1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Si.com - Sorry Adam Gase, even you can't fix Ryan Tannehill

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Bumrush, Oct 14, 2016.

  1. RGF

    RGF THE FINSTER Club Member

    6,066
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    NY
    Now, I`ve admitted in other posts that I`m on the edge with R.T. but this is just plain nuts. He`s "along for the ride" on a scoring drive that he eventually scores a TD himself, and the receivers get the majority of the credit. But, when the offense is inept and R.T. gets knocked on his *** over and over and his receivers run wrong routes and drop passes, then " Tannehill sucks" is the popular vote. Talk about a cant win situation. I`m not saying that RT is without a doubt the long term answer but to say he had very little to do with a late scoring drive week one in Seattle is just over the top reasoning .
     
    Springveldt, Mcduffie81 and resnor like this.
  2. jw3102

    jw3102 season ticket holder

    7,760
    3,486
    113
    Sep 4, 2010
    Maui, Hawaii
    While I agree that there are certainly a lot of questions regarding the QB's in this years draft class. There were also a lot of questions about the QB's in last years draft class too.

    Yet at this time, I have no doubt the vast majority of Dolphin fans would gladly take Prescott over Tannehill and he wasn't drafted until the Cowboys compensatory pick in the four round.

    I have no idea which QB's it will end up being and that is where great scouting comes in to play, but I would imagine that there will be two or three QB's taken in the 2017 draft who will end up having more successful careers than Tannehill.
     
  3. Phins_Fan_87

    Phins_Fan_87 Phins and Heat fan Club Member

    7,503
    4,979
    113
    Mar 9, 2013
    Weston
    if you put lipstick on a pig...
     
  4. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I think win percentage is a crappy way of looking at success fit first round picks. So many of those guys are picked by awful teams.
     
  5. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, and they make those awful teams better.

    Look at the QB's on that list that have winning records: McNabb, Pennington, Grossman, Eli, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Smith, Rodgers, Young, Cutler, Ryan, Flacco, Sanchez, Luck.

    There are obviously a few you wouldn't want and some not on that list you'd want, but there's a reason almost all good teams have good QB's. I agree it's probably better to just list the QB's you think are good and go with that, but as a simple stat win% for QB's that were picked on bad teams is actually a decent measure.. certainly not "crappy".
     
  6. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I'm just stating the facts, we had the ball on our 40, 2 plays later we're on the Seattle 2yd line, 2 pass plays totaling around 60yds, yds in the air = around 5-6, every QB in the league completes those throws, 2 short open throws, Williams and Landry made those plays, you or I could have made the throws.

    On the TD, the C and G plowed a lane to the EZ, QB17 tucked his head and followed, another, "any QB in the league makes this play" play.

    Realize, I'm not criticizing him, I'm just refuting the idea that we can give HIM "credit" for engineering some great drive, because he didn't, 60yds of big play he himself had very little to do with, is what that drive was, a nice 15yd pass to Stills to start the drive, and 4 typical short dump off passes and we're on the Seattle 2, lol, yes, he was along for the ride on that drive, I don't know how you can refute that honestly.
     
  7. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    You wanna play blind man, go walk with the shepherd, but me, my eyes are wide f'in open.

    ;)
     
  8. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yeah, it is crappy. Look at the list you gave. There's at least 5 on that list that should probably be second round picks or lower. That's why it's crappy. Putting a rookie on a bad team, and then using win percentage to judge him is crappy.
     
  9. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    From what I've gathered, GMs can be quite casual in how they use scouting reports. Owners and GMs end up picking who they want as long as the scouting report doesn't show any major red flags. In short, the scouts aren't running the show. Sadly, most teams really do have some elite(s) at the top "playing God." In the best of scenarios things bounce their way and there is a bit of synergy and some overlap in vision between the owner, GM and HC.

    I think a lot of QBs end up going in the 1st round despite mid-round "grades" from the scouts. Tannehill would be a great example of someone who didn't warrant the #8 overall pick. He hadn't produced or proven nearly enough. If he was a LB for example, he'd have been a mid-round pick. Just look at some of the names that have been 1st round picks over the last decade. It's almost comical how much gets overlooked because of the title "QB." It's obvious that teams are reacting to the correlation between passing and winning and the fact that the QB is integral to operating the offense. Look at how any chances a lot of these guys have who look mediocre even from the beginning. There's no other position where a guy who's not special can have so many chances. So, I think it's a safe claim to make that there are probably far more "reaches" at QB than any other position. QBs with major red flags and big holes in their games don't drop the way a DT or a LB will.

