Good, and with Landry and Parker and Miller we have a solid young core, now if we could solve our Te position
What you thought going into the draft? I thought our GM was making those type decisions. We are talking about reality, right?
You said that I'm using hindsight to determine the best case scenario. You don't know who I wanted to pick or what moves I wanted to make, therefore you can't claim I'm using hindsight. In hindsight I would've mentioned Russell Wilson for sure.
Best case scenario would be that the Dolphins would have picked those players. You are not the GM so, it's very possible that it wouldn't have been those players. You can have your rebuttal but this is getting stupid. You don't like the Tannehill signing. That's fine. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there's always a few who can find fault in almost anything the Dolphins do. Signing a 26yr old ascending QB to a team friendly long term deal? Blah that sucks!
That's odd, since in the past 10 years there's only been 16 total individual seasons that had a QB in his first three seasons throw for 25 TDs or more (there were 81 QB seasons in that time frame who were in their 1st through 3rd season and started at least 10 games; 175 QBs started at least one game between their first and third season in any given season in the past 10 years). In that same time, only 7 times has it been accomplished by someone in their 2nd season or less. Only once has a rookie hit that passing TD mark in the past 10 years (hint: he'll be paid a lot more than Tannehill also). But yea, you can just pluck any QB out of college nowadays and get the #'s you're saying. To expand on an idea you had regarding the value of $15M/yr being too much for Tannehill, I present to you the following: 2014 QBs ranked by passer rating w/last contract amount: 1. Tony Romo - 6yr, $108M ($18M/yr) following 2012 season (statistically about what Tannehill did last year) 2. Aaron Rodgers - 5 yr, $110 ($22M/yr) following 2012 season 3. Ben Roethlisberger - 5 yr, $99M-$108M ($20M-$24.5M/yr) following 2014 season 4. Peyton Manning - 5yr, $96M ($19M/yr) following 2011 season (a year in which he was out of football) 5. Tom Brady - 4yr, $72M in 2011, followed by 3 yr $30M extension in 2013 (w/much money converted to guarantees) 6. Drew Brees - 5yr, $100M ($20M/yr) following 2011 season 7. Andrew Luck - Will be more than Tannehill 8. Carson Palmer - 3yr, $50M ($16.7M/yr) extension in 2014 (At 34, he tore his ACL two days later) 9. Ryan Fitzpatrick - Not worth mentioning, wasn't even retained by Texans 10. Russell Wilson - Will be more than Tannehill 11. Matt Ryan - 5 yrs, $104M ($20.5M/yr) following 2012 season 12. Philip Rivers - 6 yrs, $92M ($15.3M/yr) following 2008 season 13. Alex Smith - 4yr, $68M ($17M/yr) following 2013 season 14. Ryan Tannehill - $16.3M/yr (includes final rookie year) 15. Eli Manning - 6yr, $97M ($16.2M/yr) following 2008 season 16. Joe Flacco - 6yr, $121M ($20M/yr) following 2012 season 17. Jay Cutler - 7r, $126M ($18M/yr) following 2013 season 18. Mark Sanchez - **$40.5M in new money given by NYJ for a three yr extension following 2011 19. Kyle Orton - Not worth mentioning 20. Colin Kaepernick - 6yr, $126M ($21M/yr) following 2013 season 21. Matt Stafford - 3 yr, $53M ($17.7M/yr) extension following 2012 season (got a 6yr, $78M contract in 2009) 25. Andy Dalton - 6yr, $115M ($19M/yr) contract following 2013 season 26. Cam Newton - Will get more than Tannehill N/A. Sam Bradford - 6yr, $78M ($13M/yr) following selection in 2010 Please note when various contracts were signed. This is a fair deal for Tannehill, actually it is a fair deal for both sides.
Are you serious? Forgetting about Cameron? I am really excited about Cameron. I think he's going to give teams fits.
Mhm, right. Once our salary cap issues start affecting us because we gave Suh $20 million per year and Tannehill $16 million per year, it's going to be hilarious. Dallas Thomas is going to make Tannehill end up on a stretcher. Once Brady comes back he's going to run the hurry up offense to not allow us to substitute out our inexperienced DBs and LBs. I can just go on and on about our weaknesses. Paying Suh and Tannehill so much isn't going to magically cover up our weaknesses. The Rams have pretty much the same record as we do, in a much tougher division, the last three seasons despite our $96 million QB.
No rebuttal? Sorry, I missed the memo about how we're going to win now since we "won the offseason" AGAIN. Now that's a hilarious post...
We get it. You want to have top tier players on a team with no holes (except QB apparently) and pay them next to nothing. Btw, the Rams did pay Bradford and enormous amount while building that team FYI.
Yeah, and how did that investment turn out? It's easier to acquire talent in positions other than QB. The cost and length of QBs contracts and draft position are so prohibitive that it doesn't make sense to set your franchise back forcing the issue. Unfortunately truly great QBs are rare and it takes luck to draft and keep them, so why force the issue? Tannehill isn't THE guy, so why pay him $96 million?
There are a lot more OL and LBs than QBs. That's why QBs worth a damn get paid more on average. Supply and Demand. There's only 32 of these jobs in the world and they're never all filled.
Keep in mind as well, the Cap will go up over the coming years. Real problem is, the D kept giving up leads late in games last season and THill has not shown the ability, yet, to consistently mount comebacks.
