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

Why the Ryan Tannehill era is over in Miami

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Finster, Dec 19, 2016.

  1. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Don't forget the we should get rid of cam wake to free up cap space
     
    smahtaz, Fin D and DePhinistr8 like this.
  2. fin13

    fin13 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,695
    1,237
    113
    May 29, 2009
    Waterloo
    one game, see what happens Saturday when they play a real team.
     
  3. Sloopy

    Sloopy Member

    79
    52
    18
    Dec 16, 2016
    It's been done 14 times by a QB with 300 or more passing attempts in a season, and 12 of those were since 2004, when the league changed the rules to favor the passing game.

    In other words, it's become far more likely to happen since the league changed the rules. "Historically good" in terms of the passing game was redefined in 2004.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    That doesn't change his point all that dramatically.
     
  5. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Ever try to stop full sprint and comeback for a football with an all world athlete having a better chance of catching it than you? Stop this headline garbage, go back and watch every throw from Ryan to Wallace (we both have the pass) do your best to watch it without bias then comeback here and tell me that Mike Wallace one of the best deep threats in the NFL this decade is really the REASON Ryan struggled.

    If you are ever to become a good writer beyond this site, you have to disect scenarios with an open mind and have the ability to look at the film and say....you know what....I was wrong.

    The catch radius excuse is textbook romper room message board fan speak. You, are better than that.
     
    dolphin25, Rock Sexton and Finster like this.
  6. Sloopy

    Sloopy Member

    79
    52
    18
    Dec 16, 2016
    I respectfully disagree.

    Also consider that the team is investing a huge monetary expenditure in a head coach whose selling point was his ability to coax maximum potential from a quarterback, and the team's goal in my opinion should be acquiring an elite QB who is coached to play at his maximum potential, thus making the Dolphins highly likely to dominate the league.

    Paying such a head coach a hefty sum to make an average QB slightly above average is getting far less than the team's money's worth from that enterprise. The team is then left in the position in which it has to compile one of the league's best defenses to be as dominant, which defeats the purpose of the expenditure on the "QB whisperer" head coach.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  7. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    We have waited 4.5 years to see a resemblance of consistently good QB play from Ryan, Gase has helped him tremendously..and Ryan has displayed the work ethic to absorb this. He also deserves a lot of credit for being mentally tough enough to not let those bad experiences ruin him for good.

    I think at this point we have him in a good place and he is a very good QB who doesn't need everything to be perfect around him to succeed. The 49er game proved that much to me. So parting ways with him now, after all we have put up with?? would be nothing less than tragic.
     
    MAFishFan, smahtaz, Boik14 and 2 others like this.
  8. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    But it doesn't really change it.

    2015: Wilson - Didn't win SB
    2014: Romo & Rodgers - Didn't win SB
    2013: Foles & P. Manning - Didn't win SB
    2012: None
    2011: Rodgers & Brees - Rodgers won
    2010: Brady - Didn't win SB
    2009: None
    2008: None
    2007: Brady - Didn't win SB
    2006: None
    2005: None
    2004: P. Manning & Culpepper - Didn't win SB

    So, there's only been 3 guys to break the 110 rating for the season multiple times, P. Manning, Brady, Rodgers. All considered to be 3 of the all time greats. That was v's point.

    A team should always be bringing along QB talent all the time no matter who they have. But to act like there's a problem because a QB doesn't have multiple 110+ seasons makes no sense. +110 is effectively meaningless.
     
    Boik14 and VManis like this.
  9. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    Perfectly legitimate idea Finster. Main problem? It's based on only one game. A game against a BAD team. A game against a run-blocking defense.

    Other considerations -
    Gase has already said Moore threw in some unscripted plays, so it's difficult to say that the offensive product is a result of 'what Gase wanted to do'.

    Matt Moore is 32.

    Bottom-line - time will tell.
     
  10. VManis

    VManis Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,753
    9,844
    113
    Nov 10, 2010
    12 times in 12 years and half of the time it was a guy named Manning, Brady or Rodgers. So you are basically saying the top QB in the league in any given year. Sure you aren't setting the bar too high?
     
    Fin D likes this.
  11. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Not too mention it translated to precisely one SB win.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2016
  12. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    Dude! Be careful!

