Is Ryan Tannehill the long term solution at QB?

I. Never. Said. You. Said. It.

 

Quote me! I'll wait. LOL how desperate. Always misrepresenting my views. Always you and Fin D. No surprise here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You got problems man. I didn't misrepresent you at all.

 

Here's my argument that hasn't been argued yet. Please don't spam the thread. Let others see this too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Since certain people can't seem to follow the conversations, here's the stat I was referencing:

 

That's not me... That's Roy Miami. LOL how desperate!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You don't read what people write, do you?

 

No, apparently YOU don't. You ignored all the QBs that did better with similar OLs or worse OLs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

YOU ARE CORRECT!! What don't you understand about a forum, and a discussion thread? We are responding to people OTHER than you in the discussion. You realize that, right?

 

You said that was MY argument. But you lied... Again...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Passer rating, yards per attempt and every stat that people use to measure QB play all involve other parts of the team, yet despite that they are all quite accurate when it comes to generating lists of best to worst QBs.

We had these same debates over passer rating just a few seasons ago then after Tannehill posts a good passer rating stat for a season those debates went away. Coincidence? I think not.

 

Minnesota, Cleveland, Buffalo, Kansas City, San Francisco, Seattle, Tennessee.

Those are the teams worse than us at pass blocking. Wilson has elite escapability, he's like Barry Sanders when he runs. I don't expect Tannehill to replicate that. They also roll him out quite a bit, and he has always had a stellar run game and elite defense to help him out.

Bridgewater has 6 tds through 7 games. He's not exactly lighting up the scoreboard.

Cleveland is 2-6.

Tyrod Taylor has a great defense.

Should I keep going??

 

It went away because you guys stopped bringing it up. How many elite QBs played with garbage receivers?

 

This ^ post is pointless.

There is such a fundamental misunderstanding of not only human behavior but also of basic common sense that this thread is reaching epic levels of stupid.

Let's try and bring common sense back to the board and this discussion.....

There is a difference between how a QB has played in the past and what the QB's ceiling and floor are. Yes, it is possible that a QB has played to their ceiling or floor in the past, but that's not guaranteed. Let's take Marino....

Marino has played games at his ceiling (which was off the charts) but he didn't play EVERY game at his ceiling. He played games at his floor and he played many games in between.

When we are saying Tannehill is better than average, its because we know his ceiling is way above average. We've seen it. Hell, we've seen it recently. For Tannehill to play closer to his ceiling he needs better protection up front. That doesn't mean all QBs need their protection to be good to reach their ceiling, (which is why your post was pointless.) Some QBs thrive with a certain type of receiver, some thrive with a certain offensive system, etc. Not everyone's kryptonite is actually kryptonite.

Now you guys, not only act like (I didn't you said this, I said you "act like" so no crying about misrepresenting) all good QBs are all good at the same things, but you also act like Tannehill doesn't have a high level of play ability. That's where a lot of the arguments actually start.

 

No he didn't. Seriously man, what is your malfunction?

 

You ignored everybody I mentioned LOL deflect and ignore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Excuse me? He didn't say I said it?

I'll show you then.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Wait, did you just point out a flawed argument stopped being brought up because it was proven wrong as if that helped your flawed argument?

 

Hm. What was that again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Tannehill may not be the long term solution, but unfortunately we won't have a choice as there is no better solution and we committed to him long term.

At this point of his career he is exactly what the stats say he is - A mediocre QB with a mediocre QB rating, mediocre YPA, mediocre pocket presence and escape-ability and most importantly a mediocre W/L record below .500. But hey, has incrementally improved every year and should be better than Aaron Rodgers soon. Let's keep waiting until 2020 for that to happen. Maybe in the short term he can elevate his game and perform like Derrick Carr has to start the season.

 

Here's my initial statement, asking for proof, AND I QUOTED the person I was talking to. Here's the quote:

You, however, don't read what I wrote, just go around looking to start stuff with me. Then you accuse me of ignoring and deflecting, or misrepresenting you, when so much that comes out of you is ignoring and deflecting and misrepresenting.

 

He didn't quote you in that post. He was talking to roy not you. YOU misinterpreted that that message was for you, when it wasn't.

