Mel Kiper bashes Tannehill

Who effing argued any of that? Jesus, you walk into a conversation you have no freaking clue what its about and vomit all over the place. You Tanny haters are the most annoying humans on the planet.

The argument was if W/L record is a QB stat or not, all your other BS has **** all to do with the discussion.

 

Ah ok, you're in THAT level then.

Why have a defense then if they don't effect the outcome of a game? Seems stupid to pay all those players and defensive coaches.

 

And I'm saying its not.

 

EDIT

You know what? I apologize. I went back and reread this portion of the thread and realize I wasn't giving you the benefit of the doubt. I acknowledge that I probably got your intent wrong. That's my fault, and I'm sorry.

 

Ok. The point about wins losses I brought up was not to prove who's a good QB. It's to show the help other QBS get from their TEAM.
Further no one is saying that paser rating is proving Tannehill is better. It proves that when his receivers do their job, the offense can work.

As to arguing with these idiots, some of us don't want to see Fin heaven repeat on this site. So we argue against the idiocy.

 

Wait....you mean old man FinD is accusing you of things you didnt post and ASSuming??

Nooooooooooo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't understand how you never get banned.

 

I'm pretty used to you making no sense, but this reply takes the cake.

Roy gave 4 examples as to how a defense CAN affect the outcomes and you reply with;

"Why have a defense then if they don't effect the outcome of a game?"

WOW, lol.

 

Idiots compare Ryan to players like Luck Wislon and the worst kind even include Brady. Lower your standards and your hard on for 17...he's a lil better than middle of the pack at this point.

Sorry but its the facts...i know you are red in the face and wanna scream but reality can be a ***** sometimes. Maybe fat man devito can cuddle with you and ease the pain some.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You dont understand alot of things Res, its too bad because you had potential...then you followed the wrong guy and now are a laughing stock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No he said our defense didn't cost any games. So I asked why have a defense.

 

Haha...I left for an hour and this really went south, lol!

 

I judge a defense on two primary measures. Did they keep the other team below the league wide average scoring? Did they keep the team from scoring their average? There are other factors of course (situational mostly).

The Green Bay game I'd place blame all around. Offense scored their average, which against most teams would be okay except the highest scoring team in the NFL. The defense gave up 27, but below GB's average of 30 ppg. So it's a mixed bag. Defense gave up that last minute TD, offense had a chance to ice it, didn't. I'd say both sort of failed, but the defense more so.

Denver game lost by defense for sure.

Then there are games both sides lost. Baltimore, 2nd NE game. First Buffalo game, KC Game. Defense gave up too much, offense didn't score enough.

Then there are games the defense did their job. Jets game where we only scored 16. Buffalo kept to 9 points.

 

You've been saying that for a year now and quite frankly it's common sense. You can't even claim that as an argument in my eyes. You're just stating what any logical person would. However, the QB does play a role in the team record so if the conversation is going to center around records, it would be productive to try and infer the QBs role in that and to what extent Tannehill has affected the Dolphins W/L record in the last 3.25 years. That's still out there for anyone who wants to do it. Instead of constantly arguing the same basic, common sense stuff, there is ground to be gained. We know that O-line affects QB play so to what extent do it? That's an answer-able question to most people. Given the fact that no one is doing any sort of analysis on the topic, we should at the very least we should respect folks who report what they see.

A great example of progress was when folks identified the YPA stat as having a great correlation with winning percentage. That's something that has really fostered a lot of discussion. In this case, it hasn't helped Tannehill but it has helped explain some of what he's not doing.

That said, I'm just giving you a hard time because you're always the one who defends Tannehill and I really don't think he deserves defending. I don't mean you should be attacking him either. Just be careful of who you defend because at some point you might find you've made the same mistake that many of us have made prior, which involves defending a guy who has potential. Slowly the years go by and you wake up to find that potential wasn't realized and that he wasn't as good as you thought and now you defend him just because it is customary to do it.

I continued to defend Ted Ginn for a long time because the pieces around him weren't good and because he was being mis-used. As it turned out, he just wasn't that great of a WR. While I still feel my points were correct, I'm still "the idiot that defended Ted Ginn." I did the same thing for Philbin when I joined. I really wanted to see success and despite a lot of mediocrity I continued to stay loyal. Turns out the guy just sucked and I should've been more open to accepting the criticism.

The truth is, Tannehill has plenty of flaws in my eyes that simply come down to the fact he's not that good in the pocket and he's not that great of a passer. That's a pretty good indication that fans should maybe let him go out and prove more before we spend so much energy defending the guy. Let his play defend itself.

My biggest question to you is, why do you feel so inclined to defend a guy who's really not outstanding in terms of being a pure passer? To me, that's weird. Until Tannehill can show he capable of carving up the defense in practice and hitting all areas of the field consistently against the lesser teams, let's reserve judgement. In 52 games there have been plenty of open WRs and clean pockets...



