Peter King with a quote that I 100 percent agree with.

What I don't get is that you accuse people of being homers and making excuses for Tannehill but you seem to be doing the same thing for Newton. You can't objectively credit him w being a running threat and then dismiss that fact that he's often hurt. You say he hasn't had the supporting cast Tannehill has had, what supporting cast? Carolina went to the playoffs w a top 5 defense and have hovered around .500 every other season. I really don't see how you're putting one guy way ahead of he other, other than as a Fins fan you've seen all of Tannehill's shortcomings and not Newton's.

 

"All the weapons" around Tannehill? What?


SMH

 

Hartline was a weapon:

 

My son has that Nerf gun. He's deadly with it.

 

Saw this just now. Havn't read any responses so far, but no I would definitely not. Guy is the leader of this team, and is getting better every year. With as raw at qb as he came into this league...I'll take my chances with his continual improvement.

 

Really????

So the team pays $60M to go get the biggest WR in free agency (Mike Wallace) and that doesn't count?

What about Charles Clay who just got big money with the Bills because he's good?

What about Lamar Miller who's about to get paid because he's good?

What about the drafting of a 2nd rounder when no one thought the team needed another WR and that guy (Jarvis Landry) catching 85 balls?

What about the team bringing in a 1st round pick this year as well as one of the league's most explosive receiving TEs?



I'm sorry...I like you resnor, so no offense, but this is ridiculous....Tannehill's weapons over the last 2 seasons and going forward have been and will continue to be notably above average.

Maybe the fact that Tannehill is holding some of them back is what bothers people...hmmm....that's a thought.

 

I'm talking about the Panthers offense, not the defense. I'm not basing my argument on the success of the team (Play-offs) which is why I stayed away from the defense being solid. That is actually where all the good draft picks have gone, outside of Kelvin Benjamin last year who I actually thought was a horrible reach. But, with Cam at the helm, Kelvin looked really promising and competed from day 1.

And the injury was off-the-field so your argument there is invalid. He didn't get hurt because he was a running QB.

A closer study will actually show that Cam Newton has stayed shockingly healthy while being one of the most physical "running QBs" I can remember seeing.

The guy is tough as nails and very hard to bring down. I would wager that Tannehill would get hurt quickly doing the things Newton does pretty routinely.

 

Again...the market showed their worth. The burden is on everyone here to justify why they think Tannehill > Newton, Stafford, Ryan, Flacco, Romo, Dalton, Roethlisberger, etc.

I don't think Tannehill is better than anyone on that list not named Dalton. The facts don't really support putting Tannehill above anyone on that list (other than Dalton) as much as Dolphins fans want to believe Tannehill is going to take the team to a Super Bowl and go down as a great Miami QB.

He's a good QB who will make the Play-offs but he's not nearly as special as most fans believe.

I mean, what does he do that's special?

There you go. That's the answer.

 

Wait... you're arguing that Cam can some how take a physical running style, run a lot, but not get hurt because he's "tuff as nails"? What about the 2014 off season surgery on his ankle that had him miss all OTAs and a good chunk of training camp, or the rib fracture that had him out for the first game of 2014? Physical runners tend to breakdown. I see nothing with Cam that suggests different.


He has an elite skill set, but long term he absolutely has to develope as a passer more and move away from as much running. I think his coaches should have given him the Tannehill treatment and over emphasized staying in the pocket earlier in his career. He'd be better now, and be setup for the future. He has an amazing arm. He just makes too many bad decisions. I hope he can do it. He'd be fun to watch.


As for Tannehill, I don't get how people can't see how good he is going to be. He was still a little late seeing things develop deeper. Most of that comes from o line issues I think. With the way everything else with him has come along, I expect that will have worked it's self out early in the season.

Right now I'm take Ryan over Cam. If both were rookies, I'm taking Cam. Carolina didn't do him any favors.

 

You're saying Tanny got to 4,000 yards all by himself? Hartline, Wallace, and a slightly hobbled Clay, Landry, Miller is much better than Benjamin, Olsen, 3 games each of Deangelo Williams, Stewart, and someone named Fozzy. Much is made of Hartline but it was a production dip more than anything. When Tanny did throw to Hartline he wasn't all that bad.

This new crop of WRs has the chance to be even better but last years wasn't such a dearth of talent you'd shake your head at someone saying they're weapons.

 

86 rating is good???

