In general, I am not a fan of the idea of competition at the QB spot. I feel that a team needs to pick a starter and stick with him, for whatever duration that is. While hes the starter, you support him, and let him know he's the guy. The backup should be someone who can step in and play within the system if the starter gets injured, and someone who is another pair of eyes and ears on the sidelines, almost like a coach. I am wholly against bringing in Griffin because I don't like him, I hate his style, and I think that it would cause headache's that don't need to be there. Either bring in a vet at a low salary, or draft someone in the middle rounds, and I'm good.
Gase was brought here to improve the offense not just the QB. I think that is an important distinction. RT17 has shown enough to believe he can be a very good QB in the right system with the right supporting cast around him. For sure there are aspects of his game that still need development but there are more problems with other aspects of the offense that if fixed will help mask RT17 faults. The other day someone from the Chicago media was on the Finsiders discussing all things that Gase did to improve Cutler this past season and most had nothing to do with changing Cutler himself. It was tweaking the playbook to include more plays that Cutler was comfortable with and good at, increasing the amount of running etc... fix the offensive, fix the QB (loose Heros pun intended).
Last I checked Tannehill already has competition each and every week. They line up on the other side of the field in different color uniforms. While competition is certainly an important element, most players play their best when they feel they have the full support of the coaching staff.
I think it has already been shown that Tannehill is emotionally soft and that is why no one was permitted to say anything negative about him (I remember Philpin getting after OC first year for saying he played bad. This year Philpin got after practice squad for saying mean things to him) . There is no way you can bring someone in to compete with him as he would not handle it well.
Can't handle the pressure being the sure fire guy, so how's he going to handle someone trying to take the job?
Really... going to re-sign a guy to a large contract and bring in someone 'just as good' for competition? Like who in the real world? It is plain the FO is trying to re-build around Tannehill, Suh and Pouncy and the receiving corps... I think. Those 3 are the big contracts right now. Maybe Miller gets a good sized one too.
This isn't true at all. Mike Sherman was the OC in RT's first year as well as his college coach. RT was Sherman's guy and the two reportedly had a good relationship. The practice squad player was jumping routes and intercepting balls when the offense was trying to go through a walk-thru. That's not what they are suppose to be doing and is a waste of everyone's time. RT let him have it to the point he crossed a line, not sure how that get's interpreted as being soft.
Have you all not gotten the message. Gase is all about having Tannehill's back and supporting him after all that Philbin crap came out. That was the message being spread consistently after the Gase hire. So you want Miami to be dysfunctional still and bring in a serious (well if you can call RGIII serious) competitor that completely backtracks on that message? Isn't going to happen.
..... or Gase is saying all the right things - for now. Who's to know really? IMO he was brought here to try and salvage the former #8 pick.
The contract was designed so we could walk away with a relatively small hit to the cap after 2016, so the Gase hire works out perfectly timing-wise. Either he can make Tannehill into a franchise QB this year or not. If not he can choose to draft a new QB with relatively little cap hit from Tannehill being let go.
Let's not play coy here. There were no other options in the market to replace him. His contract partially reflects that, which is why there's a two year fail-safe built into it to be able to walk away from the contract. Gase is here to salvage the doubts that continue to grow over whether Tanny can actually lead this franchise.
1. I think that we are talking about practice and training. Obviously he's competing to the max once a week against his opponent. 2. Where's the proof that shows players play better with no competition. Just from a physiology side, I would think this goes against human nature. As well as what I've experienced. Albeit, different sport, but still. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think that its a very individual thing. I for one, am highly self motivated, but also highly anxious. If I'm busting my butt at my job and doing a good job, then I'm definately going to continue to perform at a high level if you support me and show me that you want me to do well. If you bring someone in who's lurking there to take my job should I screw up at all, then I'm going to be unable to completely focus, and my work will suffer. I'm not a professional athelete, but people are people, and I would imagine that some NFL players think the same way that I do.
I would agree with that. However, with most regular jobs, there's no process behind. There is not a week of work to perform on Sundays. It's really more the process when talking about competing. Regardless of the competition, game time, clear cut starter needs to had. Which I think would be the case either way. So at the time of you doing your job, there isn't a worry. Who knows though. There already may be that competitiveness with Matt Moore. Like you said, people can compete differently.
Relative to what? Isn't our cap situation crappy already? There isn't any competition available, not going to be in draft, and they are 'sticking' with Tannehill for at least this year and next IMO.
Relative to dead money: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/miami-dolphins/ryan-tannehill/ If we cut Tannehill after 2016 it does free up cap space, especially if you sign a rookie QB. Cut him this year and we take a massive hit.
