1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is Ryan Tannehill the long term solution at QB?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Chuck Wilson, Nov 1, 2015.

Is Ryan Tannehill the long term answer at QB for us?

  1. Yes

    44 vote(s)
    40.7%
  2. No

    39 vote(s)
    36.1%
  3. Not quite sure, need to see more

    25 vote(s)
    23.1%
  1. bakedmatt

    bakedmatt Well-Known Member

    2,129
    909
    113
    Mar 29, 2008
    Orlando, FL
    With regards to just Dalton against the Steelers (because I don't want to talk about this, really):

    Down by 4 with 7 minutes to go.
    1. Dalton drops the snap and loses 15.
    2. High miss to Sanu.
    3. Deep pass intercepted.

    *lifted from @joegoodberry
     
    resnor likes this.
  2. SuhMe

    SuhMe Banned

    365
    137
    0
    Mar 13, 2015
    This year Luck has played garbage football and Andy Dalton is a world beater. A lot can change in a year in this league, and with so many teams lacking quality options at the QB position for the future, people need to understand the value Tannehill's durability, age, athleticism, work ethic, and overall potential mean to this organization. "Franchise" QB or not, however you want to define that word, he's our QB until we find a better one. It's only taken what 13 years and 33 QB's to finally find a guy that actually has the potential to be our long term solution at QB and people want to write him off at age 27 and declare he isn't a "franchise" QB? Stupid short sighted Dolphins fans smh.
     
  3. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    Fair enough. Steelers are a good team with a great defense (5th in ppg @ 18.4) But you didn't complete the story...on the next series he leads them on a GWD culminated by a TD pass for the Bengals to take the lead on their way to winning the game.
     
    dolphin25 and gunn34 like this.
  4. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    Even with how badly Luck has played this year he has shown he is clutch with the furious 4th quarter comeback against the Titans and last night stepped it up big-time against the Panthers in the second-half of the 4th quarter. Where are the games in Tannehill's past to indicate he's got it in him?

    LOL...potential.

    Potential is an acknowledgement the player hasn't been and still isn't very good. It's the hope that someday in the future he will be better, an ideal. That his fan club is thanking you for that is acknowledgement Tannehill hasn't been that good when all along they have been arguing he is one of the better QBs in the league.

    Every really good QB had a history in college and early on they have the "potential" to be really good. There are games when they basically carried their teams to victory, lifted their play at the end of the game. Where are those games for Tannehill? He's started 74 now, surely there should be a handful of them if he really does have "potential."

    Seriously where is the list of plays and games to hang our hopes on? Down by 4, less than 2 minutes and drove the team 80 yards for the winning score...so far we have seen that if Miami has a superior OL, WRs, TE and establishes the running game first with creative play calling by the OC and the defense dominates the other team Tannehill can play very well being extremely accurate with short passes. But is that really "potential?" Doesn't that describe every QB in the NFL, even the backups? And how realistic is that to expect Miami or any other team can build that type of team. There have only been a few in history...Ravens in 2000, Giants with LT and I'm sure there are a few more. But wouldn't it be wiser to move in a direction in finding a QB that be clutch? I think so, while still seeking to build the best all-around team possible.
     
  5. bakedmatt

    bakedmatt Well-Known Member

    2,129
    909
    113
    Mar 29, 2008
    Orlando, FL
    He should be happy their offense got another chance with a short field, though. Right?

    H/t defense.
     
  6. SuhMe

    SuhMe Banned

    365
    137
    0
    Mar 13, 2015
    Watch him come back against Cincy at the end of regulation in the Wake walk off sack game. There's just one example off the top of my head that shows Tannehill has "got it in Him" to be clutch. Forgot about that game or just simply lack the knowledge? Also the way he played against Minnesota last year was nearly perfect, all 4 quarters, that's his potential. He's played great games in the past, he just doesn't do it consistently like Andrew Luck. You're just ignorant of his potential, that's all. Our organization isn't though and that's all that matters at the end of the day.
     
  7. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    And if Tannehill would have completed the pass on 2nd and 9 vs GB, or the pass on 3rd and 6 at Detroit, or drove us down the field at Denver instead of throwing an interception the defense could have changed nothing and won 3 more games.
     
  8. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    How does this in any way show that Tannehill is the answer? A common tactic of lets divert the attention away from the QB trying to defend, but I get it since there isn't many accolades to say, "Remember when Tannehill did..." That would be a very short conversation.

