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

Questions still remain at QB

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Fin-O, Nov 26, 2015.

  1. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    That's like saying "I'd sign Tebow if he could throw." Yeah, well it's not gonna happen.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  2. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Right. Favre went from an urban city to Green Bay. Manziel is already in the middle of nowhere and he'd be going to one of the premier destinations in the world with a terrible organization that can't even contain locker room drama.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  3. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    So here's the breakdown of rushing stats in all wins with Tannehill so far.

    2015:

    Redskins: only 74 to 161 but we won the turnover battle.

    Titans: 180 to 63.

    Texans: 248 to 71.

    Eagles: 99 to 83.

    2014:

    Patriots: 191 to 89.

    Raiders: 157 to 53.

    Bears: 137 to 52.

    Jaguars: 148 to 176.

    Chargers: 132 to 50.

    Bills: 125 to 54.

    Jets: 74 to 277.

    Vikings: 110 to 119.

    2013:

    Browns: 20 to 47.

    Colts: 101 to 133.

    Falcons: 90 to 146.

    Bengals: 157 to 163.

    Chargers: 104 to 154.

    Jets: 125 to 99.

    Steelers: 181 to 84.

    Patriots: 89 to 96.

    2012:

    Raiders: 263 to 23.

    Bengals: 68 to 80.

    Rams: 36 to 162.

    Jets: 97 to 105.

    Seahawks: 189 to 96.

    Jaguars: 180 to 86.

    Bills: 182 to 154.

    That's it. The stats speak for themselves. The overwhelming majority of the time, we need very, very good rushing totals to win with Tannehill. This is RIDICULOUS.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    (Revised)
     
  4. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    30,224
    36,965
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    What about 2013 and 2014?
     
  5. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    I'll try to get that info sometime tomorrow but I'd appreciate it if somebody else would chip in.

    Just off the top of my head I know Miller had a career year in 2014 and so did Tannehill.

    I also remember cbrad posted a stat that our rushing average correlated very highly with wins.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    30,224
    36,965
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    I'm going to look into 2013 now, but I know Tannehill has won games without big rushing performances.
     
  7. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Oh, of course. I'm exaggerating, it was hyperbole. I'm saying on average he needs a good running game. He's like most mediocre QBs.

    And I appreciate it. I'm curious to know.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  8. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    30,224
    36,965
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    In the 8 wins in 2013.
    Four of them came with good rushing games.
    (ATL, CIN, PIT, SD)

    Four came with bad rushing games.
    (CLE, IND, NYJ, NE)

    And three of those four good rushing performances, Tannehill had game winnings drives in two of them (ATL, PIT) and a game tying drive in another before winning on an overtime safety. (CIN)

    2014 was way more balanced in wins. In most cases, both Tannehill and the run game were effective when winning. The Vikings game was the one where Tannehill really put the team on his shoulders (defense included) to win the game.

    So, I think Tannehill is certainly capable of winning games without a good rushing game. Of course, being able to run the ball helps everyone involved, so it should be something we start doing consistently. Regardless of who the QB is.
     
  9. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Okay, so 4 of 8 in 2013, idk how many in 2014 and 3 of 4 in 2015 so far. I'm guessing it's a majority.

    In 2013, how much did we rush for compared to our opponents? If we had bad rushing games but still had more than the opponent, that matters. Plus bad is subjective.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  10. CitizenSnips

    CitizenSnips hmm.

    5,525
    4,219
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    PA
    Go ahead, compare the rushing totals in the games we lost...
     
    Rocky Raccoon likes this.
  11. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    So here's the breakdown of rushing stats in all wins with Tannehill so far.

    2015:

    Redskins: only 74 to 161 but we won the turnover battle.

    Titans: 180 to 63.

    Texans: 248 to 71.

    Eagles: 99 to 83.

    2014:

    Patriots: 191 to 89.

    Raiders: 157 to 53.

    Bears: 137 to 52.

    Jaguars: 148 to 176.

    Chargers: 132 to 50.

    Bills: 125 to 54.

    Jets: 74 to 277.

    Vikings: 110 to 119.

    2013:

    Browns: 20 to 47.

    Colts: 101 to 133.

    Falcons: 90 to 146.