    You probably remember, but I went back and showed that pretty much any QB worth anything in the post-2004 era has been selected by round-2. The only guy who's done anything after that is Russell Wilson and again, he only fell because folks weren't sure how much his height would work against him. If he wasn't so short, he'd have been a 1st or 2nd rounder without a doubt. In fact, he was taken at the top of the 3rd I think so he only kind of fell out of round 2 before someone scooped him up.

    Point is, ever since the league changed (2004) and the rise of the elite QB happened with Manning, Brady, Brees, Rivers, Roethlisberger and Rodgers dominating there for a while, every team has been trying to find their guy, and not much has come of it. As a result, we get a sea of busts and mediocrity. The most steady QBs are still not elite: Matt Ryan, Andy Dalton, Joe Flacco, etc. The only teams to really go anywhere without one of the 6 elite QBs I named above were aided by veteran defenses: Ravens, 49ers, Seahawks, Panthers, Bengals, etc.

    My attitude is really that the era of the elite QB was as mirage. There were really only like 6 of those guys and at this point, QBs are simply over-rated and the only way to win (once again) is with a balanced/compete team. The quality of QBs in college is just not what it was back in the late 90s and early 2000s. QB'ing in college has evolved into something which involves a lot more running.

    I think that these two things are why the hit rates are so low with QBs. We think that elites are out there to be found when in reality they aren't. And secondly, QBs in college just aren't coming out with the skills necessary to be pocket passers.

    So, rather than agree with you based on stats. I would kind of agree, but more because I think there's a recognizable thing going on here. The presence of 6 Hall-of-Fame QBs all playing at once made everyone believe that getting one was the only possible way to be successful. Right now, teams who've bitten hard on QBs are in the worst position because they are over-leveraged.

    The other shoe is falling.

    But although it's not an exact science, it's still a very helpful process. Moreover, you're using statistical data that assumes all QB prospects are the same--which obviously they are not. Some come from pro-style offenses and some don't. Some have started 30+ games while others only have 1 good season to their credit. Some are running QBs who have put up big numbers throwing to open receivers while others have had to be more prototypical passers hitting guys on timing patterns through tighter windows.

    That was the whole point of my first post.

    Well, I think there's sufficient data in the case of most QBs. We've seen most of these QBs for some time and we're half-way through the college football season. At this point, a scout either likes Deshaun Watson or he doesn't, you know what I mean? There's nothing Watson is going to do to change anyone's mind. He's more or less the same guy this year, aside from being marginally better with his anticipation maybe.

    It's definitely getting to the point where folks are going to have to decide, Yes, I'd pull the trigger or no, I'd pass and look to either trade down or draft defense.
     
  10. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Then you need to go to the eye doctor :)
     
  11. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Can't just look at the list of QB's with winning records when evaluating win% as a measure. You also have to look at percentage of good QB's that don't have winning records. There aren't that many, meaning most QB's you think aren't that good got filtered out. And note that the list of QB's with losing records is far bigger, so most QB's are in the category you want them to be using win%. It's not as bad a measure as you think.

    Other stats like passer rating aren't that much better either.. really every stat will have the property that you'll get unwanted QB's in your list.

    So while I agree just choosing QB's you personally think are good is probably best, it's subjective and you'll have people fighting over who should be on that list. Not sure there's any approach where you won't have such problems. Point is.. success rate using any of these approaches (win%, passer rating, or likely your own personal list) for QB's taken in the 1st is pretty low.
     
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Since this is the gist of your argument, let me just focus on that.

    Look at the list of recent SB winning QB's. Since 2004, the QB's of the winning SB teams are: Brady, Roethlisberger, Peyton and Eli Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Flacco, Wilson. That's almost a who's who list of QB's. No, I don't think the era of needing a very good QB (and usually a great QB) to win the SB has passed. That's 12 years in a row you need well above average to absolute elite, even if Peyton in his last year is arguably an exception.