    [​IMG]
     
  13. evo8904

    evo8904 Active Member

    180
    52
    28
    Dec 31, 2015
    Tampa, FL
    Tannehill is a good QB and we can win with him. However, if MM continues to have good games for the remained of the season then the best option would be to trade Tannehill. I wouldn't release Tannehill at all, I would want some picks for him. Look at what the Vikings gave up for Bradford lol. Trading Tannehill will give us draft picks and free up cap. Last year, Denver showed that you don't need eltie QB play to win, just a badass defense. We can probably win just aany games with MM or even Romo.
     
  14. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    Know what I love in all of this... We actually have two QB's on this roster who are apparently capable of playing well in this system and for this HC. That's a great feeling. One we haven't always had in Miami.

    While I don't fully agree with Finster's explanation on why it's over, and that it's over right now, I can see his point if that's truly what he believes and feels. We have no idea what Adam Gase is thinking though. I think a lot of his interactions on the sidelines are frustration with things just not going the right way at times. Not necessarily directed at anyone in general, I feel like the guy just hates to lose, and hates when things don't go well. Look at his first career head coaching win against Cleveland. Most coaches would be happy just to get their first win, he was rather disgusted with the team even with the win. I personally think that's reading into it too much.

    Is Gase maybe a bit frustrated he cant run his system the way he wants, if he is indeed limiting it for Tannehill. Maybe. Sure. The only one though who knows that is Adam Gase. From what he's shown us this year as HC, he can do whatever he pleases at the position IMO. I'm just not sure what the plan would be if they do chose to move on from Tannehill. I wish we could combine the best of Moore and the best of Tannehill. Hopefully Tannehill learns something watching Moore play, and starts pushing the ball downfield more. Either way, it'll be an interesting offseason.
     
    dolphin25 and smahtaz like this.
  15. Sloopy

    Sloopy Member

    79
    52
    18
    Dec 16, 2016
    The point I made originally was that if Gase could coax 110 out of a 103 guy, that would be a vast improvement over coaxing 95 out of an 88 guy. So the bar is a 103 guy, who jumps to 110 with Gase's coaching.

    Obviously if Gase can't coax 110 out of a 103 guy, the point is moot. But the team appears to be paying him as though he can, and so the effort again in my opinion should be to acquire a QB who's capable of making that jump from 103 to 110 with the benefit of Gase's coaching, rather than feeling satisfied with a jump from 88 to 95.
     
  16. Destroyer

    Destroyer There for every play.

    3,770
    1,500
    113
    Oct 25, 2010
    Maryland
    Amazing gif.
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  17. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I think the problem with the premise you're laying out is the assumption that the right coach can squeeze a consistent 7 (or whatever number) QB rating points out of a given QB. Coach X may be able to turn a 93 guy into 100 guy but that doesn't mean he can take a different QB from 103 to 110. That's the problems with using these numbers, we tend to consider them as a constant, when they aren't.

    Gase has already made changes that took Thill from average to above average. His QB rating during the streak (after learning this new offense) has been in the 100s. That is what is important. He can't take just any QB and get him those numbers, as evidenced by Cutler, who he helped but is not anywhere near Thill.

    To further the notion that another QB may be better here than Thill, then the route you ought take should be explaining how QB X's skill set sets up better with what Gase might actually want to do on offense.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2016
    Sloopy likes this.
  18. Vinny Fins

    Vinny Fins Feisty Brooklyn dolfan ️‍

    3,797
    2,900
    113
    Oct 26, 2009
    Bklyn
    It's like you said "hey everyone around here is happy. We can't have that."

    [​IMG]
     
    smahtaz, Rocky Raccoon and Fin D like this.
  19. CaribPhin

    CaribPhin Guest

    Lol, #mainslogic

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
     
    vt_dolfan, scotty_irnbru and Fin D like this.
  20. Dolphins Dad

    Dolphins Dad Member

    88
    77
    18
    Dec 12, 2016
    There was a guy on another site, Shouright. He did some crazy Matt Moore thread a few years ago. But it kept us entertained for months. This thread is going to be legendary.
     
    vt_dolfan, SICK and Fin D like this.
  21. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    hahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhaha

    He was here to, then....

    He is no longer here.
     
