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

Is Ryan Tannehill the long term solution at QB?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Chuck Wilson, Nov 1, 2015.

Is Ryan Tannehill the long term answer at QB for us?

  1. Yes

    44 vote(s)
    40.7%
  2. No

    39 vote(s)
    36.1%
  3. Not quite sure, need to see more

    25 vote(s)
    23.1%
  1. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    But Rodgers is better than Tannehill, correct? Or, is the argument that Tannehill should be as successful as Rodgers behind a bad oline?
     
  2. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Collinsworth made the point that his first read was never open, if your first read is never open then the o-line has to block longer, which will make them look worse. When Rodgers is "on" he knows which guy is likely to be open which means his first read will be open more often, which will make the o-line look better. As always sacks can be mitigated by better play calls and better QB play.
     
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yeah...so, Rodgers looked bad because the oline, is what I'm hearing.
     
  4. yoge

    yoge New Member

    195
    60
    0
    Dec 29, 2013
  5. MonstBlitz

    MonstBlitz Nobody's Fart Catcher

    20,952
    9,770
    113
    Jan 14, 2008
    Alexandria, VA
    The more impassioned the QB debate becomes on this board, the more indicative it is that the QB is not getting the job done. IMHO, it's still way too early to write Tannehill off. If he gets through this 4th season without improvement and no playoffs then fans can officially start "grumbling".
     
  6. emocomputerjock

    emocomputerjock Senior Member

    5,649
    1,853
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    DC
    resnor likes this.
  7. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,402
    14,758
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Ok we can end the thread now. Omar Kelly has spoken. The pro tannehill side has won. Omar wants to draft a new QB which means tannehill will get his oline next year and be in the pro bowl ten years straight. Thank god Omar chimed in
     
  8. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    96,652
    49,536
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    he can do it , just have to change his whole philosophy on how he's going to attack defenses.

    I look forward to him making those changes starting this week.
     
  9. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    96,652
    49,536
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    so what is your point...that qb's can perform bad when their olines play bad..lol...no sh##...how would you like to evaluate the qbs with that conclusion.
     
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I don't know, man. I just think it's stupid to try to come to real conclusions with what he has to deal with. If an elite QB, with more experience, can look terrible behind a ****ty oline, why should we expect Tannehill to look great?

    I just think he needs a decent oline. Now, some people don't want to give him the line, and see how he looks. They just want to go after a better QB.
     
  11. MikeHoncho

    MikeHoncho -=| Censored |=- Club Member

    52,689
    25,584
    113
    Nov 13, 2009
    Are you really criticizing the dude that had Legedu Nanee pegged as a pro-bowler?
     
  12. DevilFin13

    DevilFin13 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    8,424
    3,687
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    I think the better question is, "Will the offensive line and coaches allow for Tannehill to prove whether he is the long term solution at QB?". I think that answer, bafflingly, continues to be, to be determined.
     
    resnor likes this.
  13. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    4,037
    1,101
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    The coaches don't tell him to check down. The OL doesn't ask him to back into sacks after they have pushed the DE's out wide like they are supposed to do.
     
    Finster likes this.
  14. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Rodgers has a 110 QB rating behind that Oline this year, that includes this last game, every QB has bad games, even with good olines, so you can't isolate this 1 game.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  15. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Do you even try to understand what I'm saying? Or, do you prefer to just reinterpret what I write, to make it into something I wasn't saying?

    Yes, every QB, even with good olines, has bad games. Yes, Aaron Rodgers usually plays very well, despite his oline. Now, the point is, that game exemplifies why having a good oline is important. Sure, if you have Rodgers, an all-time great, you can get away with having a subpar oline, and only have games like this once in awhile. But, if you don't have an all-time great, it would behoove you to improve your line, or else you'll see more of those types of games. It's why many of us are harping on the oline so often. It's basic football. It all begins upfront.

    That is the point I was trying to make.
     
  16. Splattoreus

    Splattoreus New Member

    26
    10
    0
    Oct 4, 2015
    How is thill being compared with rodgers?? If you're taking last night game as a comparison, keep in mind most of his starting WR are injured...
     
  17. bakedmatt

    bakedmatt Well-Known Member

    2,129
    909
    113
    Mar 29, 2008
    Orlando, FL
  18. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,521
    8,910
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    If a great QB can compensate for a subpar OL, and a great OL can make an average QB perform better, why do you only consider the OL as the problem? People here bring up criticisms of Tannehill and the response is that we should improve the OL? It's equally valid to consider improvements at QB.
     
    dolphin25 and Finster like this.
  19. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Do you realize that you basically contradict yourself in this response?