    Furthermore, all time 55.3% of all SB winning QB's were drafted in the 1st round, and 29.8% of them with the 1st overall pick:
    http://www.nfl.com/superbowlchamps/quarterbacks

    The odds are just so much in favor of QB's drafted in the 1st round that you simply have to adopt that strategy. It doesn't mean you'll get a very good QB. It just means if you don't TRY to get one in the 1st, you're more than likely not going to win a SB.
     
    roy_miami and Finster like this.
  13. Buckeyetroop

    Buckeyetroop Active Member

    437
    157
    43
    Sep 27, 2010
    You obviously haven't been watching Gase's reactions when RT does something RT like. He knows he's not an NFL QB.
     
  14. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    Don't get me wrong. I think that passing is often a necessity, but the narrative of passers dominating the league was not created by statisticians. Let's not confuse the statistician's narrative of "it's a passing league" (which is true and backed up by the importance of things like YPA) with ESPN's "you need an elite QB" which is not true.

    Statisticians are correct that if an otherwise solid QB (i.e. McNabb) elevates his play sufficiently well, he can reach the Super Bowl:

    2004 McNabb - 105 rating, 8.3 YPA, 31 TDs, 8 INTs
    2008 Warner - 97 rating, 7.7 YPA, 30 TDs, 13 INTs
    2011 Eli - 93 rating, 8.4 YPA, 29 TDs, 16 INTs

    This was also born out in the increase play we saw from Joe Flacco when he won in 2012. He played his best football during that Play-off run (117 rating).

    But if If you needed an elite QB, then guys like Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, Colin Kaepernick, Jake Delhomme and Rex Grossman wouldn't have gotten to the Super Bowl. That media-driven narrative came about roughly a decade ago when we had 6 future Hall-of-Fame QBs all competing against one another on a yearly basis:

    AFC: Brady vs Manning vs Rivers vs Roethlisberger
    NFC: Rodgers vs Brees

    So, yes, if you went back to the middle of the 2000s, you'd see that the league was absolutely controlled by the few teams that had the top pocket passers. In fact, between 2003 and 2011, I count that 13 of the 18 Super Bowl teams had pocket passers who were either great or would emerge as great.

    And yes, many of them had solid defenses at that point (i.e. 2004 Pats, 2005 Steelers, etc.). That is after all why they got to the Super Bowl. But the real message here, is that fans fell in love with QBs. Teams did as well. We now live in a world where any QB prospect with a modicum of potential is snatched up in the first 2 rounds of the draft. So it's not a question of 1st round QBs. Practically everyone is a 1st round QB these days.

    In a world where round 3 is the deepest a QB of any significant value will fall (Russell Wilson) saying "1st round" is ridiculously broad particularly considering that you can have a #1 pick like Andrew Luck who as polished as anyone ever and then a raw, developmental prospect like Tannehill only 7 spots down. So if you have the #1 pick and your options are Luck, Griffin, Tanehill, Weeden and Wilson you can obviously expect that there will be a lot of variation and that scouting will be immensely important.



    But consider that NOT A SINGLE elite, future Hall-of-Fame pocket passer has come into the NFL since the era of the big-6. Instead, what we see are a slew of pretty-good QBs whose success seems to be entirely tied to the strength of their teams. I think this is large due to the quality of prospects we see today versus what was coming out 10-20 years ago. QBs in college today are optimized to win at that level. When they come to the NFL, some can play and some are obviously way out of their depth. We're now constantly having conversations about "mobile QBs" and "spread QBs" and "option QBs" which were not conversations taking place in the era where your choice was Manning vs Leaf.

    To me, this is why we've seen teams start to move away from the elite-qb-plus-solid-D model and more towards dominant defenses with balanced offenses. Coming out of 2011, it was the Kaepernick-led 49ers and Reed/Lewis/Ngata/Suggs-led Ravens that did it. Since then the Seahawks, Panthers, Broncos, and now Vikings have looked like the best of the bunch.

    As we stand, the big-6 are declining. Peyton is gone. Rivers and Brees aren't what they once were. It's down to Rodgers, Roethlisberger and Brady.

    The rest of the NFL looks like a bunch of relatively average pocket passers: Fitzpatrick, Palmer, Eli, Stafford, Ryan, Flacco, Dalton, Luck, Bradford, Tannehill, etc. mixed with a few mobile QBs: Wilson, Newton, Taylor, etc.

