...there was a player on the Dolphins whose development or performance was truly being held back by the players around him. I know people have believed this to be true in theory many times. Chris Chambers didn't have a good enough quarterback. Chad Henne's offensive line wasn't good enough. Ryan Tannehill's receivers aren't good enough. When has this ever been true? Objectively speaking, that is. Not just in theory. When has the outcome ever been that, when a player actually got the "better" players he needed around him, he played much better? Help me out here. Honestly. EDIT: To clarify, when has there ever been an instance when a significant percentage of people here believed someone to be in need of only a supporting cast to become a good player, and that turned out at some later point to be proven correct?
Marino never had a running game along with a defense. Elway didnt have a running game. Look what happened when TD came along. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'm talking about a DOLPHINS player. Somebody many of us believed was only "better players around him" from becoming much better. I have no idea what the Broncos fans thought was holding John Elway back before TD came along. John Elway was in fact objectively a great player before TD, as well. For example, the belief that "Chris Chambers would be a lot better with a better QB," and then Chris Chambers DOES get a better QB and plays a lot better. When has this kind of thing ever happened? When has it ever been "confirmed" that some player needed only better players around him to realize his potential?
Chambers was overrated and Henne didn't have a clutch gene. They were part of the problem, not the solution.
Perhaps so, but it was widely thought that they were only "a better quarterback" and "a better offensive line" away from being great, respectively. When has this kind of thing EVER been confirmed? When has anyone TRULY been only other players away from being great?
Only in our minds.. Rest of the league and fans could see reality way sooner than we could. Especially with scrubs like Chambers that would vanish for entire months
Marino had great protection along with all the weapons at receiver he could ask for in Duper, Clayton, and Nat Moore..... and he was able to reach his fullest potential b/c of it. Now that we've hopefully got Tanny's protection for the future established, we can turn our focus toward providing him with weapons.
Well if it's true that it's only in our minds, we should probably stop applying that logic to players we hope will be great but who currently are not.
Welker is one example, however he clearly showed something to make NE offer 2 picks and a large contract. One could argue he exceeded expectations here in Miami given the status of the teams he played on.
You're not understanding the question. If your belief is that Tannehill is only a much better receiving corps away from being great, what similar example can you point to in the history of the Dolphins? When else has it been believed that someone was only other players away from being great, and then when those other players were obtained, they in fact WERE great?
Hence my reason for saying it's too early to pass judgement on Tanny.. But I do love what I'm seeing and the potential. We haven't seen a live arm like this since Marino. That is a fact.
I guess I don't really get the thread...are you trying to say these types of things are false? And Im not sure how widely thought, that Henne was a good OL away, was. Id suspect not very wide at all. Chambers maybe. He had productive years with bad QBs. The thing is, in general, great players are great players are great regardless of their surrounding cast. However a great surrounding cast can make someone good look great, and someone average look good. There's 0 denying that.
Great players will excel regardless. Billicheck was on the verge of being fired before golden boy took that team over. Tanny may of may not be that guy, but remember Brady sat for one year. Tanny is also considered a raw prospect. Jury is out.. I know what you are trying to imply, I suggest patience this year
You could point to everyone that Marino was throwing the ball to. Ricky. Just off the top of my head.
Let me ask you this. If Tannehill had Megatron or Larry Fitzgerald, do you think his QB rating through 3 games would be higher and that talent at the WR position would have led to less drops like the ones Armstrong had all last week? Talent helps whether you want to admit it or not.
You're not understanding the question. Neither Marino nor Ricky were thought to need a better supporting cast to become great. What I'm asking is, when was it ever the case that a player was thought to need a better supporting cast to become great himself, and then that actually happened?
Well I can tell you this: I'd sure feel a lot more comfortable saying Tannehill's QB rating would be significantly (key word) higher if it had ever been confirmed that some player who was thought to need a better supporting cast actually became much better when he got one. It's quite possible that Tannehill would have let's say only a 65 QB rating with Johnson or Fitzgerald out there. Or maybe it would be much higher. Who knows?
With the dysfunction known as the Miami Dolphins??? Your implying that we have coached and developed talent that consistently improved. The only example would be Cameron and how well Ronnie Brown played for half a season. Or the wildcat which gave him the open space he needed to excel.
