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

In retrospect

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Bumrush, Dec 2, 2012.

  1. jw3102

    jw3102 season ticket holder

    7,760
    3,486
    113
    Sep 4, 2010
    Maui, Hawaii
    I have no problem with the Dolphins starting Tannehill this year. With a new coaching staff, they have the time to see if he is the QB of the future for them. This was always a rebuilding year for the Dolphins, even though the owner and the front office wouldn't admit it.

    Moore is a quality backup but I don't think the Dolphins would have a better record if he had been the starter for the past 12 games. The problem I have with Tannehill is I just don't see the growth at the QB position from him that you would expect after starting 12 games in the NFL. He made some bad throws today and he failed to lead the team to more than one TD today.

    Hopefully the team will add some better receivers and TE's in the off season. This way it will be easier to determine if Tannehill can develop into a quality starter in the NFL or if he is just going to end up being a bust as a Dolphin QB. It was stated when he was in the 2012 draft that it wasn't going to take him a few years to develop in the NFL. So we probably won't know if he is the answer at the QB position until at least 2014.

    If he is still playing at this level in 2014, I suspect not only will he no longer be the Dolphins QB after that season, but Philbin and his coaching staff will also no longer be working in Miami. We can only hope Tannehill will get his act together, once he gets better talent around him at the skill positions.
     
  2. ExplosionsInDaSky

    ExplosionsInDaSky Well-Known Member

    3,163
    2,325
    113
    Sep 13, 2011
    I think we went with the right guy in Ryan Tannehill. He hit a rookie wall about a month ago after the Colts game. He had bad outings against both Tennessee and Buffalo but I have liked what I have seen since those games. He made some pin point passes in the Seatle game and he was one of the reasons we won that game. Today he led us against much better opponent and he stood up strong today. This was the first game where I really saw Tannehill just having fun out there. You could tell he really wanted to beat New England and it just didn't happen for him. The plays he made with his legs today suggest to me that he has the "it" factor. I just saw a different player today, playing at a higher level. His numbers weren't great but I liked the grit and fearlessnes he showed today.
     
  3. gilv13

    gilv13 Well-Known Member

    2,540
    1,327
    113
    Aug 23, 2009
    [​IMG]
     
  4. Bumrush

    Bumrush Stable Genius Club Member

    29,473
    34,332
    113
    Nov 25, 2007

    I think the jury is out on his long term success.

    That isn't the point though. This isn't about Tannehill. This is about a team that has lost close games to the Jets, NE, Buffalo, Arizona that *could have been won.
     
  5. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    I agree with JW it is rebuilding year RT has to pick up his game defense needs secondary we need playmakers we need cohesion

    We were also playing NE
     
  6. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    But isn't that the fault of the players around Tannehill? :headscratch: ;)
     
  7. dolfan32323

    dolfan32323 ty xphinfanx

    12,587
    1,574
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Washington DC
    I'm not defending Tanny from any blame. He has been struggling as of late, that is no secret. I think he played well against Seattle but today was a different story. If you're implying the other 3 rookie QBs have been outplaying Tanny I agree. My post above was in reference to acting as if Luck was an ordinary rookie QB. His talent is far above and beyond any rookie QB to come out in a long time is all I was saying.
     
  8. CitizenSnips

    CitizenSnips hmm.

    5,525
    4,219
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    PA
    Some of you just seem so happy when tannehill has a bad game.
    You know who you are
     
  9. dWreck

    dWreck formerly dcaf

    5,200
    2,975
    113
    Oct 23, 2011
    Sebring, FL
    It amazes me that some of you would compare probably the best college QB prospect EVER to Tannehill.... The kid had what... 16 starts? and hardly has the pedigree luck does. Now they transition to the Pros and Tannehill has near no choices of people to throw to, trying 1-2 WR splits on a "WC Hurry up offense" with 2nd and 3rd string receivers.... and thats when he is not getting clothes lined and smashed into the dirt. Even if he did have perfect protection and WR threats I would not expect the kid to outperform luck or RG3. especially in his first year, thats just ignorant on so many levels. He showed me he could make the come back drive when needed last week, I was ecstatic. and just had a bad game today. All QBs have bad games, his entire career isn't in the books because of today.