    Dolphins Dad likes this.
  22. Sloopy

    Sloopy Member

    79
    52
    18
    Dec 16, 2016
    Those are good points.

    The effect of Gase is going to be situated in an equation consisting of PREEXISTING QB ABILITY + GASE + [OR -] SURROUNDING VARIABLES.

    The point I'm making here is that if the team is paying Gase to be a "QB whisperer," it should seek to maximize the first input in that equation, the QB's preexisting ability.

    If the team had hired a defensive-minded coach, the primary roster-building effort would be far different.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  23. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't keep bring in QBs with the right skill set for Gase to develop. That's sound strategy for building a team or even draft picks. I don't think however, you should spend high resources on it when you've already got a guy playing in the 100's, especially when there's areas of deficiency at OL, DL, LB, TE, etc.
     
  24. Phins_Fan_87

    Phins_Fan_87 Phins and Heat fan Club Member

    7,503
    4,979
    113
    Mar 9, 2013
    Weston
    is there a scenario where we can rework tannehills contract?
     
  25. Hiruma78

    Hiruma78 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    lol, someone is still upset about Wallace :pointlol:
    the guy is a playmaker and still he is a limited wide receiver, a body catcher with questionable hands
    I know that love is blind, but it is what it is.
    And I think the numbers (but maybe they are biased too and don't have an open mind, who knows) are very clear about Ryan's deep ball to any wide receiver not named Wallace.


    but just for fun, this unforgettable piece of work, where he dropped a game winning touchdown, while Ryan was blasted as usual

     
    MAFishFan and Fin D like this.
  26. scotty_irnbru

    scotty_irnbru Well-Known Member

    855
    610
    93
    Oct 12, 2013
    Dundee, Scotland
    So to confirm. We are smarter than the team who is giving us picks for RT then we are turning around and taking Romo. He isn't good enough for us but is for some other team? Why are we the smart ones in that scenario?

    We don't need elite QB play? We don't have that already and you're annoyed? I've literally no idea of the point you are trying to make.
    RT > MM. Simple as that. Who really cares what his salary is? You aren't paying it, the people in charge are happy paying it. I remember this last off season the felatio of Brock that went on around here. We'd miss RT far more than he'd miss us.
     
    LI phinfan likes this.
  27. scotty_irnbru

    scotty_irnbru Well-Known Member

    855
    610
    93
    Oct 12, 2013
    Dundee, Scotland
    You phrased that wrong.

    "I hope RT is done. What is the exit plan?"

    Ridiculous. What other wild suppositions have you got? Done....
     
    Dolphins Dad likes this.
  28. scotty_irnbru

    scotty_irnbru Well-Known Member

    855
    610
    93
    Oct 12, 2013
    Dundee, Scotland
    Back to club?
     
  29. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    I will say that if Gase is an analytics guy he should at least think about it. Though he shouldn't be too impressed with himself either.

    passing offense.png
     
  30. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Not that I'm advocating getting rid of Tannehill, but the answer to this is Adam Gase. You're likely to get more out of a QB than other teams.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Actually the data suggest the assumption is valid (surprisingly).

    Pick almost any starting QB you want that has started 5 or more years (I did this only for QB's that are still starting) and the standard deviation of his passer ratings almost always lie in the range of 25-28. That means the one thing that is different is the mean.

    So if the effect of a coach on a QB is to get him to perform say at X% higher than he normally would, that X% has to first be translated into that QB's personal standard deviation units, which happen to all be around the same. So the "units" for different QB's are similar, meaning coaxing 7 extra QB rating points across starting QB's is comparable.

    Notable exceptions: Tannehill and Luck both have slightly lower standard deviations at 23.4 and 23.7, respectively. It basically means they are ever so slightly more consistent in their passer ratings than most other starting QB's.

    btw.. this doesn't mean the same coach will have the same effect on different QB's. It just means that it's on average equally difficult to raise QB passer rating by 7 points no matter where you are on the scale, at least for starting QB's.
     
  32. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    None of that countered my point.
     
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Only in a very technical sense..

    Point is, that calculation shows it's equally likely (from a purely statistical point of view) for a coach to raise QB A's rating 7 points as it is to raise QB B's rating 7 points (i.e. it doesn't depend on where on the scale you are). So sloopy's assumption is valid on average.