Nobody knows. But I stand by the contention that this year is too early to judge, even if his rating was over 90 now. All you need to do is compare Cam Newton to Christian Ponder or Gabbert to realize that Last year Cam was the 2nd coming of Marino, this year the two scrubs from last year are outperforming him
How about Wes Welker? With the Dolphins (Dolphins quarterbacks) in 2005 and 2006, and he had 29 receptions for 434 yard and 67/687. 1 TD during that time. Put him with a better QB in NE, the next five years he averaged over 100 catches and 1,100 yards with 31 TDs during those years. Receivers are held back developmentally and in other ways, obviously, by not having good quarterback play. You learn how to get on the same page as a good QB, your routes have to become more crisp, you get the feel of catching the ball over and over... it just works that way. If stats like that aren't what you're looking for when you say "objectively", I guess I don't know what you mean. Welker certainly isn't the only player like that.
Nice work including Chambers in your post. That excludes any reference to Ireland not drafting a 1st round skill position player until this year.
There is nothing holding Tannehill back he will either be great or he wont be. Chris Chambers was as good as he was gonna get and yes Dan Marino never had a running game but he also didn't really have a dominant defense to fall back on either. My point is nothing is holding Tannehill back from becoming a great player. He is his own worst enemy right now and thats it. Take for instance Aaron Rodgers the year he won the super bowl.. 1. Ryan Grant and James Starks- Not exactly top flight running backs. In fact I think both were late late picks. 2. Green Bays secondary was a spit and glue unit.. Charles Woodson was injured and so forth 3. The offensive line wasn't exactly top flight either. Point being that Aaron Rodgers is that great of a QB. So far I don't see that "it" factor with Tannehill. I hope i'm wrong.
This is just an empty question then... Your asking if the Miami Dolphins, have had an average player, then a great supporting cast came after the fact, and that average player then turned great? Your joking right? Maybe Mark Clayton? He didnt have a good year before marino lol
As far as QBs, Kurt Warner was a far better quarterback with Holt/Bruce/Faulk etc. and then with Fitz/Boldin/Breaston than he was in his years with more average WRs in New York. In a couple places, he was HoF caliber, but in another he wasn't great.
I'll add to this debate.... Seems to me in all my years as a Dolphin fan we have had a whole lot of this and a little of that. An high flying offense and a crappy defense, a below average offense and a super bowl caliber defense, a dominant secondary and a suspect linebacker unit, a dominant pass rush and no running game, a great running game and no passing game. For some reason I continue to hold out hope that someday we put it all together but Zach Thomas is now 39 years old and retired so we still need to replace him. Dan Marino is 50+ and we need to replace him. OJ McDuffie is in his mid 40's and we still haven't replaced him. Jason Taylor is pushing 40 and we haven't replaced him. Ricky Williams is in his mid 30's and we haven't replaced him....Now....Reggie Bush is in his 6th year and that is about peak for running backs, Karlos Dansby is on the wrong side of 30 despite the fact that he keeps saying he's the greatest linebacker of all time, Ryan Tannehill is a 24 year old rookie who is as green as the grass in the mountains and that is quite scary in my opinion, and of course we have no secondary to speak of, and no pass rush to speak of. BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have a very very good offensive line (imo). IT SUCKS BEING A DOLPHIN FAN SOMETIMES. In conclusion I think the reason we just can't ever seem to put this all together is because we are lousy and I mean straight up friggin LOUSY at drafting. Why did we take Jamar Fletcher over Drew Brees? How could we pass on Matt Ryan? How could we draft Ted FKING GINN? Why did we trade down for Jared Odrick?, Why didn't we draft Dez Bryant?, Why the hell did we draft Ronnie Brown over Aaron Rodgers?, and why for christ sake did we draft Vonta Davis over Clay Mathews? I only hope that Tannehill does something but it aint lookin good. I can go on and on about how ****ING ****TY we have drafted over the years. Yeah there have been a few gems here and there with Mike Pouncey being the most recent gem but we have whiffed on most of our picks and that includes going back to the Wanny era. AND don't even get me started on the free agents we have brought in over the years. Names like Gibril Wilson, Brian Griese, Ray Lucas, Daunte Cullpepper, Earnest Wilford, PK Sam, Kevin Burnett, and Dick Marshall don't xactly turn me on. Then again we did get rid of Wes Welker, and Matt Prater (who can make a 48 yard field goal). Of course I did get my hopes up only to have them crash down in flames when we kicked tires on talents such as David Boston, Cade McNown, Jim Druckenmiller, and Manuel Wright. Oh yeah...Yatil Green and what might have been.... John Avery and the hope he gave me. I can go on and on people!!!! Point being I am just as big of a die hard fan as the rest of you and I have been patient for a very very long time. I hope we beat the breaks off of the Cardinals and Tannehill throws for 300+ yards and Bush runs for 175. It would be nice to see that. The only thing holding "players" back is the half *** moves the front office has made. This topic has pissed me off. Goodnight.
