Mark Brunell, Teddy bruschi has something to say about Ryan.

Even with the incomplete pass, the third down was a lower percentage pickup, meaning sack or no sack and your odds of a first down aren't all that good. Your biggest enemy is the clock right there. 40 seconds in Rodgers' hands is huge.

Just an opinion, of course, but the player and the coach have to be aware of that.

 

They are not that bad.

Tannehill did what his coaches told him to do. Philbin got queasy.

 

Deej, I really hope it pisses off Tanny at the very least... That said, are they far off ?? There is reasonable doubt that he can take us to the next level...to this point, he hasn't and he's had opportunities...this is the second year that he/we are in a good position to make a playoff run, but last year he/they didn't get it done...until he proves it, they (the media) can't be faulted for feeling that doubt...

 

What I think is funny is that despite how obvious it is that Ryan Tannehill is improving, it looks like the amount of Tannehill detractors just keeps growing.. even people on this forum who seemed to be high on Tannehill don't seem to be as much anymore. I think it's pretty baffling to say the least... its as if people think he's reached his peak at this point of his young carreer and that he won't get any better, despite proving pretty clearly that he's getting better, year to year to year.

 

And really it makes little sense to focus on such small aspects of the game in evaluating the Dolphins' performance. The bigger picture is that its pass offense isn't going to compete with the best teams in the league, like Green Bay, the way it's performing right now, and I think we've seen how when the better quarterbacks in the league (Rodgers, Manning, Stafford) have their backs against the wall and have to turn it on against the Dolphins, they do, and they win. This represents a discrepancy between the effectiveness of the Dolphins' pass offense and those of its opponents much more than it does a single decision in a game, or even a handful of them. It's essentially a talent differential that isn't going to be overcome by a decision here or there the vast majority of the time.

 

I feel like alot of people were questioning Stafford a season or two ago.

 

We're also on pace to score, or were before the Jets game, the most points since '84...And yet we're questioning the ability to score points?

 

Jesus.

Following your "logic" (and I use the term loosely) if a team loses 100-99, then its the offense's fault for not scoring 101 pts. Its effing stupid.

 

Except the Green Bay game was competitive. A timeout was likely the difference between a win and a loss. Same could be said about the Denver game. It's funny; one timeout taken, another not, and we could be in first place in the East with wins over the Patriots, Packers, and Broncos. Regardless, Tannehill, and the Dolphins have absolutely been competitive this year.

 

Those games were indeed competitive, until the teams with the top three QBs in the league at clutch play were in the clutch, and those QBs played the way they normally do in that situation. I'd attribute those games to that factor long before I attributed them to a time out or some other single decision of that nature.

 

WELL on Monday night they showed on screen the 4 worst qbs and Tannehill was 2nd worst . The perception of Ryan Tannehill is a big question mark to many non fans .

what is desperately needed is we need to get some big wins under our belt because the doubters are mostly espn pundits.

if we still had Reggie Bush and Lamar Miller as our backs then we win a couple of those games.

 

Right, but who is saying that Tannehill is now a top 3 qb? That's a bit of a straw man, and you're the only one that seems to be saying he even should be. I've seen studies that show "clutch" play to be a myth. Good players tend to also be good in "clutch" times, while inconsistent players tend to be inconsistent. Tannehill's play in those games was not close to being one of the main reasons they lost. No one plays a perfect game, both Manning and Rodgers had plays they missed against the Dolphins. If the Dolphins had won those games on offense by closing out the games, their level of play isn't somehow worse. Manning and Rodgers still bring the same ability to their teams. Brees is a prime example of a top qb with a less than stellar team that played great but didn't get wins.

 

No one is saying Tannehill is a top-three QB (at least not that I'm aware of), but if they aren't, then why attribute losses in games to the best QBs in the league to time outs and other such miniscule events? The point is less about Tannehill and more about how the teams the Dolphins played in these games have the very best QBs in the league in the clutch. If you haven't won the game before the clutch, you probably aren't going to win it against them then, and it won't hinge on a time out. And if you have a rather inept pass offense, you probably aren't going to win the game prior to the clutch.

 

Bruschi and Heath get together and eat hiney pie.

 

What does "won it before the clutch" mean? Does it mean having the lead?

 

They did. They still are. He's not very good. He had one huge season and has lives off that reputation. He's Jay Cutler without the diabetes.

 

Well Steve Young thinks Tannehill could be playing in January and he is in the HOF, neither of those bums will be...ever.

 

This thread is so ridiculous for so many different reasons, but here's the main one- football is a 60 minute game. It doesn't matter who scores last, it matters who scores the most points. So saying that Tannehill is on the bench when we lose does not give him a pass...because he had sixty minutes to generate more points.

Last week's "comeback win" is ridiculous to use as an example of his evolution...we scored 13 total points against a below average defense after 57 minutes. With a good kickoff return, we drove 30 yards to win the game...and this doesn't give the impression of sensational by any means. Now, the drive the week before against Denver was an awesome drive, but it goes back to the original point...it was too little, too late because Tannehill didn't deliver a little more earlier in the game.

So don't let the backup media personalities confuse you...they were certainly right with their statement, they just said it the wrong way because they have no idea of Tannehill's capabilities. In any case though, we've lost 4 of 5 games this year by 4 points or less, and that falls on the offense no matter how you look at it. Tannehill leads the offense, so do whatever you want with that stat...

 

I don't think Tannehill is wired like that. He seems to be able to shrug off the bull**** pretty easily. One of his better qualities, IMO.

 

No, football is not a 60 minute game as you've made abundantly clear. It's only a 29 minutes and 46 seconds game, or however long it is Miami's offense is on the field.

