Is Ryan Tannehill the long term solution at QB?

It's so funny that people blame Tannehill for the stupid play calls lol. They are really reaching. Desperate.

 

Do you guys enjoy going through this debate week after week, thread after thread... It's the same 6 or 7 guys over and over, making the same points over and over. This is painful.

He's as long term of a solution as the people running the ship think he is. Given the contract he got, some say yes, some so no. It's long team, but easy to weasel out of. For now, he's the starting QB for the Miami Dolphins. That's not changing anytime soon, so just get behind that idea.

I agree with what someone said earlier. this whole issue has now gotten to the point where people just want to take sides. Most of them on the failure side, so they can point at themselves afterwards as some great talent evaluator and brag. Why that's something to brag about, I'm not sure. Because, at the end of the day, we're still all here, behind our computers or cell phones, working our meaningless jobs, rather than being NFL talent evaluators, and were all still miserable Miami Dolphins fans because we aren't winning. So, if that's something you want to brag about, then have at it. I just don't get it.

Nobody is right for their opinion here. Nobody. Because none of us are professionals at this. We're just fans. Spouting off our opinions. Which differ from person to person. Post to post. The argument has been made for both sides in 6 billion other threads.

Personally, this OL is terrible. Given the state of the OL, the fact the offense isn't really tailored to deal with such a crappy OL, is pretty mind boggling to me. NE's OL sucks. The ball is constantly out to quick options. Given the state of this team, this OL, etc. etc. There's no reason our offense shouldnt look more like NE's to be honest. Quick, short, get the ball out, negate your own weakness in the OL. We lack in execution and talent more than anything else. That's not all on the QB.

 

true and every gm whiffed well all but the dallas gm who got him undrafted

 

Omg lmfao!!! I started tearing up. You just tore Tannehill a new bootyhole [emoji24]

Seriously, I couldn't stop laughing reading this. I think it was harsh but somehow exactly accurate. Bravo.

You've instantly become one of my favorite posters in this forum. I haven't laughed like that in a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Maybe Collins was just sold on being part of the best OL in the NFL. Maybe he's a Cowboys fan. Maybe he likes the benefits of being part of the most valuable NFL team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yeah there are definitely some picks every QB isn't mostly responsible for. You're right with Tannehill about some of his recent ones, but he also got lucky early in the season with some throws that should have been picked off. It averages out over time.

I'm not sure I see the improvement in pocket presence as you do. I rarely see him create extra time for himself by moving around the pocket, even with small movements like otherwise immobile QB's like Marino were good at. And of course he doesn't know when to run it himself.

I definitely agree on the touch though. There are more throws he makes where the velocity is more appropriate than I remember it being in years past.

 

Post of the year. Thread should be closed.

 

I agree. In fact, the whole forum should be closed. Because non of us work in the NFL. Our opinions mean nothing.

Mods...please delete ThePhins.com. Its a wrap.....

 

None of our opinions matter.

With that being said, here's my opinion on where the team stands and why we should be more like NE.

Is that a fair summary? [emoji57]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree, I think he has gotten better every year, I think his touch and placement has gotten better, but pocket presence is still really bad, I'll bet the sack you were talking about was the one where he kind of nonchalantly ran out to his right with rushers bearing down on him, it seemed like as soon as he avoided the initial rush he just forgot there were rushers behind him, luckily it wasn't a strip sack, because it really easily could have been since he wasn't securing the ball.

He gets panicky and mechanical under pressure, but he doesn't see it coming as soon as he should, because he has poor field vision, his peripheral seems nearly non existent, not only does he not recognize the rush, but he doesn't recognize the DL/LBs in gaps which leads to a ton of batted passes, and then he doesn't see wide open players too often, and I've come to believe that this is the crux of most of his problems, poor field vision, I mean how can you get that supreme confidence that you need to be a franchise QB if your feeling like you can't see everything, it causality in effect imo.

 

Tannehill thread = 6 million replies.

 

It's unbelievable.

 

green bay denver game is very indicative of how important the oline is. green bay has a good oline but denver has the best pass rush in football. result rodgers arguably the best qb in the game held to 10 points. conversely denver's offense which has been struggling all year on oline finally gets good run blocking which opens up play action and a moribund offense scores 29 points on a good green bay defense

 

The GB OL didn't lose them the game. The GB defense was overwhelmed early so their offense was forced to pass early and often. Then the best defense in football got to pin their ears back. Sound familiar?

Edit: I was referring to the TNF game against the Pats.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The GB OL was dominated over and over. Rodgers was helpless.

 

It had nothing to do with being forced to throw early and often? The Broncos defended the pass the vast majority of the snaps. Of course they were going to pin their ears back and rush the passer every time.

