That's the Jets. It has no bearing on the Dolphins hypothetically making it to the AFCCG this coming season and losing, and what happens after that.
Putting individual success ahead of team success darned sure does make it about that, as far as I'm concerned.
Gotta start somewhere though. Ill take B as well. No brainer. You cant win a Super Bowl without a franchise QB these days. A just illustrates that imo. Id be ok with A, certainly an AFCG is nothing to sneeze at but if we're gonna lose it would be forgotten about in a matter of 2 years anyway. A pro bowl year from Tannehill.....thats the stuff that makes you say winning the big one is always possible as long as they have *insert franchise qb here*
The TEAM is more successful if it makes the AFCCG than it is if it goes 9-7 and misses the playoffs, no matter how any particular player does individually.
The team is more successful for one season, but the promise of future sustained success is greater if you have an elite QB. And the odds of Tannehill being elite are much greater after a prolific season than the odds are of him regressing to mediocre from prolific.
IMHO, here's the rub. If there's no discernible reason they got to the AFCG, that would mean the WHOLE TEAM played well, together. That kind of chemistry is awesome. They didn't need one player playing beyond himself for that one year to do something good. Some would offer the New York Jets as an example of option A being a bad thing...I'd offer the New York Giants as an example of it being a great thing. Unless, of course, you think Eli is or ever was Elite...
I don't see how you can have "A" without having "B" partially true as well. Here's the thing though; would you take A if Tannehill got hurt in week one and it happened under Matt Moore instead? I think almost anyone would say yes to that, which is why we don't have to bet the farm on Tannehill's success over team success.
Are they? Have those kinds of things ever been proven? I could also say the odds of the team becoming a perennial playoff team are greater after a season of advancing to the AFCCG, than they are after another season of riding the 7-9 to 9-7 merry go round too.
How about all the other QBs who have taken a team to the conference championship? Why keep bringing up Sanchez like he is the rule, rather than the exception?
Better comparison would be a Tebow led Broncos team winning a rd in the playoffs vs a Manning led Broncos team making the SB
I know it's hypothetical, but IF we go that far and play well into the post season, the question of Tanny would be answered... I voted for A, but I'd take either and be happy... I just think that if the scenario of A works out, the Tanny issue won't be an issue...
I guess having one prolific season is enough for you to anoint Tannehill as a franchise QB, since many in his legion of fans think he already is one. You could just as well say too that if RT had one big stat season, and didn't repeat it a couple of more times, it would also be forgotten in 2 years too.
So Sanchez is crap for going to an AFC Championship game, but Tannehill's 8-8 season proves he's the 2nd coming of Joe Namath. Great logic!
The NYJ and NYG both made the CCG and Super Bowl (Giants) on the back of a punishing pass rush. In this hypothetical, we don't even have that. Again I bring up the Ravens. Yes they won the Superbowl. But imagine if they got knocked off by the Patriots in the AFCG. Their run game, pass game, and defense were all mediocre. The Houston Texans made the divisional round and then worst place.
If you look at the past 10 AFCCG's they are dominated by 3 players. Tom Brady, Petyon Manning, and Big Ben. Rivers makes an appearance, NY Jets with 2, and Flacco in 2012. Jake Plummer maybe. But Brady, Ben and Peyton all make multiple appearances. In fact, I just checked. Out of the last 10 or so AFCG's, there has not been one year where Ben, Brady or Petyon wasn't in the AFCCG. Not one. Quite a few of those years both slots are filled by one of these guys. That's how important the QB is. So a prolific season doesn't guarantee a franchise QB but damn if it doesn't increase your chances. Remember, this hypo assumes no unit stands out. No great performance by Tanny, no great rb, wr, defense, pass rush, corners, safeties, nothing. A team that played well together and had the ball bounce just their way each time. That is a recipe for a drop off the next year.
No but I think individual success is much more likely to be repeated then some level of team success if you dont have a franchise QB.
I agree, but you missed the point completely. I wasn't defending Sanchez, but questioning the belief that Tannehill is our team's only possible chance for success. Anyone who even remotely believes that needs to look no further than Dan Marino...one of the greatest to ever play the game. Despite his numerous records and triumphs, there's no ring on his finger and you'd better believe that it haunts him. If you want a more recent example, just ask Manning how happy he was with the last two years. Statistically, he's the best around by a wide margin, and he chose Denver because of the supporting cast already in place. Elite quarterbacks don't win Duper Bowls though, teams do. So at the end of the day, I'd take Miami in an AFC Championship game any day of the week- with or without Tannehill at the helm. Because despite what's already been said here, QB's like Mark Rypien don't really care that nobody calls them elite. He has a Super Bowl ring to say otherwise.