What is ridiculous is you scapegoating Tannehill, going so far as suggesting the Denver loss was because he "didn't deliver a little more earlier in the game" despite directly accounting for 3 TDs and not turning the ball over through 3 quarters en route to a 28-17 lead entering the 4th quarter, of which he added another TD, and all of it was accomplished without both starting tackles, starting TE, and starting RB [who is better suited for a game of that nature I might add]. Any sane, knowledgeable football fan would believe an 11 pt lead plus an additional 8 points in the 4th qtr should be enough to seal up the win, but no, the best QB in the history of the game led his offense to 22 4th qtr points with great assistance from his ground game.

-ironically said by the guy who has no idea of Tannehill's capabilities.

 

Are we really arguing that Tannehill is at fault in the Denver game because he did "too little, too late"??? He led the offense to 36 points. You should win the game every time with that production.

 

That's absurd. Tannehill doesn't play defense. How is Tannehill at fault for the defense giving up over 36 points? I mean are actually reading what you type?

 

Where did I say that anywhere ? I was quoting another person (hince the quotes) that said the offense didnt score enough.

I did say.... that the offense had a chance to RUN OUT THE CLOCK in the forth quarter. They failed, just as the defense failed.

 

No.

You're *****ing that Ryan couldn't run out the clock as if its fault we lost the game. That's ridiculous.

We lost that game because the defense allowed over 36pts. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

 

We give up an average of 21.36 points per game, which is 6th best in the entire league. But it only makes sense to blame the defense, because low scores certainly can't have anything to do with Tannehill or the offense....

Try taking your own advice and reading what you type every now and then....you may actually learn something.

 

Wait......so you're saying our defense gave up MORE points then they normally do on average, but the fact we lost was Tannehill who directed an offense that scored MORE than they normally do on average? Dude seriously.

I swear to god, this board has traveled into crazyland today.

 

No, he said the offense did not maintain a drive to run out the clock. This is a fact.

 

If the offense scores 36 points, then any loss is the fault of the defense. It is true that the offense contributed to the high score by not scoring in response to the other team scoring, but 36 points is all an offense should have to do to win.

 

At some point I'm going thoroughly enjoy listening to a whole host of people act like were Tannehill fans from the beginning. Doubt him at your own risk.. Just don't celebrate like you knew it all along when he makes yall eat your words.

 

Um, read what I wrote.

 

If the defense wouldn't have allowed 39 points to begin with, worrying about "running out the clock" wouldn't have mattered in the first place. The highest average points per game this season so far is 31.8 points. Denver is at 30.1. They essentially got 2 more scores than their seasons average points by hitting 39 on us. We average 25.1 points per game and got more than that on them (36). In Their House. That's on our offense.

Adversely, Miami's Defense allows 19.3 points per game on average and Denver's allows 23. So our Defense gave up MORE THAN DOUBLE our normal average points allowed for a game this season. Friggin' Tannehill, What a D**K!!!!

"Oh but, we've played some bad offenses"

Greenbay is #2 in the league at 31.7 PPG and we held them to less than their avg at 27 in our game, (which only happened during the final seconds of the game ANYWAY, in which Tannehill was merely a spectator to watch the defense fold......Again)

A game that is 39-36, and we scored 1 less point than our season high blow out of SD 37-0, and people are looking to blame the offense before anything else? Idk. Just seems dumb to me.

if a team is down 45-49 and has to cross the entire field in 00:05 seconds, and the hail mary is incomplete and they lose, is that loss on that offense for not scoring a touchdown there? Or does the defense get any blame for the other teams offense spanking them at some point? Where is the line here? Or logic... for that matter.

 

Against an average team, I'd definitely agree with you. That logic goes straight out the window though when you're facing the most prolific passer in the history of the game, who just happens to have the NFL's most powerful offense at his disposal.

Somehow the Tannehill "rah-rah" section turned this into a conversation about Denver though, which happened to be one of Tannehill's best games ever as a pro. It's easy to ignore the 16 we put up against a horrid defense last week when you only focus on one particular game though, which is why this conversation is pointless. We've lost 4 of 5 games by four points or less and in all but the Denver game, our offense scored below the league average. I'm not sure how that gets twisted to Tannehill being the center of the universe, but there ya go...

 

I'm not sure if you're just making all of that up or if your source sucks, but the numbers are wrong. We give up an average of 21 per game, 21.36 to be more exact, and your Denver stats are skewed too. Not that it matters though, you're grabbing one game and trying to pass it off as the norm, when that was a top-3 scoring game for Tannehill's career and a bottom-3 effort by our defense over the same period. So you're comparing apples to oranges and ignoring the much bigger, 43 game picture to fit a ridiculous agenda.

 

Dolphin 25, gone.

 

Why are you acting like this game hasn't been the basis for a ton of related posts in this thread and several others? it was relevant to the conversation and not even necessarily directed at you at time of posting. I mean seriously, use your eyes and read a few posts before you start carrying on with your nonsense. Including your own.

As far as the stats go? They are base stats I just grabbed off espnNFL. Nothing too specific, still proved my point. Wow, you have a source that happened to be 2 PPG off of mine, Where should I mail your medal?

Edit: As far as making up my stats goes, Here's 4 websites with the same numbers I provided:

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/team-stat/scoring-offense-category
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-points-per-game/2014/
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2014/#team_stats

 

He's not grabbing one game, genius. He's RESPONDING to the game reference that YOU brought up. You're the one who mentioned Denver, Mr Selective Amnesia. You're like DolfanJake and Aquafin had a love child is what you are. And as far as your "43 game picture" goes, only a novice fan, possibly with a brain tumor or two, would critically judge a quarterback's first two developmental years despite there being nothing out of the ordinary to criticize him on. I don't know what hobby you previously dabbled in before recently switching to football, but you should probably go back to it.