Are you of the belief that all experience is good experience for a QB's development? I don't believe being forced to consistently quickly check down and not learning to properly go through your progressions b/c the line can't block as a positive learning experience. Being forced to throw off your back foot b/c you constantly have pressure in your face and not learning to calmly stand tall in the pocket as a positive learning experience. I don't believe constantly being put in 3rd and long situations where the defenses can tee off on him due to our lack of a running game and our receiving targets failing to create separation and get open and/or dropping it when they do as a positive learning experience. I absolutely believe playing CAN help develop a QB. But not all situations are conducive to proper development... and unfortunately our situation isn't one of them.
Why though? You only have to if your biggest goal is to beat Houston in Week 1. And with a player that could possibly make us a contender for a decade... winning against Houston in Week 1 of a non-contending year is insignificant.
Let me ask you this, (and I'm not saying Tanne should or should not start unless he wins the job). 1. Why have a QB competition if your best QB (If it happens to be Tanne) is told you won, but can't start? Does that not hurt the teams physic more? 2. Who know's the offense better than any QB on the roster? So why would he check down more than someone that does not know the offense as much? 3. If he is indeed our best QB by winning the competition, does he not give us the best chance to win? Look, if we had a Farve like in Green Bay than indeed, let him sit and learn like Rodgers did. What is he going to learn watching Matt Moore? If he wins the job, he should start.
I would die happy if I never had to hear this stupid argument ever again! Can we please stop mentioning David Carr and Ryan Tannehill in the same sentence?
1) We aren't as bad as that Texan team brought up with Carr. I expect by week one our o-line is respectable enough to not look quite so bad. 2) Carr wasn't ruined by playing early. He just never had "it". He's had time to sit and learn the game as a backup for many years now...no improvement. He was the product of an undertalented QB being taken #1 by an expansion franchise because they basically had to. 3) If Tannehill is ruined by starting, he doesn't have "it" either and it's better we know that now than later.
I've been pretty vocal about wanting Tannehill to start, but I think I'm changing my mind. You just can't throw the kid out there with zero weapons at his disposal and a turnstile-like OL. Dude will lose all his confidence and get crushed in the process.
He didn't force the ball or anything, seemed to play smart, weathered the awful play of the o-line. He wasn't anything special but I didn't really expect him to be in his first start.
If he loses his confidence that easily he isn't a franchise QB anyway. In all seriousness does Ryan seem to you like the type that would allow bad play to hurt his mental makeup? To me it seems like early failure would actually drive him harder.
1. Well, the idea was to make Garrard the QB in the competition, b/c going into it, he looked to have the best shot, and he was showing it once practice started. Garrard was brought in to be our starter. The coaches knew he'd be the best, and more importantly better than Moore. But its easier for the team to show them that hes better than Moore (who the team has a lot of respect for) than to hand Garrard the job from the gates... which could be damaging to the team's psyche. Unfortunately, things havent panned out the way they were hoping. Garrard got hurt. That changes the plan (not to mention the rest of the team has looked poorer than expected). Do you really think it would hurt the team's psyche if Tannehill didn't start week one? Vets typically prefer a veteran QB to a rookie, and the team has a lot of belief in Moore, so I don't think it would be damaging at all. 2. The QB has to check down not b/c he doesn't have to know the offense, but b/c they literally have to get rid of the ball b/c there is instant pressure in his face. It has nothing to do with the QB or the knowledge of the offense. It's about the OL's ability to protect, and then the WRs ability to create separation. 3. I agree that Tannehill gives us the best shot to win games right now. My point is that there is a good chance it will ruin him and his long term ability to make us into a perennial contender in the process. And that is more important than winning games right now during a rebuilding phase where we aren't going to win many games regardless of who is back at QB. I get that we dont have a Favre to groom him behind. But just b/c we don't doesnt mean we should be forced to play him before he or the supporting cast is ready for him to start and to be properly developed. It's not about learning from Moore, and it's not about Tannehill. Its about the dumpster fire that currently surrounds the QB position.
I guess where we disagree would be that I don't believe it is possible to "ruin" a QB. Is Andrew Luck going to be ruined? Jamarcus Russell wouldnt have succeeded with 15 years on the bench. Carr was never a franchise talent. So on. Ive never seen one case where a QB was ruined by playing early. Eli Manning threw like Tim Tebow his rookie year and was awful. Turned out fine.
That is where we disagree, I'm not saying we are forced to start Tanne, I'm saying he won the job fair and square, that is a big difference. Was Peyton Manning destroyed by starting early? No, I'm not saying Tanne is PM, but if your a good QB, you will learn and get better, he either has it or he doesn't. If he wins the job by being the best QB in camp, he should start, rookie or vet.
In regards to the bolded, what is the harm waiting a couple of weeks to make sure the OL is respectable. If we can protect him, and if our WRs are capable of getting separation/making plays, I'm all in favor of him playing from day one. But I think we should see it with our own eyes first. I originally was on the bandwagon of making him sit b/c I didn't think he'd be ready. I was wrong, he looks ready to go. However, it's now his surrounding cast that I don't feel comfortable with.
Oh, then thats going to be a fundimental disagreement Alex44, that won't ever allow us to be able to see eye to eye on this subject. IMO, bad habits can be ingrained into a player from a poor situation, like not properly going through your progressions due to constantly needing to get rid of the ball almost immediately, or developing happy feet or starting to look at the rush more instead of having your eyes down field if you are constantly taking a beating behind a bad OL...
I don't think there's anything wrong with sitting him. I really don't believe our line will be this bad though come regular season. When I watch the game I see no offensive line schemes at this point, it's basically "block that guy in front of you one on one" so the coaches can see individual talent and determine the best schemes to use regular season. I expect a giant step forward game three when we actually gameplan. I think last night was as bad as we will see the line all season, and Tannehill made it through while looking like he could be a starter in this league. He was far more impressive to me than his stat line (couple of fluke batted balls and bad drops) and handled it all in stride. I just cant imagine saying "We told you it was a competition and that you could be the starter....and you won, but we lied" that is what sends a bad message to the team. Coaches going back on their word when everyone with eyes knows Tannehill has outplayed Moore.
Honestly I used to believe exactly this as well. So I understand where you are coming from completely. I'm just not as sure it's true as I used to. I think it's partially true but not an overriding factor that will haunt a QB his entire career.
Here is my take. I have always been a sit a rookie qb guy, why? because I believe a franchise qb cannot be hurt by sitting even if he is ready, sitting doesnt hurt him, even if the benfit is minimal while you can get him killed if he isnt ready to start or the system around him isnt ready for him. Tannehill has IMO shown that mentally he is ready not that mistakes wont happen, but that he can weather them. Now if they sit him, I have no reservation as far as it hurting him. I just see a team that while isnt great, wont ruin him either. Hartline will come back, Bess will be bess, Bush will make plays, and belive danial Thomas will provide teh power back we need. I am not saying we will be a playoff team but Tannehill has shown the it factor, the mental ability to handle pressure and make plays. Let the team grow around him
If he looks ready to go and he gives us the best chance to win I think we should start him. Plenty of QBs have been thrown into bad situations and gotten better. Look at Blaine Gabbert everyone thought he was one of the biggest busts of last year and this preseason he has been killing it. He had happy feet, bad mechanics and many other flaws last year. He corrected them and its night and day now. I wonder if those strides would have been made if he was on the bench. Also I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but if we play how we have been in the preseason we will have a top 3 pick. Personally, I would want to know if Tannehill could be the man of the future (by having him play 16 games) or if we need to seize the opportunity and grab Barkley (who is going to be damn good). I hope this comment isn't taken in the wrong light though...
It was mentioned on finsiders that Carr's real issue was he didn't put enough quality time and work hard enough , Tanneyhill has zero issues with those areas imo.
I don't take it in the wrong light but I think Barkley will be a gigantic bust. Even if we picked #1 and Tannehill **** himself to epic proportions I wouldn't want Barkley.
Because he will learn and become better by playing, not learning from Matt Moore. I don't think any self-respecting franchise can NOT start their best QB. If the Dolphins did that I would be incredibly pissed and disappointed. The bottom line is, to me, every team in the NFL should go out with their BEST players week in and week out. If we had a Favre or other aging HOF QB, I would understand benching Tanny. But the fact of the matter is we don't, and so he should be out there if he wins the job. I love Devlin as much as the next guy (got to watch him a few times in person in college), but come on, neither him nor Moore has done enough to show they belong out there over Tanny. We can't stunt the growth of our QB just because the rest of the offense sucks. And if you believe that playing Tanny with this piss poor joke of an offense will stunt him, I respect your opinion and totally understand it, I just disagree.
I agree but I totally disagree. I don't care if it's the Rook Tanne, or a 12 yr vet like Brady or Manning. If the OL sucks and the QB is constantly being harassed then that QB will do all of the things you mentioned above. Experience level doesn't have much to do with it. IMO the only credible argument for not starting the Tanne is if he's not the best QB available.
I think there are other considerations when the goal is not only winning, but the best possible development of the most important player on the field.
