1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tannehill "not in the running for starting job" (Sky is falling)

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by slickj101, Jul 2, 2012.

  1. Lloyd Heilbrunn

    Lloyd Heilbrunn Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,580
    17,701
    113
    Sep 13, 2011
    Jupiter, Fl.
    What are we going to do with a Sportstalk host?


    :tongue2:
     
    unluckyluciano likes this.
  2. unifiedtheory

    unifiedtheory Sub Pending Luxury Box

    12,363
    7,091
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Burnaby, BC, Canada
    It's July ****ing 2nd.
     
    Vinny Fins likes this.
  3. Conuficus

    Conuficus Premium Member Luxury Box

    18,044
    19,678
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Well away from here
    So what are we celebrating? Who's bringing the chips and dip?

    Inquiring minds want to know.
     
  4. hammer

    hammer New Member

    170
    51
    0
    Sep 13, 2011
    Beavercreek Ohio
    Solomon Wilcox said on NFL Radio that Tannehill looked every bit as good as Garrard and Moore.
     
  5. xphinfanx

    xphinfanx Stay strong my friends.

    10,823
    2,214
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I say Tannehills wife looks better than Garrard and Moore I'd even say she even looks better than Brady.
     
  6. Shamboubou

    Shamboubou Well-Known Member

    2,228
    1,004
    113
    Jan 4, 2008
    Indianapolis
    Lets not get all crazy now....thats taking it a little far. :lol:
     
  7. VManis

    VManis Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,753
    9,844
    113
    Nov 10, 2010
    I would disagree. To say that he is already out of the running after only OTAs is sensationalism at its finist. Particularlly since it is based soley on the opinion of a beatwriter.
     
  8. sloppyjoer

    sloppyjoer New Member

    288
    59
    0
    Apr 16, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    Meh, not a surprise really. Was kinda expecting him to be holding a clip-board for pretty much the entire year bar something crazy happening with the other 2. Just media babble for nothing.
     
  9. DonShula84

    DonShula84 Moderator Luxury Box

    9,311
    3,464
    0
    Jan 3, 2008
    Or we're on the losing end of the blowout...
     
  10. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,817
    10,321
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    CK, I mean no disrepect, but I thought you a legitimate sports journalist. Ryan Tannehill on most drafts boards was listed as anywhere between 28-32 in ranking of overall best players available in the draft. The Dolphins drafted Tannehill resulting from public pressure for one; to pull the trigger if you would on a quarterback in the first round and secondly, he was NEVER going to be a first year starter nor put pressure on Moore or Garrard in training camp.

    The kid is remarkably athletic, but lacks experience as the college quarterback to even make a viable attempt to make an immediate transition as a starting NFL quarterback. Tannehill is a 2-3 year year project, just as Aaron Rodgers was. If anyone was truly expecting to see Ryan Tannehill as the starting quarterback of the Dolphins this year, I have some lakeside property in al Masak, Afghanistan for sale!
     
  11. CaribPhin

    CaribPhin Guest

    Biggane is reporting that ESPN is reporting that Adam Schefter has sources saying that Ryan Tannehill is not in the running. I am almost certain this source is Omar Kelly.
     
  12. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    1. You really don't know how Tannehill was rated on NFL team draft boards. You need to question a little bit better what it is you think you know, versus what you actually know, about these things. The media is the media and the teams are separate, and better at this than the media. And I say that as a member of the Draft media. Ryan Tannehill went #8 overall and Jeff Ireland had an opportunity to trade down into the mid-teens but had intel saying that if he did so another team was going to jump up and grab Tannehill. So to say he was a 28 to 32 pick that went #8 because of need is creating a fictional story out of nothing. He went #8, and there's reason to believe he wouldn't have fallen lower than #15 or #16. In fact a survey of 19 personnel executives done before the Draft showed that 18 of the 19 had Ryan Tannehill as the #3 rated QB in the Draft behind darlings Luck and Griffin, and the one guy who dissented had him #4. There was no consensus on where to rank guys like Brandon Weeden, Russell Wilson, Brock Osweiler, Kirk Cousins, etc. Everyone was split, almost equally, on who was #4. That points to Ryan Tannehill having been rated very highly by NFL teams as it means the top two of Luck and Griffin wasn't just a top two, it was a top three.

