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

Greg Cote: Tannehill should start right away

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by LBsFinest, Jul 28, 2012.

  1. Desides

    Desides Well-Known Member

    38,949
    20,033
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    Favre was kicked out the door because of his own shortcomings, and then Rodgers was handed the job on a silver platter. Quick, name Rodgers' 2008 positional competition. You can't, there wasn't any. Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn were drafted specifically to back Rodgers up. Rodgers was handed the job.
     
  2. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    He earned the job in 2007 in practice. No way did they not know how good he was at the time.
     
    LandShark13 likes this.
  3. Desides

    Desides Well-Known Member

    38,949
    20,033
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    Ted Thompson has stated many times that, when Thompson drafted Rodgers, he didn't think Rodgers would be as good as he is now. And no, there was no guarantee that Rodgers would be better than Favre. The Packers made the NFC Championship Game in 2007.
     
  4. edromeo

    edromeo New Member

    71
    34
    0
    Jul 29, 2012
    lol, dude do you even understand my point?
    None of your post addresses the point I made that you initially disagreed with.

    Its clear that you either don't understand my point or are purposefully creating a strawman argument to avoid actually addressing the specific point I made.

    Also, do you care to address or acknowledge the factually incorrect statement you made earlier? (Griffin did not win the starting job like you said, heck Griffin was named the starter before he was even signed)

    Even though its not my point: day 1 starter is not the same as 'near' day 1
     
  5. edromeo

    edromeo New Member

    71
    34
    0
    Jul 29, 2012
    Factual error Freeman was not a day 1 starter

    Why did you leave out Mark Sanchez and Cam Newton? How about their attempt totals?
    How many of those QBs are going into the same offense they ran in college with the same playcaller they had in college?
    Don't you think the above facts makes Tannehill situation different?
     
  6. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Tannehill was a starting QB as a high school junior and senior. That he wasn't before that is really not uncommon.
    He was recruited to TAMU as a QB. He volunteered to move to WR when he found out he wouldn't be the starter at QB, in 2008. His redshirt freshman season.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  7. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    Dude, really.
    Would you just give it up already.
     
  8. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    And what is your point?
    I think Tannehill will bust. But I want him to be the next Marino.
     
  9. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    He's inaccurate, throws too many picks and he's every inexperienced.
    Could he develop? Absolutely.
    But I can go by what I've seen when I watch him and I've never been too impressed.
    Having said that, I am by no means an expert. I'm just a guy with computer who - according to his wife - watches too much football.
     
  10. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    I totally would not consider Tannehill as inaccurate by most any measure.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  11. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    Fair enough.
     
  12. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    One concern I'd have and hope he can improve upon it, is his comparatively high number of batted passes at the LOS. I never knew before reading it today that he had by far the highest number of passes batted down at the line, far more than even short guys like Russell Wilson.
     
  13. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    I didn't know that either. Seems odd.
    Does he have a low throwing motion or something? I mean, he's plenty tall enough that it shouldn't be an issue
     
  14. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't TAMU a run based offense when Tanny was recruited, hence his recruitment? I thought that's why Stephen McGee was considered a developmental player despite some decent starting experience.
     
  15. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    a. Since when is Sanchez a success story? That's why I left him out. Mentioning him as a day 1 starter actually makes your argument look worse. You should be thanking me for not mentioning him.
    b. Newton, because of his sheer size and athleticism, is the exception rather than the norm, so for you to use him as the norm shows a significant flaw in your logic.


    Fact, not facts. You only listed one.
    It's the speed and complexity of pro defenses that initially hold most rookies back; the offense he played in doesn't help that. If he actually adjusts quickly and is ready to play, then that's another thing.
     
  16. GreysonWinfield

    GreysonWinfield Release The Hounds

    3,982
    1,434
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I think the head coach will decide and could care less about Greg or anyone elses opinion.
     
  17. LandShark13

    LandShark13 New Member

    4,446
    1,852
    0
    Oct 20, 2009
    North Miami
    Tanehill completed the exact same % of passes in college as Peyton Manning: 62.5% and had a higher completion percentage than:

    Eli Manning: 60.8%
    Drew Brees: 60.2%
    Tom Brady 62.3%
    Mathew Stafford: 57.1%
    Matt Ryan: 60.0%

    And

    Dan Marino: 57.7%

    Could he have been better? sure. But to call him Inaccurate by most any measure? What exactly are you basing that on?
     
