No idea, but that's not my point. Those QBs were handed the starting job. Just like Luck and Griffin are being handed the starting jobs. huh?
Open competition against who? The only other QBs on the roster were Bruce Gradkowski and Jordan Palmer. Who else could have started over Newton? Jimmy Clausen? If our QBs were Bruce Gradkowski and Jimmy Clausen, then by all means I would think Tannehill would end up being the starter.
They were the best QBs on the roster. I'm not sure how that is being handed anything. Cam Cameron's infamous quote. Inferring that failure in certain circumstances is acceptable.
A billion dollar NFL team has to worry about 2 things regarding a rookie QB: A. his development B. winning games If A potentially interferes with B, then you ween him along early if the opportunity allows it. Now, if he's remotely close to rivaling Garrard and Moore by preseason's end, then you hand him the reigns, but you don't just start him to start him IMO.
The Skins clearly expressed that Griffin would have to earn the starting job. Luck is NFL ready which is a big difference, so it's somewhat folly to play the rookie QB-comparison game b/c not all QBs are the same or enter the same situation, nor share the same QB competition. Rodgers wasn't handed the starting job and he's now a top 4 NFL QB. Plus, I'm not sure why you're ignoring the dozens of 1st round QBs who were thrown into the fire from day one and ended up busting.
Exactly, b/c you'd hope his upside and room for development would push him past the others in a reasonable amount of time.
I'm fairly certain that the majority of people that expect Tanny to fail are also FireIrelanders. DJ for example, isn't sure if Tanny is the answer but he doesn't assume he'll fail and he also isn't an FireIrelander either. JW, on the other hand, probably gets aroused at the thought of Tanny failing and Ireland being drawn and quartered.
Reversing B and A represents my thought process: If B. (winning games) potentially interferes with A. (his development) then you don't worry about winning a couple/few more meaningless games if you're not in the playoffs what difference is 4-12 vs 6-10? Having a franchise QB gives a team a chance to win the superbowl. Winning a superbowl is the goal of evert franchise (or so they say). Developing a franchise QB is a process. QBs need to play to develop. Is delaying the development of the franchise QB, thus delaying the chance to compete for a superbowl worth maybe winning a couple/few more games?
How would the other 52 guys on the roster feel about that? How is Reggie Bush going to feel about essentially losing money so that Ryan Tannehill can potentially make more money? I agree that developing a franchise QB is a process. One of the first steps in that process is beating out non-franchise QBs.
Not even remotely true. Mike Shanahan named Griffin the starter during the offseason. Of course.(Rodger's wasn't a rookie and he didn't 'win' the job anyway) Lets not confuse the topic and water down or generalize my specific point: by and large rookie QBs that start are handed the starting jobs as opposed to actually 'winning' the starting job
That's quite understandable and seems logical. However, IMO it's too soon in the season for an NFL team to actually believe they have no shot at a SB, so until they know for sure that they're out, they have to treat it as if they're in. Secondly, if the talented QB develops during practice and so forth as he should, then in a reasonable amount of time he should warrant being put in; if he's showing that he's not yet ready, then he continues to sit and learn (and it's not like he's being thrown into a closet until desperate times present itself). I can't speak for everyone but I don't think fans are saying that he should hypothetically sit until the end of year 3 or 4 when Miami is ruled out of the playoffs. He just needs to be at the point to where Philbin & Sherman can game-plan to Tannehill's strengths to where the offense isn't a liability (or significantly less of one). Sometimes slowing down the development means speeding up the development, especially for someone who didn't see as many college reps as most rookie QBs.
I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree. Franchise QBs seldom 'win' the starting job as much as they are 'handed' the start job.
I believe that developing a franchise QB is an entire team concept. It requires everyone being of the same mind/goal/focus to the extent that it requires most if not all of the practice reps and the focus from the HC to the OC to the QB coach is developing a gameplan and practice plan that fosters their development. I think experience is relative. Tannehill comes in already knowing the verbiage of this offense which goes a long way to shortening the learning curve. IIRC Tannehill had more snaps then Mark Sanchez and Cam Newton both of whom were day 1 starters.
Sure, I'll agree that Kurt Warner was at his worst in that period. But did you see Eli when he took over? Guy looked like an UDFA out of a DIII school. As average as Warner looked, it was no where near as bad as Eli. The Giants knew they couldn't contend that year and chose to focus on the future. For the next 3 years they made the playoffs and won a superbowl in that period.
I think he meant he wasn't handed the job in his first year, which is what the discussion has been about. And are you sure he was? You don't think he earned it in practices and TCs all those years behind Favre?
