It's essentially only a 2-year contract dude...one that guarantees the team keeps him for many years IF he proves to be the guy, and also allows them to cut bait in short order if he doesn't. What's to dislike?
But CK, if you can get a contract now with a reasonable salary and escalators and where you have an out every year, what is the downside? Cutler's is obviously bad, but I thought Kaep's and Dalton's was actually setup in such a way (may be wrong). I feel like salaries are just an ever increasing thing, so the earlier you can do it (and not pay more than market rate), the better. But I completely agree if we sign him to a contract where we are on the hook with too much guaranteed money, if that's the case then he can just wait the next two years.
One big difference on top of Luck's ability...his receivers' ability to go and get the ball. Nearly unbeatable combo.
He only has TY Hilton (whom Luck turned into an elite WR, something else truly elite QBs are capable of), Fleener and Allen are average and Reggie is old as **** and not a threat anymore and Moncrief is raw. His RB's are truly the worst. The real difference between RT17 and AL12 is AL12 is elite and RT17 is still up and coming. (Not RT17's fault either, AL12 is a once in a lifetime, highly trained/skilled QB, he will be the face of the NFL at some point in the next two years)
Ya they're not pro-bowl level necessarily, but they work well with Luck, don't give up on plays, and go get the ball. Strictly running routes and getting open, not as effective.
Except Omar did not say that, IIRC. He did historical research that showed that almost every time a Dolphin QB has had a 85 rating, it resulted in at least a non losing record.
You're on the hook no matter what. I think you're kidding yourself if you're talking about all these escape clauses and the contract structure being such that you can escape after so many years, etc. That kind of thing tends to be all TALK, and doesn't have a way of getting reflected in reality. The reality is that the moment you invest that long term contract, all serious investment in the position stops because you now have this sense that you've "taken care of" the position. So what does this mean? It means when you get a few years down the road to this decision point you SUPPOSEDLY have where you can cut bait if you want, you have no good alternatives. So what choice are you REALLY expecting that you'll have at that point? The other thing is it's one thing to say that all the guaranteed money has been paid and therefore you can just cut the player no problem, it's another thing to actually do it. We're in that situation with Mike Wallace right now. The Dolphins structured his contract to where they could get out of it by 2015 if they wanted to. That's the way they structured it. Well, it's 2015. And he's underperformed the contract both years he's been with the team. And he's been a distraction LITERALLY since Week 1 of his first year here when the Dolphin handily won a game against the Cleveland Browns but Mike Wallace was visibly pissed about not getting enough balls thrown his way (he had 5 targets) and making statements to the press to that effect. Both off seasons he's refused to work with his quarterback while other receivers stuck around Miami and worked out with him to get their chemistry as good as they could make it. It's clear that he's got an active feud going with Brian Hartline, who is in pretty tight with Ryan Tannehill, and the relationship between Wallace and Tannehill is icy AT BEST. Oh and then there's Week 17 when Wallace either took himself out of the game throwing some temper tantrum, or the coaches did it for him, or some combination, but either way teammates around him have been pretty clear they think he was being selfish. There's also the fact Wallace is and has always been a deep ball specialist, and Tannehill has now developed a "thing" (won't go into more detail than that because it's not worth it) about the deep ball. Tannehill never had chemistry with fast deep ball tapes going all the way back to college, he was always better with pure man coverage beaters and underneath option guys like Ryan Swope, Davone Bess, Jarvis Landry, Brian Hartline and Jeff Fuller. Essentially this guy Mike Wallace has given you every reason short of catastrophic injury to take whatever early-exits you've built into his contract. They built an early exit in for 2015, and where are we? Sitting on the fence undecided, that's where they are. They're stuck, because they never bothered investing any serious assets in another flanker (Jarvis Landry plays a COMPLETELY different position). They thought they "took care of" the flanker position with Wallace's signing, so now they have no viable alternatives and the market for viable alternatives isn't awesome. They may very well keep Wallace. They built an early exit opportunity into Wallace's contract in 2015, he and Tannehill have given them every reason to move on without Wallace, but they might keep him. That's the situation you end up with a couple years down the road with Ryan Tannehill even if you claim that you've built in exits to his contract. Once you have a guy under contract, it's tough to make the choice to get out of that contract. You've got cap hits and media attention, player expectations, coach expectations, etc...all of it cluttering up the situation. It's a lot easier to make the decision to let a guy on an expiring contract walk away. And then you get a compensatory pick for it, if you work it right.
