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

Tell me which is the more logical route to take?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by vt_dolfan, Nov 4, 2015.

Which is the most logical direction Phins should go with QB

Poll closed Feb 2, 2016.
  1. Build a good line and good running game around Tannehill?

    83.6%
  2. Look for a QB who can win despite a bad offensive line and no running game.

    16.4%
  1. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    VT Dolfan,

    I hope you didn’t intend option #2 in your poll to be a summary of what many people like me have argued. I’m not necessarily a believer in Ryan Tannehill but even I voted for option #1 because option #2 didn’t seem sensible. Miami would have to select hundreds of QBs and suffer through years of painful development before they found the next Dan Marino or Peyton Manning—a QB that could carry the team. Why would I or anyone else advocate that kind of strategy knowing the odds are so astronomically low?

    If we go back to the poll asking about Tannehill being a long term answer, we observed it indicated (with a rather large sampling of 50+ voters) that only about 1/3[SUP]rd[/SUP] firmly stood behind Tannehill. At least 2/3[SUP]rds[/SUP] were either confident they didn’t like him or were unsure based on the 3.5 seasons they’d seen.

    Suffice it to say, there's some real doubt out there.

    Now, it’s obvious that all teams are perpetually trying to improve their blocking and so assuming that Miami will be as well, the real question is whether or not they should attempt to find a better QB around which to build?

    That’s the question and as much as 2/3rds of the voters in that last poll indicated they had serious doubts. The fact that nearly all voters in your poll are coming down on one side shows how you’ve done a bad job summarizing what as much as 2/3rds of the voters in this forum believe to be true.


    And remember that the same premise on which you’re basing your argument can be used to argue against you just as effectively. Why don’t we blame the QB for making the WRs look bad? Why shouldn’t we blame the QB for making the O-line look bad? Why can’t we blame the QB for allowing defenses to key in on the run, shut it down and continually pressure the pocket without fear? On what basis can we attack the OC when there are “deep balls built into every play?” On what basis can we attack the OC’s play-calling when the QB hasn’t even earned the right to readily call audibles?

    These are not my arguments, they are merely your arguments in reverse and the fact that many hold water should give you pause.

    VT, you should be wary of your own argument because if indeed it’s of any merit, then it is itself a double-edged sword.





    There are a lot of people that would disagree. Tannehill has almost never put up big numbers, even in his better performances. He only has a few 300-yd games and only a handful where he's thrown for 3-4 TDs. We really never get those kind of performances out of Tannehill which is weird because he's very consistent in the game-to-game stats. He just doesn't leave you with those signature games. I think you pointed out how Eli threw 6 TDs and lost. Still, throwing for 6 TDs is epic. If there were even a couple instances in which Tannehill really went HAM, I think he'd get less criticism. It's kind of the same argument that says you have to chuck it deep once in awhile so that the defense respects it and has to defend it. You don't have to win. Just putting up big numbers once in awhile will get a lot of critics off your back.

    Fair or not I think that's what a lot of this rests on. In Tannehill's best games, he's often just being uber-efficient against lesser competition. He's rarely, if ever, shown he can beat an elite defense from the pocket. Very few young QBs can, but again, I think that is what's lacking in many people's views.

    Just my hunch.

    Just for kicks, here's a quick comparison over their short careers:

    Tannehill:
    10 300-yd games
    7 3-TD games
    2 4-TD games

    Luck:
    21 300-yd games
    13 3-TD games
    6 4-TD games


    Whether or not it's correct, I think it's obvious why Luck gets the praise and Tannehill doesn't. In a league where elite QBs are so valuable, Luck's numbers make him appear to be someone who's on the verge of someday kicking the league's *** and winning a couple titles. By comparison, Tannehill's number (at least to the eye) look less outstanding.

    Also keep in mind that Tannehill's longest streak of 300-yd games is 2 while Luck hit 300-yds in 10 of 12 straight games last year. So while it's easy to see both guys had great seasons last year, Luck in many ways just utterly crushed Tannehill.


