Are people seriously blaming Tanehill?

Not always

 

Not sure what point you are trying to make with this, guessing it's some way of defending RT. But, yes. They challenged for Super Bowls and were a Buffalo Bill away from being the most consistent AFC team in the time span you mentioned. Marino, worked miracles.

 

Lol

Pray tell, which not complete team won the Super Bowl? Or should I ask, which Super Bowl winner overcame spectacularly bad play, or even below average play, from one unit and still won the big game?

 

2013 Seahawks overcame an atrocious OL.

 

It has nothing to do with Tannehill. Half of Marino's years were spent watching the playoffs from home. Out of the other 7 years, three of them were wildcard berths. Didn't make an AFC Championship game after '92.

Yes, Marino DID make miracles. But he wasn't competing for Super Bowls. He didn't have the run game or the defense. He was able to elevate average units to the playoffs.

And that is the point. I was disagreeing with Tier 1 QBs singlehandedly being responsible for Super Bowl competitiveness. They aren't. Hence the discussion around Marino.

 

One thing I noticed about Ryan Tannehill is how much better his footwork and dropbacks are in 3-5 step drops. Look st how accurate he was throwing those intermediate routes downfield. I don't quite think hes as good doing those quick hitch throws. Thought id share without making a new thread.

 

Google 2000 Baltimore Ravens.

 

Yes, with an outstanding defense that held the Broncos to 8 points. Actually supports what I'm saying more than it discredits.

 

Google their defense. And their QB was not elite. It doesn't support the thing I'm arguing against. They also went 12-4...played like a complete TEAM.

 

You said name one team that won the SB with even average play out of one unit. The Ravens offense was average at best, they qualify as a unit. You asked, I delivered.

 

Dan's teams made the playoffs 9 times and missed them 6. Hardly what I would call half...but carry on.

 

Spectacularly bad, or even BELOW average play.

 

Sorry, I only went to '97. I guess including the Jaguar blowout really supports the competing for Super Bowls claim, huh. Oh, add two more backing in wildcard berths also.

 

Who'd make a bigger difference being put on the Dolphins, Russell Wilson or Pete Carroll?

 

Making the playoffs is competing for a SB

 

That's a tough question.

 

So, this guy is comparing Tannehill to Marino???


Just wow.

 

Which guy, speed? Me? I kind of kicked off the Marino talk here, but it wasn't anything to do with Tannehill. It was in regards to the idea that an elite QB singularly makes a team competitive for Super Bowls.

 

No not you, I respect your opinion, you understand football.

It's the guy I blocked.

 

No it isn't. That's like saying walking into a jewelry store is the same as buying a $25k diamond ring at the store. In your definition EVERY team is competing for the Super Bowl, because they all are playing for that all season.

 

Actually it's more like being one of 12 people to walk into a jewelry store with 25 k in your pocket, even if some others have 150k.

 

Ok, so it's like walking into a jewelry auction with $25k to bid on the Hope diamond against billionaires. You can bid, but you're not competing with them.

 

All this discussion, when it's blatantly obvious to anyone that you need more than a QB to win it all. If all you need is an elite QB, Marino would have a pile of Super Bowl rings.

 

Ofcourse you need more than a QB to win a SB, John Elway needed a top 10 defense and a 2000 yard RB

 

Plus a few salary cap violations. Just to be fair.

 

I forgot a HOF TE AND WR

 

The league is different now than it was 20 and 30 years ago. It revolves far more around passing. And I didn't say having a TIER 1 QB makes a team competitive for a SB all by itself. I said it makes it competitive for a SB even if it doesn't have an uncommonly good level of surrounding talent. In other words, if you have a TIER 2 QB, you likely need uncommonly good surrounding talent. If you have a TIER 1 QB, you do not; you can have merely average surrounding talent.

 

just to follow up on the tier 1 and russel wilson being in it....

If he were in miami, miami would have 50 less passing yards per game and .5 less passing TD's per game. So if he is so tier one, why is he worse than what me have? miami would make it into the playoffs with less scoring per game and less yards per game?

 

Like to see you find one, other than Luck name another QB drafted in the last 3 years that's better than RT, OK I'll give Geno

 

How can we say what Russell Wilson would be doing in Miami with any confidence?

 

Well, you said this:

 

...and this:

I'm sure you've heard of taking something "out of context"?

Boy, people are really under the microscope here, eh? Be careful what you say folks! Some people are picking through it with a fine-toothed comb!

 

It's not "out of context." You labeled Tier one teams add the teams with a QB capable of competing for Super Bowls on their own. Your words, not mine. Now, I'd you didn't mean that, I guess you shouldn't have said it. But Tier 2 teams you defined as teams with a QB that needed help from their team. I disagreed with your criteria for determining what to teams are.

 

I know what I meant and I'm comfortable with both the original statement and its clarification.

 

well he'd have worse coaching, and a worse defense around him, a worse running back around him, about the same in OL as Seattle gave up 42 sacks, miami 48, and worse wide receivers. However he is tier 1 QB so somehow he'd carry miami to the superbowl just like he is carrying Seattle.

 

Tannehill is the Jarvis Landry of quarterbacks. He plays hard, makes smart decisions and never complains, yet he is also limited in his abilities and can't see the field post-snap. That doesn't make him a bust by a longshot but at the same time, he is EXTREMELY easy to plan against. Teams figured out in the 2nd half of the season that they can blitz every down and give him those 2 yard dump passes, which will end up going for 2-6 yard gains. That's why he's great between the 20's- teams intentionally give him those garbage yards to keep the pressure high and force him into mistakes.

Now, I wouldn't say Tannehill is the reason we were average this season...because when we run effectively, the defense can't keep blitzing and Tannehill gets some space to throw vertically off of play action. The bigger problem is that we consistently give up on the run in the 2nd half and resort to the above scenario where Tannehill gets shut down. He's trained to throw first, even though he can evade the blitz and turn a bad play into positive yards, but he doesn't...he either takes the sack, dumps off or makes a bad/dangerous throw.

So in today's NFL, it is extremely hard to win with a guy like Ryan Tannehill and we will never consistently beat the top teams with the dink and donk offensive philosophy. It has nothing to do with a bad line or weak receivers either; those are just excuses people use to avoid talking about the larger issues. Tannehill just can't see the field if there's any pressure...plain and simple...and it makes us far too one dimensional.

 

Teams had much more success against us by rushing 3-4 and dropping 7-8 into zone coverage.

 

This x1000. I really sometimes feel like I watched different games than other posters on here.

 

Feel lucky that you have RT, we have Geno.