Will Our Next QB Be Better than Tannehill in 2019?

"KeyFin wrote:

Very straightforward question and there's no basis here for what is "better" or "worse" (QBR, games won, comebacks, command of the pocket or whatever)....that's completely your call on how you rate those sorts of things overall.

I simply want to know if you expect our next QB to play better or worse in 2019 than Tannehill did this season.

Depends who we sign. Nick Foles would be an upgrade over thill

"hitman8 wrote:

Depends who we sign. Nick Foles would be an upgrade over thill

No thanks to both.

I'd rather start Fales over signing Foles to a long term contract.

"hitman8 wrote:

Depends who we sign. Nick Foles would be an upgrade over thill

Signing Foles would be putting lipstick on a $24 million greased pig.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

putting lipstick on a $24 million greased pig.

Awww sheeet...

"hitman8 wrote:

Depends who we sign. Nick Foles would be an upgrade over thill

Yeah Foles would be an upgrade, but I just don't see him as a long term solution no matter how much I like him. If we did pick him up we would have to upgrade the offensive line because he is more if a pocket passer and we haven't had much of a pocket these days.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

Point being, Tannehill took what he was given and when ever he tried to take more, he was sacked more that a bag of groceries. The offensive scheme and lack of poor protection, a perennial issue in Miami for years contributed to our lack of offensive results just as much as anyone.

Said it before and I’ll say it again...Tannehill is going to get another shot somewhere and there are going to be a lot of Dolphins fans having crow for dinner.

People have been making excuses for him for years. My problem is even when those things weren’t issues, I still saw a QB that threw untimely interceptions, took sacks that he should have never taken(that good QB’s don’t take) and when things do break down, as they inevitably do, he struggles overcoming or making defenses pay.

I think once the emotions of him being our QB go away and people have the ability to view him through an objective lense, they’ll see what a lot of people have for awhile. He’s a talented guy, a good guy, can make some impressive plays but he isn’t nor will he ever be a top tier QB.

"mlb1399 wrote:

People have been making excuses for him for years. My problem is even when those things weren’t issues, I still saw a QB that threw untimely interceptions, took sacks that he should have never taken(that good QB’s don’t take) and when things do break down, as they inevitably do, he struggles overcoming or making defenses pay.

I think once the emotions of him being our QB go away and people have the ability to view him through an objective lense, they’ll see what a lot of people have for awhile. He’s a talented guy, a good guy, can make some impressive plays but he isn’t nor will he ever be a top tier QB.

The thing is though, I have been objective. I’m one of the very few here who have been and understands that a football team has 2 sides to the ball.

All I hear most complain about and beat their drum on is quarterback, quarterback, quarterback. I’m objective and point out all areas of deficiency but if that critique, regardless of the factuality doesn’t include a tomahawk cruise missile launched at Tannehill, I somehow don’t know what I’m talking about.

I’m not defending Tannehill. I have been critical of him...as I have the entire team when warranted

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

The thing is though, I have been objective.

Ok, neat.

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

I’m one of the very few here who have been and understands that a football team has 2 sides to the ball.

:headwall:

"mlb1399 wrote:

People have been making excuses for him for years. My problem is even when those things weren’t issues, I still saw a QB that threw untimely interceptions, took sacks that he should have never taken(that good QB’s don’t take) and when things do break down, as they inevitably do, he struggles overcoming or making defenses pay.

I think once the emotions of him being our QB go away and people have the ability to view him through an objective lense, they’ll see what a lot of people have for awhile. He’s a talented guy, a good guy, can make some impressive plays but he isn’t nor will he ever be a top tier QB.

95% of us agree he isn't top tier though.

Our argument is simply if your plan is to throw darts and hope for better it's not likely to be a net gain.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

95% of us agree he isn't top tier though.

Our argument is simply if your plan is to throw darts and hope for better it's not likely to be a net gain.

I think this is or should be obvious. The problem is that if you don't start throwing darts you're forced into trying to win the SB using one of the least likely to work strategies (build around a QB that is neither elite nor can be relied on to win crucial games). In other words, you're basically forced into trying to throw darts if you care about playing the odds.

"cbrad wrote:

I think this is or should be obvious. The problem is that if you don't start throwing darts you're forced into trying to win the SB using one of the least likely to work strategies (build around a QB that is neither elite nor can be relied on to win crucial games). In other words, you're basically forced into trying to throw darts if you care about playing the odds.

Without the rest of a good team, you aren't making it very far, and the team isn't going to be very consistent, even if they have one great year. I personally believe, extremely strongly, that we all need to accept that there are only so many top tier QBs to be had, and most teams aren't going to have one most of the time.

So, you draft or otherwise acquire one that you think has potential, build up the team around him, and then give him time as the man. Give him a solid OL, a solid running game, and solid targets to throw to. Then after four or five years if it isn't working, you start over again.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Without the rest of a good team, you aren't making it very far, and the team isn't going to be very consistent, even if they have one great year. I personally believe, extremely strongly, that we all need to accept that there are only so many top tier QBs to be had, and most teams aren't going to have one most of the time.

So, you draft or otherwise acquire one that you think has potential, build up the team around him, and then give him time as the man. Give him a solid OL, a solid running game, and solid targets to throw to. Then after four or five years if it isn't working, you start over again.

I'd take it one step further. You should EXPECT to fail in drafting a great QB and should therefore draft a QB high every 2-3 years while keeping the previous one you drafted on the roster to develop.. until you hit on that great franchise QB.

Obviously you need an above average offense and defense to win, but at least on offense that's what I would do.

"mooseguts wrote:

If the season ended in week 13?

What about when Luck lead his team to an 33-15 record his 1st 3 years in the NFL. What about when Luck had a 40 TD season in 3rd year in the NFL and lead his team to the AFC championship. That didn't separate them in your opinion? It was a fair comparison until this year in week 13?

Wins aren't QB stats.

Try again, please.

"cbrad wrote:

I'd take it one step further. You should EXPECT to fail in drafting a great QB and should therefore draft a QB high every 2-3 years while keeping the previous one you drafted on the roster to develop.. until you hit on that great franchise QB.

Obviously you need an above average offense and defense to win, but at least on offense that's what I would do.

Different approaches. Not saying you're wrong, but I dislike that method. It clouds the waters, and automatically casts doubt into everyones eyes on the guy who was already there, and puts the idea into the coaches mind to give the other guy a shot if things are going perfectly. I would much rather see it all the way through with one player, then if it doesn't work, start fresh with player 2, then 3 and so forth.

"danmarino wrote:

Wins aren't QB stats.

Try again, please.

Thank you. Neither are super bowl appearances or championships.

"cbrad wrote:

I'd take it one step further. You should EXPECT to fail in drafting a great QB and should therefore draft a QB high every 2-3 years while keeping the previous one you drafted on the roster to develop.. until you hit on that great franchise QB.

Obviously you need an above average offense and defense to win, but at least on offense that's what I would do.

I'll take what you have and raise you a couple. Considering what you are saying about the odds of finding a great QB, our team should really focus on building the OL so that the mediocre QB we have back there has a fighting chance. Furthermore, we need a very strong defense to help us stay in close games. I would start with the DL. So my advice to Grier would be, suck it up, and build the trenches. It might be a one step back, two steps forward kind of thing, but sadly we are at the point where it has to be done. Just like with drafting a QB every few years.

The thing with Luck is that he has not (yet) lived up to his hype. After about the 5-6th game this year he has played great.

People look at Luck and see the team playing well, even though his stats are really comparable to RT's over their entire careers, and equate it to Luck being a "playoff QB". As if that means anything. lol....It's akin to the dolts who talk about, for example, Rivers being 0-6 against Brady. Well, no, not really. The Chargers are 0-6 against the Pats.

Saying that, Luck has been playing awesome, up to the hype if you will, over the last 10 weeks or so. We will see if he can keep it up. I DO think he's a better QB than RT, he has not reached his ceiling yet.

