Is Ryan Tannehill the long term solution at QB?

I have absolutely no problem with you posting a valid opinion on here, even if I disagree with it. That is what these forums are all about.

What I do have is problem with is your personal attacks and your assumption you know more about football than others on here. Because based on several of your comments, it appears you care more about making snide comments about other posters than you do about actually posting comments relevant to the discussion on the thread.

 

well, I know he hasnt show the conscientous attack as a dual threat qb would do the past 3 and 1/2 years so your probably right..Im gonna give him one more chance in buffalo, cause thats the thing and why I stress that this is a key component to his future, we have seen how affective he is at all the things he's currently avoiding..lol, it doesnt make any sense..think about it..

he is deft and rolling right and left ad throwing with accuracy, his production numbers they are off the charts..

he's awesome when he used to decide on rare occassion to keep the zone read play, was averaging about 6 yards a carry for two whole years

and after the super rare occassion he decided to run unscripted, it was always really positive production and seemed to spark the team and put him in rhythm...but those occassions are so rare now their not even worth talking about..

because he did these things so well, and yet so liitle..{only averaged 3 carries a game over his career} a smart coordinator would of added reps on all three facets surely not cutting them in half to a resounding 1.75 carries a game..1 rollout a game, and .5 unscripted.

Thats whats dsgusting, not the posters who this yoga dude called disgusting, its the complete disregard of a players strengths at the most important position in the face of discernable variables that are logically asking for them to happen.

 

I agree that childish or demeaning comments have become all too common on this forum. I don't visit it as often because it appears we have more young people on here who just don't want to have an adult discussion. They prefer to imply they know more than other posters about football or they simply go to negative comments thinking this somehow makes them appear superior.

Instead it only shows their lack of ability to give an intelligent respond to the issues on a given thread.

 

So why is that when Tannehill does things, like get sacked, throw an int. get a pass tipped etc. It's ALL on him. But when QBs who we are told are much better do the same things, it doesn't count???

The reason I am pointing out what other QBs are doing is because I am watching them. I see QBs throw bad passes for picks (Ryan), sacked on 3rd and long (dalton) just look like a rookie (Stafford). Every one of these QBs are said to be better than Tannehill, over and over again.

So how exactly does pointing this out make me a troll???

 

Just to go slightly off topic here, but I've seen many of the anti-Tannehill posters make snide remarks, and personal attacks, and not get banned.

Now back to regularly scheduled programming.

 

your a phoney..find another place to play.

 

More personal attacks. Tell you what. I will take the high road and just block me for you.

Take care!

 

I've been personally attacked about 4 times in this thread alone. lol

 

I've been dismissive of only one poster's argument. I forgot the username but it was some guy that's a columnist/scout.

Point is I was dismissive, apologized, but never launched any personal attacks. This has gotten out of hand.

I've personally been misrepresented several times, one time behind my back that another poster notified me of. I've been told I have low self esteem, been called son and kid, it's ridiculous. Stick to football.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

your not entitled to call people who have opinions dogs, etc..

youve been exposed..no class or respect for this forum..especially considering you just arrived..tell tale signs of trolling, all things that were just pointed out to you on the record br greg and others

maybe you will learn your lesson, so when we do become good, you will have friends to celebrate with..for example, Res has the same opinion as you, he even thanks your insulting posts [for which I dont understand} and I disagree with him on some things pretty vehemently, but were cordial in our differences and I know he really cares about the team..

you havent yet figured out how to communicate with others in disagreement..its ok, you can think about it while doing yoga.

 

Just about the only person that's supported yogi's insulting posts is resnor. Not surprised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I would if I thought they were being insulting to the person and disrespectful..folks like rock sexton and finster have not imo...they are very convicted about what their seeing and have a more absolute tone, but I don't see personal insults...this dude you can just tell, and imo you should think twice before your thanking his posts just because hes on your side of the topic.

 

I like some of the posts, because while you call them trolling, I understand that he's trying to show the hypocrisy of some people on here. Unless he's actually just trolling, in which case, forget my thanks. But I think he's just being overly critical of QBs that many in here point to as being much better than Tannehill, in the same way that certain posters here are overly critical of Tannehill.

Edit: where did he call someone a dog?