    For that matter you start Moore at the beginning of the season for what? So Tannehill goes through this learning curve NEXT year when we blow our tons of picks and cap space?.... what?
     
  10. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,634
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I don't think there's a lot of case you've damaged Tannehill by starting him.
     
  11. Bumrush

    Bumrush Stable Genius Club Member

    29,473
    34,332
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I'm not saying there is.

    I am saying that Moore may have been a better game manager and that this team, as a result of that, could be fighting for a playoff birth.

    Our offense has regressed heavily, and except for a few flashes, nonexistent the past 6 weeks.
     
  12. CitizenSnips

    CitizenSnips hmm.

    5,525
    4,219
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    PA
    If Matt Moore were starting, would we be a better team than Houston, new England, Baltimore? If the answer is no, and it is, then why bother? Making the playoffs and losing when you get there means nothing.
     
  13. Eop05

    Eop05 Junior Member Club Member

    5,659
    5,268
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    NJ
    We were most likely playing Denver, Baltimore, NE, or Indy in the 1st round away had we made the playoffs, so.....

    I still think it was the right decision to play Tannehill. This game experience he's gaining is invaluable. I don't really buy into the idea of letting a QB sit and learn on the bench. It doesn't look like its done a guy like Jake Locker all that much good. I think we would've seen the same rookie mistakes out of Tannehill in 2013 had he sat the bench this year.

    Today it was clear that he was probably the main problem with the offense. With the running game doing it's job, he should've been able to lead the offense to more success. I still stand by Indy being on the defense, Buffalo being on the Oline and running game, and Tennessee being a total team meltdown. But today was on him.
     
  14. Vengeful Odin

    Vengeful Odin Norse Mod

    21,837
    10,818
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Kansas City, MO
    No offense, but I'd rather miss out on a one-and-done playoff berth and instead try to build towards sustained success. Even if it's more painful in the short term it's the right call for the long-term health of the franchise.
     
    DePhinistr8 likes this.
  15. Bumrush

    Bumrush Stable Genius Club Member

    29,473
    34,332
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    One and done is better than our current state.

    Our fanbase is leaving in droves. MMoore was the MVP last season of this team, and you never know, we may have made it to round 2.

    Tannehill would have sat, learned and developed on the bench, in all likelihood would have seen some playing time if Moore got injured.

    It was the right decision to play Tannehill, but in retrospect it may have been the better decision to play Moore.
     
  16. dWreck

    dWreck formerly dcaf

    5,200
    2,975
    113
    Oct 23, 2011
    Sebring, FL
    And then went through his current growing pains / learning curves AFTER we spent all of our draft pics and cap space.
     
  17. Vengeful Odin

    Vengeful Odin Norse Mod

    21,837
    10,818
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Kansas City, MO
    I like Moore, I think he's a great backup QB. A lot like Thigpen. He's got some good intangibles and is a pretty athletic guy who can extend plays. That's great if you need to use him for a stretch of games, but over the course of a whole season his flaws become more and more apparent.

    I'd rather see us make a logical progression by going with Tannehill from the outset though, rather than ping pong from 9-7 back down to 5-11 or 4-12 or whatever when we finally pulled the trigger on the QB Change.
     
  18. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    Starting Tannehill was the right move IMO. He is not the problem. The problem is the rubbish that Ireland has assembled as a supporting cast.
     
  19. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    You have to ignore or discount heavily a whole lot of objective evidence to come to that conclusion IMO, but of course you have the freedom to do so.
     
  20. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    I disagree.
     
  21. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    You can do that too! :)
     
  22. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,634
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    It's not at all the supporting cast.

    Tannehill's performance is objectively mixed. From a scouting standpoint, from a performance standpoint, etc. and so on. You can't claim his performance is the result of a bad surrounding cast. That may have helped him, but the underlying issues are still there.

