While your cited examples are true, it should be noted that they are still the exception rather than the rule. More QBs who are playing mediocre after four years continue to be mediocre than those who take a leap up to the next level. As such, if we choose to bet on Tannehill taking that leap once we fix things around him, we may be betting against the odds. Part of that may be because we'd be betting on the Dolphins, having not succeeded in supporting Tannehill properly with the right players and coaching for four years, suddenly actually doing so properly.
Still waiting for an example of this to be provided by anyone. If we're talking about how likely a QB is to improve beyond his 4th year, then I'd think we should probably be more worried about what the probability any QB can thrive in that scenario, considering if you moved on from Tannehill that scenario still remains. So again...anyone? Yes the flipside is you're betting on a situation where some other QB will succeed in that same scenario without having changed the scenario. What's more likely, that we can fix the problems outside of the QB or fix the problems outside of the QB AND find a franchise QB?
One thing's for sure this team is extremely poorly coached. From Dan Campbell on down the coaching this year has been awful.
1. Good qb can make bad offensive line look better than it really is because of a thing called pocket presence.Tannehill has horrible pocket presence ask bob griese. 2.Good qbs make QC look better than they really are.You can just reverse the question how many good QC are playing with bad qbs. 3.Freedom to audible against ravens and we put a whopping 7 pts. 4.Ran for over 100 yds this week and scored a whopping 7 pts because he is one of the worst if not the worst QB on third down conversions. Well keep the excuses coming because in 2017 he will be gone.
None of that is relevant to what I said because most of it is either nonsense or an isolated incident. I also didn't post excuses. I posted actual issues.
I just saw a lovely stat. The Tannehill led offense has scored 17pts or less 26 times out of 60 games.
And, 1 game played out of 16 doesn't equate to being used to live action of an entire season. Who cares if 2004 was technically his 4th season? Well, I guess you do.
This has nothing to do with book smarts or street smarts...it has to do with executing. And from the time Tannehill takes the snap until the time the play is whistled dead, every QB has to go through a lightning-fast progression to make the right decision. In most cases, he chooses poorly...which is why he's the worst in the league on 3rd down. That doesn't make him stupid though; it just means he can't process the information fast enough so he goes to his outlet receiver 90% of the time. And essentially, that's why we suck with him at QB.
I think it is generally true, not exceptionally true, that quarterbacks get better with age and experience. This is not some new or crazy concept. The examples show that you can see periods of under performance by quarterbacks that do not indicate what that quarterback's remaining "ceiling" is. In several cases you have quarterbacks who showed some value but then regressed and people swore what we saw before was just a fluke, etc. That's much like Ryan Tannehill who starting with the Oakland game (which people remember because prior to that game he appeared to have been called out by his head coach), had a 98 passer rating over a 13 game stretch with 7 out of those 13 games having single-game ratings in the triple digits (or near enough so as not to matter). But no we're going to move the goal posts around. Eli Manning showed "it" (sarcasm) because he led "very good" offenses with his passer rating in the 70's. Other guys showed "it" with passer ratings in the mid-80's...but Tannehill's 98 passer rating over a 13 game stretch with a putrid OL, bad offensive coordinator, virtually nothing for a QB coach, and receivers about to be placed on waivers...that wasn't showing "it". Right.
So then all things being equal you expect first year starters to perform the same as true rookie starters? If not, then you have no point.
I think you're being excessively hard on him, but I don't disagree with the observation -- just feel it's being exaggerrated. This is where the opposite side will then get more extreme in their counter-argument and neither side ends up hearing one another. Let's discuss this reasonably. I agree that Ryan seems to have limitations in how well he is playing the mental part of the game out there in real time. And any limitation of his, is going to be a limitation in the offense. Which it seems to be. The next four games will reveal more, thankfully. At this point, though, I would be happier if we had a good prospect to develop behind Tanehill next year just in case Ryan doesn't turn out to be the guy for us.
Obviously a year not on the field has value, as you're in the QB room and if not injured you are on the practice field as well. But it doesn't have as much value as playing in real NFL games. So call it a half-season of experience. lol.
I felt Ryan showed 'it' but then again many guys show 'it' then get a massive contract and show less of 'it' afterwards. lol. Seriously. He may have gotten more comfortable now that his life, and his family's financial future are set. To address the improving with age, sure that's true, but we need to look at whether a mediocre guy improves slightly to a slightly better mediocre guy versus a guy making a big improvement and getting much better. We want the latter from Ryan (I think we all agree ton that).
smdh. In the context of late bloomer QBs performing, (playing) after their 4th season Brees was listed. Others believe(myself included) he doesn't belong on that list b/c he actually did well in his "3rd year STARTING." Further proving the point that THill is not even in the same league as Brees. First yr starters... You can play dumb if you want to but QBs essentially learn on the field.