 

our qb has looked like that, and hes gets criticized accordingly..most of us here try to take into a lot of different things before we criticze our players...especially the variables

 

Respectfully disagree, DJ. It's not just Rock and Finster, but other posters going back years. Although Fin-omenal finally got banned, it took years, and I never saw you say anything to him.

Whatever, though.

 

Frankly I could care less if anyone agrees with my ghoughts on Ryan Tannehill.

I see two scenarios.

One, Ryan is your QB and you build a team around him you can win with. What is that? You build a good line, so you can have a good running game. Why is that? Our record with Tannehill and a hundred yard rusher is VERY VERY good. We have the other weapons..we just need a line and we can win a Super Bowl with Ryan.

Scenario Two. Give up on Ryan and basically wait a few years to see if you have a good QB.

Really, to me this discussion is flat stupid. Sure you draft qbs to develop ...but guys..to think we cant won with Tannehill is moronic at best. Hes not Aaron Rogers or Tom Brady. Hes more Joe Flacco. But thats fine.

Everyone complains Ryan doesnt run..Ryan doesnt do this..Ryan doesnt do that..but nobody can come up with an alternative that is any kind of sane. Whats the point of rehashing the same complaints every time we lose a game.

We win...no threads like this. We lose...same threads. Go back and read....you can read the same posts , over and over and over. You may as well make a sticky thread. When we lose: Tannehill.

 

Can you actually quote some posts where a member says that when other QBs throw bad passes, interceptions, get sacked or play poorly it isn't ever on them?

Because other QBs make bad plays doesn't mean they aren't better than Tannehill. Every QB is going to make bad plays and have bad games, sometimes a bad year (need to know the context)...What makes others better is they do it less often and they actually "MAKE" big plays leading teams to victories and the playoffs. All of the QBs mentioned have actually been to the playoffs.

Can you build your argument on Tannehill's "body of work?"

Pointing out another QBs poor play does not mean Tannehill is the answer. It's too easy to play that game...we could mention the game Brees, Manning, McCown, Palmer, Hoyer, Flacco, Rivers, Smith, Cutler, Ryan, Roethlesberger are all having better games than Tannehill had this week.

You really aren't offering anything other than a red herring.

 

I am not defending the anti-Tannehill posters who make those type comments. I am merely pointing out that we have too many posters on this forum now who would rather demean the views of other posters in a negative manner than actually have a mature discussion, when they may not agree with the views of another person.

I have not been a big Tannehill backer on this forum but I have always been willing to list my issues with him as an NFL QB. I also recognize that there are strong Tannehill supporters on here and I always respect their opinion even if I might disagree with them.

The problem with discussions on the Internet is that sometimes comments are made which probably would never happen if these individuals were sitting face to face having the same discussion. Some people just seem to what to rant and rave about other posters because they can on this type of forum.

I prefer more mature discussions, but I understand every time I decide to come on here that there will always be some individuals who only see things one way and they just aren't open to another persons point of view unless it happens to agree with their own point of view.

 

The argument isn't whether another QB is better or not. It's that many posters on here hold Tannehill to a standard that they don't hold other QBs to.

 

well thats why you need to post more, we want to keep this place special, if they have no resistance they will stay and taint the place, so you and others presense who care about this site and its members will make them go away if they cannot communicate with some coothe..

I personally like coming to the mains..there great posters here who have lots of knowledge to learn from..

 

Fact is, that like it or not Tannehill is our QB and until he isn't I will continue to support him and believe he can win in Miami.

That's the last I will say on the subject.

 

And that's why the majority here do not want to have Tannehill conversations anymore....it turns into a flame-fest no matter what it said. However, on this rare occasion, I think I agree with EVERYONE who's posted here.

Tannehill is not the long-term answer because he's too immature at QB. He blows reads, panics far too often, and stands in the pocket when there is no pocket. If he hasn't figured it out after 4 seasons, he never will, and we would be better off moving on just like we did with Philbin....just cut all ties and say goodbye.

At the same time, however, Tannehill is too immature at QB because he's not a pure QB to begin with. He's like a Dion Jordan....we drafted him on raw ability and decided that we'd figure it out as we go. Because when you look at Tannehill on paper, he has a strong arm, good mobility, solid pre-snap reads, able to make every throw, great intelligence....the list goes on and on. So why couldn't he develop into an outstanding quarterback over time? That's why he has to keep starting, because he's truly unique and has a super high ceiling.

