Should Ryan Tannehill Start the Regular Season?

My main concern is that if you start him and he struggles, what do you do? Once you pull him, you lower his confidence to succeed and hamper his long term outlook.. How many successful NFL QB's have been pulled during their rookie years? If you stick with him and he gets beat up, it is no guarantee that he will get better. Think David Caar.

It's a catch 22. I let him sit, after all Moore did a good job leading this team last year. If the team struggles after the first 6-8 weeks, put him in. He has had half a season to absorb information and true NFL game speed from the sidelines.

 

I think any player selected first round 1-10 should be able to start the season or to me is a waste of pick.I nobody just my opinion

 

A couple years back I saw a study that showed there was no long term difference in QB's who started their rookie season versus those who sat. The only difference is that those who sat had more immediate impact in their first year starting (IE A guy who starts his rookie season has worse stats that one year than a guy whos first season starting comes after sitting) but even that trend was small and again not long term.

If he looks ready, start him.

 

I appreciate the thought, but I need to see more before I answer either way personally.

 

You could probably add in TJ Yates to Ben and Flacco. Yates played pretty well in the playoffs last year.

I voted yes because if the QB is ready you can stunt his development by not playing him. If hes ready and the best QB on the roster then he deserves to play.

 

GREAT NEWS! We have identified the divisive topic this board will argue about all year!!!!

 

Would love to see that study. Do you remember who did it?

 

Goes very well with....

 

With Garrards injury, and with Chad J being rightly cut.....it sets the stage to make the most sense to let this season be the best possible learning/experience season for this offense....Tannehill as QB, and all the young receivers getting the most reps. If this turns out to be the case, I also think it sends a message to the OL to say, take on this leadership role and dominate to give this young crew the time they need, and of course send the message to Reggie and the other backs that you can shine and help this young group as well when your number is called. Its win-win-win! The D just has as much to play for and really be the glue to hold it all together. I like the atmosphere for all 53 this move would send.

If Ryan shines tonight....absolutely no reason to argue or take the position that he should not be the starting QB. Just let it happen and let it be a measuring stick to build on for following seasons with added talent, etc.

I think Dolphins FO wants to ship Moore for draft picks (especially if Garrard didnt get injured), and with Devlin capable of wearing his hat backwards (if they choose to ship off Moore prior to DG's return) on the sidelines till D. Garrard returns, and then D. Garrard being the VET just watching and educating what he sees during the course of a game to help Tannehill, its a solid plan and rationale.

Tonight will be fun to see how much PRESSURE Tannehill puts on himself.

 

I think what you're saying is true for sure. Variables play into it and it's impossible to eliminate them all. I just think some guys have it and some don't though at the end of the day.

Jamarcus Russell wasnt going to succeed if he sat ten seasons. Peyton Manning wasn't going to be any better if he sat even though his team was terrible. Henne (not a first round QB but relevant to our franchise) sat and was drilled to death on his flaws. Still couldn't cut it. Eli Manning played 9 games his rookie season and basically threw like Tim Tebow (48%) but it didn't ruin him.

I really believe there is no rule of sit vs start. It all depends on the player you are handling.

 

Is the defense really expected to be that bad? I'm not sure I see it.

I think another factor we need to look at is the schedule. This is a pretty damn easy schedule we have, and I think that is something that will help out a rookie QB.

Either way, when it comes down to it, draft pedigree and being a rookie should go out the window at this point. Letting the team know that coaches' decision making will be influenced by those things sends a bad message IMO.

 

Sadly no. Someone posted it in a thread on this site a long time back...I think around the time we drafted Henne. Ive looked for it myself so I could analyze it further for variables and such. I'm 100000000% sure it exists though.

 

Yes, you start him. If he starts the season 0-10 you stick with him. If he sets the NFL record for most INT's in a year, you stick with him. This season doesn't matter. You get the guy you drafted 8th overall the experience he needs so that when the team around him is good, he'll be ready.

 

A headbanger pointing at his head with his fingers in gun form gets it....why cant you guys?

 

Bone up on your movie history, bro.

 

Can ya just tell me? I used a search engine for headbanger and didnt see anything.

 

First of all, it's Robert De Niro. That should narrow it down.

 

You talkin' to me?

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

 

I'd like to take you to a movie. *goes to Porno theater*

 

I'd also like to reiterate that yes, Tannehill should be the starter.

 

He has only played one preseason game but if he is constantly good in all his preseason performances then I don't see why he shouldn't.

 

Ahh. Meet The Parents...gotcha

 

I wouldn't mind seeing the new offense, new blocking scheme, and new player additions gel just a little bit before putting him in. Perhaps till week 6. However, if the offense isn't looking like a liability and the transition to Philbin's system seems to be happening throughout preseason, then I wouldn't be opposed to RT starting week 1.

I'm less concerned about Tannehill starting week 1 than I am the guys around him in a new system making life more difficult than it should be for a rookie.

 

Did he take a taxi to meet them?

 

Based on?

 

It beats the Henne and Sparano threads.

 

The first preseason game, with no game planning is your basis the secondary is going to suck? Doesn't that seem overly reactionary?

 

No doubt.

 

I feel like I woke up in a world that seems normal but small things don't make sense anymore.

Between people acting like pre season games matter to Philbin being critiqued poorly for the way he fired Chad to how eating Chic-Fil-A has become a statement of faith....I just feel like the world is running around loopy with arms akimbo while hopped up on goofballs.

 

We have the vast majority of our defense back, and they weren't horrible the last 9 games of last year. How is that erased by one non game planned first preseason game? The thought process seems crazy to me.

 

25th ranked pass Defense last year.

That's not good. And they didn't look good in preseason game 1.

So based on the past 17 games the Miami Dolphins have played, the pass D has not looked good. That a little better?