    Bengals: 157 to 163.

    Chargers: 104 to 154.

    Jets: 125 to 99.

    Steelers: 181 to 84.

    Patriots: 89 to 96.

    2012:

    Raiders: 263 to 23.

    Bengals: 68 to 80.

    Rams: 36 to 162.

    Jets: 97 to 105.

    Seahawks: 189 to 96.

    Jaguars: 180 to 86.

    Bills: 182 to 154.

    That's it. The stats speak for themselves. The overwhelming majority of the time, we need very, very good rushing totals to win with Tannehill. This is RIDICULOUS.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  12. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    I've put out a lot more stats than you have. Post them yourself. I'm showing the correlation between wins and rushing totals.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  13. CitizenSnips

    CitizenSnips hmm.

    5,525
    4,219
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    PA
    Nvm, I don't want to wait. Rushing totals in our losses.

    jags 123yds, Mia 42.
    buffalo 266yds, Mia 106
    NYJ 207, MIA 59
    NE 95, MIA 15
    BILLS 151, MIA 106
    NYJ 137, MIA 12
    DAL 166, MIA 70

    TOTAL: 1,145yds against vs 410.

    This is my biggest problem with the tannehill hate. It's misdirected, it's largely unfounded. How do you put these kind of horse **** defensive performances on him? How do you find a way to blame him for losing a game when our offense ran for 12 yds? How do you look at these and think "well our defense clearly does its job, and the now fired OC Lazor was clearly killing it with the balanced gameplan, so wtf Tannehill?!?"

    This teams a hot damn mess, the only thing anyone can prove to me about tannehill is that he is currently on one really bad football team.
     
    resnor and Rocky Raccoon like this.
  14. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    I've already said our defense has been garbage this season and has only gotten worse over time with Coyle.

    Largely unfounded? How about doing something to make defenses focus on you instead of the run? His YPA for his career is 28th, 27th and 22nd for 2014/13/12. This year it's 18th, bottom half of the league despite those miraculous early Campbell games with huge amounts of YAC. That's not scaring any defense. They dare him to throw all game and stack the box against us all the time.

    You're clearly putting words in my mouth and being very dishonest.

    Explain to me why the vast majority of our wins are correlated with rushing totals. Here's a hint: nobody fears Tannehill.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  15. CitizenSnips

    CitizenSnips hmm.

    5,525
    4,219
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    PA
    You're argument is tannehill can only win when the playcalling isn't completely unbalanced and the defense doesn't get ran the **** over on the other side of the ball.

    Yes, you're probably right about that.
     
    Rocky Raccoon likes this.
  16. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    30,224
    36,965
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    Ridiculous? Football teams usually win football games when they have a good running game. That isn't exactly rocket science.
     
    CitizenSnips and Steve-Mo like this.
  17. CitizenSnips

    CitizenSnips hmm.

    5,525
    4,219
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    PA
    It actually is your argument. Tannehill only wins when the rushing totals are higher than our opponent. But your trying to prove this without including our defensive performance and playcalling, things tannehill cannot control.

    We've seen lazor run the ball for less than 20 yds twice this season. Our defense also gave up 200+ yds in two other games.

    So, is your point supposed to be that Tannehill can't win despite this teams immense deficiencies on defense, coaching, and I haven't even mentioned OL?

    Cause yea, your probably right about that. This team sucks.
     
  18. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Back to my original point. I want others to see it too.

    So here's the breakdown of rushing stats in all wins with Tannehill so far.

    2015:

    Redskins: only 74 to 161 but we won the turnover battle.

    Titans: 180 to 63.

    Texans: 248 to 71.

    Eagles: 99 to 83.

    2014:

    Patriots: 191 to 89.

    Raiders: 157 to 53.

    Bears: 137 to 52.

    Jaguars: 148 to 176.

    Chargers: 132 to 50.

    Bills: 125 to 54.

    Jets: 74 to 277.

    Vikings: 110 to 119.

    2013:

    Browns: 20 to 47.

    Colts: 101 to 133.

    Falcons: 90 to 146.

    Bengals: 157 to 163.

    Chargers: 104 to 154.

    Jets: 125 to 99.

    Steelers: 181 to 84.