But then again, we've already proven that we can win with Tannehill, and it's no secret that the best teams in the NFL have the most depth at offensive line. So if anyone's to blame for Tannehill's failures, it's the coaching staff and front office....why can't they keep this kid upright? When he has good protection and doesn't have to deal with being hit from crazy angles 2 seconds after the snap, Tannehill has proven time and time again that he's better than most in this league.

So yeah, I can truly see all three viewpoints and why people are so passionate on saying yes, no or maybe. He's done a lot of things really well, completely sucked at others, and he never seems to rise up to the occasion when the season is on the line. But is that really his fault? Honestly, it's not....Ryan Tannehill has been set up to fail from day one in the NFL due to his jackass college coach who decided that he would have to "change him" to fit within NFL standards.

But I will say one thing...I don't Tannehill will ever be an upper tier quarterback. He doesn't have that fierceness that true leaders have within them.....just look at Brady last week pounding the ground because he threw an incomplete pass on a big down. You NEVER see Tannehill shaken up like that because he says, "No big deal, we'll get em next time." But it is a big deal....a very big deal indeed. He doesn't have that hunger, that desire to really excel on every single down...and there is absolutely no way to coach that one intangible.

 

/thread

 

You don't think that is true of most fans for other teams as well?

Fans are attached to their team winning so their standards are going to be higher for players on their team. Particularly at QB since it is the most influential position on the team and when a QB is 4 years into his tenure and has not led his team to a winning record and playoffs.

Where is the list of games that as a fan I can say, "without Tannehill was lose that game" and "if we had a mediocre QB rather than Tannehill we finish our season 4-12 rather than 8-8" and "Tannehill literally took over that game we should have lost and won it for us." I mean Chad Henne led Miami to a 7-6 record as a starter one year (with Ted Ginn as his #1 wideout) and 6-8 in the other during his only two full years as a starter. How has Tannehill elevated Miami beyond what Henne did during his 13-14 record those two years?

 

You support a player by pointing out all the good things the player does.

Pointing out poor plays by other QBs and then mocking is just be critical.

So not yoga like

 

It may be true of other team's fans also, I don't know, I don't cruise their forums. But when guys on here are going to hold up different QBs as examples of what Tannehill isn't, and then crucify Tannehill for mistakes, why be upset when posters point at these other QBs and highlight the things that they do poorly?

Frankly, I think Tannehill played very well last season, overall, and we should have been in the playoffs, but for our defense folding in some games.

 

there are solutions for this qb and offense to get better, these solutions are directly related to his ceiling as a qb..folks like the qb and the coodinator who ignore them is the problem

 

4045 yards, 27 TDs and 12 int, sucks.

I guess?

 

I won't disagree with you. I have stated numerous times that I see him as a middle of the pack type of QB.
The only thing I judge him on is whether or not he is the QB who can lead this team to a win in the SB. I personally don't believe he is, but I also think the majority of the QB's in the NFL fall into this category.

That is why I have also stated that right now he is the best option we have at the QB position for the time being. My hope is that over the next few years we get lucky and find a QB who can be an elite QB for the Dolphins. I certainly know these type QB's are hard to come by. So until then, Tannehill will have to be our answer at the QB position and I can only hope he improves in those areas he still needs to work on.

He got the contract he received from the Dolphins because they expect him be the man to lead this team. Very few teams have quality offensive lines. Tannehill has a RB who is certainly above average. He has an above average receiving group. The OL certainly is the weak link, but with much better pocket awareness, or throwing the ball away when there is pressure could certainly cut down on the sacks.

He was given the highest paid contract on offense because he plays the position which makes the biggest impact on the how the offense performs each week. I expect more from him on a consistent basis and I think the time for him needing excuses for bad performances has run its course.

Those are my views on Tannehill and I have no problem with those who disagree with me.

 

I can't speak for others, but I know my standards aren't based on a QB building numbers based on dinking and dunking the ball. After all, Foles posted the second highest QB rating for a single-season at 119.2 with a 27/2 TD/int ratio when Lazor was his QB coach running pretty much the same system.