 

Greg, I'm taking issue with you characterizing Tannehill as having all these weapons that Newton didn't have. There's really no way that I would agree that Wallace is better than Smith. Olsen was a good solid, productive TE. I like Clay, but he's not any more game changing than Olsen. Hartline isn't exactly what I would call a weapon.

Yeah, 86 is good. Not great, not bad.

 

I agree with what you're saying but Cam hasn't missed many games so if he's hurt, that only adds credence to his toughness. I'd take Cam only because he's not that old and he's still developing. You can't argue Tannehill's continued improvement without saying the same thing for Cam Newton, whose upside as a complete package is certainly higher.

What I like about Cam is that he at least doesn't have to fake being the star. When you ask for that responsibility and don't live up you look stupid, but every good QB has to have that confidence.

What people are asking of Tannehill makes me worry that he just doesn't have it. I don't think he really has the killer instinct to play QB at the highest levels and lead the team in the kind of way that puts a team in the Super Bowl. I just don't see him there because he has never demonstrated that kind of approach. He's only as good as what the coaches are telling him to do. There's no creativity to his game whatsoever. He's never going to be as big as the moment which is why most people don't call him elite and wouldn't consider him the equal of Cam from the standpoint of "potential."

Last year, Ryan Tannehill couldn't even put a couple whiny WRs in their place...that doesn't bode well. He doesn't seem to be involved in helping the O-line either. He has 3 first-round picks on his O-line and yet the whole things still at times looks awful and yet people assume that a couple more mid-rounders are going to solve the problem. I don't know but it all leads me to believe the QB is just not the leader that he should be.

Lastly, there's no projection of Ryan Tannehill that points to him being astonishingly good that doesn't involve loads and loads of 'if he improves on this, that and the other' or 'maybe if he has all the right pieces around him.' At some point you ask yourself 'is my QB special? Does he do things that are worthy of high-praise or just a pat on the back?' So far, he gets a pat on the back and that's what his contract ultimately is. It says, 'Good job last year. Here's mid-level money. Now go prove you can get better over the next 2 years with some even better weapons around you.'

If Tannehill isn't significantly better in 2 years, he's going to be the limiting factor on this football team.

People need to understand how important Tannehill's improvement really is. So, I don't understand how anyone can sit there and guarantee it knowing that guy hasn't really flashed any special abilities to this point and is coming off his only solid, respectable year.

If you haven't seen much magic in 3 years...you better show it quick.

 

It is below average. If you were to say a QB had a rating of 86, that QBs team more likely than not lost the game.

 

Res, c'mon man. No way.

Jesus...Steve Smith was in his prime like 5-6 years ago while Delhomme was there. Smith was on the verge of being washed up after Newton's first couple seasons. In 2012 and 2013 he was a highly inconsistent guy who showed up some weeks and not others, despite the solid yardage totals of 2010 and 2011. At this point, the guy is a 15-year vet and he wasn't even in Carolina last year so why are we discussing him?

C'mon...Mike Wallace could and should be a guy who puts up 1,200 yards and 7-8 TDs even today. And no on Olsen. He started looking good only when Cam showed up...coincidence?

If you honestly think the Dolphins are that depleted, stop reading this forum for awhile cause they have sold you a lie, brother. This forum is bent on sending these terribly incorrect messages aimed at protecting certain Dolphins players who fans don't want to see criticized and blackballing others who the fans want to see get the axe.

I get that it's a forum and that it's clique-ish and that people want to hear positive, happy thoughts about all the younger players but that's not very honest.

It's not my problem if fans egos are so brittle they can't deal with reality but when I'm being told that the 2014 Dolphins didn't have above-average weapons around their QB, I give up. That's ridiculous and based entirely on this being a Dolphins forum that wants to promote Tannehill as being in no way to blame for any of the team's shortcomings.

Compared to Carolina, Miami was pretty stacked with weapons going into last year. I'm sorry if that's offensive to some people.

 

I like both players and can see why they both got the contracts they got. Ryan is worth it and so is Cam. I think there are knocks on both players and honestly the money that Qbs are getting is kind of ridiculous but it is what it is. I would probably take Ryan long term but I can see someone taking Cam. Cam might be the most talented player in the NFL and he does produce so its not all about his talent or hype but he does need to be more accurate and they need much better skill players around him. Ryan has been improving each year and I do think he's a guy with the talent to take a team with good skill players and a good oline around him to the Superbowl. Cam can carry a team while I don't think Ryan is that kind of player.

