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

The Miami Dolphins are setting Ryan Tannehill up for failure

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Miamifins854, Dec 11, 2012.

  1. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    I know they did.
    And they tried to set him up for success by bring in the A&M posse.
    The problem is, they forgot to stock the offensive cupboard.
     
    Aqua4Ever04 likes this.
  2. NolesNPhinsFan

    NolesNPhinsFan New Member

    2,457
    135
    0
    Dec 2, 2007
    The list isn’t large. In fact, it’s only nine, and it only dates back to the 1983 season.

    John Elway started 10 games as a rookie in 1983 for the Denver Broncos, going 4-6 and leading his team to a first round Wild Card loss to the Seattle Seahawks.
    Dan Marino started 9 games as a rookie in 1983 for the Miami Dolphins, going 7-2 and leading his team to a first round BYE and a second round loss to the Seattle Seahawks.
    Bernie Kosar started 10 games as a rookie in 1985 for the Cleveland Browns, going 4-6 and leading his team to a first round BYE and a second round loss to the Miami Dolphins.
    Dieter Brock started 15 games as a 34-year old rookie in 1985 (fresh from a long career in the CFL) for the Los Angeles Rams, going 11-4 and leading his team to a first round BYE, a second round win over the Dallas Cowboys, and an NFC Championship loss to the Chicago Bears.
    Ben Roethlisberger started 13 games as a rookie in 2004 for the Pittsburgh Steelers, going 13-0 and leading his team to a first round BYE, a second round win over the New York Jets, and an AFC Championship loss to the New England Patriots.
    Matt Ryan started 16 games as a rookie in 2008 for the Atlanta Falcons, going 11-5 and leading his team to a first round Wild Card loss to the Arizona Cardinals.
    Joe Flacco started 16 games as a rookie in 2008 for the Baltimore Ravens, going 11-5 and leading his team to a first round Wild Card win over the Miami Dolphins, a second round win over the Tennessee Titans, and an AFC Championship loss to the Pittsburgh Steelers.
    Mark Sanchez started 15 games as a rookie in 2009 for the New York Jets, going 8-7 and leading his team to a first round Wild Card win over the Cincinnati Bengals, a second round win over the San Diego Chargers, and an AFC Championship loss to the Indianapolis Colts.
    Andy Dalton started 16 games as a rookie in 2011 for the Cincinnati Bengals, going 9-7 and leading his team to a first round Wild Card loss to the Houston Texans.
    What you’ll notice right off the bat is that none of these quarterbacks ever led their teams

    Second, only 3 of these rookie quarterbacks managed to start all 16 games. Many of the others came in as injury replacements.

    The next thing you’ll notice is, while a lot of these teams were coming off of bad seasons, which led to them starting rookie QBs, none of them were necessarily coming off of TERRIBLE seasons. Here are the records of the above-referenced teams who went on to start rookie quarterbacks and make the playoffs the very next year:

    Denver – 2-7 (strike-shortened 1982 season, Elway drafted #1 overall by Colts, forced trade to Denver)
    Miami – 7-2 (made the playoffs as a #2 seed in the strike-shortened 1982 season, drafted Marino #27 overall, sixth QB taken)
    Cleveland – 5-11 (third in the AFC Central in 1984, drafted Kosar #29 overall, first QB taken)
    Los Angeles Rams - 10-6 (second in the NFC West in 1984, made the playoffs as a Wild Card, Brock went undrafted)
    Pittsburgh – 6-10 (third in the AFC North in 2003, drafted Ben #11 overall, third QB taken)
    Atlanta – 4-12 (last in NFC South in 2007, drafted Ryan #3 overall, first QB taken)
    Baltimore – 5-11 (last in AFC North in 2007, drafted Flacco #18 overall, second QB taken)
    New York Jets – 9-7 (third in a very-good AFC East in 2008, drafted Sanchez #5 overall, second QB taken)
    Cincinnati – 4-12 (last in AFC North in 2010, drafted Dalton #35 overall, fifth QB taken)
    So, you know, none of those players were going to the very WORST teams in the NFL. One would think, those teams had a solid foundation in place. The Seahawks aren’t the very WORST team, and they also have a solid foundation in place.
     
  3. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Please, dig deeper within that data, and objectively show me the error of my ways.
     
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Let's stop with the Andrew Luck worship.

    As of right now Luck's rating is a 74.5 which is good for 31st in the league. Tannehill's is at 72.5 good for 33rd in the league.

    Luck does have 10 more TDs but also 6 more ints and 7 more sacks and a slightly lower completion percentage.
     
    Anonymous likes this.
  5. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    So are you saying you'd rather have Tannehill over Luck?
     
  6. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    This is where Andrew Luck is well ahead, however. Check the WPA stat:

    http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?pos=QB
     
  7. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I dunno. My point is Luck is not playing leagues better than Tannehill at this point, yet there are people bowing at Luck's feet, while being hard on Tannehill.
     