I am also curious when you say the offense can work when WRs do their job. I'm not sure it does work. We've seen that happen yet there are still major concerns. This offense gets the easy yards but it doesn't get the tough yards. It doesn't start fast. It stagnates in the 2nd half as well. It can't generate first downs when the team is losing momentum. It's can't grind out clock. It can't run in the red zone.

It's not Tannehill's fault Miami can't run the ball but if we're talking about just the passing game, are we really going to write off never having seen Tannehill go HAM on someone? At what point do you say, regardless of everything else, this guy would've just balled out for one Sunday if he was truly capable?

So, if we're accepting of the fact this kid is relatively limited in his upside...what does that mean for the team? Is it even worth building around that kind of QB? In my eyes it may not even be worth going that route if the QB isn't capable.

That's a serious question. If you know you have to built a great O-line that can be amongst the best in both run-blocking and pass blocking, as well as obtain WRs that have superior catch radii as well as a defensive front-7 that can shut down the run as well as a secondary that can limit opposing QBs from turning games into shoot outs...

...at what point do you say, 'Wow, maybe covering up for what the QB can't do is forcing everything else to be perfect and because of that fact, the game has become too hard to win in that way?'


People need to at least think about that because we're going to need a decision by 2017. Tannehill really has to show something despite the disaster going on around him and he needs to try and make something special happen in 2016.

 

^^^^ Excellent point.

Matt Ryan needs more help than Big ben and Arodgers. But when he gets it, he goes "HAM" as you say. What if Tanny is close to his ceiling? We hope he can uncork that bottle and there are new heights he can reach. It's certainly possible. It's just 4 games in but Dalton has somehow uncorked his bottle for the moment.

Or he hits a ceiling like Jay Cutler and just kinda sits around there no matter what changes. 4,000 yards, 590 attempts is okay until the defense knows, that's all you're running. Then it gets harder. Baltimore last year, must win, the defense was sitting on the short routes. They have film. And until we can show we can throw it deep, not even deep deep, but 25 yards deep, they're going to sit on us.

 

Tannehill may not be the answer for the Dolphins when all is said and done. His 2013 Buffalo game was one of the worst 50 statistically in NFL history. But to say that the books closed at this point when you had such an embarrassment as Joe Philbin running things is way too premature. The team gave up. Like it or not even a great QB can't do much when the same play is called 3 times in a row. It's gonna take changes and an off-season to really know what we're gonna get here.

 

Which is why I say build up the O-line and the defense and aim to make your decision by 2017.

That will give you 5 years and (hopefully) 80 games worth of tape as well as a QB who's in his prime.



I guess my point is this...I'm coming around to the idea that I'd be okay with cutting/trading a mediocre QB is I knew he wasn't that great of a passer.

I'm not saying Tannehill is that guy. I'm just saying that yeah, I'd be okay with moving on if he doesn't show certain things over the next 2 years.

 

I think it's fair to say that Tannehill hasn't met expectations yet for the season. Still early though, and last season he struggled in the beginning then had a really good stretch of games. If the trend continues this season, he should get better... but with this mess of a team it's hard to say for sure, maybe he'll regress statiscally from last season.

Hypothetically, if by the end of the year we see that he hasn't improved from last season, I think we can take a shot at QB in the draft in the first few rounds... we do need a backup QB anyway, so at the very least that's what he'll be. If we want an immediate improvement over Tannehill I think it's pretty much impossible in a short time period. No FA QB is going to be better than Tannehill. What we can do is keep trying through the draft and hope we get lucky. Either way, Tannehill is going to be our QB for the forseeable future. I don't even think there's a point in debating whether he's "good enough" or not.

 

Those are good thoughts, but I'm not sure it's going to do anything to pick a QB.

For one, we know that only the starter gets the coaching attention necessary to fully develop a QB. That's just a fact. You can't develop 2 QBs at once. The guy on the bench will just go undeveloped--not to mention we don't have any coaches capable of doing it at the moment.

Secondly, I'm not sure with all of the holes on this roster I'd even think about a QB until you know you're moving on from the guy you have. I mean, this team is a disaster at so many positions. You could draft a defensive player at virtually any position and you wouldn't look stupid. That's terrible. The same is true for offensive lineman, TEs and RBs as well.

 

Aaron Rodgers says hello.

Isn't Matt Moore's contract done by next season? You can add backup QB to that list. We also need a developmental QB. Obviously, this is all assuming that by the end of the season we know for sure that Tannehill has regressed, I don't see how it's that bad if we spent one of our first 3 picks on a QB.