    Fin D likes this.
  18. Eop05

    Eop05 Junior Member Club Member

    5,659
    5,268
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    NJ
    Well then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it was fairly clear that Warner was benched mainly for the purpose to get Eli experience in a year that the Giants felt they couldn't legitimately compete.

    And in what NFL is an 86.2 passer rating ineffective? Great? Hardly. But effective, sure. That rating will get you in the top 15 amongst QBs every year.

    We can pretend we don't know who practiced better all we want because we didn't see. But one guy posted an 86.2 rating in half a season. The other guy posted a 55 passer rating. One guy was a league MVP and brought his team to two superbowls. The other was a rookie. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that Eli Manning was handed that starting position and never came even close to outperforming Kurt Warner in practice.
     
    edromeo likes this.
  19. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    I'm not basing it on anything because I never said he is inaccurate.
     
    LandShark13 and ToddPhin like this.
  20. smahtaz

    smahtaz Pimpin Ain't Easy

    I'm all for it if the right side of the OL is shored up and he has proven enough to his teammates to back him.

    This article is simply too early in the process.
     
  21. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC

    I've done more than address you points. You seem to not want to accept it.
    My detailed posts were respectful to yours and far from straw man. The only thing that's clear is you not showing the same respect in return.

    Your points were:
    1. QBs are "supposedly" handed the starting job from day 1, hence Tannehill should as well.


    ** I proved they aren't. Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Romo, Schaub, Roethlisberger, Eli, Rivers, Vick, Cutler, Palmer, Alex Smith. Not sure why you choose to ignore this overwhelming evidence..... however you did add Freeman to the list, so thanks for that. :wink2:
    The above list did NOT include 3 of last year's 1st rounders (Locker, Ponder, and Gabbert) who also were NOT handed the day 1 starting job.

    Note: 15 of the top 20 rated 2011 QBs (and 26 of 32 starters) were NOT handed the starting job from day 1 as a rookie.

    2. you stated that you're concerned with winning interfering with a rookie's development as he sits and learns from a non-starting role. You basically said the best way to win a SB is to have a franchise QB, and the best way to do that is to develop him by starting him from day 1.

    ** I countered by showing you a LONG list of QBs who were thrust into action from day 1 (or very soon thereafter) and either busted or haven't yet fulfilled that "franchise" label (not to be confused with the "franchise potential" label given when drafted).
    ** I countered it further by giving the comparatively SHORT list of recent QBs who have started from day 1 and done well. It included Manning, Ryan, Stafford, and Dalton (but I briefly showed how those 4 were more NFL ready based on prior experience)
    ** On top of that I listed the recent HOF (or soon to be HOF) QBs who didn't start in the NFL straight out of college.


    It's completely insignificant to your argument but I'll address it.
    PFT mentioned a while back that Shanahan stated Griffin would have to earn the starting job. If that immediately changed, then so be it; it's a moot point b/c it does nothing to prove your point b/c: A. Griffin has yet to take an NFL snap to show wether or not it's the right move, and B. he has no QB competition.
    but isn't your point that 1st round franchise-hopeful QBs are "supposedly" handed the starting job? Why are you helping make the argument against you? lol. You're helping me say that there are even more QBs not handed the starting role from day 1 than I originally mentioned. lol.


    Bottom line: if he's ready to start and is equal to or barely behind Garrard or Moore competition-wise, then you start him. You don't throw him into the fire b/c you think that's the most successful way to develop him or b/c a few QBs have been exceptions to the norm. QB development is highly sensitive & fragile, and as such should often be treated with white gloves if possible.

     
    djphinfan likes this.
  22. LandShark13

    LandShark13 New Member

    4,446
    1,852
    0
    Oct 20, 2009
    North Miami
    Hahh I totally have to stop posting on 3 hours sleep =) My bad!
     
  23. edromeo

    edromeo New Member

    71
    34
    0
    Jul 29, 2012
    My point is clearly stated and has been stated several times.
    It appears above so instead of creating strawman arguments or misrepresenting my point there it is plain as day.

    Notice that your fabrication below is not my point:
    But, why let a little something like the truth get in the way of a good strawman?....
    lol, this is another fiction.
    Where have I said this? There is something called the 'quote feature' which comes in handy when you are actually quoting someone as opposed to creating fictious arguments that are clearly strawmen.