    PSG likes this.
  8. NolesNPhinsFan

    NolesNPhinsFan New Member

    2,457
    135
    0
    Dec 2, 2007
    My findings indicate that the teams that started rookie quarterbacks, at least had a foundation in place.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
  10. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    That's fair.
    But, IMO, when watching both, the eyeball test tells you Andrew Luck is going to be much better than Ryan Tannehill.
    Don't get me wrong, I like Tannehill, but Luck is going to be special. I think that's pretty clear to see.
     
  11. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Ah, well now I'm convinced. Thanks for the insight. :)
     
  12. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    The eyeball test is bull****, quite frankly.
     
  13. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I gave as much analysis as you did when you touted that stat. So drop the sanctimonious pricktitude.
     
  14. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    I'll drop what I want, when I want, thanks. :)
     
  15. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Sigh.

    You come in and imply WPA is important. You don't explain why. When I say its flawed and don't explain why, I get your passive aggressive bull****. That's chicken crap and you know it.

    If you want a real discussion, we can have one, until then piss off.
     
  16. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    I don't, not with you, thanks. :)
     
  17. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    OK. :rolleyes:
     
  18. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    It is. There is no merit to the eyeball test when it comes to this. None. Think about it, all it is, hey he looks like a better player.
     
  19. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    And yet you responded to me. So, I call bull****.
     
  20. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    So you know when stats are flawed, you know when someone is misrepresenting himself.

    Is there anything about which you aren't omniscient?
     
  21. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    So you're telling me when you watch both Tannehill and Luck play you can't see - with your eyes - how much better Andrew Luck is and will be?
     
  22. wizzbang

    wizzbang New Member

    10
    1
    0
    Dec 10, 2012



    I think tanny is going to work out just fine.... he now needs professional help with a NFL coordinator and a great draft pick, to hook up with the players around him. It took three games before the team felt good about Tannehill, and took even longer for Marino to get up to speed. I'm not saying he's Marino, but has a chance to be great like a Marino. Look at Brady, he is really great when he has time to throw the ball, and seems to struggle when rushed. give the boy a chance to play, and he'll show us all.
     
  23. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah, I'm way off base, you clearly don't want to have a discussion with me. Golly, what could I have been thinking?
     
  24. wizzbang

    wizzbang New Member

    10
    1
    0
    Dec 10, 2012
    Luck better than Tannehill? maybe right now the colts are playing well, with Luck having to come from behind in most games, is not a great way to rely on a win!!
     
  25. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No. I see a better cast around him. But no. I see a rook QB who throws too many INTs. That's what I see, because lo and behold that's what is happening, the stats back it up.

    If you see something different, and the evidence doesn't bear out what you're seeing, then either the eyeball test is BS or its not and you need glasses.

    The eyeball test tells me the Hollywood sign is pristine and white, when the fact of the matter is its covered in graffiti.
     
  26. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    Well who the hell wouldn't? I mean after all, you're you, right? :yes:
     
  27. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    LOL. I don't have to prove squat. I'm not the one who made the subjective statement, "Well I can tell you this: the team as a whole is doing no worse than the average team that's gotten similar play from it's rookie QB since 2004". Some nerve you have.
     
  28. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    At least they get wins.
     
  29. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    Yeah, he throws alot INT's.
    You know what else he does alot of? Throw TD passes, makes plays late in games when his team needs them, and, most importantly, wins.
    Not sure if you are, but if you are telling me Tannehill is or will be better than Luck, well then, I don't know what to say to you.
     
  30. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    I'd engage further with you on this, but I'm afraid I know all too well how it would turn out. Better just to return you to my ignore list once again. :)
     
  31. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Its funny.

    You argue with Shouwrong that Tannehill doesn't have the talent around him, but when Luck is marginally better with superior talent around him than Tanny...its all Luck.

    I think if they switch teams, there'd be similar (not the same) results. I think Tanny would look a whole lot better on Indy and Luck would look a whole like Tanny in Miami. I think Tanny has had virtually no help from his players (you do too, btw).
     
  32. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah, keep not having a discussion with me....while you're still trying to have...you know...a discussion with me.

    You're a therapist? So this is like when mechanics have crappy running cars and preachers have wild kids?
     
  33. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,767
    3,436
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    Yes, I agree mostly.
    I'm not trying to knock Tannehill, I'm just saying, (and quite frankly I'm not sure how we got here and I'm to lazy to back through the pages to look) it looks to me that you can already tell Luck is going to special, while the jury is still out with Tannehill.
    Is it because Tannehill is playing with a bunch of misfits? It sure is part of it. But if they switched teams I still think you'd see that extra something special in Andrew Luck. It's there. It's undeniable, IMO.
     

Share This Page