    There's no doubt Tannehill will be playing through 2016 in my opinion. Even his biggest critics don't have a problem with him starting the rest of this year as well as next.

    The real question will be, after 80 games and 5 seasons, will a team that didn't post a winning season in that time feel good enough about their QB to stick with him?

    If we're beginning to hear grumblings now, I think that in another 18 months, there may definitely be some real interest in scouting a second option.
     
    Phins Up Wins Up likes this.
  2. number21

    number21 Active Member

    540
    231
    43
    Sep 1, 2015
    North Miami
    This is Dalton first standout year. So, yeah no.
     
  3. jdallen1222

    jdallen1222 Well-Known Member

    2,752
    1,373
    113
    May 31, 2013
    Plantation, Fl

    Questions are:
    1. Build a good line and good running game around Tannehill?
    2. Look for a QB who can win despite a bad offensive line and no running game

    Of course you are going to build up what you have, teams should always be striving for roster improvement. Even with a QB like Tannehill, assuming he needs to have a good line & running game to be successfull, you should always be looking for an upgrade. If Tannehill miraculously develops into a QB that can succeed despite a bad o line & no running game, you would still be looking for another because even if you cannot utilize him, a functional QB has enormous trade value. I can't think how either scenario would exclude the other.
     
  4. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    THe first option is something that's happening at all times on all teams.

    The second option is a pipe dream, IMO.

    It's definitely an ill-posed question.

    I think it's supposed to point out how Tannehill cannot be evaluated without an improved line but clearly that's nothing more than one man's opinion this far into Tannehill's career.
     
  5. rdhstlr23

    rdhstlr23 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    14,074
    11,142
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Chicago, IL
    I don't want to throw him away either. He's the best we've had at this position, outside Pennington, since Fiedler in 2000. That's a long time.

    I'm all for building around him.
     
  6. vt_dolfan

    vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    Ok ...

    The intent of the poll was to show just how illogical it is to try and decide if Tannehill is "the answer" . Statistically he has shown to be a very good QB when he does get good protection and we can run the ball. People have been making statements like Tannehill is the reason our line is so bad. The kind if QBs that can produce behind a line like ours...those are crazy hard to find. And they arent found with the exclusion of very few...as draft picks in later rounds. So, your faced with a decision. What is your priority? If hes not the answer, as many have suggested...then you make that call and draft a QB early. You make finding a franchise QB your priority. Otherwise, you decide he is the answer, and you make putting a line infront of him the priority. You always develop QBs that should be a given, IMO. But not at the expense of getting the offense right around 17.
     
    resnor likes this.
  7. vt_dolfan

    vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    Clearly playing behind the third worst Offensive Line in the league has only clouded my mind when making an opinion on Tannehill...

    I have a headache
     
    resnor likes this.
  8. vt_dolfan

    vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    If you draft a QB in mid to late rounds..you arent looking for a franchise QB.

    Your HOPING for a franchise QB.
     
    resnor likes this.
  9. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Brady and Rodgers are pretty special (all-time great special) and they struggle with a bad OL. Dalton has always lost against the better teams despite arguably the most talented supporting cast in the conference. And even Wilson with a poor OL, weaker run game and a non league best defense for two weeks started off 0-2. Brady and Rodgers may be able to overcome a lesser supporting cast, but the idea that all of these other QBs would come in and perform significantly better has already been proven wrong.
     
  10. 77FinFan

    77FinFan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    8,215
    1,896
    113
    Mar 10, 2013
    Buckeye Land
    Where? Who? I'm suspicious that avg vet is more like avg unicorn.
     
    adamprez2003 likes this.
  11. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    You're making an absurd argument which says that because he gets sacked more than other QBs it's impossible to critique him and find his faults and form opinions about his long-term value given those faults.