    Against the Patriots, Tannehill was only able to drive Miami beyond 45 yards on 2 of 12 possessions. One resulted in a TD when the game was long over. NONE when the game was still close. Steelers defense gives up fewer ppg than the Patriots.
     
  9. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    I think what cbrad meant is Eli isn't a great regular season QB or clutch then. I can probably get behind that.

    The issue is he mentioned something about an "aberration" when it comes to being clutch, right? That's the clutch gene. Stepping up and doing what your team needs you to do. You could be a terrible to mediocre QB but if you've got that, you're golden.

    Look at Flacco. He's not a great regular season QB either. He always plays well during the playoffs. Look at his stats.

    As for Tannehill and the lack of GWD. What's the stat? 5 GWD out of 55? You can argue about our defense all you want but that's a pretty low number, especially when you consider how many close games we've had and how we've had opportunities to make it as a wild card. Freaking San Diego relied on a bunch of scenarios to enter and one was us losing.

    Sometimes you've just got to step up DESPITE what's going on around you. If your defense gives up a score and you've gotta manufacture drives and points, do it. The good to great QBs do it and that's what we want Tannehill to be.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  10. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Could you explain the idea of "manufacture drives and points"? If you're advocating for the QB to tuck and run on his own, then sure. But if you're talking about the QB throwing the ball, then it's not just the QB. A QB doesn't play in a vacuum, and it takes other players making plays to "manufacture drives and points."


    It's another concept that I blame the media for creating, but that I don't think really has a basis in reality. This isn't basketball where one guy can just take over, and dribble around players and make shots on his own.
     
  11. bakedmatt

    bakedmatt Well-Known Member

    2,129
    909
    113
    Mar 29, 2008
    Orlando, FL
    You used Dalton as an example of "clutch" play this week. He wasn't clutch. He was fortunate.

    Sir, I don't want to divert your attention. I don't care.
     
  12. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Not ready to putt Carr in there just yet, and Palmer may be better than those at the end of this year if he stays healthy (Palmer + Arians is gold) but step outside of Dolphins land and you're mostly correct.
     
  13. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    You do realize the Bengals won the game right? Lol, worst example to use this weekend.
     
  14. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Lets change it then. How have the two players played, in games they need to win, to get into the playoffs. I know Tanny's performances. I'd have to research Eli's. I do know he's gotten in as a wildcard a couple times.

    And I'm not talking about wins and losses. But how they performed in those games. If they helped their team win, if they hurt their team or just played bad.
     
  15. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    See, you're always deflecting. The OL doesn't give him time, the WRs aren't good enough. Yes, believe it or not, this team IS good enough to go 8-8 or 9-7.

    Who was Newton throwing to last night? Hell, who has Brady been throwing to his whole career until now and Moss that one year? How many healthy OL did the Pats have the game they thrashed is?Who the hell was that David Tyree guy? Point is, it's possible to make game winning drives with good WRs and a mediocre to bad OL.

    If the standard has to be Tannehill needs a good OL and good receivers and a good defense, wow. The case has been made for those things in every argument we've had. I don't need to cite them.

    Point is, if he needs all those things, so does every other mediocre QB.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    DolphinGreg and Finster like this.
  16. bakedmatt

    bakedmatt Well-Known Member

    2,129
    909
    113
    Mar 29, 2008
    Orlando, FL
    In the with 7 minutes left, and down by 4, he has that series of plays. That's a bad example for clutch performance.
     
  17. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    He delivered the game winning TD, didn't he? Not saying Dalton is clutch, just chiming in.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  18. bakedmatt

    bakedmatt Well-Known Member

    2,129
    909
    113
    Mar 29, 2008
    Orlando, FL
    Like I said before, he's fortunate the defense gave him an opportunity with a short field after an interception.
     
  19. emocomputerjock

    emocomputerjock Senior Member

    5,649
    1,853
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    DC
    He did throw the game winner at 2:57, being down by 4. If anyone, I'd use Ben as the example from that game, what with throwing the 2 INTs.
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  20. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    He obviously returned from injury a bit early to give his team a chance.

    Luck too.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  21. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Good you're saying "overwhelming QB stat". My entire beef was with "solely on the QB" being taken literally (or implied as if it should be taken literally).