It's like when the Chiefs defense started sacking Stafford and pressuring him today. That's what happens when a good defense knows you're going to pass every time.

Not everything is on the OL like you and your clan think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Just so we're clear resnor.. if KC wins the WS, it's not because of their OL.

 

Great post EXCEPT for that part above....because the owner of this team is "just a fan" as well and it's pretty obvious that the "professionals" have been wrong up until this point. Do I have to wear an NFL badge to have enough common sense to say, "We need more capable linemen!?!" Nope, not at all....not when a 5 sack afternoon is average for our quarterback.

 

I'd take Alex Smith over Thill for the near future. He does everything Thill does without turning the ball over as much and uses his legs much better. Thill is a poor man's Alex Smith to me. Poor cause Smith protects the ball and extends drives with his legs.

 

maybe he did what his mama told him to do.

 

some are just pointing out the obvious and stating how he could be a better qb.

 

Exactly. The always tossed in "it's not ALL on the QB" is as ridiculous as it gets. They end every post with it. But who really comes in these threads and says that??? Pretty much nobody, if the thread is about Ryan then most likely he will be discussed in a positive or negative light. If it's an opinion that Ryan isn't a complete QB??? It's skewed into we just blame everything on him. It takes a debate and turns it into a sh-tfest when comments like that are made and actually even believed.

 

Thats not my point. My point is, this whole Tannehill topic has now become an issue where people are just arguing it to say "I was right" later on. Hell, we still see it with posters here about Henne with the I told you so's in the last little bit. It's just crazy to me. Who care's who's right, who's wrong. As for the owner, lets face it, he's not changing against his own will anytime soon, so there just isn't alot we can do there. Opinion is one thing... it's when people start passing it off as fact that there's a problem.

Completely understand, and have no real issues with that. However, for some to deny the fact that there's things as a team that could be done to improve the play at the QB position is also where we run in to problems. At this point, we still don't really know what we have in Ryan. The OL is still terrible, the gameplan against the Pats was terrible. We continue to scheme what we want to do, rather than what points to the strong suits of the most important player on the offense. Until that issue gets resolved, it's really hard to discuss. I mean, we saw gameplans (against two pretty bad teams, yes) that played more to the QB's strengths. This week, that's all out the window. Not many 2 te sets, no QB runs, nothing to really get him into the game. We've seen over time, that's when he plays his best... The whole thing is an inexperienced mess.

Look, maybe my original post came across wrong, I'm just saying... none of us know. We're just spouting off the same arguments over and over, in yet another massive thread, that's identical to the other 5.

It just sucks to go away for the weekend, come home, log on and boom, 18 more pages in a new thread on the QB...

I get why it's a hot topic, I just don't get the way it's been gone about so often. How many more times can we all say the same thing? I guess the answer to that question is... at least a couple of years, because Ryan's going to be here a while.

 

See, that's exactly the problem I'm talking about though.

So, someone gives their opinion on the fact that it's not all on the QB, because there's many other factors that contribute to his success (same as RB, same as WR, etc, etc) but some refuse to accept that and say nope, only the QB. So, the WR runs the wrong route, or doesn't run it properly on a timing route where the QB is throwing to a spot and it's on the WR to be there, that's on the QB? I mean, how you claim that's ridiculous... is ridiculous in itself.

Then we go to the extreme to say it turns into a **** fest, because the statement is made and believed. So, your essentially saying exactly what the problem is, by being part of the problem. So, because you don't believe what someone else believes, it's wrong... everyone has an opinion, and they're entitled to it...

I do get what you're saying though, there are things he can improve, we all know that. It works both ways though. If you want your opinion to be respected, you have to respect the opinions of others, no matter how different they may be. There's many arguments that happen in these threads that dont do that, because we accept our own opinion as fact... then yes, it turns into a **** fest.

I already know this is going to be a major issue, so, I'm going to bow out of this one.

 

Uh, Rodgers only threw it 22 times. They ran the ball 19 times, 21 if you count Rodgers two runs. At one point in the third, it was 17-10, with Green Bay only down one score. Isn't this a situation where the elite QBs just put the team on their back, and will their way to a win, despite the play of those around them?

I'm very confused.

 

There were 10 rushes by Lacy or Starks before they got their first score and were down 7-17. Three of those were in the red zone. There was also one Rodgers scramble, so that makes it 11. At that point there were 2 minutes, 58 seconds left before halftime.

Then 8 more rushes by the RBs the rest of the game and another QB scramble, so 9, however, 2 of those rushes by the RBs were to run the clock out and be done with it.

