Still disagree...if Miami is forced to spend all their resources to make a below-average QB look average it is a bad long-term solution. Miami has already tried this strategy with Tannehill. Of course, the defense will continue to suffer as a result. 14 of the past 21 draft picks in rounds 1-4 have gone to offense (4-1st, 3-2nd, 3-rd, 4-4th) and given contracts to Albert, Wallace, Jennings, Cameron and traded for Stills. Players like Matthews and Miller have developed nicely. Miami has one of the best and deepest WR groups in the NFL. Miami is tied for 4th in the league at 4.7 YPC. Yet, none of this has improved Miami's offense. It has gotten progressively worse under Tannehill. I suspect with the offense we have in place if Miami played a QB that was willing to throw beyond the 1st down marker on 3rd downs and took chances down the field of play Miami, right NOW, would be a much better offense. No matter how many resources Miami throws around Tannehill is that really going to "magically" instill the qualities (leadership, clutch play, ability to carry a team on his arm, make big-plays, etc..) a team needs in their QB to win consistently? Teams with above-average QBs are the teams that consistently make the playoffs and challenge for the Super Bowl year in and year out, not teams that try to build a great team around a below-average QB paying them $10 mil per year.
Yeah, I agree with AdamC13 on this.. but to add one thing: you can't build a stacked team (in our case) just by lowering the cap hit of the QB from $20 million to $10 million a year. What would you do with the extra $10 million? No way you create a stacked team out of what we have right now with $10 million extra (we need OL, LB and CB help, and probably not just one guy at each position). So average QB with a stacked team vs. Tannehill on our current team is just not a realistic choice.
No, I'm not saying we'd have a stacked team with the extra $10 million. I'm just saying we'd at least have the opportunity to be better allocating his and Suh's money across the board. At the end of the day you have to draft better and have coaches that can develop and get production out of guys. Let's say we kept around our good value guys that left us during the Tannehill era in anticipation of his contract. Let's say we stuck with the 3-4 defense, we drafted Kuechly instead of Tannehill, we kept Moore and then drafted a QB later. We'd have a brighter future than we do now. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Moore + Kuechly with a development QB vs. Tannehill? VERY hard to say which is better. Either way, trying to find a franchise QB I think is the most direct route to building a playoff team. Building a great surrounding cast isn't easy in a salary cap era (+ the uncertainties of the draft). I'd rather put the extra effort into finding that QB that can get us over the hump.
I don't know man. I'd rather go with the rebuilding route. Maybe you're right because with our front office and coaching staff always sucks no matter who is there, so we have a better chance gambling on QB after QB than building an actual team. That being said, if we ever get a real HC, I'd rather have a run first, defensive team than relying on a single position, even if it's a franchise QB. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So McCarron did well for his first ever NFL game against a playoff division opponent. I'd like to see what he could do within 4 seasons if he was a starter. Edit: plus he didn't even have Eifert. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would be really shocked if Miami goes in the direction of a new QB in 2016, but there's merit to what you're saying so I think the doors are open should Tannehill not look good in 2016. The NFL is always evolving and with the constant turnover from teams churning through coaches there's certainly an argument that says it's just about gambling and trying to get everything to fall the right way. The game doesn't allow a coach or QB 10 years to develop these days. It's almost as though we live in an era where even a good player or coach might wind up with 4-5 teams before he's done.
Everyone agrees that Miami's offense has problems. You've listed those problems. It's strange to me to think that they all stem from one player though. I don't think the team would've anxiously signed Ryan Tannehill to a long-term deal if they believed all the struggles you bringing up are/were primarily Ryan's doing. I believe many of us feel the struggles stem more from coaching than anything else. I watched the Falcons today and they seem to be running a similar-looking offensive system to what we see each week from Miami. Matt Ryan is subsequently looking terrible and having one of his worst seasons. It was all check-downs today from Atlanta's offensive. It's all horizontal and nothing vertical. If it can (and does) happen elsewhere that tells you that maybe there are some bad offensive ideas (and coaches) floating around the NFL right now.
The not throwing past the first down marker has been debunked. It is not Ryan's fault, that is the plays he is given. Its been confirmed by a player.