    Of those pocket passers, are any Hall-of-Fame worthy? Maybe Eli because of his Super Bowls, last name and volume production?

    So the message is that the statisticians are probably still right. It's probably going to take a great year from one of these QBs, but it's going to take more effort from the defense than it did back in the mid-2000s when only 1 team (the Bears) actually made it with a dominant D. Moreover, the quality of QB coming out of college these days makes it necessary that you build a running game. While the HoF-caliber big-6 were famous for not needing much of a running game, it's a huge part of what the current crop of QBs need - hell they're a part of it. Most of them run.
     
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    OK.. first of all, very well written Greg! I understand your point of view better now, and one thing I definitely agree with is that you need elite play come playoff time but not necessarily an elite regular season QB.

    Having said that, I don't agree with many other things you said..

    Let's start with your claim about the need for a stronger defense today. For SB winners from 2000-2015 seasons, their regular season defensive ranking by points allowed is:
    1,6,1,1,2,3,23,17,1,20,2,25,12,1,8,4

    If anything, teams early in the 2000's needed better defenses. In general though, having a good defense has been important across eras. Yes, some years a weak defensive team wins the SB, but more often than not a SB winner has a top defense (or at least very good).

    Running game in the 21st century hasn't really ever been that important. The rankings there by yards per game are:
    5,13,27,27,7,5,18,4,23,6,24,32,11,4,18,17

    There's no evidence you need more than an average running game to win the SB, and I don't yet see evidence that has changed. This is also borne out by Y/A stats that show playoff teams have higher passing Y/A on offense and lower passing Y/A on defense, but they're not on average better than the league in rushing Y/A offense or defense.


    You also claim "NOT A SINGLE elite, future Hall-of-Fame pocket passer has come into the NFL since the era of the big-6". Sorry but I disagree with this. Russell Wilson is on track to be in the HoF. His stats are fantastic efficiency-wise and he has a SB win (which helps a lot, fairly or not). The jury is still out on guys like Luck and Cam Newton. Maybe they show over their career they can be as good as Rivers, etc.. we'll see.

    I think maybe there's something you have against mobile QB's? Not sure.. haven't paid that much attention to what you've said about them, but that's what it sounds like. This new crop of mobile QB's adds a new dimension to an offense, and you can't just measure them by pocket passer standards. If it works, it's good!


    Anyway, having said all that, I'm still not convinced one shouldn't go with the odds on this. I mean, just like you generally need a good or great defense to win the SB, you'll need a good or great QB, and as pointed out before those are usually in the 1st round. So you haven't convinced me we shouldn't pick a QB high, even if there are no "can't miss" prospects.
     
  16. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    We all know how recent rule changes have helped passing offenses in the NFL, passer rating is up, passing yards are up and points are up. Even pedestrian QBs like Tannehill are breaking records with respect to passing yards, and I believe Tannehill is like 4th all time behind just all time greats. And Carr and a few younger guys are on pace to have even more yards than Tannehill. What this does is give the teams with elite passers an even bigger advantage than they've ever had over teams with poor passers. Here's the thing though; this process is still ongoing. Average passer rating is up but it is still increasing every year. As is passing yards. So the gap between great and poor QBs should be widening, and will probably widen even more until we hit a plateau from the effects of the rule changes. So imo its more important than ever to find yourself a top 10 QB. You don't have much of a chance without one now and you'll have even less of a chance without one in five or ten years.
     
  17. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Since the 1978 rule change with illegal contact being 5 yards, the best passer rating has generally been between 30-50% above the average passer rating. Before 1978 it was often WAY more. But since 1978, that 30-50% rule has been very steady, meaning none of the other rule changes have affected that percentage difference.

    Of course this is percentage difference, so the absolute difference is gradually increasing each year as you point out. Keep in mind though it bounces around a lot in that 30-50% range, so this is an effect best observed over decades than years.
     
  18. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    What would be interesting Brad, is some type of chart that measures strength of pass + strength of rush, to see if there is a point you need to reach with the 2 combined, that kind of signifies, strong offense, whether your team strength is running or passing.

    Like say for instance, a scale of 1-20, and then perhaps playoff teams seem to have a 15 or higher, something like that, an offensive rating chart.