    2. You say that Ryan Tannehill should never have been slated to start because of his lack of experience, and everyone knew that. Well, I would like to point out, that "everyone" similarly KNEW that Mark Sanchez was destined to be a Day One starter for the New York Jets in 2009, yet he had the same issue with lack of experience. How is that? Again, you need to question a little bit better and more thoroughly what you think you/we/I/everyone knows. Fact of the matter is, if all the reports coming out of OTAs and Mini Camps were that Tannehill is smoking the competition, then there would be all these comparisons to Dan Marino and how he stood out in practice immediately, how physically talented Ryan is and how his experience in the same NFL offense he'll run in Miami more than negates his lack of starts, etc.

    Nothing I said was untrue. In my personal experience, guys with highly impressive physical talent (e.g. Ben Roethlisberger, Joe Flacco, Jay Cutler, Cam Newton) often succeed as rookies far more than you'd have thought, based on their circumstances. Take Roethlisberger and Cutler versus Eli Manning. Eli Manning had the superior coaching, played superior competition, was practically bred from birth to be a quarterback, was Peyton's little brother, Archie's son, etc. Big Ben played in the MAC. Jay Cutler played at Vanderbilt, which to that point was not respected even in the least for their ability to compete in the SEC. The consensus was that Eli should be able to compete right away while Big Ben and Jay Cutler might take a little time. Well, as a rookie, Cutler had an 89 passer rating in 5 starts, Big Ben had a 98 rating in 13 starts, while Eli Manning had a 55 rating in 7 starts. Pretty much the exact opposite of what people would have expected. Why was that the case? Is it because Eli was destined to be worse? No. Right now as things stand with Eli Manning possessing two Super Bowl rings you could make the case that he's better than both players, certainly better than Jay Cutler and arguably up there with and perhaps even better than Big Ben. I would argue it was because of how physically impressive both Big Ben and Jay Cutler were, in terms of arm strength, size and running ability, to where their coaches could more easily plan offenses to take advantage of their skills. They didn't have to 'get it' to be dangerous, whereas Eli did. I argued the exact same thing with respect to Cam Newton before he came out, while everyone tried to tell me that his rookie season was going to be a disaster because he came from Gus Malzahn's totally gimmick, non-translatable offense, had never even made play calls before, had no Mini Camps or OTAs, etc. I argued against that, I said he should start right away, he's just that physically talented you could see him have success as a rookie. Look at Joe Flacco as well. He doesn't have running ability but he's got probably the strongest arm in the sport today. He came out of the FCS for crying out loud, there was NO WAY according to the conventional thinking that he should have been able to start as a rookie and have any success. But he had an 80+ passer rating and an 11-5 record.

    Ryan Tannehill has that same physically impressive ability. You can't deny it. He's the prototype. He's huge, he's got a great arm, probably the strongest arm in the consensus top three. He runs a 4.5 in the 40 yard dash and used to be his team's leading wide receiver for crying out loud. He fits this same mold among those physically impressive prototype guys that can be dangerous before they're even very good upstairs.

    Furthermore, look what everyone has been talking about for months. Ryan Tannehill knows the offense. He was coached by the same people that are coaching him now. There are folks that can't even remember the last time a quarterback walked into the NFL with that kind of familiarity with everything that's going on. Lack of experience? He's got more experience than any other quarterback in the NFL Draft, playing and practicing in his NFL offense under his NFL coaches. No other quarterback in this Draft had that kind of experience advantage. So really if you've got two schools of thought, one saying that the more pro-translatable experience a guy can have coming out the better he'll be right away, versus my theory that the more physically impressive a guy is the more likely he'll be to succeed right away...you can argue Tannehill's got both those things going for him.