The biggest thing holding RT back right now is that he's only played 3 games. He's generally played very well, however, he has made a handful of costly poor plays that hurt his QBR. In a small sample size those few plays have a large statistical impact. This is not uncommon with rookies, Peyton Manning is a good example. Also having a better supporting cast could have helped balanced things for him. It is a fact that there have been several costly drops that would have raised his QBR if his WRs would have caught the ball (and RT did absolutely nothing different). The Dolphin receiving core is currently among the league leaders in drops. This is not homerism or false optimism regarding RT. This is a quantifiable fact. And obviously, if RT had thrown a short screen where a WR made a great play and scored a TD, then his QBR would be higher so a better supporting cast would result in a better QBR. But all this misses the point. RT is three games in so the sample size is small and he's in the portion of his career where more mistakes are expected. It is ridiculous to focus on the QBR at this point and make it the be all and end all. What you look for is what skills the QB has and if there is development. Does he show poise? Does he learn from his mistakes and improve? Does he show instincts? Does he give you a chance to win at the end? Etc.
I'd say John Offedahl, the ersatz talent around him was dreadful. As for offensive player, I'd say Ricky, he was great while here, he was also the offense so to speak. Prior to coming here, like Reggie B, he had shown flashes but was never a great player.
Elway got to two Super Bowls in a VERY mediocre AFC and got his *** handed to him both times. Meanwhile, Shula was burning through draft picks, never able to fix the ****ing defense. On topic: ...there was a player on the Dolphins whose development or performance was truly being held back by the players around him. Answer: The entire defense that Jimmy built. They were let down by the rubbish we had on offense. Chris Chambers was too inconsistent and dropped too many passes to have ever been elite, even with a great quarterback. Henne's issues were not the line, they were his inability to improve AND he had a horrible play caller. Far too early to say anything about Tannehill. Talk to me in 2014.
I remember Brian Griese never having a shot to win any games 'cause our left tackle was a turnstile at the time...Wade Smith?
Easy, Ricky Williams. With a good line he had 1,800 yards, with a worse line he had 1,300 yards and then retired. I really don't understand the point. If Henne had a better offensive line, he would have performed better. I am not a Henne fan by any use of the word fan, however of course having better players equals having a better performance. Football is a team sport and better teammates helps with performance. This isn't baseball.
Great players make others look better but other players preformance don't make a player "great." Wes Welker is a great example of a player going from a team whos staff did not put him in position to succeed to a team with a great QB/HC who used his ability to the fullest extent. Does that make him or them greater? Your call.
Nobody here thought Wes Welker was a better supporting cast from being great. The original question was (and maybe I didn't clarify it enough in the OP), who was thought to be only a supporting cast from being great, and then actually became great when the supporting cast was obtained? In other words, what I'm trying to ascertain is our "accuracy" in thinking a player needed only a better supporting cast to become great. If we didn't think the player needed one, then that player can't very well factor into our "accuracy quotient" if you will. The Wes Welker example is a good one as an analogy, because he became a better player when he went to a better team and had a better supporting cast. But the question was, who was thought to need a supporting cast and then became better when he got one? That's a subtle but key difference here, because what I'm getting at is that it seems the way people try to remain hopeful about a player is to attribute his shortcomings to his surrounding cast. Nobody was doing that with Welker, but people have done it with players like Chambers and Henne. So again, the question is, for what player was that thought to be the case, and it was later confirmed to be? I do know it sure wasn't Chambers or Henne. So help me out. Who was it? If anyone?
However, it was also a quantifiable fact when he was at Texas A&M, so when do you start to attribute that to him and not to his surrounding cast? http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/college_player_scouting_report.html&player=33154 http://igglesnest.com/2012/some-ryan-tannehill-stats/ So for me this is like a "here we go again," where we're pulling a Chris Chambers/Chad Henne here and attributing someone's play to other players instead of to him, hence my question: when have we ever been proven right in thinking someone was only a supporting cast away? I think our track record here is probably pretty poor. I don't think there's any reason to think that any of us are by any means "accurate" in attributing one player's deficiencies to the players around him. I think it's probably far more likely that it's what we do when we want to hold out hope for that one player, and there is little if any accuracy involved in the perception. Now, of course that doesn't mean Ryan Tannehill is hopeless. But what it does mean, IMO, is that he's going to get better primarily by getting better himself, not by getting a better supporting cast. I don't think anybody here can point to some past track record of having predicted when a player was only a supporting cast away, so there's no reason to believe anyone here is correct in thinking that about Tannehill. In fact, if you go by many of the past perceptions of Chambers and Henne, we should probably believe that when large numbers of people here are attributing someone's play to his supporting cast, it's a red flag that the player himself needs improvement, since our track record in that area is so poor.