The chances of any team making the AFCCG with no part of the team being above average is even less likely than the odds of RT posting Brees/Rodgers/Peyton type numbers this year. So, you're telling me nothing about this scenario can make any sense. As if there has ever been a team that made the conference championship and been no better than mediocre in all facets.
So we can have Tannehill repeating his individual success while the team keeps spinning it's wheels like the late 80s Dolphins.
I missed the point? You keep pointing to rings, yet in both scenarios in the OP we don't get a ring (even in Scenario A we don't even get an AFC champ ring).
So you are saying that Flacco and Wilson are already franchise QB's, because their teams won the past two SB? Personally I think you can win a SB with an excellent defense and an average QB, and the Seahawks and Ravens have clearly proved that the past two seasons. I think Wilson can grow into a franchise type QB, but he certainly isn't there yet and wasn't a franchise type QB last season. Flacco is a very mediocre QB who played his best football ever during the playoffs in 2012. I give him credit for his superb play in those playoffs and in the SB, but overall he has been very ordinary as an NFL QB for most of his career, including last season. I don't ever see Tannehill being an elite QB or certainly not a franchise type QB. He could become another slightly above average QB eventually, but I never see him being the type of QB who can put a team on his back and leading it to the playoffs. With Tannehill as the QB, this team will have to have a dominant defense if it has any chance of winning a SB, IMO.
It appears some people are more concerned with individual stats and not team success. I would be happy to see Tannehill have a very average year and the Dolphins make the playoffs. Of course I don't think he will ever be more than an average NFL QB, so I can live with that as long as the team has success. It was great that Marino had all the passing records when he retired. Yet I would have settled for a QB with less passing stats and a couple of SB wins instead or just one SB would have been fine. It appears to me that most fans are more concerned today with individual stats and not team records. I assume this has to do with all the fantasy football leagues. Many people only care how the players on their fantasy team performs each week and they don't seem to care how their NFL team performed. Last year I am sure the people who had Peyton Manning on their fantasy team were extremely happy. To me he had a lousy season because his team didn't win the SB and that is why he was signed by Denver. Winning the SB is what counts in the NFL. Stats are for losers, unless the end result is that the players with the best stats also won the SB.
B, and its easy. A true franchise QB is gold. If you'd rather have one season where an OK team catches all the breaks and makes it a few feet short of the goal, than a young QB that you can build around and depend on, then I really cannot understand you. History is littered with NFL one year wonders like that. Teams with a great QB are revelant year in and year out.
I take A because I feel like for the Dolphins to make the AFC Championship game it means he did have a prolific season, or close to it. It wouldn't be a Mark Sanchez situation...the Jets had more talent (including coaching) when they made it than we do now. Plus, Russell Wilson didn't set the world on fire, but he was consistent enough and the team was outstanding, so they won it all. BUT if you say that Tannehill had a mediocre season and it was a Sanchez type situation where he was carried, then I would choose option B.
Tannehill plays 8 games and looks prolific, gets injured (in a non career threatening way) and Matt Moore leads us to AFC title game. I think Ive circumvented the question. In this scenario there is no real reason or way to tell why we made it AND have a franchise QB
Umm, it's a hypothetical dude. With 16 games in a season a lot of crazy stuff can happen. Like Joe Flacco playing "ok" through the regular season and then hitting 115 QBR through the playoffs. Crazy things happen. But then law of averages, he posts a Mark Sanchez season last year.
I'm a big New York Rangers fan. That was basically our season. Every SC Final game was down to the wire in OT or 2OT. However, there was no real discernible reason why we got there - other than what we knew...Henrik Lundqvist is freaking amazing. If Miami did that, got to the AFC Championship and lost a heartbreaker and there was no real reason why, except Cam Wake was still Cam Wake, I'd be completely fine with it. This year was the most satisfying year ever as a Rangers fan, even when I saw them win in 93-94 as a kid. Nothing was expected. The same thing would be for us. Nothing was expected and we got that far.
That's giving Moore a little too much credit. I don't think we'd part ways with Tannehill completely just because Moore dominates in the playoffs.
Alex was trying make a scenario where Tanny didn't have a prolific season and we still made it to the AFCCG. Because 2,500 yards and 20 TDs isn't prolific. Even if it was done in 8 games
Yup, but in doing so he also made another scenario....one where Tannehill has zero playoff wins and Matt Moore has 2-3. That starts a completely different debate.
