1) It gives Garrard of Moore the reigns of an offense that has not worked out it's kinks yet. The OLine, WRs have time to get sorted out. The offense has time to learn the system better and execute better. A rookie will make mistakes and the last thing he needs are a lot of mistales around him to compound it. This also let's Garrard or Moore absorb the blows to their psyche as the fledgling offense struggles and finds its feet, and absorb the physical blows as they get hit more than the QB likely will be later in the season. 2) It's the week after the bye. 3) This hasn;t been discussed, but it's very important. Our AFC EAST opponents are almost all after week 8. 5/6 of them in fact. One Jets game, both Bills games and both Pats games. Well, rookie QB's often do well when there is no film on them against NFL defenses for Defensive Co-ordinators to use for gameplanning. After several weeks or months of game film, we often see rookie QBs facing defenses designed to attack their weaknesses and take away their strengths. I would MUCH rather face our most important opponents with Tannehill without them having much film on him, than with them having seven to twelve games worth of film on him. 4) bonus reason: Bad protection and receivers who can't separate. Ryan could get in the habit of checking down, feeling an internal clock at 1.5 second and developing happy feet.
These coaches aren't doing that... they are competitive in nature. They won't have a plan in place to throw away the season to simply ween their rookie quarterback into the starting position. If he wins the regular season job, then good for him. If not, Moore or Garrard starts and Tannehill will come in late in the season or in 2013. Simple as that, IMO.
I seriously debate it. HOW much better does he look? Because I have to factor in that those are PRESEASON defenses, and NOT designed and gameplannined specifically AGAINST Tannehill's tendencies and weaknesses the way they will be in the season. Think of it this way, would you rather Belichick have 5 games of Tanny's film to use when planning against him, or 11 games worth?
If Tanny wins the job at the beginning of the season, I would rather have him have 11 games of experience and 11 games of tape to look at before going against Belichick
I guess if he starts he'll just have to overcome the rookie challenges of guys like Rex Ryan and Belichick confusing him with schemes and playing to his weaknesses. I'd rather give them less to work with and by the way Ryan WILL practice int he weeks he doesn't start but it gives him more time to develop before going out there. Almost two months more. I guess If he's great, he'll grow from the challenge of being in there against opponents who have his number.
forget that, i aint tryna see Matt Moore's bum *** for half a season, the Tannenator needs to be in there asap.
Start him week 1. What harm is it going to do? Weeden is starting week 1. RGIII and Luck are starting week 1. Last year Dalton and Newton started week 1. No reason not to start him.
Those guys are starting cause they are clearly head and shoulders better than any other QB on their rosters. If Tanny proves himself to be the best QB- he will start.
Those teams had nothing to lose either. This is not a Super Bowl caliber team. Having Garrard or Moore in there doesn't make it a Super Bowl caliber team. Might as well give the reps to Tannehill and let him get a full season under his belt. He will be better served taking live action than he would being the 3rd behind Moore and Garrard. Other qb's that sat has superstar qb's infront of them. McNair sat behind Moon. Rodgers sat behind Farve. Guys without that luxury play now. Ryan, Flacco, Newton, Dalton, Luck, RGIII, Weeden, Peyton Manning, etc. Tannehill belongs on this list, not the other.
Disagree. Can harm a young QB's confidence if he isn't ready for NFL defenses. It's his brain versus guys like Bill Belichick's brain out there. They will exploit his (and our) weaknesses. David Carr getting smashed repeatedly behind a leaky OLine, and taking time trying to decipher what he was looking at (most rookies don;t have the same rapid cognition of defenses because they haven't seen everything like a vet has... and Tannehill hasn't even played QB for four years at college like most rookies). Tannehill has the talent. He has the disposition, but if he gets into bad habits early, just to SURVIVE you could end up with a twitchy, patting the ball, someone-is-about-to-hit-me guy like Joey Harrington turned into. It's the Heath Shuler fate.
If the kid wins the job, he wins the job. The week is irrelevant. Like Garrard said in one of his interviews, everyone on the team knows who the starting QB should be.
Heath Shuler would have been Heath Shuler no matter what team and line he played behind. Dude sucked horribly.
Starting Tanny is a 2 point checklist: __1. Is he ready physically? __2. Is he ready mentally? If its not "yes" for both start anyone but him including Devlin. Now being ready mentally means can he play this game in his head and can his psyche survive failing for a bit. The ONLY people that now that are his coaches. Tossing him to see what we got or for ****s and giggles makes no sense.