    Right now, the biggest issue is Tannehill. A bad running game certainly does not help him out, and I don't think it's in any sense a damning indictment of Tannehill(whom I am quite optimistic about), but blaming stuff on the surrounding players isn't really appropriate.
     
    Anonymous and Stitches like this.
  23. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    That's not what I'm saying. Maybe my post wasn't clear.
    I'm not saying Tannehill has been great, far from it. But I do believe starting him was the best decision, he needs/needed playing experience more than anything else.
    All I'm saying is the crap that is trotted out there on offense every week isn't helping a rookie QB. The surrounding cast doesn't get all the blame, but it doesn't help that we have zero play makers of offense (with the possible exception of Reggie Bush, although even he has been a disappointment this year.)
     
  24. mracer

    mracer New Member

    429
    65
    0
    Dec 13, 2009
    I hope I'm wrong but Tannehill is starting to look like a Sanchez situation for the Fins. I hope he really improves the rest of the season & next yr or else we're back to square 1....actually we're still there. At least Jax has realized Gabbert may not be the guy. The worst thing the Fins can do is stick with Tannehill for years like the Jests have done with Sanchez. Most Jests fans were willing to give Sanchez 3-4 yrs because he was inexperienced coming out of USC. Unfortunately I fear we may be saying the same thing about Tannehill.
     
  25. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Nah, Sanchez has gotten scared in the pocket, Tannehill has not had the level of protection that Nacho had his first couple of years.

    What does worry me about Tannehill is his accuracy especially deep down the field.
     
  26. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL
    In retrospect I was wrong that trading Marshall was a good idea. We should of road him until the the wheels fell off. Or until he got kicked out of the league.
     
  27. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    Or at the very least had a plan for after trading him, other than just closing our eyes really tight and hoping someone stepped up.
     
  28. Dol-Fan Dupree

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

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Tannehill needs to throw 8 more interceptions with a dominate running game in the next 4 games to look as bad as Sanchez.
     
  29. cdz12250

    cdz12250 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    10,265
    7,907
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Coconut Grove
    Long ball accuracy is usually something you either have or don't have, unless you're Tannehill and you have it sometimes but not others. Weird.
     
  30. rtl1334

    rtl1334 New Member

    1,997
    1,014
    0
    Jan 1, 2009
    Every QB misses deep throws. We saw it yesterday with both Manning and RG3. Not to mention Brady in our last game.
     
  31. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,217
    23,524
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Yes, long ball accuracy is quite literally something that every QB has sometimes but not others. If a QB completes 50% of his deep passes, he is doing a great job. Tannehill is at 47.2%, which is very good.
     
  32. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,652
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I like his deep ball talent as well..arch, spiral, anticipation, it's all there, that Hartline pass was pretty, I don't criticize passes that close, I look at the form.
     
  33. GridIronKing34

    GridIronKing34 Silently Judging You

    23,388
    16,296
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    Denver, CO
    Hard for me to get upset unless a QB overthrows those fly routes by a yard or two. Tannehill missed him by half a foot.
     
  34. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    53,148
    31,935
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    Yea, Henne would have missed by yards.
     
  35. rtl1334

    rtl1334 New Member

    1,997
    1,014
    0
    Jan 1, 2009
    There's also been some discussion the wind was swirling at the time of the play call. What amazes me (and I paid attention to this yesterday) when both RG3 and Manning missed deep throws, there was hardly a mention. It's Tuesday and we're still talking about two throws - both of which may have been impacted by the wind. I think more than anything it is a byproduct of how anemic we are on offence and how every missed opportunity is amplified.
     
    Hiruma78 likes this.
  36. MAFishFan

    MAFishFan Team Tannehill

    3,561
    447
    83
    Sep 20, 2011
    Massachusetts
    SMH. He's been up, he's been down. Pretty much what we all expected. Comparing him, or anyone for that matter, to Luck is just plain stupid. Was he off versus NE, yup. It happens. HOWEVER, a few made FG's and this discussion isn't happening. This fan base amazes and confuses me.
     

Share This Page