    Yes.
    But it clearly demonstrates your inability to admit or acknowledge when you are wrong and that you throw around statements that are factually incorrect.

    Who feels this way? This is yet another laughable and false assumption that you leapt to from a statement you clearly don't understand or pureposefully alter.


    The first sensible thing you've written in several posts.
     
  24. edromeo

    edromeo New Member

    71
    34
    0
    Jul 29, 2012
    Cool, just curious.
     
    PSG likes this.
  25. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    Respectfully, Rodgers was handed a clipboard his rookie year.... and for 2 more after it IIRC.
     
  26. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,652
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    John Congemi weighs in.

    http://www.miamidolphins.com/media/...-Congemi/354adff3-ea33-4d78-8a5c-67054816dcd2

    I guess he works for the dolphins but I don't think he's a Jess Alger type..he had some conviction behind his thought..

    Really liked the points about BOTH Tannehills practices...they were both excellent really...I agree.

    Shouts out to Fuller, Matthews, and Moore, speed on defense, Jon Martin.

    Really a good listen.
     
    MrClean likes this.
  27. Bpk

    Bpk Premium Member Luxury Box

    First of all, for all those who keep using Aaron Rogers as the proof that sitting a QB may be the better way, just because he was successful after three years in waiting doesn;t mean he was ONLY successful BECAUE of three years in waiting. The truth is, we don;t know how he would have player if he had only at one year, or not at all.

    During those first three years he may have had some initially bad habits or instincts, but would he not have been able to overcome them and progress just as far with good coaching?

    To me, a LOT of the 'will playing him early ruin him' concern is really about trusting the coaching. If the coach emphasizes winning with bad mechanics over executing PROPERLY and still trying to win, then you could reinforce terrible habits. For example, Tebow playing in Denver put him in a position to reinforce bad habits just to GET IT DONE and win games. But if the coaches have the balls and a stiff backbone, they can insist the QB use proper mechanics as a priority and literally bench the kid if he insists on doing it 'the wrong way' just because it 'worked' and got a first down.

    The problem is, most ocaches LACK those balls because instead of the LONG TERM benefit they are more worried about getting fired if they don;t win today.

    So really, keeping Tanny sitting is more about the pressure the owner and fans put on a team with a developing QB to STILL DELIVER WINS. There is no more patience in this league, and that's what forces coaches' hands, and ruins the QBs. A great coach is a buffer. He will hold to his beliefs that the kids development is paramount.

    Ideally, I'd like to see Tanny starting ONLY if Philbin has the gumption and zen-like nerve to teach the kid that it's better to use proper process and mechanics and fail, then adjust and improve right now, than it is to do things the wrong way just to move the ball. He's a rookie. He needs FUNDAMENTALS.

    If that's not going to be possible, then he needs to sit this year out. If that pisses him off... good, it'll motivate him to work very hard on his skills development and defense-recognition.
     
  28. Bpk

    Bpk Premium Member Luxury Box

    Best thing Congi said was Tanny throing guys open. Leading them into space. Anticipating with his throws. Really great sign.
     
  29. schmolioot

    schmolioot Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    26,254
    17,386
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Orlando
    What the coaching staff needs to do is give Tannehill a chance to prove whether he's ready or not.

    Give him some reps with the first team this week and at the scrimmage. Let him play in the 1st quarter of the 1st pre-season game.

    If he proves to not be ready after being given a fair chance then so be it, but give him the opportunity to seize the job.
     
    The Rev, Bpk and djphinfan like this.
  30. Bpk

    Bpk Premium Member Luxury Box

    This.

    Have to agree. With real pressure, real defensive looks. We'll see who he really is.
     
  31. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,652
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Here's the thing, we hired this particular offensive coordinator because this is the offense we wanna bring to the NFL, I believe TAMU ran more plays then any other fbs school, he also practices with this speed and tempo, it's also obvious that Tannehill is comfortable working at this speed..

    Let him run it with the first team to see.
     
  32. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    Here, I am now directly quoting you, edromeo.

    *** literal translation when combining your statements = the majority of franchise QBs are handed the starting job as a rookie.

