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

Can a QB be broken?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by His'nBeatYour'n, Aug 21, 2012.

  1. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    With Tannehill announced as the starter there have been many fans and reporters voicing concern that they are playing Tannehill too early, and the Dolphins could be ruining his development.

    Some stand on the principle that QBs benefit more by watching how it is done than being thrown into the fire. Others argue that without a strong enough receiving corps, o-line, or running game, Tannehill is going to get bullied on Sundays, and never become the player he would have been.

    Is this a football myth or is there truth to it?

    Most 1st round QBs have started in their rookie season, many of them as early as week 1. And many of them have been playing for one of the worst teams in the league.

    Of the best 1st round QBs now playing only Aaron Rodgers sat and waited.

    How do we know Jamarcus Russell or David Carr would have been better if they waited? These are 1st overall picks, so the answer must be better than "They couldn't have been worse!" Were they broken by playing right away, or were they destined to be busts?

    What separates the Tim Couch's from the Matthew Stafford's?

    Can a QB be broken, or will Tannehill be Boom or a Bust all on his own?
     
    Rick 1966, Fin-Omenal and Eop05 like this.
  2. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Unfortunately, you can't evaluate it that way. There is no way to know one way or another. I think there are just a few tangible pros and cons and you have to see how likely your QB is to excel or succumb to them.

    Cons:
    1. Chance to develop bad habits. This is obviously real and cannot be argued.
    2. Chance to lose confidence. Not sure how this can be argued either.

    Pros:
    1. Game play experience is the best kind of experience overall.

    There is no hard and fast rule one way or the other. It depends on the QB himself. None of us know Tanny in anyway that gives us insight to what is best for him. Any of us saying he should wait or play is like flipping a coin, if one side is correct it will be by chance.
     
  3. dWreck

    dWreck formerly dcaf

    5,200
    2,975
    113
    Oct 23, 2011
    Sebring, FL
    Sink or swim.
     
  4. Rouk

    Rouk Well-Known Member

    1,801
    857
    113
    Jul 31, 2011
    Hollywood, Florida
    I disagree stakes are too high for such simple logic if he sinks were looking at a min of a wasted next 4 years. Why wouldn't they play this the safest way by letting him sit at least 6 games while the team learns all the new schemes we have no chance of winning this year. This move looks to me like there worried about there job more than anything.
     
    FinNasty likes this.
  5. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,630
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I don't think you can know if any specific failure would have been better if they waited or had a different coaching staff.

    I think you can pretty conclusively argue that you can damage a player by putting him on the field too early, though.
     
  6. finyank13

    finyank13 Reality Check

    30,718
    5,415
    113
    Jan 6, 2010
    and this is the big one that people debate when starting a QB too early....I hate it, I believe the kid either has the mental make-up or he doesn't, and we might as well find out....I think the way you lose confidence is by playing a player but putting a leash on him, like a Henne for example...THill wants to start, expects too, paid like a starter and was picked early in a decent QB draft class, starting him is the right thing to do....

    Kudos for Philbin for putting the mess to bed early and naming him, so now he can prepare for Houston.

    My only hope and it could be a dangerous one is that hopefully Thill doesn't expect to have a great year, yes I know it sounds pessimistic, and counter-productive but that offense is God awful, and is going to be all year.....I hope he doesn't take it as him doing something wrong, creating self-inflicted unneeded pressure on himself to do better, because that's when mistakes happen, and 2nd guessing...

    If he gets 3-3500 yards 20-25 TD's and under 20 INT, I will be insanely excited about the future...
     
    dolfan32323, Fin-Omenal and mullingan like this.
  7. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL
    I think this is a big football MYTH.

    People always say 'sit' and learn as if you they couldn't play and learn.

    MYTH
     
    Lt Dan, muscle979, Rick 1966 and 2 others like this.
  8. PhinGeneral

    PhinGeneral PC Texas A&M, Bro Club Member

    9,802
    7,239
    113
    Jan 4, 2008
    Swamps of Jersey
    There's so many factors that enter into this, especially a QB's makeup. a guy like Jamarcus Russell was a failure primarily because he was lazy. But where it comes to the team itself, I think that more than weak receivers or a bad running attack, the offensive line plays a huge part. A poor offensive line in front of a rookie QB can result in shell shock, IMO. I think back to guys like Jim Plunkett and David Carr, who were under constant bombardment.