So Tannehill's YPA is back in line with his previous three season averages. Currently ranked 22nd despite that miraculous Houston game with tons of YAC. 28th in 2014. 27th in 2013. 22nd in 2012. He's also wasting his athleticism and not even attempting to scramble, forget about designed QB runs. He's got 68 rushing yards and 0 rushing TDs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its simple, last year he progress in a progressive system. The NFL catches up with everything. Nothing changed and teams, especially within the division realized our tendencies. The offense didn't evolve which it absolutely has too. Expecting guys to always break tackles and gain lots of YAC is asking too much. Safeties didn't drop versus our offense. Very limited vertical routes and when run we'd only run one which never stressed the FS with a decision. If he struggles next year under a experienced coach. Then I will start to worry.
Did you see Philly late in the game, 3rd and long, bunch formation out of shotty, much like we run all the time...Bradford had no one open and got sacked. Thought that was interesting.
Just so I am up to date with the "why Tannehill is a great QB and Miami should keep him" formula... Tannehill played WR in college + Tannehill didn't have enough starts in college + Tannehill had Sherman for a HC in college + Tannehill's WRs dropped passes in college + Dolphins owner Ross sucks + Dolphins OC Sherman sucks + Dolphins WRs drop passes + Dolphins WRs always run wrong routes + WR Wallace sucks + Dolphins OL sucks + Dolphins OC Lazor sucks + Dolphins DC Coyle sucks + Dolphins run/pass ratio sucks + Dolphins running game sucks + Tannehill is "forced" to throw short + Tannehill is forced to stay in the pocket + Tannehill doesn't get to audible + Tannehill''s QB coach Taylor sucks + Dolphins HC Campbell sucks + Dolphins OC Taylor sucks + other QBs who won Super Bowl's early on were given many extra years to learn, grow and turn the corner + other QBs have great HCs + other QBs have great owners + other QBs have great GMs + other QBs OCs are awesome + other QBs running game are great + other QBs defenses are great + other QBs all get to audible + other QBs defenses don't let the opposing team score in the 4th quarter surrendering the lead + other QBs WRs never drop passes + other QBs have great OLs leaving them with all day to throw and never miss a block + QBR isn't valid + Win/Loss records don't exist + YPA doesn't really matter + Tannehill has had more obstacles to overcome than any other QB; THEREFOR Ryan Tannehill is a GREAT QB! I'm sure I am missing quite a few more. Please remind so I can add to the list of all the impressive things Tannehill does and has accomplished making him a Tier 2 minimum QB and Miami's most productive QB since Marino.
My train of thought is that in order for anything to work going forward, we need to address the offensive line first and foremost. I'm not saying that that is the sole excuse for Tannehill's woes, but it is a factor. Once the line is fixed, I would love for the front office to snag an elite running back and use Miller as a complimentary back. If we have an elite running game, that would take loads of pressure off of Tannehill and open up the field for him.
Still waiting on the list of QBs that have flourished with: - a bad oline - a bad OC - not allowed to audible - easily abandoned running game Oh that's right there aren't any, and since there isn't, its not valid. But yeah, what you said, cause, I dunno......why not? (Insert Fin-O insulting me without actually dealing with the question) (Insert jdang offering some stat that has nothing to do with what I'm saying) (Insert finfansdan ignoring all of it) (Insert finster and rock talking to other posters about how I'm ridiculous)
It's funny how much effort some of you go through to type up stuff that isn't an accurate representation of the people you're arguing against. Much of that wall of text are things you try to claim we're saying.
Did you forget that no QB has ever overcome the hand Tannehill has been dealt? We're simply the worst in every aspect ever... except Rivers and Mariota are both ranked ahead of Tannehill and their team records are worse... that's just this season alone. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rivers and Mariota's teams are worse than ours and they're both ranked ahead of Tannehill. That's just this season alone. Here come's the "no spin zone" from Fin D O'Reilly. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
WTF are talking about? No one. Not one single person on this board has been a bigger opponent of people counting W/L record as a QB stat. Read my goddamned signature for crying out loud. But you ignored my actual point, yet again, which makes me an effing oracle.
Really? Quote me on it. The simple fact of the matter is their teams are worse than ours and they're both ranked ahead of Tannehill. The facts are the facts. I'm just the messenger. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jesus. Here we go again. Where did I state we have a worse team then the Chargers or Titans? be warned, if you don't directly answer the question in bold, every response you get from me will ask that question and only that question until you answer it. There will be nothing else in my responses.