Would a young boxer who just turned pro be better served by getting 'real experience' getting beaten on by pro's ASAP, or waiting until his skills were at a point where his manager and trainer believed he had a good chance of competing? Know what it does to a fighter's confidence, and self-belief if he goes out and fights guys who are WAY better than him before he can handle it? Most of them do not recover mentally. They have bad habits and fight with fear. That's the best way to lose. You send a QB out there who is in over his head, and he has NOT got years of having proven himself in this league, all he can do is take the beating as a sign that maybe he's not good enough to handle this level. He can;t say, well, LAST year I played well and won games at this level... nope, because he never has. And once the nervous system experiences repeated memories of failure, in a heightened physical state (like on a football field, where adrenaline flows), then any time your body goes BACK into that state you will revert to the things you remember and learned from when it felt that way before. For instance, Joey Harrington learned that the sensation of adrenaline after snapping the ball meant "Holy **** I am about to get hurt!" and he played like it the rest of his damned career. You don;t forget bad experiences when you don;t have a deep well of prior good experiences to weigh it against. TThat's why it's impiortant, with young QBs by starting with filling theeir well with GOOD experiences. Put them into controlled situations, or situations where they are set up to succeed. Late in games with the lead. When you have a favorable matchup. When the other defense is exhausted. When you will be mostly running the ball anyways and there is little pressure. etc etc. You reinforce the experience of success over and over, as you teach them good technical skills and habits. That's why it's called *developing a quarterback*, not instantly making one like a fast-food drive through. If Tannehill wins the job, he may have the mental makeup and talent to overcome these things, but it is flat out false to say there is NO reason to wait. There are reasons to wait, and we must weigh them against the reasons to not wait, then decide which is better for the team.
How do you like the thought of someone posting that in ten years as.... "Ryan Tannehill would have been Ryan Tannehill no matter what team and line he played behind. Dude sucked horribly." Because most people will say that. They won't remember to blame the coaches who threw him into the deep end of the shark-tank before he could swim, or handle sharks. Just like you blame Heath Shuler instead of also looking at how the Redskins turned to him in desperation, put a lot of pressure on him to succeed without the right support to do so on the field, nor enough time to mentally mature and learn... and so the coaches, GM, and poor Redskins organization share at LEAST half of that blame. Now, personally, I think Tannehill is mentally tougher than that... but until I see how good or bad this team REALLY is in a regular season game we really have no idea what we are getting that boy into. And he IS a boy, regardless of his size and intelligence. He looks beyond his years in part because he knows this offense. But he did NOT get experience at TAMU against regular season NFL defenses and those will be a rude awakening once D.C.s are gameplanning against him.
We finally get a ****ing ferrari and we're so quick to 'see how fast it will go'. We're a bunch of ****ing teenagers. Let's just hope Dad's car doesn't end up in a ditch.
Saying it's better for a rookie QB to get on their field experience to begin his learning curve than practice field experience is very short-shighted and often incorrect, that's what I'm saying. I strongly disagree that you're better off being thrown in there to learn, than being put in there when you are deemed ready.
It's early yet, but so far he's proving he might be ready now. I think "hurting his confidence" is an old school train of thought. The NFL isnt like that anymore. Kolb,henne, leinart, Stanton, beck, etc. These guys all sat until their time and then it was worthless. Then you have guys like flacco, Dalton, Freeman, Bradford, Sanchez, etc who are winning games every week as rookies. Hell, a few of them have made it to the playoffs. Im not saying tanny should start, by the idea isn't so cut and try as it used to be. These guys can play right out of college
There's a saying we all know--- wish in one hand, make dookie in the other............. If the "sense of urgency" thing were valid then every rookie would be developed half way through his 1st year. You cant will a player into development. There are teams of the past [w/o a reliable offense around the QB] that have attempted expediting QB development and had their hopes blow up in flames. It's not considered development if the QB takes a year to break a rookie season's worth of bad habits and damaged psyche if he was thrown into the fire either before he was ready or before the offense was capable of creating an environment good enough to ensure his development. With that said, if the pass pro is solid, the ground game is effective, and the defense is keeping us in games, then it'd be ok to let him start, IMO, but the circumstances would need to be constantly monitored.