    I think someone like Tannehill should be fine. He appears to have the smarts and mental toughness to succeed, and as long as Martin picks up his game the line should be plenty good enough to allow him to grow into the position at the proper speed.
     
  9. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL
    Why is it David Carr is always brought up as shell shocked? You don't think he had issues in college? He came back to have a great senior year fine. Why wasn't he shell shocked in college?

    Carr's 2nd season in Houston he was sacked at a pretty low percentage. No one ever brings that up. So obviously he wasn't shell shocked, was getting rid of the football fine. In fact, his 2nd season with the low sack totals was his highest career Interception %. When you are a check down QB who holds on to the ball to long, your not going to be a successful QB.
     
    Eop05 likes this.
  10. GARDENHEAD

    GARDENHEAD Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    11,681
    10,413
    113
    May 7, 2008
    New Orleans
    They said Cam Newton needed a year or two to learn the NFL and he did pretty good last year.

    Jake Long is protecting his blind side. Tanny will be fine.
     
    Eop05 likes this.
  11. PhinsRock

    PhinsRock Premium Member Luxury Box

    It didn't hurt Peyton Manning, I could name others but we have to trust our HC/OC on this one and Sherman knows more about Tanny than any of us. And I do NOT want Tanny to lower his expectations for this rookie season, no way, no how. And I don't see him doing this at all, hey he had such a strong mental toughness he not only accepted but used being played at WR for 2 years @ A&M all the time believing he should and then did become the starting QB. Guy never gave up, this is the mindset I see and believe HC/OC see, in Tanny. And frankly (I know this is sacrilege but) his mindset/mental toughness remind me of one great HOF #13 Dan the Man.

    My greatest concern is that Sherman & Philbin get Tanny a good running game and stop the bullfighter mentality on the right side of the OL. If they do not, Tanny (and us fans) are in for a long and disappointing season. Especially if our WR's don't man up and 1. get open, 2. catch the damn ball!.

    One last point, I firmly believe Tanny has the mental strength and mindset that even if his rookie season is a nightmare, he will just be one year more experienced and (double entendre?) mentally toughened, gong into the 2013 season and assuming (BIG IF here) the FO/Irish fix the WR/OL/Running game for next season, Tanny will be way more ready/experienced to turn this team around in his sophomore year.
     
    gafinfan and dolfan32323 like this.
  12. arsenal

    arsenal Sunglasses and advil

    2,768
    1,081
    0
    Nov 26, 2007
    Commack, NY
    I think its a myth...

    people talk about losing confidence, but that can happen at any point, whether first year or 5th year... i think the mental makeup a QB has is going to lead them to the same path either way when it comes to being a bust...

    Also to the fact of developing bad habits, thats coaching related and can always be corrected/changed...

    People say David Carr was ruined by Houston and all of those sacks, but hes still in the league, he still gets hit, he still will stand in the pocket at times... its not like he's traumatized and unable to play anymore because he got sacked too many times... hes still playing QB, but hes just not very good, has nothing to do with when he got on the field...
     
    Mcduffie81 and Eop05 like this.
  13. Sumlit

    Sumlit Well-Known Member

    4,796
    2,760
    113
    Feb 27, 2012
    Miami
    For every QB that supposedly got broken for starting to early, there is another that flourished. I think in the end, if you were meant to be good, you would be good regardless.

    Perhaps adverse circumstances impact the speed in which you achieve your peak, or they impact perhaps your longevity as a QB. Aside from that, if you have the tools to be an elite QB, then you have the tools to adapt to the bad situation, and the tools to adapt to the good situation.
     
  14. Eop05

    Eop05 Junior Member Club Member

    5,659
    5,268
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    NJ
    This is where I disagree.

    I don't think it's conclusive at all. You can throw the Tim Couch's and David Carr's at me all day.

    But I'll throw the Drew Brees at you. The Eli Manning. The guys who sat for 10+ games, came in, absolutely sucked. Had entire city's calling for their heads (in Eli's case New York) and still prospered. I'll throw the Peyton Manning at you, who did just about everything he could to shake his confidence in his rookie year, yet rallied back.