Cameron was a pro bowl TE until he arrived at Miami. If Cameron was on another team he would be back to pro bowl form.
It's completely relevant but if you can't comprehend what I'm saying then I don't know what to tell you.
It has value period. Many coaches think it has far more value than being put on the field too early. Either way it's highly misguided to pretend that Ryan Tannehill's second year in the league is equivalent to Drew Brees' second year as a starter, when in fact that was Drew Brees' third year in the league.
Tell that to the many head coaches who sit their rookie quarterbacks so as to prevent them being ruined before they're ready. Playing dumb? LMFAO. Sure.
Statistically speaking, I usually look at 4 things with a QB: passer rating, YPA, scoring offense, and wins. It's a balance of the 4, with the second 2 not quite as important as the first. If all 4 are pretty good, then the guy is probably good. If a couple are well above average (or playoffs/expectation, if we're talking wins), then he's probably good. If they're all average or even a little below, there's concern. If there's a big deficiency, there's concern. You watch some games, check out some situational type stuff, see how your eyes and your gut add/subtract to that general sense. To me Tannehill isn't good enough, and I'd be looking to bring in some competition this offseason. Due to the contract, Tannehill's got one more year to make a jump; I just wouldn't put all our eggs in that basket.
If you're going to make this argument, this rigidly, I will have to say that Ryan Tannehill got the value of being in QB meetings through his full four years at Texas A&M.. value period. Meaning he has four years of college experience as a QB and over three and a half years of NFL QB experience. Being as we are counting all of that as valuable experience (period) I have to say, I am not impressed with Tannehill's level of play after almost eight years of college and NFL QB experience. Can't have it both ways in this argument, Chris. (though I admire your burn-the-boats certainty in making an argument... like William F. Buckley, in a way)
The problem with this entire debate is that nobody can definitively prove anything. Is it poor coaching? Very possible. Could better QB play have led to the coaching staff being retained? Possible. Is our OL significantly worse than the NFL average? Possible. Could better QB play mask the deficiencies in the OL? Possible. Could Tannehill be an elite QB with the right coaching staff? Possible. Could the Ryan Tannehill debate be moot with an improved OL? Possible. Nobody really knows. The anti-Tannehill crowd, myself included, can use our overall record to make an assumption. Just as we can use 3rd down conversion rate, YPA, pocket presence, sacks and overall offensive efficiency to claim that Tannehill isn't the answer. The pro crowd can use the coaching staff, OL and other examples to assume that he has shown enough to remain the QB and become the long term option we all want him to become. Sadly, I think this debate will not end until the pendulum swings in either direction. Fair or unfair, I don't think Tannehill has more than the 2016 season for us to find out.
Many coaches huh? lol yeah ok. Let's see, which qb had the extreme upper hand when he didn't have to learn a completely new offense coming into the league? Yet there were still warning signs that he had very little pocket awareness.
I have never been a Tannehill supporter, but if the next head coach wants to tie his job to the future development of Tannehill, so be it. He will be the person who will get the blame from all the Tannehill supporters when Tannehill remains the mediocre QB he is. Personally I will be extremely surprised if any quality head coaching candidate will want the job if it means he is required to commit to Tannehill as the long term QB of the team. If the front office makes keeping Tannehill the long term staters a requirement for the job. I think only candidates who have no other options to be a NFL head coach will be interested in the job. I still believe that 2016 will be Tannehill's last year in Miami, but maybe he will prove me wrong. We shall see.
The fact that the conversation is even being had at this juncture is evidence enough ..... both that there are legitimate questions and we need to bring in some legitimate competition.
Great! Another good thread hijacked by the Tannehill debate. As if there weren't enough thread to have that discussion...
I'm of the belief that Tannehill is part of the problem and we need to bring in competition at the position. I just don't think it will happen in 2016 so we need to work with what we have. Who knows, maybe his flashes of dominance from that 4 game period in 2014 return.
In the past several years how many top rated rookies sat for most of the year? This is not the 80s this is not the 90s. Most teams don't have the luxury to sit so-called franchise QBs. It's the most important & hardest position in all of sports. So again, you learn about the speed of the game, the timing of routes, the internal clock etc on the field in live action.
Since the cap came in in 1994 it's become even more important to get production from young QB's on their rookie contract, before you have to pay top dollar to them. I don't think you ruin a prospect over that idea, and rush him in early if he clearly needs time to develop before starting. Talent is too scarce a resource to willfully risk ruining a blue chip QB as a rookie just to save some coin.