This conversation is stupid. He already said he likes the idea of going the "moneyball" route. Good luck with that. You don't just keep drafting QBs every couple of years, hoping to always hit on a Russell Wilson, so he wins games on his rookie contract. At some point, you simply have to pay certain players. QB is one of those players. You aren't just plucking QBs that are at least as good as Tannehill is right now, out of every draft, unless you're drafting in the top five every draft.
Who says Tannehill isn't THE guy? You? I guess cause some guy on an internet forum says it, it must be true. I'll let Ross know they made a terrible mistake, and that Tannehill needs to go.
Because then we are the Bucs from the last few years. It's a team friendly contract, non-prohibitive if for some reason Tannehill totally flames out. It wouldn't be great, but we could survive. However, the most likely event is that he gets somewhat better and becomes a top 10 QB (considering some of the older QBs are starting to crack, such as Manning/Brees/Rivers), in which case he is paid well. Best case, he ascends to maybe top 5 status and we have an astounding bargain. You are basically saying "if you don't have Andrew Luck, then keep trying." That is simply not realistic. There is a reason guys like Flacco, Dalton, Smith, etc are getting deals - QBs are THAT valuable and THAT hard to find. You are planning for worst case, instead of most likely case.
So don't you think Tannehill is being appraised favorably because of his position and not necessarily because of his impact on the team? Think about it this way. If you have Kuechly instead of Tannehill, who do you trust to make more of an impact? Who is the BPA between those two? If you guys try to preach draft BPA but you reach for a QB, you're a hypocrite (not directing this at you in particular).
I'll take a different approach here...... What would lead you to believe Tannehill is not the guy? What don't you like about his development? Who would you want to be the starting QB for the Dolphins in 2015?
Never said I'd draft a QB every year. I'd always trade down unless I could grab an Andrew Luck type of player, for example, and always draft BPA.
Tannehill hasn't shown that he's a special player. That's it. I'm not going to say who I would have as the starting QB other than Tannehill because I didn't handle our draft when we reached for Tannehill. You can't just erase the past drafts. Given what we have now, Tannehill would be the starter, but I wouldn't have drafted him, much less extended him. It's not a "gotcha" question if I had no say in the matter going back to the 2012 draft.
You actually mentioned trading him to the Rams per example. They don't need a QB now that Foles is there. So who we trading Tannehill for now because you lost me? What player we going after or is it draft picks you covet? Bradford had a shoulder injury when drafted and paid 86 mill. Bad comparison. He is Chip Kelly's disaster now.
i think it's because he does his job very well, one with little to no substitutes, where it is very difficult to even acquire said substitutes. I wouldve taken Tannehill then, I would take him now knowing what I know. I'm just happy Cleveland took Trent Richardson over him. We have had a stud LB/DE in wake...and I'd take tannehill over him too, just like is take him over Luke.
Don't you think the Rams would've taken Tannehill over Foles had we made the offer? That's just one example. There's plenty of teams in need of a QB that would be willing to part with several good players for Tannehill.
Not realistic. How many years do you think HCs and GMs have to find a good QB? A few seasons with an 8-8 record or worse and you would be replaced.
Reshad Jones - 58 games started, 72 games in 5 seasons Louis Delmas - 76 games started, 78 games in 6 seasons Brent Grimes - 75 games started, 91 games in 8 seasons Brice McCain - 19 games started, 86 games in 6 seasons Jamar Taylor - 3 games started, 21 games in 2 seasons Zack Bowman - 28 starts, 89 games in 7 seasons Our most inexperienced DBs aren't likely to play all that much.
And that's why franchises are set back all the time. Reaching for QBs and forcing the issue. Good owners are patient and stress drafting BPA, not selling the fanbase on a "franchise QB."
So you're telling me he's valuable? I think you missed my point about Bradford. They were able to build a good team WHILE paying Bradford a crap ton of money! He did not inhibit them from drafting all those good players. This obssessing over Tannehills contract is pointless.
So who is starting opposite of Grimes? Who is backing up Grimes? Backing up Jones and Delmas? What if Delmas gets injured again? Depth is important.
I'm saying Tannehill has trade value because other teams think the way you guys do. Bradford's contract definitely wasn't well deserved. Teams need to maximize talent within the restraints of the salary cap. Don't you believe that money Bradford made would've been better spent on other free agent acquisitions or extending other players on their roster?
I'm assuming Taylor, but I listed the alternative CBs. I don't know who is backing up Jones and Delmas, I would assume Aiken, Thomspon, and/or Thomas, but I assume they'll use camp for that determination. And yes, depth is important, but you can't claim Brady will run our inexperienced DBs (ie those who are the deepest of our depth) all over the field via hurry up and then claim depth is important when the hurry up would nullify said depth anyways.
We aren't lacking depth because of our salary cap. We lack depth because we have drafted poorly in the secondary as of late with Taylor and Davis.
Real issue is it seemed the D simply wore down as the yr went along. As for Tannehill, to me he is perfect for this franchise, meaning the right mix of talent and work ethic and moxie. Downside is his deep accuracy is an issue this is why the Wr corps is tailored to what he does the best. I'd like to see him run a bit more to keep Defenses cognizant of the fact he has speed, that would help open things up down the field.
