Good example. I think even though it's subjective Gase needs to treat that as an avoidable sack. I wouldn't be surprised if we see Tannehill better at throwing balls away in such situations in the future. Anyway, if you or anyone can actually post all (most of) his sacks that would be fantastic. Best is if we all look at them and decide how accurate we think Fahey is. I did a cursory search but no simple database. Gotta go out for a bit now.. maybe you or someone else can find that?
those things you listed does give me hope there is more ceiling..I still need improvement within in certain areas..not just your surface level improvement.
Here is another. Avoidable? http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-...ehill-sacked-by-Jurrell-Casey-for-9-yard-loss Trying to get my stopwatch on it, but it's 2.5 seconds at least. He's looking to that side (but it's pretty apparent his peripheral vision is not that great). Here is another. CLEARLY avoidable http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-...inique-Easley-gets-the-sack-on-Ryan-Tannehill Fahey cites only one avoidable sack all year. One. That has to be it. If I find another Fahey is wrong.
My comment wasn't to say our rushing was bad, just not as good (#2 overall in efficiency) as the raw numbers suggested. Lazor definitely underused the run (relative to NFL norms) which our opponents factored into their defensive playcalling. This made Tannehill's job harder and Millers job easier. So in 2014 even though our run game was efficient the problem was how inoften it was called.
And when did I do that? I think this is yet another case of "read before criticizing". You know I was asked that very question in this thread, and in post #47 I said: Isn't that clear enough?
How about this one from Seattle: http://www.seahawks.com/video/2016/09/11/michael-bennett-sacks-ryan-tannehill-loss-9-yards
I saw that one. Pretty unavoidable to me. Albert stalled him for a split second but after he broke through, Tanny didn't have a chance.
Oh.. I definitely stand by that quote. That has nothing to do with whether Tannehill's situation was the worst possible. All you need to justify what I said there is to admit that some other QB's would have probably done a lot better with the same surroundings. You know.. Marino "bit as a pup" as Parcells would've said. IMO there's no question Marino would have done MUCH better than Tannehill in the SAME surroundings. Agree? If you do and don't change the standards for QB's, then clearly a good portion of the blame must lie with the QB. The way to justify the "excuses" is to first point out Tannehill is a different type of QB that needs good surroundings to develop. Once you lower your standards to that (so he doesn't "bite as a pup"), then the excuses make sense.
OP's argument seems to support the argument that a franchise QB is not a key ingredient to winning Super Bowls. In fact it proves the opposite that a franchise Brees to Manning year is a detriment. Observe His example of four "franchise" QB's having 25 franchise seasons winning only two Super Bowls. In Fact Brady, who has won the most won none while having his highest QB numbers. CUZ DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!!!!
List the QBs that have produced higher than Thill with: - bad oline - no commitment to the running game - not allowed to audible You and the others have had YEARS to answer this riddle. If you can't do it, you can't say what you've been saying.
You want a serious debate. Act serious then. But you're not capable of that, so have your last word as usual. Maybe someday in the future you'll change (I doubt it).
No. The argument is not whether or not some QB could do better. Clearly I don't think Tannehill is the greatest of all time, so there would obviously be someone who might put up better numbers. This riddle was a result of people the last couple years blaming Tannehill for the lack of wins. I mean, despite the awful situation, Tannehill has still put up very good numbers. Show a QB who has been in a similar situation, ie, having those things missing, and has not only put up better numbers, but the team has won many games and been in the playoffs. Like, an actual QB, not an example of one you think might have been more successful.
Right.. and I just poked serious holes in the argument that Tannehill is the only QB in history that failed to have all the things you guys have been listing. Top 10 defense in 2012 and 2013, and good running game in 2014, etc.. Point is, you need to change the argument which is fine. But you guys don't actually have the evidence that the situation Tannehill has been in is as bad you keep proclaiming. I need the evidence. And how could I ever try to find a QB in a similar situation if you can't show me how to measure the situation? Not going to repeat this again resnor.
