His surrounding cast has to be worse than Tannehill's. Griffin's QB rating is over 30 points higher than Tannehill's, QB rating is very highly predictive of winning, and yet the Redskins' winning percentage is below .500. That's a team with a surrounding talent problem. You would think, though, that many people here view the Dolphins like the Redskins, where Tannehill is the one with the QB rating over 100, and he's just being held back by his surrounding talent. Wrong.
Hey don't look at me, I wanted to Suck for Luck. I think he's on par with Weeden. I want to go almost full throttle on offense this year, give the kid every chance, and then see what happens. If we add a Mike Wallce, plus a TE and we are still seeing similar results then we can truly worry
The Redskins major talent problem is on defense, and that is greatly due to injuries moreso than just not having the talent. And RGIII can't do anything about that, no matter how well he plays.
First, you don't know that about any of these players. Foles, while struggling in his rookie year, could go on to become a very good QB. Conversely, one of the current successfull rookies could regress badly in future seasons and be bouncing around teams ala Vince Young, etc. Second, again... the point of this thread is to determine what the expected play should be for "just a rookie", and then compare Tannehill to that first year standard. I don't think in the big picture, one freak year with some amazing QB prospects (Luck and RG3) and overall QB play by a rookie class that far exceeds the norm historically and will crash back down to normal next year is where the bar should be set. That would imply that if he was in a different rookie class... that Tannehill's same current season would then be classified as more successful/promising? I don't agree with that. The only way that would make sense to me is if it was determined that times have changed and that moving forward all rookie QB classes will be like this one. And I definitely disagree with that.
Anything could happen. Whats important is determining reasonable probability of those events happening. A poster on this forum could become a HOF QB. Possible, but very unlikely. IIRC, there has only been one QB drafted outside of the top-32 to win a SB in recent memory, and thats Tom Brady. So while Nick Foles could end up being successful, its highly improbable. Right, and I think Tannehill compares pretty favorably to the standard for a rookie QB. Unfortunately, meeting the bar isn't a favorable outcome. If Tannehill came out in this draft, and was the best QB in this class, the odds are still against him becoming an elite QB. The fact that Griffin and Luck are better doesn't mean anything about Tannehill's ability, just his ability in relation to the rest of the league. When Miami lost in Indy, nobody was suggesting that to be an acceptable outcome, despite the overwhelming majority of people believing Luck is the better QB.
1) I don't entirely disagree... but if he'd thrown a TD in those 5 passes I'm sure people would want it included. So what he did gets included. 2) Your prerogative, like Bobby Brown. 3) I'm comparing him to this year's 1st round rookie class. I'm not interested in comparing him out of context to things that didn't relate to his draft situation, or the league as it is at present. 4) True... which is a potential REASON for him playing the way he does... but not a reason to put on a blindofld and refuse to allow the facts or reality that he IS playing this way. Great, we know one of the reasons he isn't performing like the others. 5) Because I focused on 1t round guys. I could add Weeden though. Know what though? Ryan's underperforming Weeden too, though not by as much. The big thing is, Weeden's TD ratio is significantly higher which leads to more offensive output for his team.
I realize that as a Dolphin fan, you want to believe that Tannehill has as much upside as Griffin. Unfortunately it just isn't true. RG3 has a better and more accurate arm than Tannehill. He also is able to escape pressure and pick up huge chunks of yardage using his running ability. Tannehill may eventually become a good starting QB in the NFL, but RG3 will eventually become a true franchise QB in the NFL. There is a reason the Redskins gave up all those draft picks for RG3, when all they had to do to get Tannehill was to stay right where they were in the 2012 draft. They could have drafted Tannehill with the 6th pick in the draft and they wouldn't have had to give up any draft picks. They knew that they were getting a far better QB by moving up and trading all those draft picks. The Dolphins settled for Tannehill. The Redskins did what they needed to do to ensure they would get one of the best QB's to enter the NFL in years.