 

Carolina's receiving corps last year was NOT notably worse than Miami's. At worst, they're roughly even. Neither offense lit it up, and neither scared other teams' defensive coordinators. Olson was a much better TE than Clay last year as well, he led the team in receiving in HALF their games and had a 1000 yard season. And is anybody going to try to say Miller's receiving was better than Stewart? Probably pretty even there as well. Also had Brown receiving at a 14 yards per catch clip...

...but no lets trot Fozzy's name out there, a guy with 5 receptions...

 

LOL...'nuff said.

 

That seems fair to me.

 

The hypothetical question is really quite simple: would you take Tannehill with the Panthers offensive personnel right now or Newton with the Dolphins offensive personnel right now?

I'm excluding defense as well as HC and OC because we don't know their roles and it's a hypothetical question that doesn't involve very much detail and really no analysis whatsoever. I would take the latter because I believe you'd get more with that.

Both are very young, still-developing QBs that can (and need to) become better pocket passers.

And yes, I do think that certain players (like Mike Wallace) were clearly held back by Ryan Tannehill and the Miami offense so when you argue that the Dolphins offensive capabilities, my contention is that the QB had an effect on your data right there.

If you don't like Mike Wallace as a weapon then complain a little about the QB and the OC. It's not like Wallace didn't run the route and get open. He was the same guy--a better version in fact--of what he was a few years ago in Pittsburgh when he was so good.

The fans blamed Brandon Marshall's lack of production on Chad Henne and the Dolphins offense...and here we see something similar with Mike Wallace--another star WR who came to Miami for 2 seasons. Again, a WR comes to Miami and doesn't perform like he should and fans crucify the WR to protect the QB they love so dearly after 2 respectable seasons.

Well, Brandon Marshall wasn't washed up because he went on to be really good in Chicago...so learn your lesson and pray that Mike Wallace doesn't go over 1,000 yards up in Minnesota and make this team look inept in the same way Marshall did.

 

So from a pocket-passing position, RT held his WR back but Cam didn't? I'm not talking about scrambling around and connecting on a busted play, which Newton's probably better at...I'm talking continuous, from the pocket, operating of the offense. QBs have an effect on ALL data...they touch the ball every play.

I'm not into the "if this QB was on that team" argument anymore...there's been several of those with Wilson and others, and they don't prove jack...EVERY thing would be different, you can't predict reliably in either direction. I could say I think 2014 RT would've put up better numbers at Carolina than 2014 Newton (which I believe), but there's simply no way to back that up, or argue against it.

And for the record, I think MW was held back by himself to more of a degree than he was held back by RT...but both had a hand in it...and there's a massive thread beating that glue.

 

Agree. Whatever you say of Tannehill we're still projecting. He may take a huge step this year. Or he may take a small step. His trajectory gives us hope. But I've never felt the sense that you're talking about, that some got in Big Ben's rookie year, even when he only threw like 15 times a game. You saw that magic in his play. At the same time, I didn't get that sense out of Drew Brees his first few years either. We saw it with Cam but he's hit a temporary wall in his passing. Both of these players are capable of taking a leap forward.

 

Well, that's a bit of a cop out because that was the question posed.

If you don't want to answer it, fine.

 

What scares me is that I think it's an attitude thing. Ryan just doesn't strike me as a confident player and yet, the more I watch football, the more I think the QB has to be a bit overly confident because the last thing you can do is be scared to take a chance. Maybe it's derived of not getting many starts in college or continuing in the NFL with the same OC you had in college or just going to an organization where the expectations were so low. I don't know. It's likely just not how he operates but it's a detriment.

That's why when I see people cite this "upward trend" I kind of think it's beside the real point which is really...does this guy play the kind of football that wins January and February games? Does he step on the field wanting to be the focal point of everyone in the stadium?

That's not fair and most fans don't want it to be like that, but it's the truth. A small handful of critical plays, which are brought on by taking risks and being "the guy," are what win games. Russell Wilson can be nobody for 3 quarters and then be an absolute, unstoppable beast in the 4th quarter to win the game because he wants that pressure.

We don't know that about Tannehill yet...in fact, 3 years of not knowing is probably how you know. It's not fair that 1 or 2 plays can do so much but that's why we love it...there's heartbreak involved. It isn't fair.



I don't watch a lot of First Take because it's comically scripted and downright stupid, but I thought their take on Tannehill was actually quite honest and sincere. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. How can you not support re-signing Tannehill knowing how hard it is to find someone's who even decent and how impossible it can be to find elite QBs? At the same time, how can you support a guy who really doesn't look like an elite passer and who probably doesn't have Super Bowl level QB'ing in him?