    Firstly, we can critique him and when we do much of what we see shows that he may have observable faults and major limitations as an NFL QB. Secondly, the sacks and pressure are partly his own doing if you want to get technical but even so, what he leaves on the field leads many to question what his upside really is. Physically, he has the tools of Aaron Rodgers, but mentally he dips as low as Alex Smith and Brian Hoyer too often for most folks' enjoyment.


    I don't see why this argument has to stay in the third grade the way it does. None of Tannehill's critics are being unfair when they question how he plays the position when given sufficient help. I can appreciate the 'do not look at wins' argument to an extent but after 5 seasons, even that argument begins to lose credibility.


    And as I reminded you above, all of your arguments about how Tannehill can't be judged before he has a good line work the same way in reverse. We may never see the Dolphins line look good until the linemen have a QB that is more aware, can see the field, feel the pressure, and who consistently lives up to his physical abilities throwing the ball and escaping the pocket.


    What's weird to me is that you act like you have people pinned down with your argument. You clearly don't. This might be frustrating. It might give you a headache. Too bad. :(
     
    Phins Up Wins Up and Sceeto like this.
  12. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,652
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    eventually I will break down all the qb prospects, if Im in charge and one of those guys that I covet drop to my spot in the draft, I take him..no matter the round.shake things up real good around this mother.
     
  13. JJ_79

    JJ_79 Well-Known Member

    4,587
    1,707
    113
    Nov 25, 2012
    Germany
    Another Tannehill-Thread?! I mean he is better then Fiedler, wich should/could be good enough if you got the other peaces. If something falls in our lap great. As long as we don't fix our real problems, I don't think we should go all in on a new QB.
     
  14. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Greg, I like how you twisted the stats there. Lol. You could just have easily have said that 2/3rds of the posters support Tannehill or want to give him more time, and spun it in a positive way, thereby making the doubters seen like the minority.

    But you didn't.
     
  15. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    Yeah, good call. Fair point I guess. Still, the split into thirds is telling of how divided we all area. There's a black camp, a white camp and a gray camp. Not really outnumber the others.


    I guess I didn't think of it in the way you pointed out because the argument seems to be that anyone not supporting Tannehill is weird. I think in this case the "floating voters" are more or less the same as the detractors.

    I will say though that I think the detractors are being too harsh. I actually voted "No, he's not" but to be fair I should have been a floating voter myself. Heck, we should all be. I guess I'm a light no. I have doubts but I'm a fan and I'm optimistic! :)

    I'm a little distrustful of anyone that answered "yes" emphatically because I think there are a lot of real issues that Tannehill himself has left out there.

    I can understand the "no" voters and I can definitely understand the floaters but the "yes" voters are on their own planet if you ask me. They are bordering on homerism. ;)
     
    resnor likes this.
  16. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yeah, I mean, I voted "Yes," because I think that if you give him just an average line, he'll put up really good numbers. I know there are always issues on teams, and there's always injuries. But, when 3/5ths of your line is playing like garbage, it's hard to do anything. I've said it so many times, but it's easier to know that say, your right side is suspect, and play to minimize that risk, or be able to react, than it is to have a line allowing pressure from all different sides, at varying times. You can't really prepare for it, and it's hard to react in games. Your pocket presence looks really bad, cause you just don't know where to go.
     
  17. vt_dolfan

    vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    Its the people that say he isnt the answer. Which is completely fine...Ive said that. But dont say hes not the answer...and not do what you can to find the answer at QB. That means you cut ties with Tannehill after next season, and you draft a QB in the first round this season. And you accept that you are investing in developing all over again.

    What bothers me is the people who say he isnt the answer at QB, yet offer no alternative.

    Theres this group that just hammers on Tannehill when he has a bad game...can never be found when he does.
     
  18. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    If there were internet fan sites back then, I wonder if they would have been as divided over Marino.
     