At this point, I am leaning more toward letting Tanny play out his contract. If he accepts a team friendly long-term deal, than yes you lock him up now. Otherwise, you wait for at least this year to play out. This franchise has set itself up for both short term and long term failure. Philbin and Hickey must make decisions based on saving their jobs this year, but with another failed season the coaching staff and front office gets shaken up yet again. Will the new GM and coach want to be locked into a big contract with Tanny? Or will they prefer to grab another QB and build from there? How many current players will be suitable for the new offense/defense? How can you plan long term when your job is on the line? Philbin has wasted his years here so far -a poor combination of coaching and GMing has hurt him. It will probably be Year One of a rebuild in 2016, so why not keep things as flexible as possible for the new guys that take over? Those guys will have the luxury of building long term (well about 3 years probably -but long enough in todays NFL) and carrying out a plan.
Why pay him now, instead of 2016. It's stupid. You have him locked up for two more years. Why? He cannot leave for two more years.
Signing him now for over 100 or waiting and seeing, and if he does improve, then pay him, so what that difference would be from now and then is what I'm referring to..
This would be one of the dumbest moves in the history of this organization. Lets set us back a few more years.... pathetic. This guy can't win big games. He actually can't even play like an average QB in big games, he pisses down his leg. He can't hit the deep ball, has zero pocket presence, and on 3rd down he is captain check down. All he will do is consistently lead this team to 8-8, 7-9 or 9-7 finishes. He needs to learn how to complete passes over 10 yards. I'd have a 65% completion percentage too if 80% of my passes were less than 10 yards. Thanks but no thanks. Let him go, start over.
I'm worried that the next coaching staff and front office will be morons (like so many before them) and want to start fresh with no QB. Thats as good a reason as any, from my (and I would hope Ross') perspective.
The interesting thing here would be to know whether Tannenbaum, who likely isn't on a short leash, has advocated for this move, in light of the fact that the head coach and GM likely are on a short leash.
Wow. So keeping an average to an above average QB(I believe he is closer to above average) is going to set us back years...but drafting a rookie QB is not? Unless drafting a QB would help our run D or our LB's or our OL or our WR's or our RB's or change our coaching staff or our overall talent level. I do not see any of that happening. Granted, RT has had some chances to escape pressure and make plays with his legs..and he has failed to do so. I see those flaws, as do almost every Dolphin fan can. NOBODY is disputing that...NOBODY. But he is probably our best offensive player. He has become a more complete player every season. He has conducted himself the right way every step he has taken in this league. Yet keeping him signed to a relatively fair deal will set us back? I get that there is no reason to get this contract done today, unless you feel as an organization that he is your guy. If they really feel that way, and it seems that they do, then give him the money. One last thing. And this is nothing to do about saying "I told you so" attitude because there are no guarantees he continues to ascend. A small part of me wants his play to explode in the future, so he could test the market and leave(not really). And then I can maybe catch a glimpse of some of the faces on this board who find joy in tearing him down at ever turn...every pass and every game. Flaws and all, whether it works out or not, My chips will behind RT as long as he is the QB of my team. And this has nothing to do with wearing rose colored glasses.
Honestly, I didn't bother to read past the second sentence in your post because you don't get it. It doesn't have to be a rookie.... it can be, but doesn't have to be. I'd rather get anyone that is cheaper on the books then Tannehill. We either ride it out with Tannehill, or a replacement (placeholder) until someone else comes along. But the placeholder can be a lot cheaper then tannehill.
I probably should have stopped reading yours after the first word. So a rookie or someone else in the league will help the Dolphins better than Tannehill? Exactly who in the world are you talking about? Proof is in the pudding. This pissing down his leg,non deep throwing, inaccurate zero pocket presence Qb you wrote so intelligently about would be claimed immediately by at least 20 teams the minute he was let go....but you get it. Whatever you have, I hope there is a vaccine to help you. So tell me again how holding on to RT will set us back for years again but signing a stop gap cheaper alternative does not? 15 million a year for a good to above average QB only cripples a team in Madden.
To me the difference is a lot. In one scenario you pay him like $16 million over the next two years, and in another scenario I think you pay him upwards of $30 million over the next two years. Big difference.
I'm a big fan on Tannehill and his potential, but I'd be worried if we committed the amount of resources to him that is currently being thrown around the media. Lets face it, even the biggest fans of Tannehill don't know for certain that he can maintain his current level of progress until he reaches elite status. Unless there is some kind of certainty that a player is of that caliber, you don't hand out $100 million contracts. 2nd contracts should never be handed out based on potential unless they are completely incentive driven. If I am a GM, its my responsibility to exercise some kind of professional skepticism when handing out $100M contracts, and the only way to do that is by continuing to evaluate Tannehill for the next 2 years and mitigate your risk. Hickey needs to pull the trigger on that option year and negotiate a new contract in 2017, if he is still here of course.
