I guess....Im taking your OP...to be part of some lead up argument in reference to Ryan Tannehill..... Which...Im not sure why its even being made..three games into his pro career. I know many people argue that David Carr was ruined by a horrible offensive line.... Its kind of like....which came first...the chicken or the egg....I mean...how do we really know...if its a supporting cast..that made a player great...or...it was a combination of both. I look at it more of a question of our offense...as a whole. Put more play makers in our offense...does our whole offense improve....if that is the case...great....
The scout's observation was backed by objective statistics that showed Tannehill had an inordinate amount of drops in college. That's what makes it objective. I'm talking about the throw to Armstrong on the slant, not the one to Hartline.
Hopefully. I know it couldn't possibly mean any more than that, since he doesn't really have the power to end anything.
And all that's true, but the point is, if the board has a track record only of inaccuracy in proposing that some player was only a supporting cast away from being great, why should the board put any stock in its ability to accurately appraise such a thing with regard to Ryan Tannehill?
Your completely off base from the OP's intention of this thread....there's no fu$&ing love affair with Moore..
Um..because its a discussion board? And thats kinda what we do....but...it really seems like a argument that doesnt need to be made. If you surround Tannehill with great players..and he improves...our offense improves. If you surround Tannehill with great players...and the offense doesnt improve...well then you have your answer. Trying to argue a discussion board about your favorite football team has any kind of track record...is...kinda futile, dont you think?
But why are we talking about Chambers and Henne...now? I mean...of your trying to analogize, people making the case for Henne...or Chambers....as to what they are doing with Tannehill....how bout waiting till the guy has more then three games under his belt.
I was here for some of the Henne stuff but the argument for the most part was that the coaching hurt him, but again I think the problem you're running into is sample size. Two players doesn't really suggest that there is a history, and 3 games is hardly enough time to have clue about your rookie QB.
The "history" was more evident in how convinced some folks were of those perceptions. The sample size consisted of the number of people who believed they were convinced of these things, not the number of players involved, per se.
But...why even....argue what your arguing. We are fans...a good amount of what we argue is never going to be based in facts....or logic. We can go by gut feeling...or what we think. Why do I get the feeling...you are aligning yourself for a big fat..."I told you so.." somehere down the line...
No the sample size as it relates to players that the board thought were held back is two, it can't be each person that thought that.
Like I said above, with such a small sample it comes down to evaluating the player and not over-reacting to stats. The drops I was thinking of that had negative impacts from the last game were the ones by Armstrong. I didn't see anything in those throws to fault RT with. But really the stat you're over-reacting to is the QBR and that is low mostly b/c of the INTs. The formula dings you more for INTs than incompletions or anything else. I didn't see uncorrectable errors there. In fact, I would say that RT adjusted from the issues he had in that first game very well. I was bothered by the INT where he stared down Fasano, but I see that as such a typical rookie QB mistake that I would only worry if I see it becoming a continuing problem.
But when heis in his 3rd game as a rook you do expect some growing pains do you not? You know starting a rookie there will be a learning curve. The judge is progression over time. If in his 3rd yr vs his 3rd game and the production level is teh same then there is a problem
really ? and this from you that started if tannehill is the future after 3 career games thread or the the famous positive thread where only positive comments were allowed and the other ones got deleted ??? get a clue /end of discussion
Correcting for the INTs of his that were flukes (the two tipped passes in Houston) brings his QB rating up from 58.2 to 66.4, which vaults him all the way from last in the league to third from last. And that's just an aside and is not the intended topic of this thread. I'm not overreacting to stats here. What I'm doing here is reminding folks of how quick they were to attribute other players' problems to their supporting casts, when there was never any later confirmation that was accurate. If I were overreacting to stats, I'd be saying there was little or no hope for Ryan Tannehill based on what he's done so far statistically.
You're mistaking this thread for one that's criticizing Ryan Tannehill. What I'm criticizing is the tendency to blame the poor play of players like him on other players.
When the topic for discussion is how people tend to blame players' deficiencies on other players and to be convinced they're correct in doing so, with never any later confirmation of that correctness, the sample is comprised of people who have done that.
And that's a shame, IMO. I'd much rather our discussions be based on facts and logic, unless the goal is simply to rant or cheer.
Please name for me one instance when there was a player on the Dolphins whose development or performance was truly being held back by the players around him. But I would say right now Cam Wake is held back by Odrick (and every tackle he lines up against!) It's just easier to say a QB affects and is affected by the most players on the field, which is why it is easier to find someone to blame for a poor play. A good example of this would be Aaron Rodgers getting sacked 8 times against the seahawks, would you say he was held back by his offensive line
OK......in a perfect world, his receivers would have to play with a different QB, on the same system, and not drop any balls. There is to much unknowns for this part of the DEBATE to know WHO is right. Its ALL speculative. You can have a team of ALL PROS and not win one stinkin game, if they are all in it for themselves and also dont fit into the system AND......have a terrible coach. Guilty of............not answering the OP. ...............................yet. this has gone WAAAAAY off topic.......but .....so what.