"Surfs Up 99 wrote:

I'll take what you have and raise you a couple. Considering what you are saying about the odds of finding a great QB, our team should really focus on building the OL so that the mediocre QB we have back there has a fighting chance. Furthermore, we need a very strong defense to help us stay in close games. I would start with the DL. So my advice to Grier would be, suck it up, and build the trenches. It might be a one step back, two steps forward kind of thing, but sadly we are at the point where it has to be done. Just like with drafting a QB every few years.

We don't have a decent measure of OL, but just looking at recent SB winners I don't think you can argue the OL is anywhere near as important as the QB. Sometimes of course you have bad OL like with Seattle, but most of the time I think you'd argue it's around average. So I don't think the odds back up your approach.

"danmarino wrote:

The thing with Luck is that he has not (yet) lived up to his hype. After about the 5-6th game this year he has played great.

People look at Luck and see the team playing well, even though his stats are really comparable to RT's over their entire careers, and equate it to Luck being a "playoff QB". As if that means anything. lol....It's akin to the dolts who talk about, for example, Rivers being 0-6 against Brady. Well, no, not really. The Chargers are 0-6 against the Pats.

Saying that, Luck has been playing awesome, up to the hype if you will, over the last 10 weeks or so. We will see if he can keep it up. I DO think he's a better QB than RT, he has not reached his ceiling yet.

I think what we've seen recently IS his ceiling. The guy was more of a finished product coming out than almost any QB I remember, and he might be a tad bit better today but not THAT much. The big question is whether he keeps this up as you say.

Either way, he's not playing at Russell Wilson level (statistically speaking) so I think history will show he was the 2nd best QB to come out of the 2012 draft even IF he keeps this up.

"AGuyNamedAlex wrote:

95% of us agree he isn't top tier though.

Our argument is simply if your plan is to throw darts and hope for better it's not likely to be a net gain.

Sometimes you have to take one step back to take two steps forward. He’s not the answer. We may see a decline but I’d rather do that than continue to be stuck in 5-8 win purgatory with no chance of a Super Bowl.

"cbrad wrote:

We don't have a decent measure of OL, but just looking at recent SB winners I don't think you can argue the OL is anywhere near as important as the QB. Sometimes of course you have bad OL like with Seattle, but most of the time I think you'd argue it's around average. So I don't think the odds back up your approach.

OK, but that doesn't make sense to me. I am not sure how giving a guy time to throw and being able to run the ball when you need to is a bad thing.

"cbrad wrote:

I think what we've seen recently IS his ceiling. The guy was more of a finished product coming out than almost any QB I remember, and he might be a tad bit better today but not THAT much. The big question is whether he keeps this up as you say.

Either way, he's not playing at Russell Wilson level (statistically speaking) so I think history will show he was the 2nd best QB to come out of the 2012 draft even IF he keeps this up.

Yeah, I guess what I mean is that Luck is now playing at the level people thought he was capable of, but hasn't played like that consistently. This being his ceiling. Consistent AND great play.

"Surfs Up 99 wrote:

OK, but that doesn't make sense to me. I am not sure how giving a guy time to throw and being able to run the ball when you need to is a bad thing.

It's not. Improving ANY aspect of the team will help the team win. The issue is that you're competing for resources (talent), so you can't expect to improve every aspect of your team while all others don't. In other words you need to prioritize what you improve on, and there you want to be smarter than other GM's. Not saying I'd make the right decisions, but I do think one should look at the trends, which suggests it's better to find that franchise QB than improving the OL IF you had to choose between the two.

I think that people watching several teams win in spite of a bad OL has many some greedy, and think that any team can get away with it.

With Luck, its not just the stats. Look at how he and the Colts were able to play in the first half this past week because of the improved OL. He stood tall in the pocket, sidestepped pressure a few times, and was able to lazor in mid range passes to open receivers the whole time. It was a thing of beauty.

"danmarino wrote:

Wins aren't QB stats.

Try again, please.

With Luck under center the Colts were 33-15 from 2012-2014. With Luck under center the Colts reached the AFC championship game in 2014. With Luck under center the Colts are 4-3 in the playoffs since 2012.

Without Luck under center the Colts don't have these accomplishments from 2012-2018. Better?