But in order to regularly win the QB battle against Top 4 QBs you pretty much need to be a Top 4 QB. Not so easy. Tannehill was great against Denver and it should have been good enough against GB and Detroit. Arguably, until the opposing QBs were able to pad their stats late when the Dolphin defense collapsed, Tannehill outplayed them.
But that's the point. You don't need to gamble. If you pay him now, you have to factor in you're already paying him $15-16 million more, over the next two years. That offsets any theoretical increase in price if he proves to be the shiznit. But when he proves to be the shiznit, you're not gambling anymore. He's the shiznit at 5 years, or he isn't. In two years, you will know if he deserves that $20m/year contract or not. But you're willing to pay him $15m or whatever it is now, and maybe regret it in two?
Right, but if you're fairly certain he'll get even better, then you're saving $5 mill a year, which is significant. I think the staff feels better about his chances then some of you do.
And unfortunately that's about what it takes to be highly competitive in the league anymore. By changing the rules as it has in recent years, the league is running the risk of eliminating much of the parity that made it gain so much popularity, replacing it with a competitive structure whereby only the teams with the best QBs have a strong chance of winning a title.
Yes. But one's a gamble, one is very much less so. I'd prefer they make the decision with more information, not less. Save for Ireland/Hickey (and I guess now Tannebaum but who knows what his role is) this is the same group of people that paid Mike Wallace a ridiculous amount of money.
The other is still a gamble. Again, they aren't coming at this as a 50% chance or worse he'll make it. Neither should we. All signs point to him improving even more.
Seattle - #1 defense for points allowed per game (15.8) Green Bay - #13 defense for points allowed per game (21.8) Denver - #16 defense for points allowed per game (22.1) New England - #8 defense for points allowed per game (19.6) So, two of the top four had top 10 defenses, as far as points per game. And Green Bay wasn't too far out of top 10, just .5 of a point from 10th in the league. So, three of the top four were almost top 10 defenses for points allowed. I mean, over and over we come back to defense playing a part in all this. Yet, people want to sit back and act like the only thing that contributes to wins and losses is the QB.
Signing bonuses that affect the cap numbers of the contract and guaranteed money also helps defray the cost of the total contract.
I'm not saying your stats are wrong or misleading, but how much of that performance is because of an offense that can sustain long drives, doesn't turn the ball over, etc.? That's an honest question. GB, Denver and Seattle were not known for stout defenses just a couple of years ago. We were tied with Green Bay and New England on yards allowed per play, coincidentally. Hmm, wonder what separated us ... lol Yards per game, and plays per game are almost indistinguishable. Two made the playoffs, one won it all. One was knocked out of contention early. Steelers defense was one of the worst at 6.0 y/p, but they only allowed
The Seahawks have not allowed over 16 points a game average for the past 3 seasons. Points per game separated us largely from them. If we hadn't shut the Chargers out, our ypg would be even worse.
Not my main man, just a good Qb that is on my favorite team. And if you think he would be a back up on a lot of other teams, than I will just have to disagree . Your lame comments previously about RT tells me all I need to know .
All 4 of those teams had better QBs leading their offenses to more points per game then Miami. JS. (It helps when your offense can score at will)
You cannot separate the two. They both factor into the teams winning. I haven't said that they didn't have QBs leading to more points. Having a great defense is just as important. If you can stop a team from scoring, then your offense doesn't have to score as much.
Gotcha, I was just pointing out that them teams can score at ease as well. So having good defenses helps, but having offenses that can go out and just outscore the other team helps tremendously as well.
You guys can debate statistics all you want, but the truth is football is a team sport. Sure, some positions influence the chances of a winning outcome more than others, but every position plays a part in the win. It is easy to see that Tannehill played well relative to how he has in the past, and that he needs to keep improving for us to eventually be competitors. It is also easy to see, though, that Tannehill did his part in a lot of the close losses, and that if we had a better defense or offensive line, could have won and likely have made the playoffs. In other words, all things being equal, if we had a somewhat decent defense and OL down the last stretch of games, we'd have been in playoffs, and possibly won a few games there as well.
Its worse than that. They are turning down good steak and good wine for the best steak ever and the best wine ever, when neither exist.
Calm down, we all know he is a good QB but considering we are a pass happy offense, he will need to work on certain areas of his game if we ever want to be serious contenders or we should just switch to a power run scheme (which I would love, it would take pressure off the whole offense and would keep our D fresher throughout ball games)
Tannehill won't be great until he scrambles like Wilson. Tannehill won't be great until he runs like CKap. Tannehill won't be great until he runs a huddle like Manning. Tannehill won't be great till he takes hits like Luck. Tannehill won't be great till he wins like Brady. So basically, Tannehill won't be great until he turns into a QB that has never existed in the history of the league. He must become a mythical creature.