    I think whether I agree more with you and res or with the other side is different depending on the situation. I think when it comes to Eli I'm probably more on your side of the argument. When it comes to Flacco I'm probably more on their side. I think the difference lies in whatever statistical analysis I can think of that would justify an argument. Specifically, in the case of "clutch", I want to see what the statistical evidence is for saying a great playoff run is: 1) an aberration, or 2) a reflection of skill.

    In Eli's case, I think it's a lot easier to argue those two SB runs were an aberration (not saying they definitely are an aberration because there's no solid statistical argument here.. just saying it's easier to argue it) than with Flacco's recent postseason record. Eli's regular season stats I already posted, and his playoff performances in all except those SB years clearly helps the "aberration" argument.

    Flacco is different because his first two postseasons he posted crappy stats, but after that he was above average and kept improving. With Flacco it seems more like the acquisition of skill than fluctuations due to randomness. So given that win/loss from a statistical point of view is as important a stat as any other "QB" stat (on its own it's not worth much as a QB stat but neither is any other single QB stat), I'm more receptive to the argument that Flacco's postseason W/L record is more a reflection of skill (so correlation is more likely a causation) than with Eli.

    Again though.. there's no great statistical analysis that pins down 1) the relative contribution of the QB to any other player/unit, or 2) tells us how much W/L record should be weighted in a specific case (that ~15% estimate is an average). So people can and will have different opinions and that's fine. With Eli, I tend to agree with you and res, with Flacco not so much.
     
  22. bakedmatt

    bakedmatt Well-Known Member

    2,129
    909
    113
    Mar 29, 2008
    Orlando, FL
    Dalton was provided a second (and third, actually) opportunity with a short field thanks to the defense. But before the interceptions, he missed a snap, overthrew a WR and threw an INT going into double coverage. These are not clutch plays. If it weren't for the defense, they lose.

    I was only addressing Dalton, who Adam used in his example.
     
  23. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    That would actually help. Since all I was excluding was the SB runs, you'll have to include all arguably must-win games (you need to come up with a definition for "must-win games" so we can all agree on which ones they are) in the analysis. That means that Eli's 3 playoff losses must be included, and two of those games he played terrible in. But yes, if you do that analysis right and it shows Eli actually is clutch other than the SB runs, my opinion can/will change.
     
  24. Chuck Wilson

    Chuck Wilson New Member

    89
    54
    0
    Oct 20, 2015
    I'd argue that Eli Manning showed more capacity to be clutch in one play in the Bowl than Tannehill has showed throughout his whole career.
     
  25. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    How many great QBs have posted a losing record over a 64 game sample?
     
    Finster likes this.
  26. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    2 things:

    1. with the importance they are putting on W/L with the QB it is simply not logically possible to consider that as anything other than a solely QB stat.
    2. if you agree with me and resnor (and others) when looking at Eli then you agree with us period. Our stance is and has been W/L record is not a QB stat. If it is a QB stat, then it must be one universally, it can't be for some QBs and not for others.
     
  27. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    This should be taken as not a QB stat, cbrad?
     
    Fin D likes this.
  28. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Are you referring to Tyree making one of the most ridiculous catches ever in the history of football?
     
    bakedmatt likes this.
  29. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Like it or not, QBs DO heavily influence the W/L columns. They handle the ball EVERY play on offense.

    If you guys wanna argue how much they do as a percentage, I'm not interested in that. We all know that we don't agree on how good this team can be.

    As for how many more Ws a QB would give the same team, that's what we're trying to determine.

    As for my personal opinion, given the same circumstances, the unproven QBs (like Tannehill) have different skill sets that would complement a particular offense more than others. This is what analysts refer to as "system guys." I believe Tannehill is one of those guys and not a very good one.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  30. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You bring up a good point with #1 even though I disagree with it. I think what people are saying (unless I'm putting words in their mouth) is that if you held all else constant (kept all the other players on the team, didn't change coaches, etc..) then the difference between having QB X vs. QB Y is a certain number of extra wins.

    That would be the more properly worded way of stating their position I think because clearly none of them believes a QB could go out there with a bunch of 5 year olds at all other positions and win. So.. when you hear that Luck was responsible for 9 wins etc.. I think what they really should say is they think that if you changed nothing else but the QB the same team would win 9 more games.

    Stating it that way implies nothing about the relative importance of the QB because nothing is stated/implied about how many extra wins you'd have with say a better coach (keeping all else constant). So this "keeping all else constant" is what I would suggest the "other side" put in their claims. It also allows the QB to have a relatively small (say 15%) effect on the final outcome and still be "responsible" for X number of extra wins.


    Regarding #2, technically you're right that W/L isn't a QB stat. But if you go that route, you have to admit that technically there are no QB stats because every "QB stat" is really a team stat. Not sure it makes much difference to say that anyway. Best to just stick to how reasonable the subjective weighting on the QB's seem to be by different posters.
     
  31. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Them: Why do you think win/loss should be considered a QB stat and not simply a measure of the team they're dealt?
    Me: 99% of elite QBs have winning record over 70 game samples...
    Them: well Rodgers lost yesterday, how does that fit into your theory?

    Them: what makes you think one poker player is better than another, and results are not simply a measure of the cards they are dealt?
    Me: 99% of the best poker players tend to win money over weeks/months/years of playing...
    Them: well Phil Ivey lost money last night, how does that fit into your theory?
     
    Limbo likes this.
  32. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Plus I think Roy made a good point, which is something Greg and I have mentioned.

    QBs have more of an impact on offense than any other particular player. We know our WRs are good enough, RBs too.

    Our OL can improve, for sure, but they've proven what they can do for at least a couple of games under a new HC with a new game plan when every player is clicking and complementing each other. And let's face it, there's better QBs with not so great OLs. One in particular is having possibly the greatest season ever.

    All that being said, some blame HAS to go to Tannehill. Not saying how much but he could've done better. He could've stepped it up in a lot of games, particularly big games to get us a wild card spot. There's not many examples of decent to good QBs who've lost several consecutive seasons and gone on to prove themselves.

    Aikman is one but he was a glorified game manager. Rich Gannon is another but he wasn't too great. Warren Moon was mentioned but that guy was obviously great before he entered the NFL. Look at his resumè.

    Point is we're grasping at straws here. The verdict isn't quite out yet but the scale is leaning towards Tannehill not being THE long term solution at QB. I'll hold out hope. I'm hoping he can lead this team to a resurgence the likes of which we haven't seen. Heck, I'm hoping he can have the fortune Dalton has had, at the very least. Still, I don't think even that's gonna happen.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    DolphinGreg likes this.
  33. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No.. because nothing is implied about how much of the final outcome was due to the QB. Key thing is there's no logical implication in that statement. He's just saying one should (also) care about the W/L record in an evaluation of anyone that can influence the W/L record.
     
    DolphinGreg likes this.
  34. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    The Bengals are going to have a whole bunch of primetime games coming up. Dalton is historically bad in those games. He's so far been a different QB this year (if it was this year only he's solidly tier 2), but we'll see how well he does in primetime soon.
     
  35. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    While you make valid points, I don't think anybody is questioning whether or not Tannehill is elite.

    I think we've gotten past that point. We're wondering if Tannehill is the long term solution. It's more difficult to determine. Eli and Flacco are two guys that, to some, are considered "elite." They don't really have great W/L records in the regular season.

    But something definitely distinguishes them from Tannehill. They have "it." They've played big when they've had to. That's one of the many things I'm talking about when I say Tannehill has no redeeming qualities to make up for his deficiencies.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  36. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    That would make more sense for #1, but you are putting words in their mouths and you are giving them the benefit of the doubt.
    #2 I DO believe there's no such thing as a true QB stat. I've argued for years that QB is too dependent on too many variables he cannot control. Having said that, most traditional QB stats are considerably more indicative of a QB's ability than W/L record.
     
    resnor likes this.
  37. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    One more time....for the billionth time....


    NO ONE IS SAYING QBs AREN'T A HEAVY INFLUENCE ON WINNING AND LOSING. NO ONE.

    Just like a car, the engine is the most important part of a car, but that doesn't mean every time you car isn't drivable its because of the engine.
     
  38. Vertical Limit

    Vertical Limit Senior Member

    12,162
    5,057
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Only if its Tannehill, then it's not a quarterback stat.

    Why did we give up on Henne, clearly all those losses werent his fault and im sure we could blame 99% of his career INT's, dropped passes and incompletions, on receivers instead of the quarterback.

    Hell lets bring back John Beck.
     
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    When someone makes a comment like "How many elite QBs have a losing record," how is that not judging who's elite by win/loss record? If win/loss isn't solely on the QB, then why judge them on it?
     
  40. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    See Cbrad ^. You are giving them too much credit.
     
    resnor likes this.

Share This Page