    Could that be done? Basically a statistically derived scale for offensive output, so you could attach numbers to it, combining yds, TD's, TO's, YPA, YPR and YPC and it all adding and subtracting up to "X"?

    What would be the hardest moving parts with that?
     
  19. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The only hard thing is doing the work haha! Methodologically it's easy (given a few assumptions like assuming a "line" fits the data well). Specifically, there's a method called multiple linear regression that takes the idea of fitting a line to data to higher dimensional space.

    So instead of fitting a line to data where you have one independent variable (e.g. Y/A passing) and one dependent variable (e.g. wins), you can now do that with any number of independent variables (e.g. your suggested list of yards, TD's, TO's, YPA, YPR and YPC...) and the dependent variable is either wins or whether they made the playoffs or not.

    The output is a set of numbers (weights) for each of your independent variables that signifies the relative value of each. The final predicted value can after the fact be scaled to any range you want (e.g. 0-20).

    Like I said.. only issue is doing the work. Only thing I'd point out is that with almost every such analysis you won't get a clean demarcation line between playoff teams and non-playoff teams. It's generally relatively muddy, but with a clear trend. The ONLY exception I've found is this:
    https://i.imgsafe.org/30d5a16687.png

    That right there.. comparing passer rating ranking vs. defensive ranking (by points allowed) is the ONLY case I've ever found with a clean demarcation line between playoff and non-playoff teams (from 2015 I think). Generally, the result will look more muddled, but with a noticeable trend like this:
    https://i.imgsafe.org/30e84c8643.png
    https://i.imgsafe.org/30ead8bbd3.png

    where the green circles are playoff teams and the red circle is the SB winner in those years (blue diamond is the league average). You can see that while there's a trend for playoff passing teams to be above league average in passing Y/A (but not rushing Y/A), there's no clear threshold above which you get playoff passing or rushing. And that lack of a clear threshold exists even when you combine stats, as one sees with passer rating.

    Anyway we'll see.. maybe I'll do what you're suggesting at some point. Takes some time but it's not TOO much work. Actually if the goal is to see what it takes to win rather than what it takes to be a playoff team it's easier (the way the databases are set up it's harder to see which are the playoff teams.. not my fault haha!).
     
    DolphinGreg and Finster like this.
  20. The G Man

    The G Man Git 'r doooonnne!!!

    7,480
    5,637
    113
    Mar 18, 2009
    I don't remember Tannehill ever being good against pressure (QB hurries and hits). Was he more mobile at times in the past? Yeah, I recall him throwing accurately on the run. But, his first OC deliberately kept him in the pocket to keep him from running at the first sign of pressure. To the best of my recollection, he has always suffered from standing flat-footed in the pocket while it collapses around (or in front) of him.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the SI.com writer though. He just doesn't possess the intangibles. The "it" factor all the great (or even just very good) QB's have. At the end of the day, he's a WR playing the QB position. And, it's really quite evident.
     
  21. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,648
    67,540
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    you can't fix someone who doesn't have what you need to win..

    leadership…feel for the game…instinct.
     
    gunn34 likes this.
  22. RGF

    RGF THE FINSTER Club Member

    6,066
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    NY
    But again, he had some of those qualities. More than he has now, so WHAT HAPPENED ? Whats your serious opinion dj .
     
  23. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    Firstly, I wouldn't recommend using a metric like net yards, points, etc. Football Outsiders provides a lot of averaged numbers like points-per-drive which (to me) make more sense in evaluating a defense. For example, good teams probably have more time-of-possession and probably don't put their defenses out on the field as much so using net yards or net points is biased towards "good teams" because their defenses are facing fewer drives and probably have more time between those drives.

    So here is the points-per-drive data for each super bowl. I would break it into eras, personally. Why start at 2000 for example? I think we see a clear distinction between pre-2004 teams which were dominant on D and post-2004 teams which were more scattered.

