Moore in this offense is not better than Tannehill. your qbr from last year doesnt prove he is. I get you dont want the growing pains but you have built up in your head we would be miles ahead of where we are now if Moore had started. You have NOTHING to back that up, NOTHING that is current and relevant to this year. You have irrelevant stats from last year. Now you try to say that surrounding cast has no effect on tannehill, as if to suggest every error is Tannehills fault, like there have been no dropped passes, no breakdowns in protection, etc To further state we should start Moore. I know you LOVE debate shou, but I cant debate a dead subject anymore.
It really boils down to a sort of Dolfan excuse machine for a player just not being all that good at the moment. We need a "first rd pick qb!" Upon obtaining that, "we need a #1 Wr!" Either trading draft choices for one, or "we need a #1 pick wr!" Then "we need a better offensive line!" Plain truth is, what has to happen is suffer the growing pains of starting those players all at once, something that pretty much has never happened in Miami for 30 yrs, since Shula's first losing season in the 70's when the halycon phins were either retiring, traded, or injured, forcing him to start the Bokampers etc. This is why we see JMart and some fast, young, Wr's playing along with Tannehill. If we had wanted to win now, we'd start MMoore and would have signed Gaffney etc.
At this point I have to believe Shou is related to Moore. This is getting ridiculous. Go back and watch every preseason game. Moore was HORRIBLE against guys who aren't even in the NFL. He couldn't move the team at all, his passes were erratic at best. He is NOT a WC QB and never will be.
This is not an "I think Matt Moore should start" thread, because as I mentioned in the other thread, I really don't think Matt Moore should start. But it's gonna get tiresome to hear for the next two years that Ryan Tannehill "just needs better receivers" to become the quarterback he has the potential to be, when it doesn't seem we've learned a thing from thinking the same sort of thing and being wrong about players like Chris Chambers and Chad Henne.
Joe Flacco is lighting the world on fire now that he has Boldin AND Torrey Smith. Before those guys, he was just a barely above average QB. But anyway....... Who on this message board thinks that a better receiver will catapult Tannehill from bad to great? Who thinks that a 3rd quality receiver will absolve him from making rookie mistakes and reads? I haven't read anyone stating anything near this. Ryan Tannehill is a rookie. Is making rookie mistakes. And certainly needs to develop and get better. If you didn't expect what you're seeing, then your expectations were off. These same things would've happened in 2013 had we sat him on the bench this year (See Jake Locker). He needs playing time to develop. But why in the world would that mean that we couldn't use a 3rd quality receiver? Or at least a 3rd competent receiver. It could only help him moving forward. Regardless of who the Quarterback is, having Legadu Naanee or Anthony Armstrong as your 3rd receiver is a problem. It's a problem San Diego chose not to have. It's a problem Carolina chose not to have, and it's a problem Washington chose not to have.
Ricky Williams is an example. He was ok in NO, he comes here and is the best RB in the league. Reggie Bush to some extent also. Fryer was winding his career down until Marino was throwing him the ball. As for Dolphins that went elsewhere... Tony Martin needed a chance, but wasn't going to get that here. You cannot say it was the players around him here though. It's tuff for me to say, as don't follow other teams as much, so when players go elsewhere... Plus, Miami has historically done a good job at sticking with someone until it's obvious that they just don't have it. Davis will be interesting to follow. You only really remember the superstars.
Saying that good receivers would be helpful, which I don't think anyone would argue, is different from saying their absence is the reason Ryan Tannehill is playing the way he is. The rest of your post I agree with, because it essentially says Ryan Tannehill will have to improve himself, regardless of what's going on around him.