    So yeah, I do genuinely expect him to mount a run at the job. I don't necessarily hope he wins the job. I want David Garrard to be 'back' and be good enough to win it outright because I think he's been an underrated quarterback and if he can just modify a few of the tendencies he had late in his Jacksonville career, I could even see a 2008 Pennington Comeback Player of the Year type season in him. I think he's a good mentor for Tannehill, and I think the experience on the bench may be good for Tannehill. But if Tannehill doesn't even make a run at the job then I'll be pretty disappointed and I think a lot of the implications that my disappointment is off base sound like excuse-making, white-washing, rationalization, etc...because no doubt those same people would be chest-thumping and raising victory banners if Ryan Tannehill looked great in camp right away.
     
  13. hammer

    hammer New Member

    170
    51
    0
    Sep 13, 2011
    Beavercreek Ohio
    Russel Wilson's wife looks better than Tannehill's. Should have drafted Wilson.
     
  14. DrAstroZoom

    DrAstroZoom Canary in a Coal Mine Luxury Box

    9,033
    9,005
    113
    Jan 8, 2008
    Springfield, Ill.
    I think that Ryan Tannehill's being on the low spot on the totem pole so far has as much to do with how well Garrard and Moore have been performing. From that standpoint, it's far from "mildly concerning."
     
  15. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    I don't know if I would agree with that. Matt Moore hasn't been reported to be anything special so far in OTAs and Mini Camp.
     
  16. slickj101

    slickj101 Is Water

    15,886
    8,901
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    NY
    He's been reported as doing just as good if not better than Garrard.
     
    Sceeto likes this.
  17. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    I agree w ck that in camp tanne needs to show something, I wont get distraught over ota/minis but camp should reflect abilities

    I like him sitting to start out so he can learn to read nfl coverages and looks from defenses but he needs to shpw the ability to play
     
  18. UCF FINatic

    UCF FINatic The Miami Dolphins select

    5,783
    1,931
    113
    Apr 17, 2008
    It's posts like this that make me love thephins.
     
  19. PhinishLine

    PhinishLine Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    4,276
    2,893
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Maryland
    From what I've read, he has shown some flashes. He's made some Pro throws from what the beat writers report. He's just not consistent and without pristine protection, he's just not fast enough yet. I don't think he's been reported as completely devoid of talent from the OTA reports.
     
  20. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Exactly. That's what he needed to show and what he needs to continue to show once the pads come on. I don't see any reason for anybody to be disappointed in what he's shown thus far.
     
  21. sloppyjoer

    sloppyjoer New Member

    288
    59
    0
    Apr 16, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    Yep, pretty much this. I like the kid. Let him learn and get the system. I think we have some really good coaches in place and has everything around him to be able to flourish.
     
    rafael likes this.
  22. Alex13

    Alex13 Tua Time !!! Club Member

    25,809
    39,060
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    Berlin,Germany
    i have not read one report/blog/word that said that
     
  23. slickj101

    slickj101 Is Water

    15,886
    8,901
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    NY
    There's been similar reports, even if they didn't make it on to this site.
     
  24. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Did you see that press conference? Joe Philbin was asked about Matt Moore so he talked about Matt Moore and he sure as hell wasn't going to say anything negative. It's just a typical example of reporters setting out to write something, asking a question, then taking the predictably milquetoast praise that comes out of the Head Coach by default about any player he's coaching, and then going forward with the piece you've planned. Nobody wrote about Matt Moore because they noticed he was doing particularly well. They set out to write that Matt Moore is doing well because that's what they think the public wants to hear.

    And I've not seen a single report that suggests Moore is doing better than Garrard. At best there have been suggestions that he and Garrard are even. Hence I see no justification for the "if not better" part of your original statement.
     
    ssmiami likes this.
  25. slickj101

    slickj101 Is Water

    15,886
    8,901
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    NY
    I remember reading a report that said Moore had a better day at one point.

    It's still wide open. And I expect that to change quite a bit when pads go on and QBs start taking some contact.

    "They set out to write about Matt Moore doing well bc that's what the public wants to hear." lol completely your spin. I don't suppose you'd acknowledge if he really was doing well either would you?
     
  26. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    And the longer it takes to pick a starter the worse things will be.
    How does the saying go? "If you have two starting QB's, you don't have one."
     