"after OC first year for" Lazor, his first year as OC, not Sherman the first OC. The utility guy was told not to upset Ryan. sounds soft to me.
There is also motivation of if I don't do my job I will be replaced. If there is no quality QB to replace you, well you don't have to worry about doing your job.
What exactly does "whatever duration that is" mean??? What other positions do you feel warrant this entitlement of job security?
You can support someone while giving them competition. You also shouldn't be basing these decisions on whether someone 'screws up'. There should be legitimate competition and the better player should be the starter.
Y'all can definately say 'We told ya so' if they get rid of Tannehill this year or next. I don't think they are trying or wanting to operate that way.
NFL players need to be of stronger mind than that if they want to succeed. There are no guarantees in any sport or any job. There's always someone lurking around the corner waiting to take it from you. Job security is earned not provided ahead of time.
I don't know about proof but there are plenty of coaching articles written about how some players respond to criticism while others respond better to compliments. Jimmy Johnson even talked about it in his book and I have seen it with my own eyes albeit with coaching kids. For some players bringing in a player like RGIII would help motivate them for others it would fail miserably.
If your talking about Lazor, he is known to have an abrasive personality that bothered more than just Tannehill. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ll-lazor-has-rocky-relationship-with-players/
Really? I'd say Micheal Irvin was pretty successful and according to JJ's book he was the type of player that needed to be coddled.
Rg3 should go to the browns with Jackson, commit to not making him a pocket passer. I too am still in that salvageable mode with Logan Thomas and it's because of two things, one, I saw a flash last preseason that gave me a woody, and two, he's been out of the news for a year keeping a low profile.. Plus the kid is still 24
true if there aren't any reservations about the current QB, but usually it's just good business to draft a QB if he comes up on your board and you have a high grade, like Aaron Rogers.
True, also, one of The biggest things Gase worked with cutler on is what to do when protection breaks down
I don't believe that...I don't think Ryan would shy away from that..and I don't think he's emotionally soft..
I think whether you compliment or criticize is a separate issue from whether there's competition or not (or whether competition helps). A teacher may have multiple students competing for something and still use the same or different strategies for helping different students compete (compliment vs. criticize).
For the right price I'd take RG3 in a heartbeat... he can be good with the potential to be great. Tannehill not so much, maybe if he can stay upright he can shine but I feel like he has limitations in his game particularly his deep ball that trouble me. Over the years I've seen him miss a ton deep and I've seen some ugly throws. I hate to compare because its not fair but watching Rodgers launch the ball 20+ yards down the middle of the field with what seems minimal effort and nail the reciever right in the chest, not too slow (wounded duck as I like to call it) and not too low. He just drops them in there, I know with time and practice players get better but I just dont see this with Tannehill. Big Ben does it too.
Where do you come up with this BS? "Emotionally soft"... Philbin got after the PS for saying mean things to him"... neither are true. He's been heavily criticized since day 1 - and is well aware of it. As for the PS walk-thru BS, you had a couple guys on the bubble showboating in a walk-thru and both Tannehill and Philbin scolded them for not treating the walk-thru as they should have and instead of being disruptive. So what? If you don't like him, fine; you don't have to, but the team has enough issues without anyone making stuff up. Personally, I think he'd do fine with competition and wouldn't be surprised in the least if he beat them out as it's highly unlikely we'd find anyone as good or better via FA or draft. YMMV.
That's really only true for established franchises and established coaches. A rookie head coach would create such a headache for himself throughout the year by drafting a QB in any round really. The media would have a field day about how Gase doesn't like Tannehill or that Tannehill isn't the future, etc. This is a situation where it's best to use common sense instead of being idealistic.
I wouldn't take RGIII even if he paid the team to take him. He is a team/coach problem waiting to happen. What made him excellent was his running. Now... his running is far from a real threat. If there is a talented QB available in the later rounds you might take that pick... but that will be the only new competition for RT in the near future. Maybe L.Thomas is that competition that you seek... and he is already with the team.
none of that is made up. It is all in print. You can choose not to believe it if you want to. Lazor was scolded for saying something negative about Tannehill in the press. End of story. Why would a QB really care in a walk through if the was getting intercepted? Think about it? It is a WALK through, but yet he got upset about it.
I do believe that Russell Wilson WON the job after being drafted and the Seahawks paid big bucks to a free agent QB. You play the QB that wins the job, not the one that doesn't need his feelings hurt.
I got pissed off at other players in practice all the time... doesn't mean a whole lot. Practice squad or not. Did it look good? NO, but it still happens.