 

Early on Aaron Rodgers played much like Tannehill did last year. The offensive production (running and passing) was nearly identical. The difference is that Aaron Rodgers was highly mobile, very willing to trust his WRs downfield and made a HUGE jump after having essentially the same year Tannehill did in 2014. It's kind of why I was hoping the hype about Tannehill pre-season might've been true. There was a chance, albeit a small one, that he was about to make the same big jump but he hasn't and his O-line basically assured the year is a wash.

As for the back-up QB, heck yeah! I've been in favor of bringing someone in for awhile. You said draft a QB in the "first few rounds" though. I wouldn't do that.

If Tannehill explodes next year maybe

 

Greg, it's not the criticism that I have a problem with. It's the riduculous, unfounded criticism.

And FinO, again, I'm not comparing Tannehill to Brady or Wilson. I'm comparing their support. I'm not surprised you can't understand that.

 

Why does their support matter to you?

And rank these qbs for us in order with all things being equal.

Brady
Tanny
Matt Ryan
Luck
Wilson


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

They developed Brett Favre while Rodgers sat on the bench?

 

It matters because you guys keep crying about wins and playoffs.

The only QB I see on that list is Ryan Tannehill.

 

Good point, Brett Favre was a fully mature QB when Rodgers showed up. Whatever coaching he got was afforded to him because Favre was a seasoned vet.

 

You seem to be the only one who's biting on that conversation though. I think if you stopped, the majority of the "debate" would as well. Besides, if a few people don't like Tannehill and want to put the losses mostly on him--fair or not--let's afford them that.

Again, the real question is will you support Tannehill in a couple years if he's still at the level he is now when drafting a QB becomes a real topic of conversation? Right now, this is all inconsequential. Tannehill will be the Dolphins QB for at least another couple seasons, 2015 included. However, if he stagnates and again fails to show he can make things happen, I think I'd be open to moving on. I'd at least have to start thinking real serously about it.

 

Why do you focus on me so much? Tell the people who say stupid stuff to move on. I can only see the same stupid stuff so many times before I say something.

And to answer your question, I've already said, I want to see improvement from Tannehill. I hammered him after the first game. That being said, I have a hard time being too down on him, when he's had basically no support from the other units.

 

My apologies. I shouldn't call you out. But you're sane and you're a nice guy which is why I really don't think you should bite on the bait a few jokers leave out there. Keep in mind that there really are people who come to forums just to argue and be difficult. They just want an argument. They offer ridiculously stupid reasoning and terrible straw man arguments when you call them on it.

On the other hand, some people raise good points. I just hope you can tell the difference because when someone says, "I acknowledge the bad O-line, but regardless he's had his chances and in those he's been unspectacular," well, you have to acknowledge that they're right and maybe leave it at that.

Instead, these Tannehill threads go on and on with the responses being the same thing back and forth.

 

My question is, if there are posters who are clearly trolling others, as several posters have mentioned, why do the mods allow it?

 

Also, Greg, when you say something like, "even when he's had his chances," you're minimizing the effect that playing with such an erratic oline for 3+ years has. The QB is never comfortable, and never thinks he has the time, even when he does, because he doesn't have one ounce of trust in his line.

 

Show me where I cried about Wins and playoffs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Gotta get that traffic.

 

I don't think anyone would mind if we drafted another qb if Tanny doesn't continue to improve. Not very concerned since the one thing he's done consistently is improve every year.

 

where is the confidence in the qb?...can we trust him when protection breaks down??..will he make a play when we need one?..will he lead this team?

 

Something to keep in mind though is that all players plateau, and right around 3rd or 4th season for most players, it's not realistic to expect continued improvement every year, not saying it can't be done, just saying that this may be basically it for Tanne, not his total limit, but the tier he'll be in, basically a tier below where he needs to be, he's a top of tier 3 QB and he needs to be a top of tier 2 QB.

I haven't seen it yet, so now in the 4th year, I just don't see him making that jump, imo.

 

It's also unrealistic to expect to see improvement when Tannehill is being hampered by every facet of the team. This isn't a case of a team with good pieces being hampered by a QB who isn't improving. This is a terrible team, who just fired it's coach and DC, who saw its QB improve in spite of those around him.

And posters continue to hang it all on Tannehill.

 

This x 100000000000. Tired of that effin word already.

 

The difficult thing to stomach about Tannehill is that he rarely makes a play that's based on his own athletic ability and his command of the position. He's like the anti-Russell Wilson in that regard. Tannehill on the other hand appears to need everything around him to go just right for an exceptional play to be made. In that sense "he's" not making the play; the play is being made for him. And then at other times, like the pass to an open Greg Jennings in the end zone that failed, he fails to make such a play. That really can't happen all that often if you're the kind of player who needs the stars to align for you. When they do align, you'd better cover your end.