    On one hand you say that any QB can have a bad game regardless of circumstance, and then go on to say that Rodgers had a bad game due to circumstance.

    That game was an anomaly, you have no pattern to point to, to justify what your trying to say.
     
  20. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    96,652
    49,536
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Fair enough...i don't think anyone is against what your asking for, nor do I think anyone would argue that thats what we need to do, build the oline again, I also, like everyone i'm sure, that he will play better with a better oline, what qb wouldn't...the game is about allocating resources, {build one spot, another takes a hit}, and winning multiple championships, so let me see if I can explain this correctly, even if we get those fresh new pieces for the oline, and ryan does play better, my concerns will not be squashed until i see him play well in the playoffs, on the road, when protection breaks down..
     
  21. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Sure, if you have an elite QB waiting in the wings, by all means bring that guy in.
     
  22. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    So you disagree that Rodgers played badly last night due to his oline allowing him to get smashed?
     
  23. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I know this much, Rodgers has had a crap Oline since he's been in the league, and he's widely considered one of the best, if not the best to ever play the position, his crap Oline has never stopped him from putting up fantastic QB stats.

    So I'm going with what history and empirical data are suggesting, that this game was an anomaly.
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  24. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    What caused the anomaly? No one is suggesting it's anything other than an anomaly, but what caused it? Did Rodgers just forget how to play?

    I suggest that the oline play was so bad last night, it really affected Rodgers. People are disagreeing with me, telling me I'm wrong, and saying nothing more than "it was an anomaly." There's a reason why he played poorly.
     
  25. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No one is comparing the two QBs.

    Seriously.
     
  26. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    9,937
    9,354
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    As successful as Rodgers and successfull are two totally different things.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  27. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    9,937
    9,354
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Imagine if we all came into this thread every time Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady had a good game acting as if that validates why Tannehill is not succeeding.

    You are basically doing that only arguing the other side.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    dolphin25, djphinfan and Rock Sexton like this.
  28. emocomputerjock

    emocomputerjock Senior Member

    5,649
    1,853
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    DC
    I think the discussion here is giving way too much credit to Rodgers line for Rodger's bad performance and not enough to the Denver defense. It wasn't just the pass rush that got to Rodgers, it was a great defense overall that pretty much shut him down. When he had time he still didn't have targets. That being said and more on topic of the original discussion, Tannehill isn't a world beater out there. If his ceiling is Rodgers, he certainly hasn't gotten there yet. What does that mean? I don't know. The team, as a whole, is weak. It'll take a culture change to fix that. Even beyond this season, there's no way of knowing what's going on until year two of the next rebuild.
     
  29. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    7,521
    8,910
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I have a suggestion that might not go anywhere but I'll make it anyway. Maybe in these QB vs. OL debates we should deliberately try answering the question how well a specific player performed relative to what an average player at that position in that situation would do.

    So.. for example, regarding Rodgers, he created quite a bit of extra space for himself last night despite bad OL play. I think he did that more than would be expected from an average QB. But Denver's pass defense was better than average in coverage, even for the extra seconds Rodgers bought himself.

    Point is, if you ask about how people compare to the average, I think you can look at last night's game and come away saying the OL was bad, Rodgers was good and Denver's pass defense was good. The overall result was worse than (for GB) average offensive production.

    Focusing on how good relative to the average I think would bring to light a lot of areas where both sides of this Tannehill debate agree IMO.
     
  30. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    How many teams are having great success with a mediocre QB and a great o-line? This scenario is even more rare than elite QBs, which means it may actually be easier to go all in on finding an elite QB than trying to build an elite o-line. And even if we do luck out and build the greatest o-line ever assembled, there is still no guarantee that will lead to success with Tannehill at QB. Because right now its just a theory that he might be good with a top shelf o-line.
     
  31. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    13,340
    7,553
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Disagree. No one said to build an elite line. Give him a decent line. We've seen Tannehill light teams up when he had alittle time to throw.

    I'm simply saying, we have Tannehill. We know what he needs to be successful. So give it to him. If we aren't going to give it to him, then get rid of him.
     
  32. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Actually, your guessing what he needs to be successful, there is no telling if he would be successful in leading a team to the playoffs and beyond, and that is the only equation that needs to be considered.

    Tanne's main problem is crunch time performance and leadership, among his other technical issues.
     
  33. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,076
    4,642
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    You know, all this talk about how the QB/OC affect the line and how the line in turn affects the QB/OC isn't really going anywhere. Both sides are correct and both play a integral role. I've seen feature RBs have a similar effect wherein they seem to almost 'inspire' the line in front of them to block just a little harder or a little longer. Heck, we all saw that last year when Knowshon Moreno did it against the Pats in week 1.