    But yes of course we don't know precisely what Gase's effect will be on a different QB.
     
  34. RealDolphinsFan2

    RealDolphinsFan2 Member

    68
    45
    18
    Oct 26, 2016
    This thread is too funny. Must be tough being so wrong about Ndamukong Suh huh finster, I guess I understand the need to feel right about something. But just like with Suh, ur way off base. It's ur opinion and ur entitled to it, but anyone with a shred of common sense or football knowledge can see through ur b.s lol.
     
    Dolphins Dad likes this.
  35. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Well it isn't actually based on one game, I predicted that the O would look different under MM, because I had already come to the conclusion that Gase didn't trust RT to run his full O, so that was before this game, not based on the result.

    All the great QBs have unscripted plays, that is part of what makes them great, to improvise on the fly.

    I'm not advocating MM as the heir apparent, I'm just theorizing that RT is done here, MM can hold down the fort for a year or 2 while we search for a new QB.

    A couple of questions;

    Have we seen the best of RT?
    Was what RT did this year worth 20 mil?
    Is he capable of leading a team to the SB?

    Imo the answers are yes, no and no, and the contract they made for RT has this year as an out.

    To me it's a pretty simple equation, I understand if people have a differing opinion, this just happens to be mine, and when I predicted the O looking different, that put it on lockdown for me, again, imo.

    Thanks for the civil discourse Galant!
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  36. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Just for fun, please tell me how I was so wrong, and so off base with what I said about Suh?

    Specifically, what was it that I said about Suh that was so wrong and way off base?
     
  37. RealDolphinsFan2

    RealDolphinsFan2 Member

    68
    45
    18
    Oct 26, 2016
    Dude, u think there's 4-5 dts in this league better than suh, there's not. U think he's weak at the point of the attack and lacks strength, he doesnt. Basically everything you've ever said about him is wrong. U claim u have "studied" his film from detroit, but u have no idea what ur looking at. U claim he has little to no chance at the Hof, wrong again. Suh has been an absolute monster ever since setting foot in Detroit, and for u and ur "extensive film study" to disagree with all of the other true experts about this sport and this man, tells me everything I need to know about ur "theories" and the true extent of ur football knowledge. I won't even get into tannehill because ur negative opinions of Suh has affected my perception of u to an extent where i can't take anything u say seriously. Kind of like the people who like to pump up Russell Wilson as this elite qb. He's an excellent player and one of the best young QBs in this league, but he's extremely far from elite like a Tom Brady or an Aaron Rodgers, I'd even put Cam over him. Wilson could have another stinker in the playoffs this year like the last 2 and people would still consider him elite. Y? Not because he is, but it's the narrative many people want to believe whether it is true or not, doesn't really matter.
     
  38. Galant

    Galant Love - Unity - Sacrifice - Eternity

    19,127
    11,058
    113
    Apr 22, 2014
    A pleasure.

    If I may - your prediction may not be based on one game, but since it states that the Dolphins offense will look different, it can only be validated by having time to review that offense - something we've only had one game to do. So I'm not sure the prediction can be confirmed at this point. Having said that, I'm not sure a different looking offense is that significant an indicator as to whether the Tannehill era is or isn't over. I would expect different QB's to lead into having different offenses assuming their styles are different and you have a HC who both can and will change the offense to suit the QB. I think both of those are true for Gase. That being the case, the bigger question is whether or not Gase is more comfortable/happier/sees more potential with the offenses he can run through Moore, than he is with Tannehill. I think we agree on that notion.

    It's possible that might be the case, but my guess is that not even Gase would know that right now since he's only had one game with Moore at the helm and Gase has proven himself to be the sort of coach who patiently waits and watches before making decisions. So I think it's safe to say that Gase will be evaluating Moore and that it's possible he ends up preferring Moore. I don't think it's safe to say that he definitely will prefer Moore, nor that he has shown indications that he is definitely happier with Moore. It might not even be safe to say that he will stick with Moore when Tannehill is healthy even if Gase does prefer Moore, because other factors may tip the balance towards retaining Tannehill. Some examples - Gase might not like Moore's age, he may not see the difference between them to be that great, Gase might be the type to cave to pressure from a FO or Owner against his better judgement (although I'm happy to say that so far I doubt that's the case) - or any combination of these and other possible factors.