Here's how I look at the whole 'is it the o-lines fault or the QBs fault for sacks debate.' Over different o-lines, coordinators, head coaches and even teams Peyton Manning has consistently had one of the top ranked o-lines, he has never been sacked more than 29 times and averages about 17 per season. I think its reasonable to assume if you swapped Tannehill for Manning he would have cut our sacks in half over the past 5 seasons, at least. Another folly to the "95% of his sacks were unavoidable" observation is take a play like the one where he had a few d-linemen on him and in their clutches but he ducked and escaped and threw a TD pass to Matthews (in 2014 against Tennessee maybe?), lets say that same play happens in another universe but instead of getting away the d-lineman that broke through had actually sacked him, then in that case according to the tape it would look like an unavoidable sack, but we know it was avoidable because we saw a different outcome. The third thing I would say is most of the elite QBs know themselves and they know how much sacks affect their play. Rodgers, Wilson and Roethlisberger seem to be willing to risk sacks or getting hit to make big plays. For them they ride or die on the big play. Then you've got Brady and Manning who avoid getting hit at all cost, its not that they don't like big plays also but they know themselves and they know if they start getting hit they get off their game. Where does Tannehill fall on that spectrum? Sacks don't seem to affect him but he also seems to prefer to small-ball it as if they do. So I don't know and I don't think he knows which style is best for him either.
There isn't one in the last 10 years. I found if you want to be a perennial playoff contender in the NFL (the last 10 years) as it is now, you have to have a good front office and head coach that set and maintain a winning culture for the duration of the years you contend, a franchise QB capable of putting up franchise numbers as I defined in my OP and a good defense. If the defense is great, the QB can have an off year, which is usually offset by a good running game. There are exceptions to that every year, but that's the formula you need. And one I think we may finally have.
I'd say Tannehill compares favorably to P. Manning in that he's a more cerebral QB. This contributes to why both couldn't be considered to be clutch. Reasoning overpowers natural instinct. Disrupt their game, and they have problems improvising. Don't and they will carve you up. Cousins actually compares very favorably to Tannehill in that regard as well. Rodgers is the perfect QB, he can be cerebral or instinctive. And his accuracy is just off the charts. Brady folds under pressure and Roethislberger is a gun slinger that can stand in the pocket and shrug off would be sackers. I would classify Tannehill as a poorman's Manning.
And we've told you many, many times- - The line wasn't bad....they graded higher than Tannehill as a group every season you used that excuse - Miller and our RB's were around the league average in carries. We were as committed as anyone. - Tannehill could audible his rookie year...until he couldn't. That's obviously on him. That's the riddle...you're making things up to prove a point that doesn't exist. Wilson and Kap had worse lines and they went to the Super Bowl, but you keep beating this dead horse pretending like Tannehill was perfect the first three years except for when someone else messed up. It is delusional thinking.
I think the RT debate is stale now. There is obvious divide amongst the board. The front office and Gase obviously have decided to go with RT this year and have built a lot of skilled players around him to succeed. However, let's not be immune or stupid to the bigger picture in the NFL. Franchises expect big things from their qb's. They expect big stats, 4th qtr comebacks, low INTs and 30+ TD's. It's what sells jerseys, tickets and makes money. If expectations aren't big for your qb, then you either have crap surrounding him, or he is crap. QB/game managers are rare. They don't survive. It doesn't win you multiple championships With that said, Miami has been patient with RT. They haven't had any knee-jerk reaction and now with FO stability , are expected to benefit from that. However, as NFL fans, he could also crap the bed. We all need to unite and realize RT is the qb this year. And it's to the benefit if he is for many years. The past is the past. Does he still have bad habits? of course. Does he have some good attributes, including the deep ball? of course. Be that as you may, Miami has Gase, who is a qb whisperer. If RT is not the answer, after long quests to fix the defense and the line, then we will be in line like past teams, trading up for a qb, or having one drop to us.
No, you've poked holes in nothing. The argument about the four or five things he was missing, was a recent argument. That wasn't I regards to his first year pour two. This has been explained to you, but you continue to ignore it. So, if you want to actually address the question, which QB has been more successful without those four things, feel free, you'd be the first. Again, that argument was a response to people complaining about Tannehill being at fault over the past three years. You're making this more difficult than it needs to be. You don't have to quantify exactly how much of those things were missing, just were they missing.
Yea, I gotta get the yearly list they put out that identifies who can audible and who can't. I seem to miss it every year. For most of his career one QB has had a bad OL, lack of a running game AND no WRs who deserve to start in the NFL.. He is future HOF Phillip Rivers.