Unpleasant as it is, we simply don't have a QB at the level of Luck or RGIII and we should not have expected that. But that's not the point of this thread. Given that our QB cannot overcome variables around him, put the team on his back and win despite poor supporting performances, the only two steps we can take are: 1) Continue to develop him. At the least I'd expect a 3-5% rise in his completion % next season. 2) Give him a ton of talent around him. HE needs it more than those other QBs even need it.
Then why are we including Wilson then. You cant discount Foles b/c he was not drafted in the top-32... but then include Wilson? I dont understand this section of your post, particularly the blue and red. If his play compares favorably to the standard of rookie QBs... wouldnt that be a favorable outcome? Or are you saying that the odds of him becoming an "elite" QB are still poor b/c it is so rare for any QB to become an elite QB? And if that is the case... is having an elite QB different from a franchise QB (by the standards I'm assumng you are using for elite here based on your wording, I think they are in this case), and in which case... would you be satisfied with a franchise QB (Pro Bowl Caliber) vs. an elite one (HoF Caliber)?
I think he will get better each year the next 3 or 4 years. I already think he's better than what we have had the past 10 except the one year rental from the jest.
So... where are you going with this thread then? Finish the thought out with your beliefs, rather than open ended implications (which understandably may be being put out there in order to further generate discussion from others on the topic). Do you not feel Tannehill will be a successful QB ever w/o an abnormal amount of help around him? In which case… I’m assuming you don’t feel we should continue wasting time developing a QB that will need an abnormal amount of talent then? Do you feel we should move on in a different direction this offseason? If it has already been determined that he needs help more than other QBs need in order to be successful, we have the wrong QB no?
I'm not discounting Foles because of where he was drafted. I was just illustrating how unlikely it is that either Foles or Wilson ever wins a Super Bowl. Even QBs drafted in the top-32 still have a very minuscule probability of winning a Super Bowl. Thats precisely what I'm saying. I've said I think Tannehill can become a "franchise" QB, comparable to someone like Joe Flacco. Am I satisfied with that? Getting a franchise QB from any draft pick should be considered a very good thing. But at the same time, I also recognize that this league revolves around the QB. Having an "elite" (what I would consider top 5-7), gives you a huge advantage relative to the rest of the league.
and the other ( Wilson) is having arguably the best season, lot of GMs kicking themselves worrying about that height factor, amazing they couldn't get past it..
Man, what RG is doing for that franchise. Why I wanted Ckap, RG, multidimensionaloffensivetheory..that's right, it has evolved, it wasn't a phase, it's now on display..thank you very much. Should of been in play.. Worth every penny.
Seeing how this is a QB driven league where only a few QBs dominate year in and year out and unless a team has a QB who is in the top 5-7 range the chance of frequenting the playoffs is minimal unless surrounded by tremendous talent (see Matt Ryan). Miami clearly doesn't have tremendous talent on the roster. And just thinking about the QBs taken over the past two years...Newton, Kaepernick, Dalton, Luck, RG3, and Wilson all look to be significantly better than Tannehill. At best, Tannehill right now gets thrown into the punch bowl with Ponder, Locker, Gabbert, Weeden, Foles who are more likely to be remembered as turds by the time their careers are over.
We may not know that for a few years, after we see how their roster ends up without those draft picks. RG3 may "struggle" next season like Cam Newton supposedly is as well.
Good one nasty.. The dudes a star in every sense of the word..last laugh goes to him and the ones that said he was going to be.
That is the funny thing about the NFL, the future is now, but you also have to have pieces ready to plug in when attrition hits. He was worth the trade up, it normally is worth it to trade tbh
One caution is a mobile Qb covers up a lot of ugly, when Defenses figure that out they tend to come back down to earth.
I traded back in a GM league to take him over Luck, so I was definitely quite smitten with RG3. My only concern is what happens if/when his knees become damaged due to his and the offense's style of play to where that aspect of his game is minimized? As a QB, his legs will definitely go before his arm will.... so the big question is--- how soon? Hypothetically, if he loses his edge by 30, then it's conceivable to have 6+ years of RG3 at less than optimal ability where as traditional QBs like Manning & Brady are able to plug along at an elite level through their 35th & 36th birthdays. So it's possible to have RG3 perform better than Tannehill for the first portion of their careers but have Tannehill pull away over the final 6 or 7 if he has greater experience in a more traditional role where as RG3 might have to learn to adapt a little more. I certainly wouldn't have given up more than Washington to get Griffin considering the above possibility.
Wow... I am not at ALL that down on Tannehill. I mean, I'm concerned about a couple things, but he has shown lots of promise too... and is still inexperienced. You go too far, sir. lol.
I don't think there is any way to determine that he will always need more help. It's just the case now, imo, but he also has far less experience playing at QB than the other rookies. I think the plan is that you get a new GM (I'm with the camp that thinks another GM will be better at evaluating the type of skill players this offense needs), upgrade at WR, OL and if possible a receiving TE. Then you give Tannehill a second year and by the end of next year I think you have a good idea of where you stand. I would not even entertain giving up on Tannehill at this point. Not at all.
And the inherent problem in having a decent starting QB is you'll never finish with a bad enough record to have a good chance of drafting an elite QB. That said, so you;'ll miss out on the Manning brothers, the Lucks, RGIIIs, Matt Ryans and have to hope to get lucky on a Roethlisberger or Rogers. What's most surprising is that we sucked as long as we did and never drafted a top 5 pick QB. Anyways, as I said, I see Tannehill becoming a guy who can lead you to 8 to 11 wins year-after-year, and maybe even make a Pro Bowl. I could see him having a Matt Hasselbeck-level career.
[video]http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-rookie-of-the-week/0ap2000000105674/Week-13-Pepsi-MAX-Rookie-of-the-Week-nominees[/video] This week's rookie of the week candidates video... in the clips you'll see Russell Wilson.... RGIII..... Luck... Weeden (not as a nominee, but throwing a TD and lots of completions to the Cleveland WR who IS nominated). Hope to see Tannehill nominated next week.
Don't get all annoyed, but I just read this in a Herald article and it's relevant so I'm putting it here. this does not mean the world is ending. This does not mean I hate Ryan Tannehill. This means I read this in the Herald and I'm addiing it to the discussion.
I'm not worried by that stuff yet. When a QB basically only has 2 receivers to work with on 3rd down and a defense expects the pass, my expectations aren't very high.... and with Hartline & Bess as a starting duo, my passing TD expectations aren't very high either. Can't make those two guys what they're not, right.
I don't get this HOF talk after less than a season. I said the same after Longs first year, his second year, and his third year. Luck could tweak his shoulder and never throw well again. Let him have a HOF career first, before saying he will be in the HOF. Back on topic, I'd rather have a Matt Ryan than a flacco. The team doesn't have to be built as well.
Agreed. Passer rating isn't the best measure here, because it takes into account TD's and INTs and completion percentage and stuff.
Tannehill is not having a great rookie yr, in fact it is somewhat poor objectively speaking. A starting Qb should easily top 10 Td's, actually it should be closer to 20 td's even as a Rook.
Very few rookie QBs throw 20 TD passes as rookies. Even the ones who had the very best rookie years usually don't. Ryan had 16. Flacco had 14. Roethlisberger had 17. And there are still 4 more games to play this year.
Closer to 20 than 10 fineas, THill simply has not been that productive this year, there is no way around it.
I just dont think the passing route options for Tannehill allow him to really throw for big yards or TD's. Your not going to score TD's on 5 or 6 yard comeback routes or quick outs that often. We have to let the kid drop back, give the WR's time to get open, and see what he can do down the field. We are trying to get the ball out of his hand so quickly that he's not even able to let a WR come open or a defense blow coverage. Lets give the kid a chance to make some plays, he's going to make some mistakes, but if he throws for 3 TD's and 2 INT's are your going to be happy? I would be better with that than him throwing for low yards and low TD's.