    To make a long story short. If you're capable of being broken or damaged for good in your rookie season, you probably weren't the guy that was going to lead a team on a championship run at any point in your career anyway. No matter how well you were developed. Winning down the stretch and in the post season takes balls, leadership, and resilience. Being damaged like Chad Henne and John Beck proved to me they didn't have that and never would have had that.

    Just my theory. Good QBs learn from experience and get better.
     
  15. Sippi

    Sippi Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    2,565
    927
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    I've heard more about rookie QB's talking about adjusting to the speed of the game in the NFL more then anything. I don't know how they could learn to adjust to the speed of the game more then by playing and being exposed to it. I'm not expecting Tanny to have a great year this year as the starter. He has very little experience, and even QB's that had lots of college experience struggle as rookies in the NFL. However as long as he has the mental fortitude of handling whatever this year throws at him, I believe he will be better as a result of playing and getting more game time experience.
     
  16. Eop05

    Eop05 Junior Member Club Member

    5,659
    5,268
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    NJ
    well said
     
  17. Sumlit

    Sumlit Well-Known Member

    4,796
    2,760
    113
    Feb 27, 2012
    Miami
    A QB that require everything to be perfect in order to succeed, is not the QB that's going to win you championships, because guess what, nothing ever goes perfect in a superbowl run. Now a QB that has seen adversity, has played through adversity, and has still managed to succeed, that's the QB that's gonna rise up in those tough moments and deliver for you.
     
  18. finyank13

    finyank13 Reality Check

    30,718
    5,415
    113
    Jan 6, 2010
    I think the only example I can remember it helping partly because he had no choice but to sit, is Aaron Rodgers...
     
  19. PhinGeneral

    PhinGeneral PC Texas A&M, Bro Club Member

    9,802
    7,239
    113
    Jan 4, 2008
    Swamps of Jersey
    Was he sacked 76 times in one season in college?

    I think you pretty much make the argument. Cause and effect. While he may have had other issues as well, the damage done by being sacked 76 times in his rookie season manifested itself in checkdowns, interceptions, etc. The fact that the sack percentage went down the next season isn't terribly relevant, IMO. For someone who was a rookie at time, the damage had been done.
     
    ToddPhin and texanphinatic like this.
  20. CANEPHINS

    CANEPHINS No Tats & Dreads Allowed

    2,593
    2,335
    113
    Jan 4, 2009
    Savannah, GA
    Said it before, will say it again. The only reason to sit a first round QB is if there is an established top flight QB already in place. Farve-Rodgers. Moon-McNair. Cunningham-Cullpepper. In those cases it was best for them to sit and learn, even though Farve went out of his way to not help Rodgers.

    If that situation doesn't exist you go ahead and play the rookie.
     
  21. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL
    Yea, but he would of been successful even if he played game one. Maybe not played as well in his first year starting as his rookie season, but its not like he wouldn't have been just as successful in his fourth starting season as he was his actual first starting season.

    Don't get me wrong, if we had the luxary I think would sit him. But we don't have Brett Favre(thank god) or Drew Brees.
     
    finyank13 likes this.
  22. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Staff Member Club Member

    24,217
    36,005
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    For the 11 billionth time... for the majority of the people who want Tannehill to sit, it has nothin to do with him learning from the bench or learning from Matt Moore. It's about the garbage we're surrounding him with...
     
  23. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL

    Wait...the damage is supposibly that he then threw interceptions and check downs because he was sacked so much in his rookie season. So if he was so adaptive to have 1 season change his entire career, why didn't his 2nd season change his career back then? Why is it that his rookie season had so much clout in his career, but his 2nd season meant nothing?

    Was it the sacks that had him checking down, or is it because he was just a scared QB period and lacked the killer instinct. Which many said he did when coming out.
     