    Patriots: 89 to 96.

    2012:

    Raiders: 263 to 23.

    Bengals: 68 to 80.

    Rams: 36 to 162.

    Jets: 97 to 105.

    Seahawks: 189 to 96.

    Jaguars: 180 to 86.

    Bills: 182 to 154.

    That's it. The stats speak for themselves. The overwhelming majority of the time, we need very, very good rushing totals to win with Tannehill. This is RIDICULOUS.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  19. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    30,224
    36,965
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    But yeah, to get this back on track.

    I don't see how it's ridiculous. Good rushing teams win far more often than not. The whole point is to have a balanced team, and we've seen that when we run well, Tannehill plays well, and that's a recipe for success.
     
  20. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Of course running well helps and is a recipe for success.

    All I'm saying is Tannehill doesn't do enough to help open up the running game and rarely carries the team. This is what I mean when I say I expect him to do more considering the circumstances.

    Not everybody is blessed with Wilson's team coming into the NFL. But he obviously opens up the running game a ton. I'm sure if we look at the previous QB, the rushing totals wouldn't even be close.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  21. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    30,224
    36,965
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    I understand your point, but we don't need Tannehill to be an elite QB. I do think he needs to step up, but it's more important to build a complete team. One that is balanced. One that plays good defense. One that is well coached. We really don't have any of those things at the moment.

    I think people put way too much of the blame on Tannehill, and I just don't think that's fair. Again, does he need to play better? Yes, but when you look at everything else, he isn't exactly working with a stacked deck.
     
  22. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    I completely agree that we need to build a solid all around team. Which is why I'm never gonna stop saying I wanted to keep Moore and rebuild, THEN draft a QB.

    We were doomed to go through this. We placed too much of a burden on him because of where he was drafted and how much he was paid, all because of his potential. Now we see he's mediocre to possibly ever so slightly above average, so now we're going to rebuild.

    If we wait out his contract, it'll be 9 years since he was drafted. Likely wasted time. We could've rebuilt and figured out much more quickly if the QB we drafted was worthwhile.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    dolphin25 likes this.
  23. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    30,224
    36,965
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    It's ironic we're playing Baltimore this week, because they're the kind of team I want us to be.

    Obviously, they're having a down year, but look at them in recent years when they've been successful. Joe Flacco is a solid QB. He isn't elite. He isn't special. But they run the ball well. They are coached well. They play good defense. They're not putting everything on Flacco, and it's worked for them. He makes the plays that are there for him to make.

    Same thing with teams like Seattle and Minnesota. Carolina too. Same formula. That's what I want.
     
    Piston Honda likes this.
  24. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    All of those teams save Minn have a playmaker at QB that can and have made big time plays. Ryan isnt that kind of player.

    Yes, we all want a good running game and defense. But objectively none of those teams would be just as good if Ryan was the QB. Besides Minn again, thats the only situation Ryan imo could thrive in.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Nappy Roots and dolphin25 like this.
  25. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    53,148
    31,935
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    Overwhelming majority? I don't consider 125 yds to be a very, very good rushing game (for a season average it is, but not a single game imo). Looks about 50/50 to me anyways as to whether we won with a very good rushing total or not, not an overwhelming majority.

    So 27 wins, and we got more than 125 yds in 13 of them (so 48%). Even including the 125 yds game that brings the number to 15 wins (55.5%). How in the world is 56% an overwhelming majority of the time? That to me, is ridiculous.

    Edit: Tom Brady in his first four years of starting saw his team rushing for ~125 yds or more in nearly half his wins as well. Andy Dalton currently has seen his team rush for ~125 yds in around half his career wins.
     
    cuchulainn and resnor like this.
  26. Boik14

    Boik14 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    75,121
    37,641
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    New York
    You guys need to chill on the drama queen nonsense...no reason 30+ posts worth of off topic bs need to be deleted. Work out your issues with each other over pm like adults. Or use the ignore option.
     
  27. Shane Falco

    Shane Falco Banned

    916
    468
    0
    Nov 22, 2015
    Well, at least we aren't the Browns.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  28. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    30,224
    36,965
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    Hey there was a happy ending there!
     