Now I just think you're remembering wrong. So I went and looked up their stats. Kurt Warner that year was 5-4 as a starter 174 Cmp 277 Att 7.4 Y/A 62.8% 6 TDs, 4 INTs 2,054 yards 86.5 Passer Rating Eli Manning was 1-6 as a starter 95 Cmp 197 Att 5.3 Y/A 48.2% 6 TDs, 9 INTs 1,043 yards 55.4 Passer Rating In fact, Kurt Warner was above average and had the Giants at 5-4. They elected to pull him for Eli, who came in and sucked. They played for the future. And it worked out for them. Eli sucked. But it proved to be just what was needed. Eli was the poster child for "Fail Forward Fast" and what it was supposed to mean.
He played 9 games and threw for 6 touchdowns. If memory serves me right, his back was also bothering him. Warner looked, slow, old and done.
I don't expect Tannehill to fail. But I certainly have my doubts. You can't - or shouldn't - lump all Firelanders or whatever into a the same group with JW. I don't think he's a good GM, but I don't root for him to make bad decisions. I've said many times, I think Tannehill will bust, but I am sure as hell going to cheer my *** of for him not to. And I can't wait for the day I get to eat a big heaping pile of crow. Just not convinced it's coming.
Then why didn't Eli Manning start from the beginning? Why did they sign Warner????? Its illogical to say that they felt they needed to develop a future QB, yet they started Kurt Warner for 9 games. Using the aggregate passer rating here isn't necessarily telling the story. The Giants offense was terrible for 3-4 games. They went 1-3, which led to Warner getting benched. Keep in mind that Tom Coughlin had a record of winning before he even came to the Giants. Also keep in mind that most people wanted Coughlin fired, and a lot of players didn't like him for a very long time. The fact that Coughlin recovered from it is quite the anomaly. I'm not sure Joe Philbin can get out to a 2-6 start and survive.
I totally agree. Some rookie QBs play a lot and develop just fine, such as Newton and Dalton. Throwing Gabbert into the fire did not appear to help him at all. There are many QBs who were forced in too soon as rookies on poor teams who IMO definitely had their development ******ed. Tim Couch, David Carr, and John Beck come to mind. Some QBs who went on to have good careers never played at all or very very little as rookies. Favre, Culpepper, Palmer and Rodgers come to mind. I cannot think of any highly drafted QB that basically just wore a baseball cap and held a clipboard as a rookie and had it have a negative effect on his career. With Tannehill, it may not hurt his psyche to play a lot as a rookie, even if he struggles, such as Gabbert did, but then again it may. If he spends the season as the 3rd stringer, I see no precedent that it will have a negative impact on his career as a whole. That would be my #1 concern.
My gawd, I hope the team isn't that impatient. I think Philbin should be given at least 2 full seasons before any changes should even be considered. You're thinking a 2-6 start could get rookie head coach Philbin fired? I just can't imagine that.
That's what I recall too with Warner. He'd gotten beaten up in the first half of the season and I think the way the team was trending around mid season because of Warner's physical condition sort of led them to make the move to Eli earlier than they really preferred to.
Agreed. And Philbin and Sherman know this. It's not like Ross gave them a "you better win now" or "start the rookie" speech. Whoever is better, plays, it's simple. If Tannehill starts it tells me Philbin/Sherman know he's better. If they choose to have him sit, then he got beat out by Gararrd or Moore. Either way he will play at somepoint this season. It's not like Tannehill is sitting behind Tom Brady and Eli Manning. I just hope this coaching staff is smart enough not to just throw him out there. I still have nightmares of John Beck. Then again, if they drafted a guy like John Beck at 8, we have bigger problems. I fully believe in Tannehill. I'm not worried. And if camp ends and they are all "close," then I sat start Ryan. If the vet's can't beat out a rook, they don't deserve the start. Just an opinion.
My point was that it's fairly obvious that at no point in 2004 from the time Eli was drafted until the end of the season was he anywhere close to Kurt Warner in terms of being an effective NFL Quarterback. And yet the Giants turned to Eli even though Warner had them at 5-4. Are you disagreeing with that? Because I'm not sure what your point is. Do you believe that Eli Manning was better in practice and training camps? I completely disagree with this. Anything 4-12 or better and I believe Joe Philbin's job is safe.
lol. Thinking he'll bust and expecting him to are more or less the same thing. Wanting him to bust and thinking/expecting him to are different.
No idea. I never saw Eli Manning practice. My point was that Warner was benched because he played poorly, not because the team just wanted to start the rookie. If their goal was to get Manning experience, then why did they start Warner in the first place? And to be clear, neither QB was effective. His job? Maybe. But he will be very close to losing the players, especially if he isn't playing a QB that doesn't give the team the absolute best chance of winning. It sends an awful message. Why should Reggie Bush work for 30 minutes on his own after practice, if the team is more concerned about Ryan Tannehill's success than Reggie Bush's success. Why wouldn't the team want to put Reggie in the best position to succeed? Its an extremely slippery slope. Players on bad teams usually don't end up getting big pay days. Joe Philbin has no proven record to fall back on. Why exactly would players have confidence in him if he doesn't start winning?
I'm not trying to roast you or make you feel bad for your belief b/c there are times where it's ok or good to start a rookie QB from day 1, but it's simply not the NFL norm. IMO the past 20 years have shown that being thrown into the fire early has led to more failure or mediocrity than success, meanwhile top NFL QBs seemed to possibly benefit from sitting. Some 1st Round "Day 1" or near day 1 starters - #1 pick Sam Bradford has been getting ruined in StLouis since starting from day 1. - #5 pick Mark Sanchez is still crud. - #3 pick Vince Young started from day one and is now a backup in Buffalo. - #1 pick Alex Smith? Throwing him into the fire didn't help. - #1 pick David Carr? Massive bust. - #3 pick Joey Harrington? inserted week 1, starter by week 2. Complete bust. - #1 pick Tim Couch? Thrown into fire week 2. Ruined and/or bust. - #2 pick Ryan Leaf? Massive bust. - #3 pick Heath Shuler was thrown into the fire early on. Bust. - #2 pick Rick Mirer, bust. - #12 pick Cade McNown saw action from week 1. Bust. - Josh Freeman's early starting didn't prevent a terrible 2nd season. - Flacco has yet to emerge as a top 15 QB. - Jason Campbell? Never became a franchise QB. - Kyle Boller? Bust. *Peyton Manning started 45 games in college and was groomed by an NFL QB. He was NFL ready. *Matt Ryan was NFL ready after 5 years of college QB in a pro system. *Stafford has been groomed for quite a while, long before he was a freshman starter in a pro system at UGA. *Dalton started 4 years at TCU. He was NFL ready. The majority of NFL's top current QBs did not start from day 1 - Rodgers sat 3 years - Brady sat his rookie year - Brees sat his rookie year - #4 pick Rivers sat 2 years - Schaub sat 3 years - Romo sat 3 years - #1 pick Carson Palmer sat his entire rookie year and benefitted greatly b/c of it (until Cincy decided his safety wasn't a priority). - #1 pick Mike Vick started just 2 games as a rookie. - #2 pick McNabb started just 6 games as a rookie - #7 pick Roethlisberger began his rookie season 3rd on the depth chart. - #1 pick Eli Manning sat the first half of his rookie year. - #11 pick Jay Cutler sat first half of his rookie year and didn't start until Shanahan believed Jay represented Denver's best option at QB. **So of the NFL's current top 10 QBs (by my ranking), only Manning & Stafford were day 1 starters. 1. Brady 2a. Brees 2b. Rodgers 4. Peyton (b/c he missed a year) 5. Eli 6a. Ben 6b. Stafford 8a. Vick 8b. Rivers 10. Romo
IMO, it depends on how or why they would be losing. Are they getting blown out or losing closely fought battles. Most players would be smart enough to see the big picture. The only way I could see the head coach losing the confidence of his team would be if he starts and sticks with some guys who are obviously not the better players, and/or if he is just a total buffoon when it comes to game day decisions and clock management that obviously lead to losses.
Then you look at day 1 starters like Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Dalton, Freeman, Flacco, & Stafford.... and compare their # of college pass attempts with Tannehill: Manning- 1354 {per ESPN, not including sacks} Ryan- 1345 Dalton- 1317 Freeman- 1151 Stafford- 987.... (experienced, #1 prep QB prospect out of high school) Flacco- 942...... (spent 5 years as Delaware QB) Tannehill- 774.. (wasn't a full time QB in high school) # of snaps and repetition are important, and for QBs to have nearly double of Tannehill's says a lot. It says the wise move is to NOT throw Tannehill into the fire until he's absolutely ready. For reference, Marino started 4 years at Pitt and had 1204 pass attempts. Elway started 3 years at Stanford with 1246. Notable HOF QBs who either sat or weren't thrown into the fire right out of college Favre sat his rookie year. Montana sat his rookie year. Steve Young had 2 years of USFL and then some. Warren Moon had 6 years of CFL. Jim Kelly had 2 years of USFL.