  27. slickj101

    slickj101 Is Water

    15,886
    8,901
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    NY
    Depends how things shake out.

    I just think Moore will outlast Garrard, as I've said many times. Garrard is a good QB but I just can't see him staying healthy for long.
     
  28. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    6,053
    5,608
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    I dismissed the Garrard signing at first, I don't anymore. He will be day 1 starter IMO. The guy is too savvy and is a rock solid foundation for a first year head coach. I like Moore, I just don't see him beating out Garrard.

    Moore would have the only ounce of trade value for an investment return too......
     
  29. slickj101

    slickj101 Is Water

    15,886
    8,901
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    NY
    Only problem with that is he's a rock made out of glass.

    I'd just love to trade Moore only for Garrard to win the starting job and then get hurt 2 weeks in to the season only for us to throw Tannehill in there, ready or not.
     
  30. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    6,053
    5,608
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    I agree with you. I just know (think) we won't keep both and if push comes to shove itll most likely be Garrard. Not saying its what I prefer, just what I see happening.

    In a perfect world Matt Moore would start and light it up putting us in a difficult situation. I like Moore, but I don't see that happening.
     
  31. slickj101

    slickj101 Is Water

    15,886
    8,901
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    NY
    I'd rather keep both than trade Moore for nothing of value. If we do trade him and Garrard gets hurt, we could really mess Tannehill up if he's not ready.
     
  32. Mcduffie81

    Mcduffie81 Wildcat Club Member

    6,053
    5,608
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Lake Worth, Fl.
    Hey, maybe we keep both? Like I said....I'd love Moore to start this year and tear it up because then we could franchise him and hold out for a return. I find all that to be unlikely.

    If Moore was under contract for next year I would be demanding we start him! He still has upside that Garrard does not.
     
  33. CaribPhin

    CaribPhin Guest

    That won't happen until preseason game 1.
     
  34. PhinsRock

    PhinsRock Premium Member Luxury Box

    Exactomundo, let Tannehill develop and get used to the speed & complexity of NFL defenses for this season. In Moore we have a guy who, once he caught on to the offense last year, went 6-3 for us. And Garrard our second choice is a proven vet QB who has been to the Pro Bowl. I find this a very positive scenario.
     
  35. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Why wouldn't I?

    The fact of the matter is, there have not been any reports suggesting Matt Moore has generally been better than David Garrard, which means you embellished quite a bit when you said "He's been reported as doing just as good if not better than Garrard."

    Here's an example of a report about David Garrard that you have NOT seen from any source about Matt Moore:

    http://miamiherald.typepad.com/spor...d-the-scenes-on-heat-free-agency-marlins.html

    Has Matt Moore had his days where he's been impressive? Of course. But not one person connected with the situation has said that Moore has been just as good if not better than Garrard on the whole. When you wrote that, that's the first time anyone said it.
     
  36. slickj101

    slickj101 Is Water

    15,886
    8,901
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    NY
    ^^ "Has been as good if not better" = He's been right there w/Garrard and has had days where he's looked better. It's splitting hairs.

    I could give a **** what Schefter has to say on any situation anymore. The guy is a caricature of his former self.
     
  37. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Until Schefter pulls out a report that agrees with something you've been arguing, I'm sure. Then he's suddenly got good at his job again.
     
  38. slickj101

    slickj101 Is Water

    15,886
    8,901
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    NY
    Hang on to your crystal ball, Ms Cleo.

    Believe it or not I'm unbiased. lol Not that I'd have to be to point out that Schefter's reporting has been awful the last few years especially.
     
  39. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    I've always been under the impression or assumption that they don't keep both Moore and Garrard.
    Lately, I've been starting to rethink that stance.
    With the recent reports of Tannehill lagging behind the other two and not really in the starting race, (Which is of no surprise to me whatsoever) I think maybe Garrard is named the starter with Moore the backup and Tannehill holding the clipboard all year.
    Not sure you want to go into the season with the fragile David Garrard as your starter without having a competent backup.
     

Share This Page