I base my standards on whether the QB is a leader, makes the players around him better, can take over a game, makes good decision, makes big plays, has pocket presence, is clutch when the game is on the line even if having a poor game up till that point, can bring a team back in the 4th quarter, makes the difference between winning and losing, etc...

Tannehill has only shown to be good if everything goes right around him which in the NFL means he isn't the answer. Roughly "30%" of the teams make the playoffs, if he isn't in top 30% of the QBs (meaning a top 10 QB) he isn't the answer imo.

Heck, even a more accurate QB rating system (ESPN QBR which into account context) has him as the 31st ranked QB this year. Last year he was 16 in those rankings. That doesn't get a team to the playoffs unless the team around him is exceptional. And if a QB needs the team around him to be exceptional then isn't the answer.

Even if we go with the traditional outdated QB rating system (over-inflates for completion vs yardage and big-time for short TD passes, last year Tannehill was the 8th ranked QB in the AFC. Considering only 6 teams make it to the playoffs, I wouldn't call that good enough.

 

Yeah, I don't really disagree with those views, jw, except that I think with an average type line, Tannehill will put up better numbers than many other QBs. In the draft next year, I would only be drafting olinemen, linebackers, and corners. That's pretty much all I'd be looking at. Maybe a DE if there was a stud available, since Wake went down.

 

I think Bill Lazor is a crap coordinator for what it's worth. Giving credit to Resnor, Lazor's run/pass mix is an abomination. It's embarrassing. I have no faith in Lazor developing an offense or calling plays at this point. I'm ready for him to go at season's end. I'd like to see the team get a more experienced OC in, even if it's someone older. I want to know that the next guy teaching Tannehill is someone who's had a lot of experience. Sherman was predictable but at least there seemed to be some semblance of sense behind it and now it looks like his play-action stuff was right on the money in terms of what Tannehill is best at. Maybe Sherman was smarter than we thought. It's definitely looking like Lazor is more clueless than we had originally suspected.

Keep in mind we aren't discussing all 32 teams. We're only discussing 1. If this forum invited conversation on all QB equally we'd see a lot of mixed reviews on other guys. Granted the grass is always greener but the anti-Tannehill stuff is just what you get when fans are overly scrupulous with their judgments.

I don't like looking at 1 play or 1 bone-headed mistake. I can forgive things on a 1-off basis but the odds of a good QB looking mediocre for this long are low. That's what bothers me. It also bothers me that Tannehill can be made to look so bad in terms of certain stats. While I agree with you that wins and losses are not solely on the QB I do believe the QB has the largest impact on the game and I doubt there are many good QBs that went 4-5 years without breaking past .500.

I don't dislike Tannehill as an NFL QB, but as a possible take-you-to-the-Super-Bowl guy, I have little hope in all honesty. I'd love to be as optimistic as you but at some point I think you'll change your mind. I defended Ted Ginn in another forum for a long time simply because I thought the "attacks" were unfounded. I never bothered to ask myself how much I honestly liked the guy. Truth is, he's just not that great and even now as part of the perfect offense for his skill set he's still not a big threat.

Sometimes you miss the forest for the trees.

 

I honestly don't believe that putting another QB in this team makes them that much better. I certainly don't believe that with Brady we'd be "Super Bowl bound," as another poster put it.

 

Exactly. Picking out good statistical seasons without taking into account the context and skill set isn't wise.

Somebody else mentioned how Stafford has passed for over 5k yards and 30+ TDs. You pointed how how Foles had an amazingly efficient season. Dalton is ranked #1 in QBR (before this game). Fitzpatrick is at 4. Hoyer 6. Cutler is well ahead of Tannehill.

Do I think all of those guys are better than Tannehill? No. Maybe Dalton. Maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So, you say those numbers don't suck, yet you say he is average??

Those numbers are well above average.

This is what I am talking about.

 

I think Brady would already be dead if he had to play behind this line.

 

Then http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr how about that? You still want to argue based on statistics? Or do you want to evaluate the QBs for what they are?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Tom Brady has won several superbowls by dinking and dunking.

Just sayin.

 

New England barely has enough healthy OL right now. The commentators were talking about it during TNF.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk