Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by bbqpitlover, Oct 16, 2019.
Hey, how about that Ryan Tannehill!!!
"...to all of those haters who say he wasn't worth a dam in Miami, the Miami Dolphins weren't worth a dam..."
Yet another stating the obvious...football is a TEAM sport and if your TEAM sucks, it doesn't matter WHO you have quarterbacking. You're going to lose and lose royally every time.
I don't give a crap about Stidham...I don't give a crap about the Patriots in general but there is a good point that is made about the argument whether or not to start Tua. He started in Alabama with all of those first round stars at the college level, he won't have that same luxury at the NFL level and that in my opinion is all the reason for Fitzpatrick to start until the offense melds into a cohesive, efficient unit. That's when you would want to hand the reigns over.
"Here's your high performance race car...let's see how you drive"
Jump to 51:21 in this video. Validates everything that the posters who supported Tannehill have been saying. I'd put him higher but it is right in the zone and all along I've said that 6 - 15 are not that different from one another.
A few memorable quotes from Simms who WATCHED THE FILM.
"A guy I probably had too low on my list in years past."
"When you really evaluate what he did in Miami with what was around him, I think it was a lot better than what we think at first look."
"One of the most pure throwers in the NFL."
"Amazing deep ball thrower"
"It's an offense that didn't lend itself to easy completions.... Doesn't get to throw any WR screens, doesn't get to throw many RB screens"
"Any intermediate or deep throw, he's got every club in the bag"
"You've already run through all the wonderful traits that you see, those were there in Miami as well"
"they (Miami) had a ****ty offensive line"
"He was better than okay. I think I fell into the trap too of like of giving the team's problems to Ryan Tannehill"
"Full transparency, really, what happened to me, in the offseason, I had somebody in the NFL who played against him, a coach, who told me, like basically, Chris, I think you're a little off on him. I think he is better than what you are giving him credit for. You know. You need to break it down. You know. More than numbers. Look at some of the things."
"He leaves nothing out there. He, to me, takes more advantage of what is there to be had than almost any other QB I watched in football this year."
"I don't care who you are at QB, there are only a few in the history of the sport where, if you don't have a run game and good pass protection, and a big time go to wide receiver in the pass game, it is hard to be successful."
Welcome to the club, Chris.
That's a pretty incredible list of quotes.
And every one of them are based on film study and could have been made by a handful of posters in this thread. What have we harped on? His play in Miami was better than the record and stats showed. His arm talent is elite. He didn't have easy throws to make (expected completion percentage, YPA). He made the most of what he had (CPOE). Those stats match the film.
Yes, pretty much every one of those quotes a few of us have said at least once each. Lol. It's amazing.
You know, with all the NFL talent that Alabama has put into the BFL on OL, WR and RB no one downgraded other ‘bama QBs based on the talent around them. The previous Alabama QBs (the best of who was AJ McCarron) all got downrated because of flaws in their game.
Yet when an Alabama QB comes along who can throw the ball to the right receiver at the right time with decent arm strength all of a sudden you have people saying he’s no good because he’s throwing to open receivers and his OL is blocking well.
I make no claim to be an expert on watching tape. What I do see when I watch Tua is a QB who is making fast reads and throwing receivers open. I see a QB who is aware of the leverage and numbers game on the LOS and making pocket movements based on that. I see a QB who is doing many little things that help his OL and his WRs.
I don’t see a QB whose game falls apart when elite opponents can neutralize his elite teammates.
I really don’t get that a QB who can do so much more with the weapons available to him at Alabama than any other Saban coached QB Could do should be downrated.
It should have been moved to other NFL long ago. This thread is like the Trump presidency. It's like the flippin matrix
The thread maintains its Dolphins relevance as it keeps evolving back to his time in Miami, his play in Miami and the lack of talent the Dolphins had. The constant maintained within these arguments regarding Tannehill and his trade to the Titans has been:
-We had a franchise quarterback and we lost him
-Tannehill was not a good quarterback in Miami and he needed to go
And the subsequent arguments supporting either position
These arguments keep the thread relevant to the Dolphins and warrants its continue location in the Miami Dolphins Forums section of the site.
Not that he is wrong in his Tannehill opinion, but his list as a whole is pretty suspect. Look no further than where he places Tua.
He prioritizes size and athleticism. He has Cam Newton over Drew Brees. He sees Brees as average at best and always has. Tua is often called a left handed Brees so him hating Tua is no surprise. Simms is well known for having Lamar Jackson as his #1 QB, but he also had Josh Allen as his #2. I prioritize accuracy and processing speed. He had the two least accurate prospects as his top guys. IMO even though Jackson worked out it was a low probability bet. In my experience betting on inaccurate college QBs to become great NFL QBs is a losing bet the vast majority of the time.
I think the list is pretty good with a few bold predictions (Tua, Brees, Roethlisberger). Maybe they are click bait and maybe they are just bold predictions.
I've been struggling to figure out who he has in the top 10.
The highlighted portions above should be sufficient to disqualify his opinion on matters regarding quarterbacks. Obviously the guy is simply a contrarian.
Absolutely. Inaccurate Qbs in college rarely become accurate at the next level. Reason I was one of the few happy we passed on Brady Quinn.
But nothing has changed. The same tired arguments by the same people over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over etc. etc. etc.
There is never going to be a winner of this argument. EVER.
I just don't get it. Add it to the long list of things that make me question reality I guess. I'm just tired of looking at it. I know, don't look at it then. It's like watching Trump on the news. I don't want to, but every day he's in my face.
This thread is the very definition of insanity and now I've let myself be sucked in to the crazy again.
I'll put myself back in time out now.
Ding Ding Ding Ding
Surely they are sharpening up their ice Skates in Hell and getting ready for a game of Hockey because if you are calling someone Contrarian it clearly has frozen over.
I get what you’re saying. There are several of the same arguments made from different angles but there is one positive thing you can take from it, especially if you’ve been actively arguing and that’s the research undertaken to draw conclusions.
In the course of the debate we’ve seen arguments based on hard numbers, rules changes, z-scores, offensive strategy, individual talents in particular situations, etc and all of this “madness” has actually benefited all of us as it has increased our overall knowledge of the game.
That can’t be a bad thing, can it?
The fact Dat Prescott is already as high as he is affirms my personal opinion that his list is subpar as a whole.
But many "experts" have Dak high, do they not?
Haven’t been in this thread in a longtime..
Just my thoughts..
Predraft, his first camp, you could see and I talked about innate accuracy traits..
Give tannehill time, a clean pocket, and he will make great throws, that specific talent is high level arm talent, the problems occur when he doesn’t.
We saw after 6 years countless times of those examples, not being able to navigate the pocket well, not running when he should to threaten a defense consistently, not beating the free rusher, just not making plays, the few here and there he did make were not because he anticipated and made moves to open space, it was usually an escape that opened up because of error by the defenders.
I personally don’t believe you can win a championship relying on a protected pocket, I believe the qb will have to make individual plays within and outside the pocket to get the team the ring..
I don’t see that in his game..so I know I was ready to move on..Glad we did..
With the other players it was fairly clear they weren't even starting material potentially at the NFL level.
A couple reasons people look deeper into Tua are more nuanced.
1) Because he does have starting potential its imperative to look deeper into him as a prospect which means more of his surroundings.
2) Because not only is he a potential starter in the league but a high draft pick. People are going to want to analyze every tiny detail before making a commitment and even after the team has made it.
There was never really any reason to dig deeper into the other QB the school produced because they were mid to late round flyers at best. The level of analysis, by fans at least, isnt as deep.
I dont personally care where he went to school but I do think with any high draft pick you want a full and complete understanding of every variable because of the commitment.
Really? I think it's obvious that those that argued for years that Tannehill could produce at a top 5 level given better circumstances were proven right. The argument only continues b/c those that were proven wrong are trying to pretend they weren't wrong by saying it was an anomaly or that it's not sustainable, yadda yadda. Those who argued he was average just made a poor evaluation. It happens. They should admit it, learn from it and move on.
Yes it's true that about half the posters here (including me) argued Tannehill was basically average and were wrong about him ever producing at a top 10 level (and almost everyone on the other side said "top 10" not "top 5").
However, the other half kept constantly arguing he would end up top 10 in Miami in certain seasons and they were wrong. You in fact repeatedly predicted Tannehill would end up top 10, both in 2016 and especially in 2018 where so many people in preseason said he "had the right surrounding cast, including the right coach — a coach that believes in him".
So basically everyone made bad evaluations about Tannehill and the effect of his surrounding cast. Just goes to show that no one is consistently good at QB evals (not even the pros in the NFL are consistently good at it).
While I have been wrong about many QB evals, Tannehill wasn't one of them. In 2016 and 2018, the failure was in the supporting cast, through injury and/or incompetence.
First of all, you were definitely wrong about him ending up top 10. Second, you were completely wrong about the effect of the surrounding cast he had, especially in 2018. That's important because it shows you're not that good at predicting the effect of a surrounding cast. And third, with enough attempts, even "average" people can perform exceptionally on rare occasion. That's happened with a bunch of other QB's, as has already been discussed extensively.
So while it's definitely true that anyone (including me) who predicted Tannehill would never perform at an elite level in any year were wrong, it's not yet clear that Tannehill himself is better than average. You were correct that he would actually perform at a high level in the "right" situation (one you couldn't identify). But it's not clear you're correct about Tannehill NOT being average. That requires more data.
The issue, which cbrad pointed out above as well, is that the same prediction (as the highlighted portion in the quote above) would've been correct about the following quarterbacks:
Once again, you all are trying to extract far too much meaning from 11 games here. The criterion you're using (how Tannehill [and other QBs] performed in his 11 games in 2019) doesn't distinguish QBs from each other sufficiently to make definitive conclusions about their ability in general.
You still don't know whether you're dealing with Drew Brees here, or Jim Harbaugh. You're taking these 11 games to mean something they don't mean in reality. It's your personal meaning of these 11 games you're using here, not one established in the reality of the NFL.
Thank you for your admission... It helps!
I will say that there was a three year period where Tannehill pre knee injury was on the cusp of being a top 10 QB... maybe if you ran the numbers he would be in the 10-12 range. Something like 64% completion 4000+ yards a season... QB rating in the 90's Decent TD to INT ratio.
Which is why it puzzles me so much the arguing that Guy has done to suggest this was some freakish anomally that is completely unsustainable.
In the past on bad teams Tannehill started to show that he was in fact a talented QB and he started to produce at a higher than average level.
So now that he is fully matured, healthy and on a better team... Better numbers have to be some sort of fluke.
That line of argument blows my mind.
It. Isn't. About. 2019.
2019 is the proof of what we were seeing for years IN MIAMI.
And how is that any different from the rest of the careers of the quarterbacks listed in the post you quoted?
Every one of them had a stretch of 11 games no different from Tannehill’s in 2019, situated within an otherwise average career.
This. Isn't. Based. On. 2019.
I'm not sure that high. I personally don't see a huge jump from Dak from even an Andy Dalton. I mean he's okay.....but no one I'd give 35M too.
Then what is it based on, and how does that distinguish Tannehill from an average quarterback?
Dak turned down 34 million over a year ago... He wants 40
Not playing your game.
I mean, Raf has already has explained to you what we were seeing in Miami, and why despite your stats, the evidence was there. Chris Simms is saying exactly what we've been saying, now that he's actually watched film of Tannehill.
So you can continue to cling to your stats, and continue to act like the was no evidence in years 1-7 that Tannehill was better than the stats suggested, but your position is getting more untenable.