    Again, I refer you back to the list of Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Rivers, Eli, Roethlisberger, Romo, Schaub, Vick, etc.
    That's the majority of franchise QBs in the NFL, and they were not handed the starting job as a rookie.


    Just to be clear, a QB isn't a franchise QB when he's drafted, he's merely a franchise hopeful QB at that time.
    He doesn't become an actual franchise QB until he becomes an actual franchise QB.




     
  33. edromeo

    edromeo New Member

    71
    34
    0
    Jul 29, 2012
    Ater all the muliptle walls of text you put up and countless strawman arguments you're just now actually going to discuss my actual statement? Wow, thanks.

    Lol, you even altered the 'quote' notice how you left out the bolded portion when you 'quoted' me

    And why am I surprised to see yet another strawman?
    My statement was in English it doesn't needs a 'literal' translation.
    I chose the words in my statement because they convey my exact meaning.
    Your 'literal' translation again, ugh, does not convey my statement.

    Whether we like it or not the term 'franchise' QB is given to rookies and it refers to a QBs that is drafted for the express purpose of bringing long term stability to the QB position and to the team and therefore the franchise.

    Again I'm forced to argue another one of your tangent arguemtns: Some of the QBs you mentioned (Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Romo, Schaub, Vick) don't fit the criteria of QBs because clearly they weren't rookies and only Vick, Brees were they drafted as their team's 'franchise QB' none of the QBs you mentoin were even in a position to win the starting job as a rookie.
    And of those guys only Brees was actually in a QB 'competition' the rest were handed their jobs or were elevated by injury and further its arguable whether or not he even 'won' the starting job over Flutie or was handed the job.

    Now, finally to the QBs that do fit the criteria of being a rookie franchise QB Eli and BBen neither QB won their starting job.
    Eli didn't win the job and was handed the job during the season.
    BBen didn't win the job either he was elevated due to injury in game 3.

    So um yeah what were you saying?

    Look it, you can believe whatever you like.
    Flacco, Ryan, Newton, Stafford, Sanchez, Dalton, Griffin and Luck were drafted as their respective teams franchise QBs and started/will start.
    Those guys were handed their starting jobs they didn't 'win' them.
    You can believe that rookie QBs that start 'win' the starting job in an open competition.
    I know enough to know otherwise and we, like your fist bump hommie, can agree to disagree.

    Just a reminder of the original exchange that caused your aneurysm and ensuing walls of text:








     
  34. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    That is one step beyond Matt Moore.
     
    Bpk likes this.
  35. gandalfin

    gandalfin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    3,829
    1,018
    113
    Dec 10, 2007
    Kissimmee, Florida
    Ain't that the truth. Ball position was never one of Moore's strong suites.
     
  36. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    Your statements were combined and translated b/c you made 2 different statements that pertain to one notion. One was about rookie QBs, and the other was about franchise QBs. I'm not the one who made those false statements and then tried to verbally backpedal out of it; you are.


    please stop with more of your backpedaling.

    By your definition, the following is a nice long list of franchise QBs I suppose, eh? David Carr, JaMarcus Russell, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, Kerry Collins, Cade McKnown, Heath Shuler, Rick Mirer, Dan McGuire, David Klingler, Todd Marinovich, Andre Ware, Brady Quinn, Vince Young, JP Losman, Byron Leftwich, Kyle Boller, Mark Sanchez, Rex Grossman, Joey Harrington. :001_rolleyes:


    Since when are those guys not franchise QBs? It's just excuse after excuse from you.
    Your logic is extremely flawed. For some crazy reason you're using a QB's draft position doesn't determine his NFL status, and I have no idea why.
    Your logic would have a leg to stand on if you had instead said something like "most highly-drafted, franchise hopeful QBs start right away and become franchise QBs for their team", but it would still be wrong b/c of the top 10 current franchise QBs, 7 of them did NOT start right away.

    Added to that list of QBs who didn't start immediately following college are most of the NFL's elite passers of the past 40 years: Marino, Montana, Young, Favre, Fouts, Tarkenton, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner, and Warren Moon..... and you can add Esiason, McNabb, Dave Krieg, Jim Everett, Testaverde, Phil Simms, Theismann, Ken Anderson, Brunell, McNair, Cunningham, Rich Gannon, Jaworski. Even Unitas wasn't handed the job as a rookie.

    Your diminutively choosing to relegate your scope to the past few years. I've expanded it to decades.

