Will we be able to rebuild the OLine before we have to get rid of Tannehill ?

That doesn't mean you don't try to upgrade the QB position if there's an upgrade there. Chances are there wont be an opportunity but if there's a guy in the draft the Fins deem to be a Franchise guy then you should draft him. Thill might not be the weakest link but he plays a position of the utmost importance. You cant tell me with a straight face that an elite QB wouldn't do more for this team than an elite Guard.

 

Look, if you believe Tannehill is the problem, then you should be advocating picking a QB in the first. Move up to get the best guy avaliable. That means using your picks on QB.

Now, if in the third or fourth round there's a QB you absolutely can't believe is there, then by all means, take him. I'm not against that. But, if you believe you need to build a team, then you are spending your first, second, and probably third round picks on oline, linebacker, corner, and possibly DE before you're worrying about QB. Any picks you spend on getting another QB are picks you didn't use to improve other areas that are a bigger need than QB, imo. Especially this offseason, since we're gonna have Tannehill through next season, at least.

If you end up moving on from Tannehill after next season, at least you've built up your team, and hopefully created a better situation for the new QB.

That's all I'm saying.

 

Miami is already spending resources at QB.

 

"The problem" is a non-sequitor.

 

And? Spending more on it means you're taking resources away from other areas.

If you don't believe Tannehill is "the problem," then you wouldn't want them using more resources on the QB position that could go elsewhere.

Please stop with the logical fallacy crap. I'm not in debate class.

 

Misi is not "the problem", however upgrading that position would be conducive to making the team better, same logic can apply to Tanne.


While neither of these players can be labeled "the problem", neither player is "the solution".

 

Miami very easily could spend less resources on the QB position.

 

How can people not understand the fact that there are limited resources in this league and that you can't realistically choose to improve every position equally?

If you think Tannehill is the problem, by all means, get rid of him, but you will be spending a 1st round pick on a QB, unless you want someone worse than him. And if you spend a 1st round pick on a QB, you will be spending one less first round pick on another position of need.

Brady, Wilson and Romo are exceptions, you can't go into a draft thinking you're going to get a 6th round franchise QB.

 

And get the same output coupled with a high ceiling? Doubtful.

 

Quantify how you measure output, and we can go through this exercise.

 

Tell me who do you think is as good right now as Tannehill, still has high upside and is not a QB who will come out of the 1st round of next year's draft?

 

Tyrod Taylor, Derek Carr, Marcus Mariota, Brian Hoyer.

 

To be fair, he said "next year's draft." But since you named those guys...how many of those guys were "the answer" coming out, besides Mariota who was a #2 overall pick?

 

Who wanted Tyrod Taylor when he was languishing on the Ravens bench? Who was blowing Carr last year, with his 5.X ypa?

 

Yeah, get rid of Moore, and bring in a fourth or fifth rounder to replace him.

 

If Miami could find a QB in the first round of next year's draft that is comparable to Tannehill, they very likely should do it. The savings in salary is worth way more than the pick. There really are very few scenarios where you will save yourself that much in salary cap space.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

I never specified Misi.

 

Over the last 5 years Miami has spent 5 of their 15 draft picks in the first 3 rounds on OL (2 in the 1st, 1 in the 2nd, 2 in the 3rd) and given a huge contract to Albert. This strategy definitely hasn't worked. Perhaps the QB, who doesn't stretch defenses with the deep pass, lacks pocket presence, is poor at avoiding the sack, and doesn't run the ball all allow the defense to stack the line, blitz and go full throttle knowing exactly where our QB will be in the pocket. Improved QB play may "magically" lead to improved OL play.

The truth just might be we are seeing Tannehill's ceiling.

Over the past couple of years Wilson, Bridgewater, Carr, Taylor, Cousins all were found outside of the 1st round. And if there appears to be a QB in the 1st whose legit it is worth a 1st round pick.

The NFL is a QB league and right now we have one that has never led Miami to the playoffs, is inconsistent, has taken a step backwards this year, has yet to show he can carry the team or pull out wins at the end of the game, and is somewhere in the 20-25 range in comparison to other QBs. It is crazy to not bring in real competition or a QB to groom. Yet, the solution is to keep spending high draft picks on the OL? Now that is NUTS.

It's still early but Hackenburgh, Doughty, Presscot, Kessler or Jones may all be options. Or maybe they see if a team like GB would be willing to take a 3rd or 4th for Hundley.

After all, it's only the most important position in all of sports.

 

Fair enough. I just happen to think you don't pass on a franchise QB unless you have one already. Chances are the Fins wont have a shot at upgrading the QB position but if they do they'd be fools to pass on it over Thill. There's a decent chance he isn't even around in a couple seasons. You don't get many chances to take a stud QB. We need a playmaker with our early picks, regardless of position. This team is SO desperate for impact players on both sides of the ball.

 

So Lazor is quoted as saying "Ryan has as much freedom as any QB not named Peyton Manning".....WTF is going on? Are players/coaches lying? Or do we have some more atrocious South FL reporting going on?

 

Ya I'd have to completely dismiss that statement. I has an array of plays he can choose from for a particular call, sometimes its THIS PLAY only, no change, and can't truly audible. I wish I had some of what Lazor's smoking.

 

Lazor isn't going to stand up and make that comment while lying. I'd say its perhaps bad reporting maybe, but it would take some real BALLS to flat out lie on your team, then walk into the meeting rooms an hour later.

 

me.

I wanted to draft him the year he came out in the middle rounds and I wanted to sign him to back up/compete with Ryan this past year.

 

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/spor...lack-of-freedom-on-audibles-um-coach-sea.html
Did you read this?

