I'm out on Tannehill

And I think the reason your thread has been so popular is because you seem to be someone who's willing to entertain those sorts of alternative explanations, while keeping your biases at bay, yet you've reached a (tentative) conclusion that the player lots of our hopes are riding on isn't all you'd like for him to be.

In other words, you are an "authority" here, because of the way you approach the team in your own mind, and the fact that you have made a negative judgment about the player all of our hopes are riding on has sent shockwaves of sorts through the forum.

 

Right, but if you weren't perceived as someone who keeps his biases at bay and considers a great deal of information from a large number of sources in arriving at his opinions, your opinion in this instance would've been discarded quickly instead of generating so much interest.

 

It's a big year for RT17 and the staff in 2015, we will see what happens, hopefully growth will made on everyone's part.

 

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

I wonder if people still think Wilson is an average QB. 3rd down in the game 275 yards and 3 TD's.

 

There is nothing average about Russell Wilson, he is the definition of a playmaker.

 

His height is a bit less than average though

I was slow to come around on Wilson, but after watching him last year in the playoffs, and this year... The kid is just flat out good. People need to accept that.

 

I think Tannehill needs to win a playoff game next year or he is gone.

Watching Wilson and Luck is painful while Tannehill sits at home. I believe Luck is the better QB like most do (of the three). And when people compare Luck and Tannehill they always say Luck is surrounded with a lot more, and I don't believe that. All luck has is Hilton (we have essentially the same player in Wallace... I think Hilton is better by a little). Wayne is over-rated, the guy played with one arm for most of the season, and I think him playing was actually worse for Luck. Wayne should have given way to Moncrief. And the Colts have a worse running game, and worse defense then we do. And look what Luck does with that team. Wilson is a pretty good QB. But he can obviously get away with a poorly played game in Seattle with a defense there that can bail him out. But the best part of Wilsons game is he doesn't get rattled & he can win the big games, in big moments. Again, something we lack in our guy.

I know I haven't posted here much, and many of you can tell I'm already out on Tannehill as well. And I don't want you to think that I think Tannehill is awful, he's not awful. He's good, but not good enough. And that's the worst thing a team like this can have. He can't elevate players, like an Andrew Luck can. You need to put guys around him to elevate him. And by the time we do that, Ryan will be run out of town. Because he is going to keep us at 8-8, 7-9, 9-7 seasons. And drafting in the middle doesn't improve teams.

I know people like to gloss over his difficulties with the deep ball. But you can't do that. It's one small element of the game.... but the trickle down effect of not being able to hit the deep ball is substantial. Teams don't even cover the deep ball, the cloud the middle of the field. They force Ryan to check down constantly for a 2 or 3 yard gain. They can stack if they need to against our run game (doesn't need to be done often). And the deep ball just isn't getting any better with him, and after 3 years I don't see a big improvement coming out of no where next year.

And finally, he can't win big games. He can't even win big games against sub-par opponents. And that's the ultimate killer.

 

I don't think that's the case at all. Witness the contract Alex Smith just got. Teams know that a certain level of quarterback play or better is necessary to give them even the hope of being competitive, and then the task becomes surrounding that quarterback with the necessary talent. Teams aren't going to discard that sort of quarterback and thereby become completely non-competitive.

Tannehill at his current level of play gives the team a foundation to build around. They aren't going to go completely back to the drawing board, search for another QB, and take the risk that he could be the next Jake Locker or Blaine Gabbert. Right now the team has an Alex Smith/Andy Dalton/Matthew Stafford-level QB, and that makes it a whole lot more competitive than the teams with the Jake Lockers and Blaine Gabberts of the world.

 

First of all Luck is one of those once every 10 year QBs. Its hard to compare anyone to him.

Secondly, the Colts do have better weapons than the Dolphins do. Wayne has declined of course but still better than Hartline. Moncrief is a big bodied WR with speed (hmm..... maybe we could use one of those) and Nicks has done well in his roll as a #3 or #4 when called upon. Throw in 2 pretty solid receiving TE in Allen and Fleener. One more athletic and the other very good I the red zone. And of course Hilton, who despite his size has been a pretty dominant player. He and Wallace are not the same. Hilton makes all kinds of plays and plays stronger than Wallace.

As for the running game, Bradshaw was pretty effective as a runner and receiver before he was injured and once they finally excepted that that Richardson was a fat plodder with no burst their running back position got better with Herron. I give us an edge in that position still but lets face it, the Colts really aren't a running team and build their offense around RBs who catch the ball well.

Luck took over a team that had been a playoff fixture for years with a dynamic offensive system. Tannehill took over a team that had been in an offensive slump for over a decade and really had no good system in place.

Tannehill doesn't have a #1 WR that can do everything. When Hilton didn't play, Luck was nowhere near as productive. In fact, he was downright bad against Dallas.

 

I'm pretty sure Luck would not complain about having our receivers.

 

What has Alex Smith really done?

 

lolwhut?

 

Alex Smith went 13-3 and missed the Super Bowl by an overtime field goal in 2011 when he was surrounded by a great deal of talent. His individual play that year was about what it's been during the rest of the better part of his career, and was about the same as what Ryan Tannehill provided the Dolphins in 2014.

In other words, he provided the kind of quarterback play that made a team with a great deal of other talent highly competitive, which Ryan Tannehill can do, as well, with his current level of play.

 

Russell Wilson wouldn't, but Luck certainly would have a downgrade. Most good teams have a go to guy. Some have more than one. Who is our go to guy?

 

On almost all great teams, the go-to guy is the quarterback.

 

You are obviously not concerned about having a minority opinion anyway.

Whether or not he wins a playoff game in 2015, he isn't going anywhere unless the team somehow acquires a clear upgrade. The chances of that happening are not very good.

 

I can't see how anyone thinks we should be looking elsewhere for a QB. Tannehill has so much to work with we should consider ourselves extremely fortunate to have him!

We all know his current weaknesses. It's up to a good staff to put a plan in place to minimize those current weaknesses and help him develop further. There is no doubt in my mind we can win with this guy as long as we get him help on that offensive line.

 

I'm stating a fact. Every QB is a different QB without their go to guy. Behind most good QBs is at least one very good WR or TE. Search your soul and then review the history of the NFL and you will see that its true.

TY missed one game entirely and it was Luck's worst game of the year.

I'm not saying that Luck is a bad QB or anyone else that has been deemed an elite level QB. I'm just saying that QBs need weapons to be successful on a consistent level. Manning is arguably the best QB ever but he always had an assortment of weapons.

 

Disgree, Tom Brady is a different QB with Randy Moss than without. It's a team sport, superstar teammates absolutely effect play.

 

He was indeed, but better QBs also vary in their play at a level higher than that of worse QBs. In other words, Randy Moss takes Tom Brady from great to something even better than great, whereas he wouldn't do that for Kyle Orton, for example.

There is a range within which QBs can play, regardless of their surrounding talent. Tremendous surrounding talent may take them to the top of that range, but they won't exceed it. Tom Brady's range is a great deal higher than Kyle Orton's, for example.

Sometimes the view seems to be that a QB's range of play is unlimited, and governed (for better or worse) only by the players around him, whereas clearly there is an input consisting of the quarterback's individual talent, and that input is limited and drives the bus on how he plays a great deal more than what's going on around him.

 

You're referring to the same playoff game that TY Hilton had 13 catches for 224 yards and 2 TD?? Not a great example.

 

Tannephins...prior to getting Moss, people were throwing a lot of the same arguments around about Brady that they are about Tannehill. Dink-and-dunk, can't throw the deep ball, game manager, etc etc.

****This is not me comparing Tannehill to Brady, or trying to imply that Tannehill is as good as, or will be as good as, Tom Effing Brady****

 

Yea great comparison, sorry but Ryan will never be Tom Brady

 

The difference is that even during that period of his career his number of yards per pass attempt was well above where Tannehill's is currently.

An analogy would be saying that two running backs are possibly comparable because similar things were said about them before one of them started running behind the 1990s Dallas Cowboys' offensive line, whereas further research indicates that prior to his running behind that offensive line, he averaged 4.5 yards a carry, whereas the other running back has never averaged more than 3.5 yards a carry.

 

Serious question: can you not read?

It's pretty simple: we're discussing Tannehill, and people saying certain things about him, and others are saying that Brady always had his ability, whether he had Randy Moss or not. Now, without comparing Tannehill to Brady, and saying that Tannehill is as good as Brady, one can certainly look at the things that were said about Brady, prior to getting a truly elite player, and see that having that player allowed Brady to elevate his game. Just the same, NO ONE can say that Tannehill wouldn't see a dramatic increase if he had a legit playmaker at receiver. Tannehill may never be as good as Brady, but that wasn't my point. My point was that people said the same things about Brady. And they were wrong. We'll have to see if Tannehill gets the same chance as Brady to prove people wrong.

But, much simpler to ignore what I wrote, and try to turn it into me comparing Tannehill to Brady. That wasn't the point, and you know it.

 

The better response would've been, "we actually don't know whether Ryan Tannehill will ever be Tom Brady."

 

6.3, 6.9, 6.3. Brady's YPA for 2001-2003. 6.8, 6.7, 6.9 Tannehill's YPA 2012-2014. So, no, if we're comparing their first three years, Brady didn't have a better YPA than Tannehill. I digress, because my intention was not to compare Tannehill to Brady skillwise, or stats wise.

 

Are you guys telling me that as long as Tannehill records the stats you love but we continue going 8-8 and not making the playoffs, that we should continue sticking with him even if nothing changes in the next 2-3 years? Thats called insanity.

 

Tom Brady was a top-10 passer each of the four seasons previous to Moss' arrival. He was a 'truly elite' player before Randy Moss.

 

Actually I do agree with that... I don't see a clear upgrade unfortunately.

 

Apples to oranges. You're comparing different eras.

The average YPA in 2003 was 6.6. In 2014 it was 7.2.

 

Except Brady can live, and succeed without him.

 

Except Brady did those things effectively, and consistently. Tannehill does not.

And Brady could throw the deep ball to back up the defense and make them respect it.... Tannehill can not.