    1997: #6 over #5
    1998: #13 over #2
    1999: #2 over #12
    2000: #1 over #7
    2001: #6 over #7
    2002: #1 over #11
    2003: #1 over #10

    The average defensive ranking in this era was: 6.0

    2004: #4 over #6
    2005: #4 over #7
    2006: #28 over #2
    2007: #16 over #3
    2008: #2 over #28
    2009: #16 over #14
    2010: #1 over #2
    2011: #24 over #21

    This brief era was dominated by pocket passers. The average defensive ranking was: 11.1

    2012: #11 over #3
    2013: #1 over #19
    2014: #8 over #2
    2015: #1 over #2

    The average defensive ranking was: 5.9


    So if you look at it, we see that prior to the 2004 rule change, great defense was a key to getting to the Super Bowl. After the rule change happened and several future HoF QBs entered the league, the average defensive ranking dropped significantly. We saw defenses ranked at both the top and bottom of the league make the Super Bowl. Now that the era of the pocket passer has begun to shift, we see the average defensive ranking back to where it was prior to 2004.





    By and large I agree.




    If Russell Wilson and Cam Newton make the HoF it won't be on the strength of them being pocket passers. You agree I'm sure. It will be shown as proof that mobile QBs are legitimate. Notice I said pocket passers. That was kind of my point. College is changing what kind of QBs are coming into the league and therefore how OCs are having to structure their offenses and game-plan on Sundays.

    We're seeing a lot of up and down performance quite frankly. One day Colin Kaepernick and Tyrod Taylor can look unbeatable while the next they can look almost inept. So when you say "if it works, it's good" I think we need to be careful because while it obviously can work, the jury is still out on how reliable it is. Will the same happen to Mariota? Maybe.

    What about Russell Wilson and Cam Newton? Well, to me, they are both ahead of their competition. Wilson ran a pro-style WCO in college and is maybe the shiftiest and most elusive in the pocket compared with all the others. I think he's the best. Cam Newton on the other hand is the most like a RB. While Wilson and Taylor like to run about 100 times a year, Newton runs roughly 140 times and in tougher situations as well. He's the toughest of the bunch. I haven't seen a QB like him in college since he came into the league. I'm not sure you can hope to replicate what he does.

    So, am I biased against mobile QBs? That depends. If you give me someone like Wilson who's shockingly elusive and still incredibly intelligent when it comes to NFL football, I'm going to approve. If you show me that Cam Newton can actually get away with running like a RB, again, I'll approve. But in most every other case, I'm not a huge fan because of the inconsistency.

    So, with a guy like Deshaun Watson for example...is he as elusive as Wilson? Not to my eyes. Is he as tough as Newton? Well, run he does run between the tackles at Clemson. He's a consistent part of their rushing attack. That's kind of the point of Clemson's offense. But will he survive at his size doing what Cam Newton does in the NFL? I seriously doubt it.

    So as the biggest Clemson fan on this board, I can't fall in love with Watson. What's more, he's a great character (a la RT17) but also somewhat quite. That makes me doubt that he's the kind of leader a lot of people want to see. He's not a gunslinger type. He's a fit for Clemson's offense more than anything.

    My point was that QBs don't fall down the draft the way they used to. The furthest a good QB has fallen in this era is to the 3rd round. That was Russell Wilson. Every other QB of significance was taken in either the 1st or 2nd round. They are the only ones who are even given a shot though. If you're a college prospect with any modicum of potential, you'll be drafted somewhere (i.e. McCarron) and if you look at all like a starter you'll most certainly be taken by the top of round 3.

    So obviously, yes, you have to spend a high pick, in fact we both agree you probably have to spend a really high pick. In fact, it's getting to the point that we should view it like this:

    Early: Top-10 Pick
    Middle: #11 to #40
    Late: #41 to #75


    But as the game begins to shift back towards a healthier balance of offense and defense (which I showed above that it has) and we see that Russell Wilson and Cam Newton are the outliers in a sea of mediocrity in terms of these new mobile QBs, we should take heed that using a top-10 pick just to get a Kaepernick or Mariota or Tannehill is kind of stupid.

    If you're fairly certain that their is limited upside in a prospect, you don't draft him. That should've been the attitude with Tannehill. Most scouting reports did not have him evolving into Aaron Rodgers. The fans said that. They wanted to believe that. The scouting reports were actually quite right. Mayock said he excelled at out-breaking and struggled with in-breaking routes. Just as one example, that's very true. His anticipation wasn't great then and it's not great now.

    The biggest mistake teams are making now is in reaching too far for their QB and in over-paying for mediocrity. The 49ers game big money to Kaepernick. It hasn't panned out. The Ravens gave big money to Flacco. It hasn't panned out. Miami gave big money to Tannehill. It hasn't panned out. How many of these top picks haven't panned out?