Yeah... I'd say Lazor was lying through his teeth about that Manning comment.

 

Even IF all those guys were clearly better than Tannehill, we can't pick up any of them next year. I'm talking about a realistic scenario where we can get a QB next year who is (1) clearly as good as Tannehill, (2) cheaper, (3) is young and on the upswing (4) will not be in the first round of next year's draft.

You probably didn't read everything before this comment.. there are people saying we can upgrade both QB and other positions at the same time and I argued that it's possible but pretty f'ing hard because of the nature of the NFL (limited resources, be it money, draft picks, etc).

 

I could get onboard with this thinking but only on two conditions:

1) Tannehill shows he has regressed by the end of the season. I'd measure this in passer rating and YPA.

2) The first round QB falls on our lap and the FO really likes him.

Only then would I take that shot.

Right now Tannehill is averaging 7.3 YPA which is an upgrade over last season and an 89.3 QB rating which is 3.5 points less than last season's. I personally think he'll pick up his play in the second half of the season, especially now that the defenses left for us to play aren't exactly stellar (except the Jets). I expect him to at least get to last season's passer rating while improving his YPA, which is an improvent overall.

 

I still say its a better chance he was misquoted, don't get it confused I DO NOT LIKE LAZOR and haven't for a while...but Its hard to believe he is flat out making things up.

 

I don't think he's lying, I think he's selling.

If what has been said is true, then Tannehill get's one play with 6 variations and since those plays can be flipped some are counting that as 12 "plays" to choose from.

But its not 12 plays, its not even 6 plays, its one play.

Forget its me talking for a second, and just think about this....do you really think that gives the advantage to our offense or to the other team's defense? What if that other team is helmed by solid to great defensive coaches? What if those solid to great defensive coaches play us twice a year? Do we really think Belichick, Bowles and Rex have a hard time planning for one play with some variations knowing Tannehill can't audible out of it?

I think not only is not hard for them to plan for it, I think its pretty easy for them to force Tannehill into picking a variation they want by disguising their play call.

Be honest, do you really think having 6 variations of one play is the same as having the whole playbook or even 6 completely different plays?

 

he still would be riding the bench if he was here.

 

you guys are making a bit too much of this audibling issue imo. i've got some gripes with lazor but this isnt one of them. let's remember this is tannehill's fourth year. most if not all fourth year QBs dont have the freedom to audible. The good thing is however from year five on approximately, coaches will start experimenting with allowing QBs to audible. When did Rivers get the freedom to audible? I doubt it was before his fourth year. I think the reason for that is the curve on which a QB progresses. Year one is learning how to play in the NFL, Year two is learning how to play within the system, year three is hopefully putting it all together and having some success. These first three years are generally about developing the physical skills and honing them while learning a modicum of basic defensive reads. you dont want to overload a QB with too many responsibilities. By year four the QB should have most if not all of the physical game down and that's when you start working on the cerebral part full time. More hours in the film room, more two way communication between qb and coach (first three years its generally coach talks to qb ... qb listens). i will say that next year i want to see tannehill start getting some freedom to call his own plays. the guy reads coverages pretty well though he needs some more work on blitz recognition. you can start giving him a bit more freedom now

 

FTR, my issue with the audible thing isn't about ****ting on Lazor or that's its unique per se.

My issue is that it is one more shackle on Tannehill. Its one more disadvantage beyond his control. It is one more anchor that becomes heavier when playing our division foes.

 

no doubt. to be stuck in a bad play call and not have the freedom to get out of it is frustrating but we should start seeing the coaches give more responsibility to tannehill from this point on. who knows, with the media asking about it, maybe the coaches will even start doing it this year instead of waiting till next

 

Here's hoping, but I think it helps explain why our offense struggles against our division.

 

its one of the reasons but its tied more to the years tannehill has been in the nfl rather than an overall philosophy imo so i can live with it for now. next year might be another story lol

 

Again, you are trying to talk me into something i have said months before this article was published. I am fully aware of the handicap it presents to any QB.

You are preaching to the choir.

 

No it doesn't. Tannehill could audible under Sherman. Against the Jets in OT when we were already in game winning field goal range he decided it was a good idea to audible to a deep pass instead of just trying to get a little closer with little risk of turning the ball over. And against the Bills he audibled from a run to a pass and subsequently gave the ball away on the strip sack setting them up for the game winner. In both instances his audibles decreased our chances at victory, especially the decision in the Jets game which was just plain stupid.

 

No he couldn't AND he was raw rookie/2nd year player.

 

Yes he could...

How do you think I know about the above plays? Sherman admitted it in postgame pressers. And recently Campbell said he had more freedom before Lazor got here, but the team decided he'd perform better with less on his plate.

 

No he couldn't.

Having more freedom than using a variation of one play does not equal freedom to audible in the sense we all understand it.

A variation of one play can be a run. Another can be a deep pass.

As far as what you know, I have no idea why you know what you think you know. I would like to see evidence however.

 

A lot of people on Tyrod. Some great in-depth discussions in the club about it (there is much less bickering and much more focus in there by design and by banhammer). There was discussion about Tyrod before he signed with the Bills. There was discussion before training camp he would win the starting job.

Carr was liked by a lot of people. Myself included. I saw his ypa. I saw his WR corps. But he did well to limit his mistakes. I was a fan. But I give credit to Dj. Before the season a few laughed at him for putting Carr and Mariota ahead of Tannehill. It's way too early, but so far his Carr placement isn't a joke.

http://www.thephins.com/forums/show...read-part-5-OTAs/page69&p=2610910#post2610910

Gotta be club to see that but giving DJP props.

But so far he whiffed on Ckap and Stafford though