has superpowers and if he thinks hard enough about something it will go his way? Luck is a good QB. When it counted? You mean he did things during the 60 minutes of play? All 60 minutes count, you know that, right?
     
  22. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    The numbers show otherwise. Head and shoulders? Sure, at some things. Like poise, for example. That poise Luck showed came from being the QB his entire college career. I do think that Tanny showed great poise for someone with what, 20 games under his QB college belt?

    However, when it came down to all around production they were similar.
     
  23. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    Based on last years performance I agree.

    However, who do you think will have the better career(s).

    IMO:

    1. Luck (full 12-17 year career, HoF type QB)
    2. Wilson (no more than 4-5 good years)
    3. Griffin ( less than Wilson)

    And I hate writing that about Griffin. I think he's special, but unless something changes he'll be retired due to injury soon. I think if he was more durable he could have been better than Wilson or Luck.
     
  24. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    Pure and utter nonsense. (Same goes with what jdang wrote).

    Shula forced Marino to call his own plays and Marino could read and dissect a defense as well as any of the other all-time great QB's.

    Where do you guys come up with this stuff? lol...Couldn't read defenses? lol
     
  25. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Your referring to head to head as looking at it from a team vrs team perspective and who will win the game , I'm merely looking at skillsets next to each other..

    I think Tannehill has as good as upside from a clean pocket as luck, maybe better because of his accuracy..but overall, I wish I could say the same..doesn't mean I'm disappointed, just that I have such a hi regard for Luck and Wilson.
     
    Justright likes this.
  26. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    So if he had studies harder he maybe could have broken every major QB record in the NFL, right?

    Oh...wait. lol
     
  27. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013

    Gotcha. I understand what you meant now. I'm just so used to the "head-to-head" media crap I figured you fell for it.

    I think Luck is going to be great. I'm not sold on Wilson.
     
  28. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    A QB's best weapon is his head. Who was the better QB Chad Pennington or Jeff George? My post is confusing because you are confused. Marino was a great QB because he had a canon, a quick release, superior recognition of the play as it unfolded and the best pocket movement/awareness ever. But he was not a student of the game.

    No offense taken. I'm 36 and started watching Dan Marino in 1984. How old are you?

    I keep hearing about this Walsh quote. And I'm 100% willing to believe the quote if someone can find me a citation. Because I've searched. And the only thing I found were forum posters repeating this quote. Find me a legit citation and I'll believe it. Until then, I'm throwing it in with Bill Gates saying nobody needs more than 640k and Einstein saying compound interest is the 8th wonder of the world.

    Serious?

    Start watching at 5:43

    [video=youtube_share;9Jtii6rCbK0]http://youtu.be/9Jtii6rCbK0?t=5m43s[/video]
     
    MrClean likes this.
  29. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    Dan Marino's football mind was as good as anyone's.

    No confusion on my part. You believe that Marino couldn't read defenses. Marino called his own plays. You keep claiming that he wasn't a "student". In his autobiography, Marino said he progressed rapidly because Shula forced him to call his own plays early on. Instead of relying on his coach, Marino had to learn to dissect the defense on his own. This forced Marino to study longer and play harder. so, you're just flat out wrong. Those are Marino's own words.

    So you were 7 when he came into the league and not even a teenager when he was changing the game. That's not a knock on you, but between that fact and the fact that you think Marino never studied just shows you don't really know much about him. I'm 45.

    I heard that Walsh quote before internet forums.

    Yes, I'm serious. Luck can just "will" things? is that like magic?

    I watched your video. So you're parroting Jaworski? Got it.
     
  30. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Robert Griffin performed a lot better than I thought he would but the personality and injury concerns that drove me to not be nearly as high on him as everyone else (kept saying Russell Wilson and Robert Griffin are a lot closer than poeple think) were still there. I think not only are injury issues likely to shorten his career, I still believe personality issues will combine with the injury issues to shorten his career. But he's fantastic when he's on the field and that is something I wasn't exactly sure about but I should've been.

    I've been on the Luck bandwagon since before there was a Luck bandwagon. I love the guy. But at this point, the bullets these guys are firing now are counting a lot more than the bullets they fired in college. And right now Russell Wilson was flat out better than him in 2012. The past is not an absolute predictor of the future. But it is the best one we've got. In particular the way Russell Wilson played in the playoff game against the Falcons, the way he finished that game in such a big situation...it told me a lot about him. Also the way he settled in and came back against the Redskins. Those games told me something about Russell Wilson that I still don't know yet about Andrew Luck. Nor Robert Griffin, for that matter.
     
    Justright likes this.
  31. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    When you talk about the personality of Griffin are you referring to your concerns about his long term commitment to the game?, I believe that there was something predraft that was bothering you about his personality, like he wouldn't do the necessary things that the great ones do?, I forget the context though..
     
  32. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,651
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I'm as sold on Wilson as I am on Luck..Rusell is the total play maker from the position, not only will he execute offense within the schemes parameters, but he has elite playmaking ability when protection breaks down, maybe some of the best ever when it's all said and done..He not only can escape pressure, he does it with ease, not only does he do it with ease, he's gives himself a little extra room in the process..man did not take a hard hit last year..I attribute that to elite escapability..I think he's an awesome player, and were not even talking about the intangibles..special football player.
     
    Justright likes this.
  33. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    "Marino Called his own plays."

    So you missed the part where he admits his rookie year he didn't know the name of the play, or the play he was running. Nat Moore called the plays in the huddle, Dan would say "OK whatever it is let's do it" and just look for the open guy and hit him. Shula forced him to call his own plays because he didn't know the playbook.

    Imagine for a second Tannehill this past year running into the huddle, not even knowing the name of the play that is being called, and Hartline having to run the huddle. Imagine it. Yeah you can't.

    "I heard that Walsh quote before internet forums."

    Sasquatch was around before the internet too. Like I said, find me a quote, until then I'm calling BS. It doesn't exist as far as I can tell, and I've looked. I don't accept anything on blind faith. I never found a proper cite. What does exist is Walsh, after Montana beat Marino in the superbowl, calling Montana the greatest QB today, and probably the greatest QB of all time.

    You also pretend like Walsh's system is some static system that you plug the best model into. Nonsense. Walsh was a football genius. His first system in Cincinnati was a deep pass system. He had a big strong rookie QB named Greg Cook who averaged 18 ypc. Does that sound like today's WCO? Not really. Bob Trumpy, their tight end, averaged 22.6 ypc. Yes, their TE. His backup, Chip Mayers averaged 20 ypc. The backup TE.

    Cook went down with a shoulder injury and in came Virgil Carter, who had a weak arm, but was agile, quick, and accurate. Walsh tailored the offense to his strengths. Walsh was trained in the deep passing game by Al Davis, whose mentor was Sid Gilman, i.e. Air Coryell. But the loss of his big strong armed QB forced a change. And how quickly he adapted it.

    "So you're parroting Jaworski? Got it."

    Apparently you did not watch the video. Dan's words, Jaworski, who you know, actually played with him, and Walsh. Dan had the greatest football instinct in the world. He could see side to side. He could see the play as it was developing, maneuver himself to get the pass off before the play broke. He was a natural.

    But do you see Dan Marino lugging around a box of handwritten notes on every player, on every team, like Zach Thomas did? Do you? No, you don't. Zach was probably the greatest student of the game, ever. Dan is no Zach. Zach almost cried (or he did cry) when he lost that box.

    Dan was a natural. Maybe the best natural talent ever at QB. But if he was Zach Thomas in the film room, he'd have been that much better.
     
  34. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    I stopped reading after your first paragraph because you contradicted yourself so soon. You wrote that Marino admitted that he didn't call his own plays but Shula forced him to call his own plays because he didn't know their names? Really? There is just so much phuck in that one paragraph (3 sentences) that I couldn't "will" myself to read further.

    I take that back. I read your last sentence too. "Best natural talent ever." I agree. Could he have been better? Well, you (nor I) know for certain. Only him and his coaches know for sure. How do you presume to know these things? And even if Marino could have been better...so? He was still better than Brady and in most people's minds a top 5 greatest of all time.
     
  35. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    You stop reading because you lost. You can't hang. You have nothing. No real quotes, no links, no citations nothing. The score is 30 - 0. Your one quote you can't even verify.

    I know for a fact he could have been better if he worked as hard as Peyton Manning or Tom Brady to understand the game. He had excellent football instinct. But as an academic he wasn't. He flat out admits, in his own voice, his own words, when they start talking running plays he would tune out. He didn't care or want to hear anything about running plays. That's Dan Marino. If he called his own plays he would throw it 50 times a game.

    Just based on natural talent and instinct he catapulted himself into the top 2. But I would put Brady over Marino. Probably not Peyton though. It's close. Brady. Montana. Marino Manning. is probably how I'd slot it. If someone put Manning in front of Marino I would take my aqua colored glasses off and be cool with it.

    http://youtu.be/VZu6iSHDja0?t=6m58s

    Listen to his own words. A student of the game doesn't go through a whole off season after the draft, and halfway through the year without knowing the playbook, and playbooks I'm sure were not as complex then as they are today. His natural talent and instinct were so head and shoulders above anyone else who played the game. If he would have just did 80% of what Manning or Brady did, we'd be talking the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world here.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  36. WhiteIbanez

    WhiteIbanez Megamediocremaniacal

    2,155
    837
    0
    Aug 10, 2012
    So he was improvising for seventeen years? That is a long time without actually understanding an offensive philosophy. Regardless of scheme changes or playbook.
     
  37. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    How did the devolve into a Marino thread?
     

Share This Page