Will we be able to rebuild the OLine before we have to get rid of Tannehill ?

6-10 With Matt Moore and Chad Henne

 

Umm, he's not much better than last year. he is throwing it more down field but the numbers are still about the same.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/14876/ryan-tannehill

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/14876/year/2014/ryan-tannehill

The passes look sweeter, that's for sure. But for passes 21-30 yards in the air, the completion percentage is almost exactly the same, 27.3 vs 28.0. Rating is lower this year because of an INT this year (didn't have any last year from 21-30.

31-40 we're getting into extremely low sample size now. 1 of 11 last year, 1 of 6 this year. Surprisingly only one 40+ yard throw this year, vs 9 all of last year (no Wallace I'm assuming).

This is where "watch the film" fails and you need stats.

 

Biggest problem with Tannehill's deep ball is our OC who doesn't seem to understand the utility of going deep more often, even if they're lower percentage plays.

 

Well if he's not confident in the offense hitting it I don't blame him for not calling it.

 

That's where we differ. I think our offense is too predictable. Low percentage plays can be useful if they force the defense to defend against them weakening the defense against our beloved dink & dunk.

 

Whether you like it or not, if your football knowledge were an actual person, that person would be an idiot...



...with a runny nose




...and soiled pants...


...and eleven toes...

 

Except we finished strong that year, Tanne hasn't accomplished that feat as of yet.

 

Also, many of Tanne's bigger fans consider 15 yards deep, but that's because of the way the offense is run, a 15 yarder does seem deep.

 

Look at this guy, he found where you store all of your football knowledge;

 

I disagree with watch the film failing there. You can PLAINLY see he has better arc on his deep passes this year. He even cuts it loose a good bit earlier than previous seasons, giving the WR more of a chance to track it/make a play on it. The Parker pass against Hou(?) that got negated by penalty was gorgeous...the pass to Stills vs Tenn(?) was near perfect...his pass to Stills against Philly WAS perfect.

While the % may not be much different, the overall look of his deep passes, location, and touch are much improved over last year.

 

Yawn.

They need to think this through just medium hard for a moment....

If the QB wins and loses games and there's a minimum of 2 QBs in a game....who is responsible?

 

that's why the patriots made the playoffs with a back up qb right. How about the steelers, they still win without ben. packers, they win without rodgers, colts, they win without luck......

 

Interesting tweet...from the NFL.

[video=twitter;666080652874379264]https://twitter.com/SNFonNBC/status/666080652874379264[/video]

 

FinD with the dagger!

Also, I'd like to ask, WHAT is the average number of passes over 40 yards? I know you guys all love to think that other QBS are throwing them like 5 times a game. Didn't Rodgers only have like 1 every two games, or less, last year?

And we refer to deep passes as being over 20 yards (not 15) because *GASP* THAT'S WHAT THE NFL SAYS IS A DEEP PASS. We didn't just make up a number.

 

That's probably the truth right there folks.

 

I have to ask, what has Tannehill done that so many of you all feel inclined to argue against the evidence week in, week out that he's not a middle-of-the-road, replaceable type of QB?

Do you guys know him personally or something? I've given up. He's just constantly disappointing. You can't play this long while still not doing anything special. I would think for people who want to see the team win, they'd be quicker to call out someone who just doesn't produce that much.

Are our standards THAT low?

 

Win what exactly?

To pretend those qbs do not play a MAJOR role in their teams overall success is some short sided garbage. Its like the one idiot in the room who insists the QB position isn't important by bringing up an extreme example like Trent Dilfer.....

 

The Patriots DIDN'T make the playoffs with a backup...they did, however, go 11-5, which in MOST years gets you a #2 seed or at least a WC. But here comes all the arguments about, "derrrrrp...but they were 16-0 before...derrrrrrp" like 16-0 is some maintainable standard. They did it once in Brady's 15 year career so far...but that's the standard for the trollargument.

For the Cowboys, they fell off a CLIFF without Romo...and now he's back. It's safe to say he's a MASSIVE reason that team wins anything (this year, with Murray gone). But if they can't get a run game going strong, it won't matter...it'll be pre-2014 Romo's Cowboys again.

The Dolts, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise, ditched games when Peyton Manning's planet strained his neck. However, Peyton was pretty much everything for that Dolts team, so they were going to drop a lot without him regardless.

So there are a very FEW QBs who really lift their team to be much better than they'd be without them...but it's not even close to being common. Between those two guys...1 ring...add Marino into the mix....still, 1 ring. Now...put Marino on the 2001-15 Cheatriots and they NEVER lose a Super Bowl...but there's a reason that combination has NEVER happened in the league...it's nearly impossible to fathom getting everything THAT right. Having an uplifting QB would be great, if it came on top of an overall good team.

I don't want a QB that, if out, the teams falls apart...I want a good, solid team that has a chance at the Super Bowl consistently. For some reason, those guys who uplift their team the most, don't have that.

 

I often wondered this too....I mean, I understand the desperate feeling of needing to feel like we have a franchise qb. We all want one. But I will not want one bad enough to lie to myself.

 

No its probably not.

One of the many problems in this ridiculous line of thinking is very simple...what evidence do we have that the team would be performing better WITHOUT Tannehill?

There's this assumption that a great QB doesn't just make the team better, but makes them double digit plus winners.

What if a good QB only actually accounts for say 5 extra wins a season and we're a 3 win team without Tannehill? What evidence, what proof is there to say any of this is wrong?

There is none.

 

I can't take anyone seriously who doesn't admit that QB play which is CONSISTENTLY GOOD isn't the biggest parameter in winning. Are there out-liers? Of course there are. But does the trend hold true? Absolutely it does. If you take a team that has a decent offense and a decent defense and you add QB play which is consistently good, you're going to see that team go to the Play-offs more often than not.

Is Tannehill sometimes an asset? Yes. But we don't live in a world in which having a few good games per season is good enough. That's the truth. I can't lie to you that every single game Tannehill plays he's terrible. That wouldn't be true. He's had a few exceptional games. The problem is how rare those games are and how terrible he and his offense can still look.

I think this argument is settled. At this point, he's going to have control over the team for the next season and a half. Be happy about it. Don't rub it in.

 

That's a stupid response. This team is totally different than the team Matt Moore was QBing on.

I'd like to see THIS CURRENT team, and what the offense would look like without Tannehill.

 

That's great, now quote anyone that has said that.....

 

I can't take anyone seriously who can't admit that teams who's defenses routinely allow 30+ points consistently struggle to win.

Are there outliers? Of course there are. But, if you are consistently asking your offense to score more than 30 point a game, there's going to be problems.

 

No one would be arguing about Tannehill if we all agreed that he was inconsistent and that he'll always be inconsistent.

Once you accept that fact, you no longer feel inclined to defend Tannehill because inconsistent QBs aren't really worth anything. That's the truth.

So by that assertion, I believe that everyone still taking time our of their day to defend Tannehill believes that he will magically rise up and achieve a level of consistency that he has yet not. They believe that it's possible to build a team around him good enough to make that happen.

I can't take that seriously nor can I take seriously the notion that Tannehill is a guy who's going to take someone to the Super Bowl.

He's a nice guy who looks the part and who's tough as nails. He has that going for him.

 

Weird....still no response on this....wonder why? I just can't figure it out.

 

If we had a good qb we would look good, if we had a bad qb we would look bad....we have an average qb so we look average.

Ryan is in an odd spot in which his qb play seems to not matter much in regards to our outcomes. We just so happen to have an avg team with an avg QB....its painfully bizarre.

 

Bolded is the truth.

 

Stop.

I'm so goddamned sick and tired of so many of you not only making up our argument but also flat out lying about what we have and have not said.

Not one person defending Tannehill has said he's always consistent. Not one person defending Tannehill has said QBs aren't a major factor in wins and loses.

You can't take your opposition seriously, because its effing fabricated by your side of the argument.

 

Having a solid team that wins regardless of QB is a conversation about coaching. This is not that conversation.

 

Pass.

 

Soooooo

You are mad someone is making up stories and lying huh...

Sounds legit.

 

Of course you'll pass.

You lie and then bail. Typical of the Tannehill haters.

 

We do not have an average team.

Our special teams, specifically kicking, has not been average.

Our defense, especially in scoring allowed, has not been average.

Our receivers at best, have been average.

The best way to elevate a team? Stingy defense, good run game. Again, look no further than everyone's favourite, the Seattle Seahawks. Wilson has elite escapability, but look at their record in games where the defense allows more than 21 points.

 

Pot, meet kettle. You know what I'm talking about.


Why is this kid so angry all the time, for real? Dude is PO'd in every thread, lol. 41? Don't sound like it!

 

Some of us remember having Marino through his whole career. We also remember the pre-season hype EVERY year from the "experts" about how they were favored to win the Super Bowl, or at least get to it. We also remember NEVER winning it, with a generational, all-time great QB who could put the team "on his back," because the rest of the team stunk without him. Some of us don't want a re-hash.

I feel RT is headed to the level he needs to be, to be a cog in a consistent contending team. He's a slow, steady learner, who routinely improves areas of his game from year to year. Nobody thinks he's perfect, they just think he's good enough, or will develop into it before long. I don't expect him to be multiple-levels better than the rest of the team...that's not the formula IMO.

I have no problem drafting QBs to give him competition, and if they're better, awesome. Not my decision, but I'm going to support him as a fan of this team, until the team decides otherwise. I have ZERO input on what the team does, so I don't waste a lot of energy with thoughts of "man what if we had Carr, or Newton, or Wilson?!?!"

He gives what he has 100% every week...has talent...is one tough M'er F'er...and strives to improve. Can't ask for more than that, as long as the organization designates him as our guy.

 

lol. You, of all people, have no business saying anything.

 

It comes in when people want to talk about ditching the best QB we've had in almost 20 years.

 

I think it'll be really interesting to see what happens this off-season once the coaches leave and Tannenbaum has one real chance to do something. Will he force the issue and try to make Tannehill THE feature guy in Miami or will he bring in a HC with the necessary experience to build a successful team around Tannehill?

In my eyes, Tannehill is easy to root for but he's not doing you any favors as a QB. I can root for the guy all day on Sunday. I have no problem with that. He's just not got the tools to be a feature QB the way a few of the league's QBs are. The worst part of watching a Miami game is that they try to make offense go by using the QB as the feature player. We're replacing the running game with lots of little dink/dunk passes and we're asking Tannehill to do amazing this in the pocket. There's literally no sense in how Lazor coordinate's the offense if you ask me. It doesn't do any of the players a favor which is basically what coaching boils down to--maximizing what you've got.

I think this offseason (and cbrad mentioned it in another thread I think) is going to tell us A LOT about whether or not Tannenbaum has any clue and certainly about whether or not the Dolphins have a chance to dig themselves out of this debacle they've been in for the last decade.

 

What it looks to me you all have with Tannehill is a guy who would fit much better in a Gary Kubiak offense, where the running game is established, and bootleg passes are built upon that. Instead, he's in an offense that Joe Philbin brought from Green Bay by way of Mike Sherman, where the QB functions as a pocket passer a la Aaron Rodgers. Your current offense isn't much different. Square peg in a round hole.