  19. Vertical Limit

    Vertical Limit Senior Member

    12,162
    5,057
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    I dont think we have had a good offensive line since Parcells first year where he brought some real tough mean SOB's to protect Pennington.

    Im not sure we will ever have a good offensive line. Every single time we add a piece, a new hole is made.

    Albert is back healthy, well now James is gone 6 weeks. Cant ever get this thing to work a full season.


    And albert is as injury prone as they come dating back to his Chief days when he would suffer back injuries.. So no one should be surprised if something happens to him too..
     
    resnor likes this.
  20. Vertical Limit

    Vertical Limit Senior Member

    12,162
    5,057
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    They wouldnt because Marino showed and earned his reputation from the get go. He was elite from the start and stood out from the rest. In this era Marino would be two times better than what he was. We would be putting up points like Baylor.
     
    Phins Up Wins Up likes this.
  21. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    The running game is the strength of the team so you wouldn't be asking the new QB to win despite no running game. As far as the o-line goes I bet it would look good with a good QB, average with an average QB and bad with a bad QB.
     
  22. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That's seems to have no basis in reality. The oline is jekyll and Hyde. We have a season and a half of evidence of how bad the oline is when missing at least one starter.

    And how can you call it a strength when the OC abandons the run when down by 9? When your feature back gets 9 carries in a game?
     
  23. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    30,224
    36,965
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    This doesn't make any sense. Ryan Tannehill wins 75% of the time and has a 95 passer rating when he throws the ball less than 35 times a game, aka, has an effective running game.

    You don't change quarterbacks, you build around the one you have. The one who is very good when he has help. Which I've been saying over and over and over again.
     
  24. Kud_II

    Kud_II Realist Division

    3,662
    1,404
    113
    Oct 15, 2011
    Seneca, SC
    A) Elite QBs are not easily found. It's a crapshoot. Linemen on the other hand are more easily scoutable.
     
  25. Phins Up Wins Up

    Phins Up Wins Up Banned

    1,471
    269
    0
    Nov 27, 2014
    What question? The straw man question the OP came up with? You can't improve more than one position in the offseason? Why do we have to choose between one or the other? OL in the 1st round and a QB the 2nd round or vice versa. With another OL in free agency. You improve the offensive line and get an upgrade over our near sighted QB who can't throw past 10 yards and still refuses to do so even on 3rd and long. Lamar Miller I feel is a more than capable RB. When there is balance and blocking in the offense he has shown he can get the job done. I will give Tannehill this season and next season and that's it. Because I used to be on the Tannehill bandwagon. But this is year 4 now and he is 27 years old.
     
  26. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,652
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    do you think its possible to make an accurate evaluation by isolating a player?
     
  27. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    30,224
    36,965
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    Of course you can, but it depends on the player.

    Take a DE for example. You can evaluate him based on how often he wins his match-ups. His one on one. How often is he beating his man? Getting to the QB? Setting the edge? Collapsing the pocket?

    Same thing for a receiver. Is he getting separation? Running crisp routes? Blocking downfield? Catching the ball?

    It's different for quarterbacks though. It's not a one on one situation. The offense has to be gelling as a unit more often than not. They need the receivers to get open. They need them to catch the ball. They need the offensive line to protect them and give them time to make the reads.

    That doesn't mean you can't evaluate a quarterback in isolation, but I think it can be really hard to do.

    Just my opinion.
     
  28. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,652
    67,546
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I disagree Rock, I think when it comes down to it, all players are evaluated like that, its the best way..
     
  29. Chuck Wilson

    Chuck Wilson New Member

    89
    54
    0
    Oct 20, 2015
    Obviously build the line, running game around Tannehill. Finding an elite QB who can carry the team is hard to do. Tannehill looks good with a solid running game helping him out.

    With that being said I'd still bring in competition to push Tannehill next year. I'm not saying spend a high draft pick but maybe a late one and a veteran back up just in case Tannehill doesn't pan out.