    And stop trying to use semantics as a straw argument.
    Starting a QB from day 1 does NOT ensure a better chance of success, and it does NOT ensure a better chance for winning a SB.
    If you like, I can count the number of rings on the fingers of the above guys along with Brady, Brees, and Rodgers. How many more ways would you like me to break this down for you until it's comprehendible?

    How about if I do it this way:
    ** Of the NFL's top 20 all-time yardage passers, only 3 were opening day starters (Manning, Elway, and Bledsoe).
    ** Of the NFL's top 20 all-time passer-rating QBs, only 2 were opening day starters
    (Manning & Ryan).
    ** Of the NFL's rop 20 all-time TD passers, only 4 were opening day starters (Manning, Elway, Bledsoe, and Tittle IIRC).

    please stop interjecting excuses. Starting as a rookie is starting as a rookie. Period. Either the QB did or he didn't. All those franchise QBs I mentioned DID.NOT.START.

    So what you're saying is they weren't handed the job from day 1.
    Quit changing the parameters to suit your argument as you go along.
     
  37. edromeo

    edromeo New Member

    71
    34
    0
    Jul 29, 2012
    lol, You have a fundamental problem with both basic english comprehension and basic argument.
    Instead of reading and accepting my point you continually fabricate a false position then argue against it.

    When have I ever said or implied that starting a QB from day 1 ensures a better chance of success?
    or
    Starting a QB from day 1 ensures a better chance of winning a SB?

    Either quote me or stop with your nonsense.
    How about this if you can't quote where I've made the above statements don't bother replying to any of my posts.
    Because until you can I'll have no respect for you.

    You're so hell bent on having that argument that you don't even realize that's not my point.

    Here I'll restate the point I was making to your hommie that you're apparently all twisted over.
    In fact I'll re-state it in baby steps for you:

    Rookie QBs that start do not have to 'win' the starting job to be named the starting QB; they are often 'handed/given' the job.

    What is so hard about this point to understand?
    And if you disgaree with this point that's fine.
    But, at least disagree with the right point.

    I'm done.
     
  38. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    throughout this thread..... and you basically said it in the below quote after having already argued that the job should essentially be handed to Tannehill b/c supposedly that's what [paraphrasing] "most teams do with QBs drafted to be a franchise guy".
    This quote alone isn't an indictment, but when it follows the other stuff you said, it becomes a failed A+B=C type of logic.


    I've already quoted you, and you cared more about semantics than addressing what I quoted you on. Actually, that's all your argument has become. You've done nothing in the past few posts to make an actual argument or attempt to rebuke what I said.

    you have no point, nor have you proven one, nor can you have one when you randomly alter it at will to fit your argument. You've only made assumptions based on a recent NFL trend, nothing more.
    And it's not my fault your definition of franchise QB is the round in which he's drafted rather than his actual performance on the field. By your definition of "franchise QB", guys like Chris Carr, JaMarcus Russell, Tim Couch, & Akili Smith are franchise QBs. :lol:


    You can buy Rosetta Stone and learn how to say it 20 different ways. It will still hold no water.
    Stop your verbal backpedaling. You said, and I quote, "Franchise QBs seldom 'win' the starting job as much as they are 'handed' the start job."

    Now, time for your medicine little boy:
    Since 1980, 70 QBs have been drafted in the 1st round. Only 15 were day 1 starters.
    The average week these 70 became a starter --- week 12.


    IDK, probably the fact that it's wrong.
    I'm not disagreeing with it; simple math is.


    So let's review:
    Not only have I shown that rookie, franchise-hopeful QBs aren't handed the starting job from day 1, but I've shown that the overwhelming majority of actual franchise QBs did not start from day 1.

    You were done a while back.
     
  39. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    ... and the 15/70 is misleading b/c 9 of those were #1 picks, 2 were #2s, and 1 was a #3.
    So, not only were 13 of the first day starters considered the cream of the crop talent-wise, but they also went to a team that finished at the bottom of the league..... and typically that happens when you have nothing at QB, hence the draft pick being used on one in the first place.
     
  40. edromeo

    edromeo New Member

    71
    34
    0
    Jul 29, 2012
    Wow, just wow.

    Anyhow just in case my actual posts in this thread were lost somewhere in the ethersphere amidst the mindless back and forth:


     

Share This Page