  24. Larryfinfan

    Larryfinfan 17-0...Priceless Club Member

    The argument on this is that for years before FA and then before the cost was so prohibitive of signing a top 5-10 QB (pre rookie wage scale), the 'norm' would have been the way that Rodgers did it...by sitting behind the vet. In this day and age of Fa and win now, no one wants to wait and allow a guy to mature before putting him on the field. I don't really know which way is best and each guy is different. David Carr and Joey Harringtion come to mind of guys that being put out there as rookies and on really bad teams ruined their potential... There are differing examples all over in today's group of guys... Alex Smith took 5 yrs to mature. Cam Newton (although the jury is still out) seems to have jumped in there and taken things in hand. Matt Leinart had a bad start....would his career have been different had he sat and not been expected to be the man from day one ?? Carson Palmer sat behind a journeyman QB and that seemed to work for him. Matty Ice and Flacco didn't break, but they both had the advantage of strong teams around them... Tavaris Jackson sat and it still didn't help him. I just don't think there is one definitive answer as every guy coming out is different.
     
  25. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL
    And for the 12th billionth time... him playing with **** this year isn't going to ruin his career because that is a myth.
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  26. CrunchTime

    CrunchTime Administrator Retired Administrator

    23,327
    35,934
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Some would argue that Henne was ruined by bad coaching .He could never find an identity because they kept changing up the offense.I think there may be some of that but ultimately it was his lack of talent which did him in.

    And that is the crux of the matter IMO .If the player has the talent and the makeup he will eventually succeed .The question should be how long will the coaches and fans will wait before they lose confidence in him.
    In Hennes case it took approx 3 yrs .Tanny may be shaky at first but so far he looks like he has the talent to put plays together and finish drives .Eventually he will put it all together .Since he is starting early we should know if we have a franchise QB by the end of the year.Personally I am confident he is the real deal but I could be wrong

    Its better to find out sooner than later because time is saved in the evaluation and measures can be taken by the next draft.
     
  27. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL

    Listen, I understand the argument that you want to sit a guy until he is ready to step in and be a very good QB as soon as he takes over. I get that. But when you don't have a great football team that is going to win today. That becomes irrelevant. Because of two reasons. One, he will likely speed up the learning process by playing. Two, there is no downside to him playing immediately.
     
  28. arsenal

    arsenal Sunglasses and advil

    2,768
    1,081
    0
    Nov 26, 2007
    Commack, NY
    so what is the requirement to have around him to start?

    do we have to draft a WR next year, then give that WR a year or two to show if hes worth anything before bringing in Tannehill?
    do we have to put together a starting 5 of Olineman that perform well for a full year, then put in Tannehill the next year making sure we dont change that rotation and no one gets hurt?
    do we have to have a few offensive pieces make the probowl before deciding they are good enough to play with Tannehill?

    this logic just makes no sense to me, this is our team right now with the current WRs and Olinemen and RBs, how do you know if it will be better or worse going forward? How long would you have him sit while we accumulate this talent necessary to insert him?

    All that matters is if Ryan is the best option to start for us or not? if so put him in, regardless of what else is there...
     
  29. Sumlit

    Sumlit Well-Known Member

    4,796
    2,760
    113
    Feb 27, 2012
    Miami
    There is no perfect situation to play a rookie QB, just doesn't exist. Every team out there has problems in different areas, and those that seem to have few problems, that's because they've had good QB for years, and have been able to draft and sign other players instead.

    Bottom line, if your franchise QB cannot adapt to adverse situation, then he was not your franchise QB to begin with. Very simple.
     
    Nappy Roots likes this.
  30. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    I think once you get to a round 3 or later QB, there may be too many flaws in their game that need to be corrected to start them in their first season.
    Those are developmental QBs. 1st round QBs typically have fewer flaws in their game, and they can work on them while developing in real games.

    The biggest knock on Tannehill is "only 19 starts in college" It is why he was still available at 8. I don't see how he overcomes a lack of experience by being denied more experience.

    FinD. I am not worried about bad habits. All QBs, even 25 year vets, develop bad habits. What separates QBs is often how they constantly correct those bad habits.
    In addition, Tannehill has the extremely rare luxury that most rookie QBs don't... his college coach is his offensive coordinator. Sherman doesn't have to spend Tannehill's rookie season learning what Tannehill's strengths, weaknesses and bad habits are. I think that will be huge dividends in Tannehill's development. In addition to not having to learn a completely new offense.
     
    Eop05 likes this.
  31. DevilFin13

    DevilFin13 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,713
    6,282
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    It seems plausible to me that if you have crappy protection early on you may struggle with adjusting to the different speed of the game since you wouldn't have the time needed to read new defenses and develop a good pocket presence and sense of timing. So theoretically I think it's possible. I'm not sure what the data shows.
     
  32. xphinfanx

    xphinfanx Stay strong my friends.

    10,823
    2,214
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    If he can unload the ball and not try to be Michael Vick to save every bad play I think he has a chance to learn and become a good QB. As Rev said in another post the TE's and RB's will need to block for him alot. Reggie might have a big season yet.
     
  33. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Staff Member Club Member

    24,217
    36,005
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    We need to be able to protect him in the pocket, and allow him time to properly learn how to go through progressions and make throws based on post-snap reads of the defense. He needs to be able to learn how to properly stand tall and calm in the pocket. If we can't protect him, he can't learn those things if he's running for his life from the snap, or immediately turning and throwing to the checkdown guy, or just firing his passes to the first reads b/c he doesn't have time to look at the other ones.

    Do you disagree with that? That he can learn those things w/o protection? If so, how?
     
  34. Yellow Snowman

    Yellow Snowman New Member

    769
    156
    0
    Feb 27, 2012
    QBs are made and destroyed in the NFL all the time. Hell the 49ers broke one then made one all with the same guy Alex Smith. You destroy him with an absolutely atrocious coach in Singletary then make him with a football genius in Harbaugh.
     
  35. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL

    This is exactly whats wrong with this thinking. No the 49ers did not destroy the early Alex Smith. It had more to do with him playing in a gimmick offense, in a **** conference, with no arm and no down field throwing. He needed time to sit.

    In fact, Alex Smith is the exact case we are arguing for. Alex Smith came in, not ready, played in a **** situation, and yet here we are today and hes a good(certainly not anything above good) QB. He wasn't ruined.
     
  36. arsenal

    arsenal Sunglasses and advil

    2,768
    1,081
    0
    Nov 26, 2007
    Commack, NY
    of course he will have protection at times, are you saying he will never have a pocket to throw from, all season?

    no QB has no pressure on them ever, no QB gets enough time to sit calmly in the pocket and read the entire field each play...

    he will learn to throw from a clean pocket, he will also learn to throw hot when there is pressure, he will learn to avoid a sack, he will learn to improvise... all in all, he will learn how to be an NFL QB, by playing QB
     
  37. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Again all I'm saying is how well does your QB handle it. That's the only predictor of success in the start or sit discussion. None of us know where Tanny falls on that.

    Its as inaccurate to say sitting is always bad as it is to say starting immediately is always bad. It depends on the individual.

    Now hopefully, the coaches have read Tanny correctly and he can handle the adversity. I feel more confident than I would in other scenarios because of Sherm knowing Tanny better than anyone, and Philbin knowing a great QB better than anyone on the team.
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  38. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Staff Member Club Member

    24,217
    36,005
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    You are taking what I am saying to a far and ridiculous extreme. Of course he will occasionally see a clean pocket. The problem is, if seeing a clean pocket falls into the minority of his pass attempts like I believe it will be... he can end up not standing tall and going through progressions b/c he thinks pressure is coming b/c it is coming on the majority of his snaps. If his first game action against 1's is an indication... he could be looking at 5+ sacks per game plus pressures and QB hits. Thinking that constant repetition of him getting hit and pressured wouldn't condition him to be thinking and/or worried about the pass rush instead of what's going on down field, to me, is illogical and not realistic.
     
  39. unluckyluciano

    unluckyluciano For My Hero JetsSuck

    53,333
    23,006
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    yeah except you have no way to connect the cause to the effect.
     
  40. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    He shouldn't be thinking about pressure, he should be realizing the pressure. He can't just rely on chance. Developing his ability to feel pressure and the pocket is a very important skill for QBs to succeed in this league. Not to mention he has the responsibility of making line calls and adjustments.

    If he is taking 5+ sacks per game then he's probably not doing a very good job in the pocket. The pressure is just part of the game.

    Saying that the offense could be poorly overall is a legitmate fear. But suggesting that Tannehill will fail because the offense is poor is not a legitimate fear.
     

Share This Page