    I simply think it's too early to make any sort of judgement call on Moore, or Gase, at this point, after one game against a bad opponent.

    To answer your questions:

    Have we seen the best? I've no idea. I hope that doesn't seem like a cop-out but I really can't say whether or not we have - it seems premature considering we're in the first year of yet another offense.

    Was he worth 20 Million? I may disappoint you here too. I hate contract $ questions. There's simply no way to compare contracts of different QB's because there are too many other factors influencing price beyond talent - every year sees different levels of demand, supply, team cap scenarios, changing cap limits and contract structures and 'shenanigans'. I don't concern myself with comparing contracts. Instead, if anything, my only concern is with percentage of team cap consumed by any given player - and even that isn't final because need can overcome ideal cap figures. The real point of excellence in FO success is finding ways to draft, develop and maximise talent in a balanced way across the roster, which allows for fluctuating payments to retain 'star' players. So all that to say, I almost never bother to consider contract numbers in evaluating a player. I use them to evaluate a FO.

    Is he capable of leading a team to a SB? I don't know, but I'm going to say probably. Just getting to a SB requires far more than a talented QB, it needs good coaching, team balance, positional depth, team talent and consistency. Too many of those have been lacking on this team during (and before) Tannehill's tenure. It's looking now like we have a quality HC who is starting to maxmise/bring out the talent of this team and manage the lack of balance. Those to me are good signs that we might have a SB level HC. The team's performance has also indicated that we have some key talent in different positions - I truly hope that the FO and Gase can find ways to hold onto that talent next year and onwards while also adding to it. Consistency has also improved and that's also a big responsibility of the HC and his staff in creating an accountable and success-driven/performance-driven culture. If Gase and the FO can do their part in building those elements of a SB-quality team then can Tannehill do his part in leading the team along the path? Based on this year, I'd have to say it's definitely possible.

    What are the markers one looks for in evaluating that sort of leadership ability? Consistency. Versatility/adaptability. X-factor leadership qualities. Throwing talent. Decisiveness/good decision making. Red-zone and 4th quarter performance/"clutch" performance.

    Looking at Tannehill's performance this year I think he's shown himself to be greatly improved and capable in all those areas.
    His performance numbers in general have improved. His consistency too. He's shown ability to make throws from the pocket, on the move, or even make runs. His decision making hasn't been perfect, far from it, but it's improved as the season has worn on. The team definitely has shown a love for Tannehill which seems to indicate that they are happy to have him as a leader. He can definitely make great throws all over the field. His red-zone and 4th quarter performances (and not just his - the whole team's) have improved to a good level.
    I'm not in any place I can look up numbers, so apologies for that, however, I've seen indicators that Tannehill can lead a SB-quality team to a SB. And to clarify with a contrast, I don't think Tannehill has proven himself to be a sub-par QB who couldn't lead a SB-quality team.

    None of this is a guarantee of anything, of course. The 'problem' with football is that it is the most diverse and multi-faceted sport on the planet. There are so many variables that effect success - and which can direct and influence opinion and statistics. However, at this point I don't think we've seen anything in Tannehill that would warrant Gase wanting to ditch him in favour of Moore specifically. I think there is plenty of reason for Gase to stick with Tannehill for next season, and not evidence of anything in Moore to dislodge that - yet.
     
    Finster likes this.
  39. Big Phin

    Big Phin Active Member

    108
    88
    28
    Dec 29, 2011
    I was thinking the same thing. Matt Moore is a hell of a backup and like I said on another thread, we are lucky to have him. I really like how Tannehill seemed to get better under Gase as the season progressed. I know some would disagree and I understand why they do, but I did see many positives.

    Speaking of Gase, I think we got a steal with this guy. I really like him. We may not make the playoffs this year, but we're in the conversation. That's more than what we've had in a while.
     
    MAFishFan likes this.
  40. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No it doesn't. Nothing in the data you showed indicated that if Coach A could raise QB X's qb rating from 93 to 100 then Coach A could raise QB Y's qb rating from 103 to 110. Your data didn't show, point to or imply that...at all.
     

Share This Page