respectfully, all of those but one were 2nd rounders, so the deck was already stacked against them compared to a high 1st rounder in regards to franchise QB material. Bradford isn't winning games every week. Flacco, Dalton, and Sanchez had the benefit of a solid defense behind them, a good ground game, and some talent and/or quality experience at WR/TE to aid them, and Freeman had a 59.8 QBR as a rookie, which I don't think we'd want from the QB position this year if we can help it. IMO it's no different than it's always been. If you place a QB in a position to succeed and he has it in him to do so, then he'll likely succeed; however, if he has it in him to succeed and you put him in a less than favorable situation, his success is no longer guaranteed. If it seems Tannehill might be headed for a "Sam Bradford-StLouis" type situation where he's being knocked around in an outmatched offense, then you let Tanny sit and develop from the sidelines a little longer before throwing him in. However, if it seems Tanny might be headed for a "Sanchez-NY/ Ryan-Atl/ Flacco-Balt" type situation, then you're safe to start him b/c the added pressure of carrying an offense and/or team won't be added to his already existing burden of development. Then you have the poor guy Bradford who has the quadruple burden of trying to develop, carry the offense, carry the team, AND run for his life. The quadruple whammy is definitely what we don't want, triple whammy neither for that matter. Double whammy is pushing it. I'd settle for a whammy & a half provided it didn't include "running for Tanny's life" b/c I think that's his limit, but right now IMO Miami's closer to double+ whammy territory.
Out of your latter success story group, I bet half of them are no longer starters five years hence, and of the starters, only one is in the top half of the league. Flacco and Sanchez would be screwed without two Rex-Ryan-built defenses to help carry those teams. On a team with an average or below average defense, you actually need to be good as a QB. The career QB rating for your success stories are 86, 80.4, 79, 74.2, 73.2... and if you add Cam Newton he is 84.5. They were ranked 15th, 18th, 20, 23, 26, and 30th as QBs in this league. I wouldn't say that's my goal for Tannehill and then imitate that approach. Hell, Matt Moore rated an 87.1 last year... higher than all of them. And Matt Moore ain't a guy with a Pro-Bowl future. so let's look at the guys we WANT Tannehill to become. The level we want him to reach. The top ten QBs in the NFL last year by QB rating were: Aaron Rogers (started in 4th year) Drew Brees (started 2nd year) Tom Brady (started due to Bledsoe injury, 2nd year) Tony Romo (4th year starter, UDFA) Matthew Stafford (Day One 1st Year starter, injury problems missed 6 games, then injured most of 2nd year) Matt Schaub (Full-time starter in 4th year) Eli Manning (1st start in Week 11 of rookie year) Matt Ryan (Day One 1st Year starter, missed two games in year two due to injury) Alex Smith (Intended as Day One starter, but battled training camp injuries. Finally healthy to start Week 5 Rookie Year. Missed multiple games with injuries, but healthy in second year, then combined injuries and benchings for five years until a full starter again in 2011) Ben Roethlisberger (1st Start Week Three rookie year) Looking through those I see two things... 1) there is a higher correlation between starting later and being a top tier QB than between starting day one and being a top tier QB. 2) Day one starters tend to have more injury issues in their first few years. For those reasons, I'd prefer to see Tannehill start in week 8, unless Moore has us in well the playoff hunt, in which case I'd like Ryan to sit until next season.
correction: Schaub didn't become a fulltime starter till year 4. Rest of the stuff is great. Carry on. Great point though about trying to draw comparisons from the top QBs of the league rather than the standard default argument "well so and so started from year one", which actually means nothing on its own merit.
That's what I thought!!! But the stats at ESPN , NFL.com and such misled me and I began to doubt my own memory of things! I'm fixing it. Thanks. EDIT: OKay, technically we are ALL right. Per wikipedia: "In 2004, Matt Schaub played QB in 6 games with the Atlanta Falcons, including starting the NFL week sixteen contest against the New Orleans Saints. " So he DID start... but it wasn't until the Texans aquired him in 2007, I think, that he became the full-fledged starter of the team. You know, the dude who gets the big piece of chicken. So, it looks like he became a full time starter in his fourth year, as you suhhested.
You start with the target for the player's development. The goal, relative to what you think his ceiling is. For Tannehill, it's very high, imo. Top ten in the league. Then, you take the right steps to get him to that goal. It's really easy. Where do you want to get to, and how have previous people gotten there? (Avoid the ways people have failed to get there.)