Legitimate point, and I'll take most of the blame. Apologies. It's just hard to evaluate this team when the HC, staff, and QB are still question marks. Overall we need elite talent regardless of position, imo. But if I had to pick, I'd say MLB should be the priority, followed by safety. Get more instinctive and solid around the middle of the field; those positions impact lots of plays. Defensively, I like Bobby McCain and Jelani Jenkins going forward, and Suh will keep the DL's performance in decent shape. I would hesitate with OV, though it's tough given Wake's situation. So we could use a DE or a blitzing LB type, depending on whatever DC we end up with. Suh, Jenkins, Jones...there's some talent to build off, and I think we'll see better overall play/coaching in the mid-level players once the staff issues settle. Offensively we need some OL depth, any position, with a priority on versatility. The run game should be a plus with Miller and Ajayi. They're not great, but they're good enough for us to be a run-first type team, imo, which is what we should do. The passing game though is too Landry-heavy. Got to find a way to shift that a bit. He's a really good player, but he's not special enough to be getting the % of the offense he's getting. Maybe it's scheming, maybe you look for a TE to work the middle of the field with the stuff Jarvis has been doing. Either way something's got to change a little there, imo. I'd also re-sign Mathews as I'm not a big believer in Parker's health or skillset.
No. I explained this to you in Club so I'll repost it here: Why would we find out next year definitively? We could completely gut the FO and the coaching staff and still end up with bad coaches and no help on the oline. I'm making the distinction, because people forget just because you get rid of crap doesn't mean you won't bring in crap (Sherman to Lazor, for example) and they often want to judge a QB based on influences outside his control (as has been the story on Tannehill the whole of his professional career). The discussion gets further muddled when people use the same terms as different measurements. Imagine how impossible it would be to build a building if some of the people considered inches to be millimeters, some considered inches to be inches and some considered inches to be feet. Same thing here, some people think weakness is the same as incapable or a hole, when others mean it could just be the weakest part of his game, but is still average. Another example would be what is considered elite. How can we have meaningful discussion that doesn't turn into petty arguments when everyone's using the same terms with different meanings? The last distinction I want to make is that people tend to count all checkmarks on a given list the same and very often, consider them unrelated. For example, take your list (I'm not saying you are or are not guilty of this, I'm just using your list): - poor OL - poor WR's his first year (though I'd make a case it was is first 2 years as Wallace hadn't adapted yet) - poor coaching throughout - poor pocket awareness - imbalanced play calling It comes across that all of these things are equal and they unrelated, I say that because the conclusion given is more or less, we just don't know based on all these things. However, how can anyone properly evaluate any QB's pocket presence with bad oline play, coaching and playcalling? People aren't even accounting for the type of pressure a QB is getting. I mean was it one guy that got through? Was it four? If it was four, did they all get there at once or were they staggered enough there was an escape route to be found (like Frogger)? These are all important distinctions to be made when evaluating a QB...but we rarely see it. Yet, we do see it, as I said rarely, but when we do its often met with an ambivalent tone that just piles these things on the list no bigger or no smaller than anything else on the list. (If a list happens in the mains of this site, not only are they treated the same, they are treated as excuses and completely disregarded because elite QBs are just elite in any situation, apparently, because you know....ELITE!!!!!!) So how do we properly evaluate Tannehill? I've asked this before and never got an answer, but what QB has ever thrived with bad oline play, bad playcalling, no audibles, and an abandoning of the run game too early in most games? None that I can think of. Most or many QBs that have thrived have dealt with these things in various degrees at various times, but I don't think any have had them their entire career. (Let's not even count that he had Hartline for 3 years who is one of the worst WRs in the game...and Bess.....and Legedoodoo). So when did Tannehill have the least amount of those issues effecting him? Well, last year there was a stretch before Albert got hurt that the line was playing at an average aggregate level. Tannehill was playing in the Top 5-10 range. That is fact. He still couldn't call audibles, he still had a crap OC, he still had a run game that was criminally underused...but the oline was just average and we were a solid offense and a team on the rise. In the end, all the problems outside of Tannehill's control still exist yet people want to definitively declare he's bad or not the answer (some in the mains would take a 7th round pick for him in a trade.) And they are coming to this conclusion by assuming change means automatic improvement, by not weighing issues properly and conflating definitions of words to solidify their points. So, its not really anybody's guess at this point, it is most likely that if we just fix a few things, we'll have the QB we're starving for and he's already on the team and getting paid.