    This is happening because while there are still candidates that deserve to be drafted highly, impatient teams are more willing to jump on anyone--which is the philosophy you're pushing. That's not smart. Picking Blaine Gabbert or Branden Weeden thinking they have the same odds of success that Andrew Luck does, well, that's not right.

    So this is where you need scouting--or at least some eye towards the college game--to understand whether someone like DeShaun Watson (just as an example) can become the next Wilson or Newton. I don't think there's any way he will. I wouldn't mind rooting for him as a Clemson/Miami fan but I wouldn't honestly expect greatness and he's probably the top prospect at this point. Him or Kizer.

    So if you don't have a great option, you ought to go somewhere else. With a team full of holes, it shouldn't be too hard to convince people that other prospects defense have great value, too.

    I'm not sick of mobile QBs. I'm sick of mediocre NFL prospects getting drafted ridiculously high just because they're QBs. That is stupid and is evidence that many NFL franchises do not realize that unless he's one of the elites, it really doesn't matter who your QB is.
     
    gunn34, resnor and cbrad like this.
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Great post Greg!

    It looks like our differences boil down to how much you trust the scouting. I view scouting more like a OK but not-so-great correlation. That is, to me scouting reports will certainly more likely than not put QB's that end up succeeding near the top of their list, but they tend to get things more wrong than right.

    Same with choosing HC's. It's so hard to tell who will succeed, even if they were already HC's before.

    This is why for me the odds are sufficient to gamble on a QB high even if scouts say there's too much QB inflation in the draft and in reality the QB shouldn't be taken in the 1st (besides, scouts don't all agree anyway). In other words, I'd build in the assumption that the scouts are often wrong into any calculation of whether to pick a QB high (vs. not so high).
     
    DolphinGreg likes this.
  25. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    I'd end on this...if you're not taking a guy who's NFL ready...if you are taking a mobile QB who's a project you would do better committing to a balanced passing/rushing offense and to building up the defense. There's no way you can ask some of these college prospects to carry a team. In fact, no rookie can do that outside of a few examples and even those often picked up wins against easy teams.

    But then you almost get back to asking when you want to move on from Tannehill anyhow. If you're going to build defense and a more balanced offense (which we know Gase prefers) then why not just stick with the QB with whom Gase is familiar and who (as we see today) can look pretty solid if given time in the pocket?

    LOL, I'm starting to wonder if maybe we all jumped the gun in bashing Tannehill. Tannenbaum prefers to build defense. Miami does need that. Gase prefers a balanced attack that can run. Miami does need that. We're still hearing that the organization is behind Tannehill. Maybe they aren't the idiots we make them out to be and maybe there's more synergy in their vision than we think.

    We keep thinking this team is looking at getting another QB...maybe that's not the case. If this team is rebuilding, it needs a tough and solid QB. Aside from the high price-tag, I don't see anything terribly wrong with Tannehill being the guy (at least in the short term) if this team is actually committed to rebuilding.

    I actually hope that somehow Tannehill can restructure because while he may not bring elite qualities, he could help the team through the next couple years in a lot of ways.
     
    resnor likes this.
  26. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    We definitely need a balanced offense (Ajayi showing today he might help out there!) and a much better defense, especially with better players at LB and CB.

    But I guarantee you if you want to win a SB you're going to have many situations where it really helps to have a QB that can carry the team when necessary. I've seen enough from Tannehill to know he can play well when all else is going right for him (especially protection) but that he can't carry the team. We need a QB that can carry the team when necessary, so I definitely think you try to improve all positions that need improving, and that includes QB even after today's very good performance by Tannehill.
     
    gunn34 and pumpdogs like this.
  27. MikeHoncho

    MikeHoncho -=| Censored |=-

    52,652
    25,565
    113
    Nov 13, 2009
    The "fix" (at least on offense) needed to start with the offensive line. Those guys did their jobs today and we saw the difference that made.

    Hell, I'm 110% sure that cutting Thomas and firing Turner sent a message to even Byron Maxwell on defense.
     
  28. GreysonWinfield

    GreysonWinfield Release The Hounds

    3,982
    1,434
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I didn't know SI was still around.
     