There are several points which make the Tannehill situation different than most: 1. His OC now was his HC for Ryan's 4 years of college, the same is true for his QB coach. 2. Both HC and OC have noticed that Ryan can easily become overconfident and have said as much noting his inconsistency. Ryan also seems to be aware of this noting his statement of his bad throw to Marian Moore being open at the goal line and Ryan getting "ansy" because he was so open. 3. I fully believe they, Ireland, Philbin, Sherman, and Ross, all want Ryan to win the job. Yet to be at the same level as Moore/Garrard is not like outright winning the Job from them and thats what Tannehill needs to do to be successful imo. That is much more important than when he wins it ... first year second year or whenever! Yes I want to see him start ASAP but I also should note that I'm no where near close enought to properly judge his mental mindset while Philbin and Sherman, along with Ryan himself, are that close. Therefore I'll trust their judgement and be patient about it. I would much rather see the game come to him than he be thrown in over his head because the fans demanded it!
I like this place the best. It loads quickly and has a neat, hidden feature, like your ex g/f. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm Go to it, then click on 2 different yearly rows of season stats, let's say: the row for 2007 and then 2011..... and then watch the magic unfold. PS: don't click on the actual year, itself, but just a part of the yellow that becomes highlighted.
I have said I think Tanne should start and I am a firm believer in rookies sitting until the offense is established, teh line has gelled, etc. I believe that rookies need veteran support helping them and if those veterans arent comnfortable yet in teh system than that guidane suffers. Or if the vertan are of subpar talent then do not put the rookie out there. I think we are solid enough and Ryan is mentally tough enough to weather the adversity and is playing as well or better than Moore. A 100% Garrad is solid enough and talented enougth that it makes more sense to start him and allow Tannehill to learn. I just dont see sitting Tannehill if he is clearly better than Moore. But that is why he need reps with teh 1s and game action vs 1s. If he doesnt show as well, then you sit him and allow him to grow and development
I get where you are going BUT: Brady: Behind Bledsoe Rodgers: Behind Favre Add Rivers: Behind Brees Eli: Behind Warner Romo: Behind Carter, Testaverde and Bledsoe Schaub: Vick Roethlisberger: Batch and Maddox Looking at that list, the only thing that really comapes to Miami's situation is probably Roethlisberger. Maddox and Batch are the closest match to Moore and Garrard. Tannehill isn't sitting behind Bledsoe, Vick, Brees, Favre or Warner. He's sitting behind Garrard and Moore. Give him a preseason start and see how it goes. If he handles it well, he should be the starter. And I'm not one of those rush him into the position people. I was fine with him sitting. HOWEVER, Garrard is now WAY behind and should be looked at by this staff as a backup. Moore is Moore. He's never going to be anything more than he is. And honestly, is this team really going to the playoffs with Moore at the helm? Probably not. Is this team going to the playoffs with Tannehill? Probably not. So if the end result has the POTENTIAL to be the same, why not get the RT's feet wet? The arguement that "the Patriots will have 5 Weeks of tape on him" is crap. So should we not start Tannehill in 2013 because the Patriots could have 16 weeks of tape on him? Stupid.
Except I think most people universally recognize those once-in-a-decade guys whose mental grasp of the game is YEARS and YEARS ahead of most rookies. And who seem mature enough to handle it. I'd say it's a risk to Luck's development to start him day one, but a very small one compared to a guy like Tannehill who only has two years of game-experience at QB in college.
1. That's the problem. It hides some of the fact that he IS still a rookie. Because he seems to be where a third year guy would be with the offense we think he's that far along in ALL aspects... but he is NOT when it comes to reading NFL defenses and facing NFL talent and DCs. 2. Yes. And only reps will teach him what is "open" and "not open" at this level. And also learn to calm down because the experience is less new. 3. Yes. Brilliantly said.
Okay, but your point isn't what's best for Tannehill to become the best QB he can long-term, your point is that other teams had better circumstances to let them properly develop their quarterbacks. Just makes it more likely we'll screw it up with ours then, hm? And I'll make you a deal, you refrain from using words like "Crap" and "Stupid" to reference my posts and I'll be respectful back to you. Okay?
I think the argument against playing him right away is that there are viable options here which may increase the TEAM's chance of winning games. That wasn't the case with Sanchez, Dalton, Freeman, or Flacco. Leinart was behind Warner and Henne was behind Pennington. That's why they didn't play as early as early as the other guys.