You sign him and hope that over the next 2-3 years he surprises you.

It's all you can do really.

 

It's not a cop out, and I did answer it, it's just not arguable to any reliable degree.

 

I think it's obvious we got rid of both players for reasons beyond production or lack thereof. I think we had to get rid of Wallace to show players that quitting isn't acceptable. Marshall I never really agreed with us getting rid of but I can understand why it was done. I don't think fans blaming anyone had anything to do with the decisions.

 

Yeah...I agree. Fans don't make the decisions. But at the same time I disagree that sending a message to other players was a high priority in trading Wallace. You don't really make $10M decisions in hopes it send the right message to other people. It's got to be more real world than that. I'm not disagreeing with your point, I'm just saying that it's a little more complicated that just that.

I don't see how that applies to what I was saying though which is that people who argue Tannehill didn't have weapons must consider that he is a big influence on the production of those weapons.

The best QBs have all made average weapons look good. Lots of bad QBs have made good weapons look average. What did Tannehill do for Mike Wallace?

That's for everyone to decide but you can't say Mike Wallace didn't have the potential to be a really great weapon.

 

Ummmm...Hartline was a 1,000 yard receiver for the first time ever with Tannehill. You can point to Mike Wallace, , and I'll defer to Hartline.

 

He made an average receiver look average.

 

My take on that has always been that it's easier to hit slower guys.

I think RT is very uncomforable throwing to really fast guys. RT seems very willing to throw the ball to Hartline, Landry, Matthews, Gibson, etc and those guys didn't seem to have issues catching those balls (even when they weren't perfect). It's common sense that the faster a target moves, the harder it will be to hit and the more error you'll anticipate in every attempt.

I think the Wallace thing was (1) RT struggled throwing to a WR with elite speed, (2) Wallace wasn't able to run consistent routes, and (3) Wallace is not built to make contested catches.

Do you agree?

Roethlisber and Flacco are two guys that can handle speed. Both won Superbowl with similar players. It doesn't make them better than Tannehill on that fact alone, but it's just something which can be used to show how they do things he doesn't.

That was just a recipe for underwhelming performance. I can totally forgive Tannehill for that, but I still think you measure your QB by how many of the tough challenges he can answer. We saw him struggle trying to live up to the demands of having a speedster. Ok, that didn't work. So now you try and give you bigger WRs (Parker, Cameron) and see if that makes up for his limitation.

I think this year, we'll see Tannehill being challenged to (1) spread the ball around quickly making more pre-snap reads a la Brady and (2) run more as DJ has point to.

This time next year I think we'll be talking about whether or not he answered those challenges.

 

Mike Wallace wasn't average in everything. 10 TDs isn't average. I wish it was for Dolphins WRs.

I think Wallace made some of those TDs happen more than Tannehill.

He made an incredible catch against Revis in week 1 that sure looked like it should've been an INT. He also made another against Joyner during the Minnesota game and then those two 1-hand catches against Buffalo and NE which were all on his doing. Wallace did his part when it came to the red zone. Oh, and throw in that effort he made against Oakland.

That's 5 of the 10 TDs that were really due to spectacular plays by the WR. Not to pick on the young QB, but at least 2 of those (Revis & Joyner) should have been INTs.

What made Wallace look average in the numbers was the lack of yardage and that had everything to do with the lack of big plays...so that's something which involves the WR and the QB.

 

I agree on those three things in regards to Tannehill and Wallace...with a slight caveat. I wonder how much of the struggle with the elite speed was Tannehill didn't always know where Wallace would be, since Wallace struggled to run good routes. A fast guy running a bad route will be further off his route than a slower guy, I would think.That is, he would be farther from the for he's supposed to be at.

 

Sure, Wallace made some great plays...and he missed some easy ones. I'd say that they balanced out.

 

I agree he missed plays but don't lose sight of the point I was making.

The point was simply that he DID score 10 TDs which is way above any definition of "average."

Let's be careful about calling Mike Wallace average.

 

Well we can just look at his routes where he's just running a 9 route up the sideline. He couldn't be that far off ... could he?

Mike Wallace definitely isn't average. He's not elite. He's not worth what he was paid. He's a $8-9 million per year receiver, maybe 10 in the right offense, but not a $12m receiver. Cobb and Nelson are $10m a year but those definitely included hometown discounts. He should slot below them.