    Bpk and resnor like this.
  29. dolfan40

    dolfan40 Well-Known Member

    819
    311
    63
    Jul 15, 2013
    Germany
    [​IMG]
     
    Finrunner and Fin-O like this.
  30. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,648
    67,540
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    i just hope I'm wrong bud..
     
    RGF likes this.
  31. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    dont worry ...you are :)
     
    Finrunner likes this.
  32. Pandarilla

    Pandarilla Purist Emeritus

    14,282
    5,005
    113
    Sep 10, 2009
    Boone, NC
    Sorry, Greg Bedard, even you can't fix Sports Illustrated...
     
    Bpk likes this.
  33. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,356
    20,976
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Well....


    It seems every time the O-Line does their job RT has a great game. I think his passer rating was around 98. If not for the two dropped endzone TD passes he would have been over 120+ ( I believe)
     
    Fin D and resnor like this.
  34. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    Man, what a freakin' show this team put on today, eh? Ajayi running the ball like we haven't seen since Ricky Williams and the team actually running out clock towards the end. Really unbelievable if you've been watching because non of us saw that coming.

    I've said it a million times, but this was a clean slate, show-me-what-you're-worth kind of year for both the QB and the HC. I was willing to believe Tannehill was capable of much more and willing to believe Gase was a great OC, but I wanted to see it. I was willing to pass on both if they didn't show up. Today, they both certainly showed up and I don't think it was any surprise that the O-line was healthy and the running game was working.

    Pretty much every future move depends on whether what we saw today is real or whether it was just Pittsburgh laying an egg (which they are prone to do on the road). If what we saw today was legit and this O-line can perform like it did, sign me up. If that were the case, I'd happily keep Tannehill next year and just focus all my efforts on landing the best DEs, LBs and CBs I could. Throw TE in there as well.

    If Tannehill's gonna have a running game to work with and the team will be competitive (i.e. winning and in the Play-off hunt) then just keep things in place which aren't broken and enjoy the ride I say. I'm at the point where I'd rather just focus on getting to the Play-offs instead of trying to make everything perfect.

    It'll be interesting to see how the second half of the year unfolds. I thought Pouncey looked great today, btw. He wasn't out of shape like I figured he'd be.
     
    cbrad and danmarino like this.
  35. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,356
    20,976
    113
    Sep 4, 2014

    I couldn't agree more.


    The Dolphins seem to play to their opponents level. However, I saw fire, and heart, and a competitiveness in them today that I haven't seen since the Thomas and Taylor days. Hell, maybe even since the Marino days.

    It seems that every time RT gets some semblance of an O-Line he plays really well. The O-line played very good, but even when they missed a block they did it in a way that the RB or RT could still manage. No defenders in the backfield as the hand-off was being completed and no one in RT's face before he takes 2 steps back.

    Another HUGE thing I noticed today...No tipped passes. I honestly believe that the tipped passes have been more of a product of the o-line than RT.
     
    DolphinGreg and cbrad like this.
  36. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,648
    67,540
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    you and a few other better hope so:yes:
     
  37. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    Yeah, I loved the balance I saw in the offense today. I would just love to get enough from Tannehill that we don't have to put QB up as our highest need next year. If this team decides to start again at QB, it's going to be such a buzz kill because it's back to square one at the position, expectations will have to be set low and we'll be passing on more DEs and CBs that are so needed.

    I hope it's not too late for that to be a possibility. We know Tannehill's got a lot of weaknesses but he's flashed twice now this season and so much of his success seems to be contingent on stuff that ought to be achievable in terms of protection and rushing

    We'll see.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  38. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Totally with you on the hope part Greg. Not expecting it, but I really really hope we can roll with what we have.

    For me to be convinced though, Tannehill better make the case absolutely crystal clear because I do NOT want to be the 2010-2012 Atlanta Falcons where they had a decent QB in Matt Ryan with a great surrounding cast but they just couldn't come up big when it counted.. I think with a more dynamic QB than Ryan they'd have won a SB. That's what I fear with just an average or slightly above average QB and a great team otherwise (remember the QB's of SB winning teams!)
     
  39. Bpk

    Bpk Premium Member Luxury Box

    Exception Error: Faulty Premise that Ryan Tannebot is broken.
     
    Bumrush likes this.
  40. vt_dolfan

    vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    11 Game Try Out...

    He passed the test for game 1.

    10 games to go.
     

Share This Page