You'd be better off blaming the poor play of our wide receivers that dropped a clear TD and a wide open 3rd down conversion late than Tannehill, because they are the ones at fault here, not the "poor play" of players like him. To compare a 3 game developmental rookie to a 5 year debate about Chris Chambers or a 3 year debate about Henne is premature and unfair. If people are making excuses through 10 games next year, this post would have more validity. Right now it's just grasping for straws.
It's starting already. It may have grown in the future if Tannehill hasn't shown improvement, but it's starting already. Nobody has learned anything from being wrong about Chambers and Henne.
So essentially you want people to ignore his development, improvements and the cast of characters around him and focus on what he isn't doing? If that is the case, why should we even follow this team? You know me from the Finheaven days, I HATED people that made excuses for players that never lived up to expectations, but this is taking it too far.
No, what I want is a balanced approach where there is at least some consideration of the fact that what happens on the field that looks like it may have been someone else's fault may have in fact been Tannehill's fault, so that we don't end up two years from now having amassed this huge "databank" of artificial perceptions of his being held back by everyone around him, rather than realizing at that point that Tannehill just isn't good enough (if and when that happens, that is, and hopefully it doesn't). The dropped passes issue is a great example. People are so ready to blame his dropped passes on his receivers when in fact it was a problem of his in college, and scouts have reported on how it's rooted in a deficiency of his. Let's at least INVESTIGATE whether the problem is indeed Tannehill's before we blame everybody else on the planet for it and end up two years from now potentially with a full-blown "Chris Chambers/Chad Henne" mess.
But..how can we do this...with such a small sample size. And for what its worth....he had a dearth of reciever talent to work with at A&M as well. I mean..he was asked to play receiver at one time.....it just seems like...to be honest...when you bring this up.....so soon in his career....more of a ....cant wait to be right about why Tannehill shouldnt be playing. The thread loses its... objectivity, when it is started long before there is anywhere near a good portion of Data to work with.....
Not a Dolphin but compare Tom Brady in 2006 to Tom Brady in 2007. When your best WR is reche caldwell. Bad things happen.
' This post seriously made me question if you know what objective and subjective mean....and you're a really smart guy. I don't mean that in a....rude way at all. Your first sentence is absolutely incorrect though. Just because his receivers in college dropped a lot of balls doesn't mean he threw the ball too hard. That isn't an objective fact at all. In fact it's highly SUBJECTIVE. It's your opinion that there is correlation between the two circumstances not any sort of hard evidence required for something to be objective.
^^I'll say that even now the jury is still out on Chad Henne. In the right situation he's a legit starter in the NFL. As for Chambers I think it was more of our expectations being wrong rather than the final product he became. It's like an attractive woman flirting with you and then turning around and telling you something about her husband/boyfriend so that you get the message in a lighter way. Chambers was an athletic freak who made several circus catches during his rookie season that sold me on him becoming an elite level receiver. The tease continued for several more seasons with him catching passes from Jay Fiedler until the year Gus Frerrotte got here. That was the first cannon armed QB Chambers had to catch passes from and it showed with him going for a grand that year and making the pro bowl. So there is some merit to this long debate. I believe Fiedlers limitations in turn limited Chambers and the production that could have been had say...Drew Brees been throwing him the ball during those years. It's also a fact that Ryan Tannehill is a converted Wideout now playing QB in the NFL. He's green as hell and it's going to take some time for him to get this passing thing down. I watched Brandon Weeden last night and I have to say that he's in a similar situation with Tannehill. His receivers and Tight Ends dropped pass after pass last night and the running game gave him nothing to work with. The difference Weeden and Tannehill that I see is that much talked about fear factor. I never once saw Brandon Weeden play scared last night and because of that he damn near beat that Ravens team. A lot of the time I see Tannehill playing scared....Not all the time but there are quite a few moments in games where Tannehill has the deer in the headlights look and that really bothers me. Scared QB's don't last in this league...I really hate to say it but I see the same things in Tannehill that I have seen in guys like Cade McNown, Ryan Leaf, and Akili Smith. I hope like hell i'm wrong but these type of traits are visible from day one a player steps on the field....The "IT" factor or lack thereof. He really needs to turn it around against the Cards...Make some Chicken salad out of Chicken ****. The great ones can do that.
I don't believe Tannehill shouldn't be playing. Once again, you're not understanding what I'm saying.
Oh come on. You're reaching here. When a scout says he has trouble taking velocity of his short range balls, which leads to dropped passes, and the stats say he had an inordinately high number of dropped balls, that's a helluva lot more objective than anything you're gonna see here. Are you telling me our subjective impressions are "objective" enough to know, for example, whether the pass Anthony Armstrong dropped was Armstrong's fault, rather than another example of what the scout and the college stats were pointing to?
It's not reaching. Data that can be interpreted many different ways is subjective. Always. Twenty scouts can watch the same film and come to separate conclusions. For something to be objective it can't leave anything up to the viewers opinion. Something objective deals with hard indisputable facts using the scientific method. A subjective view is the opinion of someone on something, and it may deal with facts as well but at the end of the day an opinion can never be objective. Only facts are objective. I'd go as far as to say very very few things are objective in football.
This place is a lot more interesting when Shou is rattling the cage. Now, get Boomer back here on a regular basis and we are all set.
So, a DIFFERENT Shouright started the thread "A case for starting Matt Moore"?? Your account must have been hacked.