Now, we get to see your true character and do you admit you were wrong and apologize for calling him a liar or do you double down on the attitude?

 

Ah, yes. I stand corrected. But not on the OL/QB argument. You guys ignored all the QBs I listed with similar or worse OLs that outperformed Tannehill. They didn't all have stacked teams at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And it's not like some other poster hasn't notified me of something you guys claimed I said in another thread.

You guys don't deserve the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Edited post #716 to add the quote from ROY_MIAMI that I was responding to, so that perhaps finsfandan will admit he misinterpreted, and will apologize for misrepresenting me.

 

Just jumping in here, but I voted "Not sure, need to see more" but I'm leaning towards "Yes". I think he's that guy and obviously the front office view him as that guy. You have to factor in some things about Ryan Tannehill:

1) He started 19 games as a college QB. His QB Coach in the NFL has been a guy who probably has no business coaching quarterbacks in the NFL. He's not had the luxury of working with someone like a Tom Clements or Hue Jackson; someone with experience.

2) As a rookie, his two best receivers consisted of Brian Hartline and Davone Bess with some Anthony Fasano mixed in.

3) His second year his offensive line was the worst it's ever been in terms of pass-protection in franchise history and he got leveled week after week and still kept getting up off the mat and plugging away.

4) In his 3rd season, he had Mike Wallace, Brian Hartline and Brandon Gibson...none of whom seemed to be particularly on the same page with Tannehill, Philbin or Lazor at any point in time all season long.

5) So far this year he's dealt with having to pass a ridiculous amount of times in the first month of the season/abandoning the run game/shoddy play-calling/poor O-line play and shuffling of players. Now, he's still dealing with less shoddy play-calling, but his offensive line is still playing bad and shuffling players around.

In summation, Ryan Tannehill hasn't been dealt a clean deck since he's entered the league. I'm not saying other young QBs haven't been dealt a clean deck either, but theirs has been more clean, relatively speaking, than Tannehill's has ever been in my opinion. I do think he makes some pretty poor decisions/reads on his own, but none of those are non- correctable. His pocket presence is his biggest weakness, but looking at what he's dealt with in regards to the O-line in front of him, why shouldn't we as fans expect this to be his weakness? He wasn't all that experienced at QB coming into the league and he's dealt with awful O-line play 2 of his 3 first full seasons in the league.

I think if Miami are able to iron out the O-line issues and get him a QB coach that can really work with him and tap into the mental side of Tannehill, we'll see him continue to progress. I don't think he's ever going to be a top 5 QB in the league, but a 6-12 guy is pretty dang good, and you can with with that.

 

But you are still arguing that win/loss determines the eliteness or franchise-ness of a QB.

 

Already apologized. You've misrepresented me before in another thread. Cbrad notified me. I have no reason to trust you, hence why I'm defensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I never said it determines anything. What I said was great QBs tend to not have a losing record 4-5 consecutive seasons.

What I said was the OL you guys claimed is soooo bad hasn't held other QBs as much. Then you pointed to everybody else in the team and the coaches.

I listed the QBs that've performed better under similar or worse OLs and you cherry picked the ones that didn't. That wasn't my point. My point is some QBs fare better with similar or worse OLs. You pointing out that others don't doesn't change that. You'd just be grouping Tannehill in with the guys that don't, which is my point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Did you see the stats I provided on OL rankings? Did you notice who was in similar or worse situations that performed better than Tannehill? I'll repost for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Reposting for those that haven't been able to see it. Stop spamming me. Stop quoting me. Do yourself a favor and stop arguing with me. Argue against the statistics and QBs mentioned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Just whistling in the wind Ronin. Spot on post! ... Reasonable, logical and respectful. I'm sure it will be totally ignored by most. Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

For me, I just don't think you can continue to go on the fact he was a college QB. That was literally almost 5 years ago now. And it wasn't like he never played the position. The guy was more of a natural QB than he was a WR. He just had the ability to play both. This was something you consider in years 1, years 2. This isn't something that you continue to debate in year 4.

To me, it just sounds like a ton of excuses. And that's what mediocrity is. The guy flashes so much and does so well at times, but then never takes you over the hell. And you just look at well he dealt with this and this, etc.