Oh piss off. I've asked the same goddamned question for years and all of you argue it, cry about it, and tell me I'm wrong...YET NOT ONE OF YOU can actually answer the simple effing question. And then act like I'm the problem when it is none of you who want a serious debate. All you want to do is ***** about Thill in as many ways as possible. You'll even fabricate definitions to words to avoid being wrong. The facts are the facts...no QB has ever succeeded in situations Thill has had to endure and further proof it was those conditions and not Thill is what happened last year. But still, the same defeated argument gets spewed from you guys, over and over and over and over....and you still can;t answer my simple (and unchanged) question... You also don;t get to talk about serious debate when you end every post to me crying about the last word. That is not only childish but weak in the argument department and also extremely hypocritical. You resort to it because you can't handle being wrong.
if he simply averages 1 or 2 off scripted runs for first downs a game...everything changes...everything, including all these poor offensive stats. our offense was 31st in total 1st downs 31st in converting 3rd down LAST IN 10 OR MORE PLAY DRIVES 27th in time of possession 28th in 3 and out drives Last in the NFL in 4th down conversions with ZERO 30th in drives that lasted 5 minutes or more Last in the NFL with offensive plays Last in the NFL in plays per drive courtesy of miamiron. that was from Gase. lets not complicate it to much when the proof is right in front of us. Just from watching the game closely I would venture to say Ryan maybe runs for first downs off schedule maybe 3 or 4 a season?..which is really bad considering the athleticism..Take a rogers, like JD mentioned, who does it at least once a game if not two or three times...and suddenly those third down conversion stats change, that TOP increases, that defense gets more rest, that stat about being the worst in football at play per drive and game change, those brutal to your teams physche 3 and outs get better..all not accounting for the residual affects it can have on a team and complexion of the game..
- Our line wasn't bad? Are you high? When we had all 3 of Pouncey, Albert, James we were like 7-1. Considering, we've played more than 8 games, and don;t have a winning record over those other games, I think a pattern formed...a pattern you guys are too tied up in your arguments to admit is there. - We we're in the bottom 10 in rushing attempts and dead last year before Gase as a team. Lazor was especially terrible at this. - Lazor took away the audible. Gase not only let him audible, but admitted publicly he needed to listen to Thill more and included him in the game planning. So, no, you didn't answer anything. Again, you've all been proven wrong a 100 times over with facts and last year alone should have been the final word on this....
It's called lawyer-ese. lol I guess if I'm proven right on one topic I'm always right on everything else. If I'm questioned, I'll just show where I was right before.
IMO, that's a horrible example. RT felt the guy behind him as much as he saw the guy in front of him. If he attempts to throw it away what's to say the guy behind him doesn't strip sack him? That was unavoidable unless RT, right from the snap, knew Albert was going to get beat without even getting a hand on his guy.
With the chance that I may upset a certain person. Tom Brady has had a great run game, great defense, great coach, and great OL nearly every year he's played. And cheating.... lol
What was the situation? What was the score at that point? Were they in "4 down territory"? I think this is a bad example...
Maybe not all years, but he definitely had to deal with all four in 2015 (I consider an underutilized run game equivalent to a bad run game).
The problem with this Dan is that Fahey is a known Dolphin fan, and this is absolutely a fan driven article, and isn't actually close to the truth.
My whole thing with this is, does he have some flaws? Yes he does, but he has improved every year on the field and had tangible improvement last year with proper coaching. If you still don't feel he is the guy that's fine but replacing a better than servicable QB in this league is no easy task. We've been trying since 2000 to get a replacement for Dan and clearly the best we've had is Tannehill. I am of the mind that a team should always draft a QB later to try and find a guy to develop. I don't think we've really had the luxury for a while, but resources permitting you should do it. If your development guy doesn't work out, you move on and try another one. Who knows, you may end up with a Dak Prescott or Tom Brady in the later rounds. It's a gamble but it does pan out pretty frequently. All that said, Tannehill despite his problems is more than capable at QB. I would love to see him take over games like Dan did. I would love to see him display a little better pocket presence, but the guy has talent and you can certainly win a Super bowl with him. Frack, if a stiff like Trent Dilfer can get it done, Thill certainly can.
The real problem is, it took perhaps the greatest D of all time and one of the few 2000yd RBs in NFL history to get him a ring, and it wasn't an easy trip. Over half the QBs in the league could have won a SB with the 2000 Ravens, Dilfer was a cheap street pick up, and they were so enamored with him that that was his only year in Balt, after winning the SB, they let him go...
You could say the same thing about most QB's who have won the Super Bowl. Montana, Bradshaw, Brady, and a slew of other QB's have won Super Bowls with once in a generation defenses.