    Instead of trying to end a circular argument based on deterministic logic that just keeps going back and forth arguing that X causes Y and Y causes X, we might be better off just making a big assumption up front and seeing if we're correct on the back end. Like, for example, let's say QBs are the only parameter in determining a team's W/L ratio. While it's not a great predictor on the short term, it becomes a more valuable predictor over the long run as good QBs tend to win and bad QBs tend to lose. So even though the QBs aren't entirely determining the wins and losses, if we collect enough W/L data, we can infer who the better QBs were.

    I'm intrigued by the idea that Tannehill is on the verge of posting a 4th consecutive losing season. What if he posts a 5th? Has any respected QB ever done that? Before we dig in our heals maybe we should try and do a sanity check first to see if something as simple as the W/L record might actually be more fair than we think.

    That kind of thing might be how we settle this argument. What if we compiled data for a large number of modern-era QBs over their first 80 games (5 seasons worth) and looked at how well we are able to predict who the good QBs are according to their W/L ratio over the first stage of their careers?
     
  34. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    Rodgers did not play that badly given the context. Besides the OL playing poorly the WRs were blanketed as one can see in this video:

    http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-video...ng-down-Rodgers-struggles-against-the-Broncos

    This is why it is better to go with QBR than QB rating. Rodgers extends the play to 7 seconds...how often has Tannehill doen that? QBR takes into account the context of the play and when it is on the OL and WR the QB does not get dinged like the QB rating does. However, when the QB is responsible he is held accountable:

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr/_/type/player-week

    Having a 50 QBR is considered average. Rodgers scored a 64.6 because he was able to extend plays and did not turn the ball over. What kind of numbers do you think Tannehill would have given the same context? Maybe 7 or 8 sacks and 2-3 interceptions.

    We can see that Tannehill, once again, scored extremely low. Both of his interceptions were when he was "not" under pressure.

    We can also see that Tannehill, when taking context into account, is 31st out of 32 QBs:

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

    This rating reflects what I see when Tannehill plays. How his fan club sees him as a top-shelf QB is perplexing other than the axiom "love is blind" so let's blame everyone else.

    Looking at his game log this year, we can see Tannehill has had 3 horrible games, 3 average to slightly above average games, 1 really good game.

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/14876/ryan-tannehill
     
  35. Limbo

    Limbo Mad Stillz

    2,476
    1,128
    113
    Mar 21, 2013
    Just about every QB who has played in a Super Bowl in the last 10-15 years made the playoffs within their first 3 seasons. Greatness doesn't hide for years at a time. Tannehill is who he is...amd who he has been going back to college.
     
  36. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Like I said before, if you look at the play by play, you'll see that Rodgers was expected to pass early and often to get them back into the game.

    If you're going to look at the amount of rushes, don't count in the 3 at the red zone as getting them back into the game, the 2 improvised QB scrambles or the 2 rushes at the end of the game to kill the clock.

    Look at the play by play and you'll see Rodgers mentioned over 30 times in plays, well more than the RBs.

    Plus there were three sacks and a safety. Tell me that's not an indication of the defense knowing GB had to pass often.

    Their OL isn't great anyway but QBs like Rodgers don't look that poor unless they're facing good defenses that KNOW what they've gotta do.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  37. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Yeah, I remember I mentioned something about that and you brought it up a couple of times.

    I couldn't think of any but my dad said Troy Aikman, except his situation was vastly different from Tannehill's.

    Plus, let's face it, he was an elite game manager.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  38. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    I agree. I just thought of Rich Gannon aside from Troy Aikman, but he wasn't that great either lol. These are valid, but not great examples.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  39. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    The other part of the equation is not only did Denver get pressure, but he WRs were blanketed and if Rodgers forces the ball chances are several turnovers. Despite the pressure if the WRs could have done their job (credit really goes to Denver's secondary) Rodgers, no doubt, would have put up decent numbers and it would have been a competitive game.

    I don't know how many times I've seen Tannehill throw a short pass or be under slight pressure and also see a WR wide open down the field. In fact, they showed a play on Thursday when I think it was Cameron (could be wrong) running down the seem uncovered for probably an easy TD, but Tannehill was set on throwing a 3 yard out and completely ignorant of the coverage or lack thereof.
     
    djphinfan likes this.
  40. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    No doubt. They were able to play excellent man coverage, which they wouldn't do if they feared a bunch of runs, which is why Rodgers scrambled for a couple of first downs.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

Share This Page