If he's got a good running game, a good defense, and he's getting protection, then I don't care if he's throwing to the three stooges, he should improve his game.
yeah those 2 guys scream super bowl....moore has sucked badly in preseason against 2nd stringers and gaffney is currently on the open market in week 4 of the regular season..../case closed
It's kind of weird to see *****ing about something that hasn't happened, you're starting with the assumption that Tannehill is going to play poorly enough to need excuses for the next two years. He hasn't played that poorly yet. Better WRs make a QB job a lot easier and vise versa, I don’t think that is debatable; there is no more symbiotic relationship in the NFL. Randy Moss played better with Brady than Cassel. Brady played better last year with a healthy Gronkowski. If Tannehill is the subject of your point why not just come out and say that from the beginning? Henne had Brandon Marshall and Jake Long. No excuses there. I'm not sure how Chad fits your point.
I think a more relevant question would be when is the last time someone got better after game 3 of their career? Or even more specifically when is the last time a Quarterback got better after game 3 of their career? That is a much more relevant question because I doubt that if towards the end of his 2nd year as a starter if Tannehill still has a career QB rating of 58.2 any one will be defending that it is supporting cast. Give the guy time to prove something one way or the other thus far his play on the field and demeanor off of it have drawn praise from the likes of Rich Gannon (who may or may not be the answer to the op), Trent Dilfer, and Kurt Warner. Take a little solace in that.
Tannehill's name was in the original post. Check post #40 in this thread for your first glimpse of how Tannehill's play will be attributed to his receivers. I suspect that will only grow if and when his play doesn't improve.
Right, and that's entirely possible, but I suspect it's the case that when players like that improve, they improve themselves, not because they've gotten a better supporting cast.
Nobody here, because this site didn't exist. There surely were people who believed that though. It may not have been a consensus opinion, but its only logical to believe it existed to some degree. You could find people that believe such for almost any player on the team. There are people here that believe Brian Hartline would be as productive as Jordy Nelson if he were to have an elite QB.
He was mentioned as an example, not THE subject. Post #40 shows how a specific stat was attributed, not his play. There is a difference.
I absolutely agree but who's to say that Tannehill won't do that? If I remember correctly when we drafted him he was the most inexperienced and raw of the top QBs, which means we should probably have a little more patience with his development than most of his counterparts. He only has 22 starts at QB since high school.
And that sure may be the case, who knows, but what I do know is that I'm not aware of any instance in which there's been a fairly widespread belief on this site (or on Finheaven, before this one) that some Dolphins player was only a supporting cast from being great, and that belief was later confirmed to be correct.
Welker is a perfect example of a certain skillset not being used properly... Projected Welker to be what he is today, despised the trade.
I agree that's ridiculous if anyone is saying that. But on this forum, I haven't seen many people say this. And FTR, my position is that his pass rating might be about 5-12 points better at this point with a guy like Brandon Marshall Yup, that's the unfortunate reality of not only having a rookie QB, but a rookie QB who was relatively inexperienced coming in (regardless of having his coach and system). I was prepared for these growing pains. We all should have been. That's why I'll start putting in more criticism come week 9 or 10 if we're not seeing any improvement. But I'm also really happy that he's starting. Because I firmly believe that QBs need to grow on the field. Jake Locker is making rookie mistakes in Tenn. He will make rookie mistakes all year. I don't think holding the clip board last year is helping him make better decisions on the field.
What to grow? The point of what you quoted on post #40 is that his QBR was at too small of a sample size to be reflective of his play overall. The part you highlighted was giving an example of him making a good play and it not being reflected in his QBR because of someone else's play. That isn't saying his play was bad because of his WR, its saying that his QBR was lower. Your example isn't what you claim it is.
And that's the kind of subjective perception that will grow if his play doesn't improve, to the point that there's a widespread belief that he's being held back from reaching his potential by the players around him. Watch. On top of that, you're missing the rest of post #40, where there was a scouting report saying he doesn't take enough off of underneath throws, which led to an inordinate number of drops by his receivers at Texas A&M. So even you, at this point, are ignoring the objective evidence that ties this problem to Tannehill himself. It wasn't "because of someone else's play," as you said in your post I quoted above. It was because he still has the problem of not taking enough velocity off of underneath throws, which leads to drops.