I never said you stated that. You're picking and choosing what restricts Tannehill when his team is better than that of Rivers and Mariota... yet they're both ranked ahead of him. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok so I didn't say it and it has literally not one single thing to do with what I said. You might as well respond to my posts with random words pulled form a dictionary then. I guess this is how you communicate, so I will try to reply in kind: Peyton Manning likes pizza.
Here's what I read when you list all the crap Tannehill has to deal with: "These guys are bad Those guys are bad Don't forget about this too" When all that matters is how bad their teams are. The Chargers and Titans are worse than we are, yet their QBs are performing at a higher level than Tannehill. What's embarrassing about this is Mariota is a freaking rookie and his team is tied for the worst record. What argument are you gonna come up with? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LMAO We've been arguing for how long that win/loss isn't a representation of the QB? And now, here you are, finally admitting it.
I never said win/loss is solely a QB stat. Quote me on it and I'll never come back to the forum ever again. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Win loss over time is a representation of a qb. Just about everyone including those who play the game, have played the game, are in the HOF, and the very QB you're defending, admit that. Its not the only thing you judge a QB on, but it's one of them.
You guys just can't accept that QBs with worse teams are playing better than Tannehill. You've gotta grasp at straws to pretend Tannehill is somehow more screwed than other QBs. He's not. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Too funny...Didn't know I owed you a list. It appears once again you think you're my boss, can randomly give me an assignment and I am supposed to do exhaustive research on what you think is important. A few problems with this: I have NOT received any form of payment for doing research you think is important. I could care less about the criteria you set up. It's appears important to you, NOT me. I don't have access to which QBs have audible rights, limited rights, no rights, etc...nor do I have any desire to take that on. After coming up with a list your response is too predictable. When the QB has success you will only argue (without actual data, probably waiting for someone else to create more lists) it means the OL and/or OC were good. What a WASTE of my time. It still wouldn't mean Tannehill is any good. I tell you what, if you provide me a list of all QBs audible rights and you are willing to pay me for my time and energy to create your list we can work something out. It also appears you have selectively forgotten that the article you posted a couple weeks ago quoted coach Campbell as saying Tannehill had more options (ability to audible) and it affected the rythm of his passing, so those got removed and he is passing better now. So your argument is that Tannehill, who had options in the past and it negatively affected his passing so had those options removed and his passing is now better is somehow being negatively affected for not having those options...do you not see the the fallacy in that line of reasoning? And did you see last week when Tannehill did have audible rights and input to the gameplan and Miami's offense ONLY scored 1 TD, when given the ball at the Ravens 38 yard line, as he only passed for 86 yards while being given excellent support from the run game against a team that had given up 27 points to the Browns the Monday night before and 5 TD passes today to Wilson? Good news though, Miami is playing the worst defense in Passing Yards Per Game (315) and 31st in sacks recorded (15) so your guy should have a better than his usual game tomorrow night.
Which is immensely ridiculous on your part. I listed 4 specific things. You turn that into nebulous bs, so you can make asinine points that have nothing to do with anything being discussed.
I didn't order you to do anything. I merely pointed out not one of you haters has even attempted to answer my very fair question.
Of course. If it's agreed that the QB is the most important player on the team and probably in all of sports. Well, obviously, he's going to be a big factor in wins and losses. He's not the sole factor, but one of the most important. It's why teams picking at the top of the draft are usually QB needy teams.
So you admit you're being selective about what affects QB play? How about we simplify it and take a look at worse teams and see if any QBs are performing better than Tannehill? Rivers and Mariota. Rivers is a long time veteran, I get that, but what about Mariota? He's a rookie and his team is tied for the worst record in the league. How is he less screwed than Tannehill? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Incorrect again. My argument for the first couple seasons was that Tannehill needed time to get on the same level as other QBs, due to limited starts. Combine that with the lack of support around him, I have felt that many of the criticisms thrown his way were unwarranted. I am certainly not as confident in Tannehill now as I was last season, however, I still think many of the arguments being used are flawed.
Dear god, what in the hairy hell are you talking about? Why is that no matter what I say, you just completely change it into something else?
What if Rivers, hypothetically, had this same level team for the next five years. He continued to put up stats, but the team continued to lose. Would you blame him? If not, then you can't say that win/loss is a representation of QB.