So when you break it down, there were 10 planned rushes (not scrambles) before the half, 3 of those were to punch it into the end zone. 8 more the rest of the game, 2 of which really didn't count. So you really only had 13 planned rushes to try to move the ball down field.

Rodgers had 30 pass attempts. That doesn't include 3 sacks and his 2 scrambles. If you read the play by play, you'll see him making 33 plays. So you tell me who was doing the heavy lifting.

That's how you analyze the game, not just lazily looking at stats. If you're going to count 2 QB scrambles, 3 tries to punch it into the end zone and 2 rushes to kill the clock to make your point that Rodgers wasn't doing the majority of the work, that's ridiculous. Here's my reference:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400791684

Edit: Funny cheap shot at Aaron Rodgers. He IS elite and he HAS put his team on his back in tough situations. Elite QBs DO lose games, you know.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm at the point now where I can't stand the guy. I'm ready for someone else. He has not improved any. Everyone wants to blame everything and everyone else around him, but he doesn't do anything to help the team win. He doesn't scramble. He doesn't throw deep to get the 8 in the box out. He gets balls batted down. Yeah, he can win IF you have the perfect team around him, but that is not what a franchise QB should do, they should life the entire team up around them; he does not and won't.

 

Yeah, meanwhile we've got others putting down guys like Matt Ryan and Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck for losing even though they clearly have to put their teams on their backs often and are still successful.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Stopped reading after once again the strawman of "its not all on the QB" was said.

Kind of common sense that its not ALL on the QB...who has said it IS ALL ON THE QB?? When can that can be answered?

What happens is assumptions.

You wont find many posters who think we have all the pieces in place besides QB, you wont find many that think we have a good OL and Ryan is holding this offense back from success.

He is merely a part of the problem, not the REASON....not the VICTIM.

I'm guessing you wont find many who disagree on the former but you sure will on the latter.

I'll be waiting on a reasonable reply to this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Go check his stats. Rodgers threw it 22 times. No matter how much you break it down, he threw it 22 times. 22. That's nothing for Rodgers. It was the least he's thrown it all season in a game.

And no one is putting down those guys. We're putting down this notion that elite QBs win games by themselves, even when the team around them is playing poorly.

 

Aaron Rodgers has won plenty of games when his team has played horribly. Happens all the time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

Like I said, you're being LAZY. Look at the play by play and analyze it. You haven't even analyzed QBs even though you always want to talk about how disadvantaged Tannehill is. Everything for you is the OL too. How convenient for you to never actually analyze anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes. So what was different last night? I watched it, and saw Rodgers getting pummeled behind an oline that was terrible.

 

It seems like you're trying to take the high road against a mythical fan that blames everything on the QB.

To me, what you're saying just kind of sounds like a big mischaracterization of an argument you don't like.

Moreover, you made the claim that we don't really know what Tannehill is. I think you'll find a lot of people disagree. 55 games is not a small sample size regardless of whatever outside factors are present.

 

Variance. This why they keep stats. To quantify how often he comes through in those situations.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

I can't say if anyone has said it's all on the QB in this thread, I'm not about to read it all. I've read it all before in the other threads. However, people like to talk like it is. If we're going to talk about the success of any one player, it always depends on the others. Every position in this game is dependent on others. That's the point I'm making... Just as you say the statement "It's not all about the QB" is ridiculous, and makes you stop reading, so does the opinion for many others who can see that it is... just not about the QB. If you want to discuss the QB and his shortcomings (there are plenty of them), it just needs to be done objectively while taking consideration the other parts of the game, and team that factor in to it. You just can't have it any other way.

As for a more "reasonable" reply... Quite frankly you won't get one from me, nor do you deserve one from me after our previous interaction a few weeks ago. Combine that with, your will to only talk about the QB himself, and not the surrounding circumstances that lead to success or failure, what's the point? There's not much discussion to have then if it can only go your way. You can't talk about one, without the other. To claim you can, or to claim it's ridiculous... then you're only interested in a one sided conversation, so why bother. As I said, I'm done with this one.

 

Substitute "good quarterbacks lift their teams" and "put them on their backs" if it makes you feel better and then scroll down this thread and see how many times that nonsensical cliche is spouted. And then take a look at how many times Rodgers and Brady are used as a comparison. Lol. He's not the best QB in the league, he must suck

 

When two elite QBs play each other in the forest, does anyone hear one of them lose?

And elite QBs do put their team on their back. Like last year when the Dolphins couldn't get a first down and Rodgers converted a 4th down and beat us

 

And like all qbs when they get pummeled they lose unless their defense keeps them in the game and they can squeak out a 10-7 or 13-10 win

 

Geno Smith had more gwd and 4qc than Tanny before this year, with one less year starting. lol (not saying he's better ...)