Good QBs just find a way. Andy Dalton who is dog crap to people in here, found a way to get his team to the playoffs (in his worst statistical year) without AJ Green, Tyler Eifert, and half of his OL last year. Yet, he's still terrible.

At some point the QB just has to get the job done in the face of adversity. That's what makes good QBs good and other QBs Jay Cutler. Hell Matt Stafford found ways to get the Lions to the playoffs - TWICE.

To answer the question though, I think he is the long term solution. The organization paid him as such. He has all the talent. He has to make the playoffs this year though. HAS to. No more excuses. No more nice statistical seasons. No more failures in December. Just find the endzone and convert on 3rd down. You can do it running, throwing 2 yard passes and allowing your WRs RAC. It doesn't matter to me. Just get TDs and get 1st downs.

 

Its the opposite. Andy Dalton has a winning record. I don't know if that is because he could be playing to an elite level or if he has an elite team. I don't care to think about it too much either BUT he is in the grouping with the elite QBs. That doesn't mean he's playing at an elite level right now but no matter how good you perceive his o-line to be there is no evidence that he is not elite.

Think about it like this: you have two sides of a ledger. On the left side you have elite QBs that will have winning records regardless of their surroundings and QBs good enough to win in the right circumstances. And on the right side of the ledger you have terrible QBs that won't win regardless of circumstance and and QBs good enough to win in the right circumstances. I could buy the argument that the Andy Dalton's and Ryan Tannehill's could be interchangeable, but Peyton Manning and the other elite QBs would almost never be found on the right side of the ledger.

 

LOL. You guys started using the passer rating stat as evidence that Tannehill was consistently improving and was above average last season...

If thats not the case then what is your evidence that he's consistently improving?

 

Should I keep going, finsfandan? Or, would you rather act like the QBs with worse oline play are actually playing better than Tannehill, and are winning more games, based purely on the QB?

 

Actually, we've been arguing for at least two seasons that passer rating is not purely a QB stat.

 

How do you know he's consistently improving then?

 

I mentioned that he played QB 19 games in college because he didn't come into the league with the experience or knowledge base, whatever you want to call it, of a Russell Wilson or Andrew Luck. He also hasn't had a veteran QB Coach to learn from either. The fact he's been as good as he has is pretty impressive when you consider all the circumstances he's dealt with thus far in his career.

Personally, as much as I like Dan Campbell and the attitude he's brought to the team, I think realistically Miami's going to have a tough road to hoe to get a wild-card spot - they just have too many AFC losses stacked up already and another one this weekend to Buffalo might be the torpedo that sinks the ship. I think bringing in someone like Hue Jackson would be a boon to Tannehill. I'm banging the drum for a Hue Jackson/Jim Schwartz combo, as I think Schwartz could take the pieces Miami has on defense and make it take flight while Jackson is a much better play-caller and makes better use of offensive personnel than Bill Lazor does (sorry to say Lazor fans). I'd be very interested to see who he'd bring in as a QB coach and/or if he'd retain Campbell in some capacity (I think he might).

As it relates to Tannehill, I just want to see what he'd do with a competent coaching staff. He's not had one yet in his NFL career. I want to see what he'd do with a line that's consistently healthy and plays well. He's only had that as a rookie, IMO. I think the trio of Stills, Landry and Parker moving forward is very strong and well suited to what Tannehill does well. Hopefully Miami can bring back Miller and Matthews, both FAs this offseason, and you have a pretty good nucleus on offense moving forward that with some better coaching can take off.

As far as Andy Dalton goes, the Bengals literally have the best O-line in the NFL and their personnel groups are very, very good. He wouldn't have the same success he's seen in Cincinnati if he were in Miami. I'd venture to say Tannehill, if he were the Bengals QB, would be just as or more successful as Dalton. Andy Dalton will be the reason Cincinnati doesn't get past the 2nd round of the playoffs this year.

 

That didn't disprove anything. You're grouping him in with those guys. There's QBs that have done better with similar or worse OLs. That's your biggest argument debunked.

What else is wrong with the offense?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk