So if Tannehill has one season posting big numbers, by that aspect alone, he is crowned as a true franchise QB. IYO?
Having a top goalie makes all the difference in hockey. I recall Ken Dryden and Patrick Roy each carry otherwise average Canadiens teams on their back to Stanley Cup championships.
Not sure how you got that. I meant we would have Tannehill the next year as the franchise guy and maje the AFC title game this year.
No, because the OP says that there is no real reason we make it. Which means Moore isn't the reason. Which means there is no debate.
The whole hypothetical is based on Prolific passing seasons NOT being flukes. In fact, it is rare that they are flukes. I found one from a QB that won't have HOF credentials. Culpeppers' 2004' season. You have a "prolific" passing season, it usually means that you are a Franchise QB.
I took B, easily. I read the scenario as: A: fluke year, bounces go our way, probably got a ton of turnovers. One hit wonder of a team. B: Franchise QB, but injuries elsewhere or bad bounces doomed our playoff chances. Team that's set at QB and likely to contend for years.
On top of the solid season that he he has last year. YES. If we're talking 4500 yards, 35 TDs, 15 or fewer INTs. Few fumbles. Other positive peripheral numbers, ect. I mean, unless he were to suddenly act like a complete bonehead in the locker room or off the field and be a distraction, or somehow have those big numbers end up by luck, or the apparent abilities of the recievers rather than himself. Watching football is both objective and subjective of course. He needs to pass the eyeball test too. The quarterbacks job is to A) Put up as many points as possible, and B) Avoid turnovers. A QB can't control how the team's running back's perform, or how the OL blocks, or how the defense or special teams play. Winning is a team accomplishment. Its on the head coach and front office. QBs shouldn't be judged on wins and losses any more than recievers, or running backs, or linebackers, if thats what you're getting at.
The Ravens were mediocre in all facets in 2012? Top 10 in scoring offense. Top 12 in scoring defense. 2nd fewest offensive turnovers for the season. 3rd fewest fumbles lost. If playing sound fundamental football equals mediocre, then I guess they were. So, you'd rather Tannehill throw for 5k yards and 30 TDs and miss the playoffs, than the entire TEAM play well like the 2012 Ravens, I guess. DSFDF.
He is the exception, not the rule. He may well have the lowest passer rating of any QB in an conference championship over the last 20 years.
Well, it is your poll so you can set the parameters for the two options however you like. Doesn't mean either choice has to be realistic.
I chose option A. For me it's simple, the team has come together where they are playing a high level and every faucet of the game is effective. This doesn't mean that Tannehill is mediocre or out of this world, it means he was effective in his role and growing as he's done over the past couple seasons. As a whole the team should play at a high level and it's what I believe is happening when you reach an AFC game. Of course there are some lucky breaks, but you don't know when you'll get to an AFC Championship game. In the last ten seasons only one team has made the AFC Championship game just once and that was the Chargers. The Ravens, Steelers, Colts, Broncos and Patriots have made it on multiple occasions, so if we make it, it probably means we are heading in the right direction unless Hickey is the second coming of AJ Smith and lets key players walk away. Even those Jets teams has a couple familiar faces from the Chargers team that lost to the Patsies. I'd rather take the AFC Championship game because you never know when you'll be back
Whether Moore is the reason or not, in your scenario he has 3 wins in the playoffs vs zero wins from every other Miami QB in the past 12+ years. And since I say that makes him the legitimate 2015 starter and you say it doesn't....that's clearly a debate.
I don't know how anyone can choose B. Seriously? Tanne has already put up prolific numbers and he would probably be that much more prolific if the team went to a Championship game. No to a championship game? Just...wow. Hey, the "ball could roll our way and we're in the Superbowl. That would suck!!!!! Give me 9-7? This all hear just don't make sense.
I don't jufge QBs on wins. I judge then on the level of their play. Mark Sanchez and Trent Dilfer have more playoff wins than Andrew Luck or Ryan Yn Tannehill but I wouldnt take either. Its a hypothetical that already states the QB won't be the reason. If he isn't the reason there can't be a debate. Its like saying a rooster clucked five times and I had a good day so that rooster should cluck five times tomorrow.
B. It's an easy choice. I see option A as the Miami Dolphins circa 2008. In all likelihood, some level of that teams success could of been sustained and strengthened if our QB situation was handled properly. Instead, 2008 is a fond but distant memory and we've not been able to pierce through the mediocrity since. Every season without a franchise QB becomes a coin flip. Sometimes you're 11-5 and in the playoffs. Others, you're botching your final 3 games and missing the playoffs and finish 7-9. I see option B as Marino's first start against Buffalo back in 1983. The story my dad told me was this... Dan had some early first half struggles. In the 2nd half, Marino got hot and proceeded to shred the Bills defense apart. Dolphins lost that game in OT 38-35. Don Shula left the field with a smirk on his face. He knew he had something special. For 17 years we all got the watch the best pure passer in NFL history week in and out. w/Marino, we ALWAYS had a puncher's chance. No deficit was too big. No opponent unbeatable. Good times...
It states that there isn't any discernible reason why they were so good, which to me means the entire team were working well and we don't know why. It doesn't necessarily rule out good QB play, but the level of the team was so high you can't give credit to just one player or one unit on the team. Option B can be negative in the sense that he has a good individual year but never reaches it again. I mean even Derek Anderson had a pro bowl selection. As time goes on are you more likely to talk about that deep playoff run the Dolphins had in 2014, or that year Ryan Tannehill put up big numbers but we still couldn't make the playoffs.
I loved Wilson coming out of college and I wanted the Dolphins to draft him in the second round, instead of Tannehill in the first round. I believe Wilson has a far better chance of becoming an elite NFL QB than Tannehill does, but he is not their yet. The Seahawks won the SB last year because of their defense and their running game. Wilson often makes plays to keep the offense on the field, but he isn't yet at the same level as an the top QB's in the NFL. I think he will soon be there, but the Seahawks didn't need a franchise QB to win the SB last year, just as the Ravens didn't need one to win the SB in 2012. Having a franchise QB certainly helps a team get into the playoffs, but once the playoffs begin, having the better overall team means far more than having the best QB. If having the best QB was the only thing needed to win a SB, Peyton Manning, Brees, and Rodgers, would all have more than one SB win in their careers.
Thats a good example. 2007 was a six-win quality team where absolutely everything broke wrong and the team almost went winless. 2008 was a six-win quality team where absolutely everything broke right and the team won the division. Both teams were mediocre, regardless of the record. You can't look at one season's record and say anything defenitive without looking deeper. I, personally, have no fond memories of 2008. It was fun while it was happening, but almost every week the team was just squeeking by the during the weakest lineup of opponents in my entire time as a Fins fan. It wasn't building into anything, and in retrospect, the Wildcat did more long term damage to the team's offense than good.
This thread has served to prove one thing, and one thing only. Some people don't know how hypotheticals work. Sec specifically said, no discernible reason why they made it to the AFCCG. That means, nobody stood out. So what happens? Option A because Tanny had to have a near prolific season to get us there. Maybe our defense played lights out. Maybe ... no maybes. As raffy said, a few lucky bounces, a few tightly played games with no turnovers. Then the wheels fall off in the Championship. Drew Brees just went 7-9 two years ago. 5,100 yards. 43 TDs. 2008. Over 5,000 yards, 34 TDs. 8-8. It's not rare for a prolific QB to have a non-playoff season. Who wouldn't want to be the Saints though? I sure would. Tweak the defense to be just middle of the road and you're in contention every year.
Most important thing is for our QB to continue to develop, so I think that means B if A means no improvement for Tannehill.
Yeah. Just reread. However, my stance doesn't change one bit. Oh, I would definitely take a Championship game.
Then why are you debating me on my point? You can't say there will be no debate WHILE you're debating over it...
Are you kidding? The 2008 team had more talent than the 2007 team, so how could they both be 6 win teams?
Honestly, I don't like this scenario because neither accomplishes the ultimate goal...which is winning a Super Bowl. So let me propose two alternate scenarios- In scenario #1, Tannehill breaks multiple passing records this season and poises himself as a perennial elite quarterback for the next 5-10 years. In fact, some argue that he may be the best quarterback in Miami's history, because he always finds ways to keep defenses guessing. Despite all of his greatness, however, we never get past the AFC Championship game. He stays a Dolphin for life and we make the playoffs ten years in a row, often with a 1st round bye. In scenario #2, Tannehill is the typical NFL quarterback that shows flashes of greatness at times, but never strings together enough "complete" performances to be mentioned among the greats outside of Miami. In fact, he ends up benched at times throughout his career and is eventually traded for a 2nd round draft pick. Despite his limitations, the Dolphins win one Super Bowl with him under center and take two AFC East titles, but they also have multiple seasons where the playoffs are missed completely. He also has a late-career resurgence with another team, picking up a 2nd ring. Which do you prefer in this long-term scenario- Tannehill's ultimate success or Miami's?
I really think that before the 2007 team was torn apart with injuries and Chambers was traded away, they were very comperable. Healthy at that point, Green and Pennington were about the same. Ronnie Brown was leading the league in yards from scrimage when he was hurt. I think that you could argue that Marty Booker was better in 07 than the 08 versions of Camarillo or Bess at WR in 08. Defenses were very similar squads. Like I said, to me, the 07 team caught every bad break in the world, and the 08 team caught every good one. Wins and losses never tell the whole story.
I would describe the entire team working well as a discernible reason why they're good. IMO non-discernible reasons are lucky bounces/calls or the schedule just breaking our way. So I see the difference between the two choices as team A is not good but gets all the breaks one year so they have short-term, unsustainable success while team B has at least solidified the most important position in football. Team B has something to build on. Team A doesn't and is on the same path of decades of mediocrity.
Luck is not generally considered discernible. It's something with no rhyme or reason. At best those are reasons for wins, but not reasons a team is good. To me that's the point that Sect was shooting for. Team A isn't good, they're just lucky for one year. You pick that option if you just want one year of success. You pick Team B if you believe that having a franchise QB is the key to potentially being in the hunt for the next decade or so.
No, but getting a bunch of turnovers usually is. And that was the wording I used in my original post.
I think anyone that picks B has a losers mentality and is happy with being mediocre, just my opinion of course. If you take the question at face value, it is bascially a 9 win season that ends in December, or a deep playoff run all the way into late January. Are you ****ing kidding me? I want the team to win, option A clearly involves more winning.
Luck is pretty discernible if it's consistent. We're lucky those calls from the referee went our way, we're lucky the ball bounced our way otherwise we would have lost that game. I think a good example of that is when the David Tyree caught that helmet catch on the Patsies, you can argue that was luck and it was a big piece of the puzzle to winning the Superbowl for the Giants. If you want to consider the Dolphins as an average team who gets lucky because of bounces that you can clearly point to the team getting the right bounces and the right calls. At the NFL level every team plays at a high level and rarely do you see lucky teams make it as far as the Conference Championship. Right now we have a body of work from Tannehill that we can try to guess where he should be playing this year, but if he magically spikes up in production like in scenario B then who's to say that it's not just a one year spike and he falls back to where he was in year two and we're like the Cowboys and a consistent 8-8 team?
Luck can be discerned in terms of wins, but not in terms of being a good team. That seems to be the point of Sect's question. Team A obviously won enough to get to the conference championship, but they're not good for any discernible reason. So they're lucky, but not good. Historically, that's not sustainable.
I see the opposite. Choosing Team A is an admission that you'll never be good long term so you might as well take one year of near success even if your team is not really good b/c that's the best you can hope for. That's a loser's mentality. Choosing Team B is all about having the most important piece for sustainable success in place. Once you have the QB then the hardest part of building is over. You can expect success to come when you have that QB in place.
The team would have to be as good as the opposition, you can't say they're a bad team if they are playing at the level of their opponents and then beating them. Which should be especially true if there's nothing discernible about them, meaning they don't stand out from the rest of the NFL teams they have played