The way I see it, I think Tannehill should get the start from the very beginning. I think he's showed the most in preseason so far, and even after getting raped by Charles Johnson numerous times last night he was still able to get back up and keep playing. He showed moxy and heart last night and I think that goes a long way. Moore has been horrible so far, so I think it's Tannehill's job to lose at this point. He better bring it next week or we may be talking about Pat Devlin getting a look. It is preseason so I really don't put much stock in anything I see. When the real season starts we will all get a better idea of how things are going to shape up.
I agree with those statements. You either have "it" or you don't. A great player will find a way to make something happen. The bad O-line thing is a crock of $hit in my opinion because there have been plenty of good to great QB's play behind suspect offensive lines (which ours happens to be). People talk as if our O-line is horrible but thatis not the case at all. Jake Long is a pro bowler, and Mike Pouncey looks like he'll be there shortly. Bad O-lines don't have pro-bowl players. This is Tannehill's job to lose at this point, and either he has "it" or he doesn't.
Devlin has shown more than Tanny with just the 4 possessions that he played. Three of the drives were long sustained drives all the way to the goal line. Tanny has only gotten to the Red Zone 3 times in 12 possessions.
Where PSG and I are coming from... is that if we do play him this year, we are risking the possibility of watching many more years of looking a bottom offense. But that looking looking at a horrible offense, even if just for a few games, to start the season is worth it if it increases the chances of us never having to look at a bottom offense again for the next decade with a franchise QB.
I understand what you are saying but let's not delude ourselves here... I actually took time before the draft to watch college games of Devil and came away very impressed with a lot of things. I really believe he can become a very solid backup QB if not more granted that he is developed and given the time to grow his game. He hasn't shown that he should be a starter for this team though....
Yes, if it's a choice between that and watching it for the next fifteen years because we ruined our best QB prospect in two decades and have to search for a QB again.
Yeah, Devlin can get your hopes up, but then he gets all (low voice) Pat Devlin and you remember, "oh, it's only Pat Devlin."
I once scored a touchdown while showing my 7 year old nephew and his classmates how to run the ball, maybe I should try out for the NFL?
Oline has nothing to do with QB performance. lol. I want to read a list of truisms of football and life as you see it. I'd seriously enjoy that..
Well, it's true that all experience leads to learning. I had a kid in my grade three class who, if you raised your arm near him, he cowered and hid his face. Wonder what that was all about.
Agree RT is not weak. Don't agree that it can't leave lasting adverse affects on a strong minded QB prospect.
I'm not sure it matters who starts at QB. I think this offense will be bottom 3-5 no matter who is starting.
I'm not knocking Devlin. He has gone out there and made the most of his opportunities. In a perfect world it would be fun to see what he can do against 1st stringers- but the fact of the matter is that he has been playing the 3rd stringers. I think he is capable and could be a backup in this league- but I don't think Tanny has shown any reason as to why he should not be the starter week 1.
Since we are on the subject of Devlin, I have to say that I like what I see from him too. He has a (hate to use this term) "gunslinger" mentallity, and some of those guys do make it in the NFL. I think at this point the competition should be firmly between Tannehill and Devlin. Matt Moore does nothing for me personally and if he is the opening day starter I think he gets pulled and benched by week 3. For me the goal this season should be to let the young guys play. I want to see both Tannehill and Devlin this season if thats possible. I think Reggie Bush will be our bread and butter and he will have a great year but this team is far from being a contender, so it's a rebuild in my opinion. Tannehill should be the opening day starter so that this process can get going asap. The debate has been "don't rush him" if Tannehill has it, he has it right? He's already been the best QB in preseason (not counting Devlin) and I think if Tannehill struggles behind a bad O-line and can't make plays but a guy like Devlin comes in and can....Well then what do you say? I'm personally not ruling out Devlin as an option in any of this. I'd really like to see him against a first team defense for atleast a series to see how he does.
I agree with you, the competition shoud be between Devlin and Tannehill. It's a win win situation, we have two chances to find our franchise qb. Cut Moore and Garrard and save the $5 million. By the way, I don't see why Devlin wouldn't do as well against the 1s. He's extemely accurate (and will be no less accurate against the 1s) and the ball hardly hits the ground unless his passes are dropped. He gets the ball out fast and makes quick decisions. He was under as much pass pressure as Tannehill, but he gets the ball off quickly and knows how to move around and step up in the pocket while still looking downfield.
devlin will be #3, Tannehill will be #1, Moore/Garrard will be #2. No way they go with someone with 0 experience as the backup, nor should they.