  29. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    Funny how you subjectively decide 125 is the standard. If you look game by game, we either had to have the higher rushing total (quite a few games by A LOT) or had to be very close to the other team. There's not many anomalies.

    Get out of here with the Brady comparison. We all know he was a game manager at the beginning with a great team around him. The odds of Tannehill ever coming close is so slim it's not worth calculating.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  30. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,553
    1,793
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    Hahahah he's so salty right now isn't he?
     
  31. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    [​IMG]


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Rock Sexton likes this.
  32. Rock Sexton

    Rock Sexton Anti-Homer

    2,553
    1,793
    113
    Mar 14, 2015
    Both are a joke right now.
     
  33. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    30,224
    36,965
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    Yeah but at least we have nice uniforms.
     
    Rock Sexton and dolphin25 like this.
  34. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    53,148
    31,935
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    Wait, now I can't compare "game manager" Brady to "game manager" Tannehill? I never said Tannehill would become Brady. I did imply that it isn't unusual for young QBs to need a running game to be successful though. I also used Brady as an illustration that people can get better at carrying teams.

    Yes, I did subjectively decide 125 yds was the standard, you care to give a different number? I'll gladly do the same evaluation with a different, lower number. I picked 125 because that over a full season is approximately 2,000 yds, so to me that's a good game.

    Also, your initial argument said Tannehill needed a very, very good rushing game, not that we had to rush for more yards than the other team. If one team has 46 yards and another has 38, it doesn't mean the first team had a good rushing game just because they end up with the win.

    As you said in the initial post I quoted "the stats speak for themselves". They absolutely do. But that doesn't mean they say what you want them to. They often say numerous things, sometimes they even say contrary things when used one way vs another.
     
    cuchulainn and resnor like this.
  35. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    You can. It's just not likely he's going to improve much, especially not to those levels. The 2003 Pats led the league in defensive touchdowns IIRC, btw. So they could afford to play a control game. Tannehill HAS to step up.

    Know what I'm subjectively deciding on? How many games we had more rushing yards, how many we crushed in that category, and when we didn't win that battle how close we were.

    Wanna know why? If he can't put his team on his back more often, what's he worth? He's just mediocre if we can't do those things every time. What's there, two anomalies? And I'm not counting the Browns one because 20 to 50 isn't significant.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  36. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    53,148
    31,935
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    So now you're changing your argument from needing a very, very good rushing total to needing more yards than the opponent, or at least keeping it close? Because again, that isn't what you said in the initial post I quoted.

    And you also admit that the best in the game couldn't do it early on, and had to rely on defense, but somehow our young QB who is not going to improve much should be held to the standard that not even the best to play the game was?

    I can indeed see you're being very subjective in your evaluation. Have a good day.
     
    cuchulainn likes this.
  37. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Define "put him on his back." That is such a meaningless statement. Should he stop the offseason from getting penalties, getting them in long down situations right of the bat? Should he make the special teams play better?

    This isn't to say that he doesn't have things to improve on, but I don't believe that QBs singlehandedly win games. This isn't like the NBA where LeBron can put the team on his back, and singlehandedly change games by playing lights out defense, and breaking down defenses with his ball handling and attacking the rim.
     
  38. finsfandan

    finsfandan Well-Known Member

    2,547
    600
    113
    Dec 14, 2014
    If you want to argue semantics, go ahead. If we have 100 (less than your subjective choice of 125) and we hold the team to 60 or whatever, I consider that very, very good. It's significantly better.

    I never said Brady COULDN'T do it early on. You're assuming that. I'm saying he didn't HAVE TO early on. Tannehill, unfortunately, doesn't have that luxury so we have to see what he's made of. He's mediocre.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  39. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    53,148
    31,935
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    I'm sorry you feel having a very good rushing total vs having a significant rushing yardage differential is semantics. But it's not my fault they're two completely different arguments. Perhaps you should have presented your case more clearly than just allowing the stats to speak for themselves?
     
  40. dolphin25

    dolphin25 Well-Known Member

    6,338
    2,400
    113
    Nov 22, 2014
    I would have been OK with Moore starting the season. I have little to no confidence in Tannehill. Even in preseason when Moore plays with the 2nd unit it looks faster and more in sync.
     

Share This Page