    I think one of our biggest mistakes was not bringing in anybody to push Tannehill. Competition can sometimes light a fire and ever since his second year in the league Tannehill has entered camp knowing he's the guy. Philbin is gone and I'm sure the New regime is going to want to add someone to push Ryan. At least I hope so.
     
  30. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    30,224
    36,965
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    I don't really disagree with you dj. I just think it's more difficult evaluating quarterbacks isolated than other positions.
     
  31. DePhinistr8

    DePhinistr8 Season Ticket Holder

    3,123
    2,247
    113
    Mar 24, 2008
    I agree with you Rocky,
    If QB evaluation were as easy as other positions, the 2 best of all time (IMO - Montana & Brady) wouldn't have been 3rd and 6th round picks. And we wouldn't see the Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, JaMarcus Russel, etc. etc. QBs picked in the top 10 continuously. QB evaluation is not easy, which is why you see guys who are average to above average get long term deals. Teams know how hard it is to find something better. The devil you know vs. the devil you don't...
     
    number21 and Rocky Raccoon like this.
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/04/success_for_quarterbacks_picke.html

    This article looks at QBs taken in the first round, going back to 1999. You have, at best, a 50/50 shot of getting your guy when you draft a QB in the first round. There are a lot more interesting facts in the article, I encourage you to read it. However, what stands out to me, is that if you have a guy who has shown that he can do certain things, then you don't throw him away. You build around him. You build a team that complements him.
     
  33. 77FinFan

    77FinFan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    8,215
    1,896
    113
    Mar 10, 2013
    Buckeye Land
    That's not just qb's.
     
  34. mlb1399

    mlb1399 Well-Known Member

    3,893
    3,087
    113
    Mar 6, 2010
    I think whether you believe Tannehill is the answer or not, we need to bring in and develop more talent around him or whoever our future QB is. Based on his contract, I don't think they are going to move in a different direction for a couple of years.

    Even if we had Rodgers or Brady, we don't have enough talent on this team and way too many holes to be a Super Bowl contender. Bottom line, we need to start drafting better.
     
  35. pumpdogs

    pumpdogs Well-Known Member

    5,185
    2,907
    113
    Sep 22, 2009
    delaware
    Seahawks.
     
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    True. But we are sort of talking about QBs. LOL
     
  37. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    While true, we aren't going to replicate Wilson's ability to run like Barry Sanders, nor do we have their elite defense. So, the Seahawks may have a bad offensive line, but they have built a team that can offset the bad oline, and built a defense that can carry the team when the offense is struggling.
     
    number21 and DolphinGreg like this.
  38. DePhinistr8

    DePhinistr8 Season Ticket Holder

    3,123
    2,247
    113
    Mar 24, 2008
    True.

    But pick the wrong QB, and you're stuck in years of rebuilding again.

    Pick a good QB, and you can have a much easier time (supposedly) of building around him. Tannehill has already proven to be more than adequate. Keep him upright, and good things happen.

    If you pick a wrong WR, RB, whatever, no biggie, those players are easy to move on from.
     
    resnor likes this.
  39. DolphinGreg

    DolphinGreg Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,227
    6,527
    113
    Dec 7, 2014
    Obviously the team should (and will) build around Tannehill in the next year and a half, maybe more. That's not up for debate.

    The debate is about long term value. How long do you give it with Tannehill? How much do you invest around him before you have to address him?

    In my opinion, a QB who can't see the field can't play and will never get through the playoffs no matter the team. I want to see Tannehill sustain his efficiency while increasing his ability to push the ball downfield, particularly against better defenses.

    That will require Lazer call better plays. It will require additions to the Oline. It will also involve Tannehill doing more for his team however.
     
    resnor likes this.
  40. Chuck Wilson

    Chuck Wilson New Member

    89
    54
    0
    Oct 20, 2015
    I want lazor LONG GONE at the start of next season. Seems like he just doesn't get it.
     

Share This Page