Sorry, but I disagree on this. He IS throwing to some of the 3 stooges. Nanaee and Armstrong come to mind right off. All the QB can do is give them to opportunity. THEY have to catch the ball. Also, if the WR cant get some separation, I dont care WHO is the QB. What would be left for him to improve on, his running ability?
See post #40 in this thread, where you'll find that Tannehill's receivers' problems dropping his passes have been attributed to Tannehill and not to his receivers. See this is the kind of thing I'm talking about here. It's like if there's some massive hope for a player's improvement, then whatever stands in the way of that improvement is somebody else's fault.
1) Post number 67 can be your first example............ I dont know if Tanny WILL BE the answer, but it makes no sense to expect him to be another Marino..... THIS YEAR. He was a project QB when he was drafted. We will find out when he has more to throw to. Hartline and Bess are a good start though, but neither one scare anyone. 2 )So, just because a scout says he throws the ball to hard, in becomes law? Elway and Favre BOTH were accused of this same thing. Their reply to that was..........they are WR's, they should be able to catch it. Neither one of them took anything off of the ball, most of the time. I havent heard ONE PERSON on here defend Nanaee. It seems to be unanimous that he is worthless. Armstrong has shown nothing either.
Not necessarily, but it sure tends to become "law" around here when it's perceived that other players are in the way of some player's greatness. So whose "law" are you more willing to follow: that of a professional scout (when it's backed up by objective evidence), or that of a bunch of nobodies on a message board? And "most of the time" is the key. Quarterbacks need to adjust their velocity based on the situation. It's part of the job.
How could anyone defend him in another 2 years if his play doesnt improve. I never thought Henne was that good, but I see some things with Tanny that make me think he MIGHT be the answer. I dont cringe when he goes on the field. If he is no better in 2 more years, he will NOT be the answer, IMO. But I am not about to make that call now. As far as your OP..... That is a good question, but I am old and forgetful so it will take me a minute.
BUT neither one of them did it for the first few YEARS of their career. They had to GROW.......as a QB. Some scouts ARE worthless and only have that job because they KNOW SOMEBODY. Wouldn't you also have to believe the WR's are worth something to blame it on the QB.
If I see a receiver drop a pass that was thrown like a laser on an underneath route, and I have not only a scouting report that says that was a problem for Tannehill in college, but also statistics that show Tannehill had an inordinate number of drops in college, I think the available evidence falls far more in favor of the play having been Tannehill's fault than the receiver's. Of course it's far easier to think the problem on the play was the receiver's, since very few of us believe we have good receivers, and since almost all of us want to hold out hope that Tannehill has the skills to become great for us. There is a natural leaning to attribute what he does negatively to someone else, especially if that someone is viewed as not very good to begin with. However, that doesn't mean that perception is accurate.
I believe my EYES. I have watched every game he has started. I see the ball come out of his hand and go to WR's hand, which then drops it. Seems to me like the QB's job was to get the ball to the WR, but the WR dropped it. Please explain how that is the QB's fault????
I'll just repeat the words of the scout: http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/college_player_scouting_report.html&player=33154 Now, what should we go with, your eyes, or the scout's?
Look dude, you have your agenda, your love affair with Matt Moore and no amount of intelligence is going to change it. I am done with you. Watch and learn.
I figured you'd be done after that one. You sure you don't want to tell us we should trust you more than the scout?
Someone please make "jsizzle" a moderator so he can close and lock threads and he won't have to engage in this sort of worthless display anymore.
Wait... Saying that the WR dropped the ball on a specific play is subjective, but a scout saying he throws it too hard short is objective? How about a little consistency, and I don’t mean consistently changing your criteria to what fits your argument. Also the play in question was absolutely not thrown too hard. It was in the red zone and Hartline was covered. Take a little off and you’re looking at an INT. Underneath changes with field position. Your objective analysis just took a subjective opinion and blankly tried to apply it to a situation that it doesn’t fit. I have no problem with subjective analysis so long as you can defend it.
