Things Being Overlooked Immediately After The Seahawks Game

I'm sure they will argue this. They have to argue it, though, because they cannot admit that they actually do believe that the QB is solely responsible for wins.

Redwine, we do not agree. I do not believe there is heat on Tannehill from people that matter, like the owner, coach, and OC.

 

We scored 10 points.

I think it is much more reasonable to explain how we played on the road vs a very good defense and shouldn't expect our offense to put up many points in that setting as opposed to saying silly things like "Ryan beat Seattle"

That's where a valid point turns in to an unreasonable comment and it starts becoming difficult to have a healthy debate.

 

I think that is an important point, and one I've already made several times. I think it's also important to note, we left 13 points on the field. Now, we score those two field goals and the td, does the rest of the game play out the same? Probably not. I understand that. However, if we put up 20 points, or 23, on the best defense in the league the last three seasons, a defense that gives up on average 16 points a game...and we did it game 1, with a new scheme, in their building, I don't care if Seattle puts up 40, our offense would still have been successful. So, Tannehill made the play on the dropped td, and the offense gave us a chance to make the blocked field goal.

Tannehill certainly played well enough to win.

 

We scored 10 points, kind of says it all.

The things you say are true but are also some extreme nitpicking. Imagine if someone were to disect every play that we had a guy open for a first down or a TD. Someone could certainly claim that Ryan missing that guy cost us points and that would be as reasonable or Unreasonable as what you are saying. Essentially you are taking every negative thing that happened to him by his teammates and ignoring the opportunities he missed himself. What if Earl Thomas doesn't turn the wrong way on that play to Stills? We would never know if he would've dropped it or not. Certainly can't claim a busted play, an unforced error by the S with the ball in the air that resulted in a PATHETIC drop is the difference in him playing well enough to "win".

I dont think he played bad and I certainly dont think he played well enough to win. He had a very encouraging 4th qtr drive that's for sure, but we still have to look at this realistically.

 

As Fin-O kind of said already - you're missing the over-arching point that we only scored 10 points.

As you've clearly stated multiple times - this is a "TEAM" sport so as a whole the "TEAM" didn't execute on a level capable of beating a recent Super Bowl champion in their own house. Doesn't matter that THill threw a beautiful ball to Stills or the missed FG's. Quality teams execute and the Dolphins are anything but right now. It's oversimplified and convenient to go and rewrite history for a handful of plays that on the surface reshape the end result.

On a smaller level it was surprising and slightly encouraging that we played them so closely, but then again it's Week 1.

 

It's far more unreasonable to sit here and act like Tannehill and the offense were awful, when in reality there were two plays that were botched that took points off the board.

Again, Tannehill led the team to 20, 23 counting the 4th down, but we only got 10. That's not Tannehill's fault. It's certainly disingenuous to go around claiming that Tannehill didn't play well. Against Seattle, they *should have had* at least 20 points. There is no arguing that. I don't care what Seattle might have done differently if the Dolphins had actually gotten those points. It's meaningless to my point. Putting up 20 or 23 on Seattle is very good. Many teams don't even get to 10 points against Seattle.

 

I love that now it's a "team game" so Tannehill gets the blame. You guys flip so much on your position. Usually I get tips I'm making excuses when I point out its a team game.

 

I blamed Tannehill?

 

No, Tannehill did NOT lead the team to more than the actual number of points scored. And yes the offense was bad. That's true even if they "should have had" 20 points, which btw I agree with. "Should have" doesn't count unless you do the "should have" game for everyone. I mean we could talk about what Seattle "should have" done had RW not gotten hurt.

In any case, Tannehill wasn't the reason for the loss, but he sure didn't help win it. He was average, as in (so there's no confusion) he played like an average QB would. Time to move on to the next game and see if he plays better.

 

There was also a play where Ryan rolled out to his right and didn't see an open WR for a TD (the closest WR to him infact) so we settled for a FG attempt. That we missed. Is it fair to say he was responsible for -6 points because he didn't make that play?

 

No, I was referencing Rock's post with that quote.

 

That's incorrect. I know you guys know what I'm saying, and I further know you can't agree to it, without undoing years of your own posting, so I'll stop responding.

As to his "average play," no, i also don't agree. Again, I know you also can't agree without undoing years of your arguments, so, I guess, agree to disagree.

 

I see your point, and I understand it. I think those are different, though. I'm talking about something that happened, you're talking about a possibility. Stills actually did drop that pass, and Franks did actually miss that field goal. Talking about not seeing someone open, or a better option on a play, that is getting really nit picky, and I think that sort of stuff is far more common than what Stills did.

It's all good man, we're not gonna agree.

 

No. but we can find a happy middle.

I root for 17 as much as anyone every Sunday, I just judge harsher than most and you judge friendlier than most.

 

how far did Ryan move the offense before the Frank's miss?

 

In the stadium you claim is so amazing that no one can win in?

 

I haven't flipped anything so stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks.

 

It's more convenient for Res to completely dismiss plays like that because it doesn't serve his narrative of only handpicking the plays he felt would've won the game.

 

Not now...at least not publicly. They can't be seen as down on him after one game. At the end of the year we'll see. I think if this team goes 6-10 or similar, the heat will be on Tannehill. How long do you keep a QB, and how much do you invest in a QB that doesn't prove that he can win?

And its possible that you are TOTALLY CORRECT. It could be that winning isn't that a big a deal to Ross and others. That is entirely possible. And if thats the case, then everything may be all fine and dandy where RT is concerned.

 

I don't disagree. My point is NO ONE expects Ryan to win it for us at the end. Everyone expected Wilson to win it for Seattle. Thats what HE does. He leads his team to victory. Ryan plays well enough to win...in losses. So, whatever you or anyone else wants to argue, you are dealing with that fact that is going to be increasingly hard to overcome if we don't start winning regularly.

Tomorrow is a new day. Just beat NE and the case for Tannehill gets much easier to make. Lose, and its the s.o.s.

 

Being a starting QB in the NFL means you are going to be judged, rightly or wrongly, on how "your" team performs. Maybe you disagree that the QB is the leader of the team. I think that is a minority opinion. Or, maybe you are arguing that in most cases it does, but not in Tannehills case. If you take the team record out and the leadership aspect out, then I agree, Tannehill is better.

 

Andrew Luck put up a 120 QB rating and lost. His receivers actually caught the TDs he threw. And they still lost.
Peyton Manning had a SB season with a 67.9 QB rating.

W/L record is not a QB stat. You and ANYONE else that uses it to gauge a QB by is wrong. I don't care who they are.

 

Every QB that's widely considered above average-elite in the league today has a winning career record. I don't know what conclusions you draw from that fact but for me its not a coincidence.

 

I'll waste no more keystrokes arguing with you. These two posts show your intentions. None of the stuff I've bolded is true, it's you twisting my words to come to an erroneous point.

 

Right? To use one season of Peyton Manning...one of the three or four GOAT...its a fact not worth debating. Thanks for making the (well known) and excellent point.

 

"Two Posts" show my intentions? Are you choosing not to read the others? I think you are rightly backing down because the point I've made (IN ALL THE POSTS on this topic) that QBs have to win to be viable long term is indisputable. I am not twisting anyone's words, because any opinion to the contrary it demonstrably wrong.

Tannehill is going to have to start leading this team to victory, not merely playing well enough to win. Two HC have gotten fired since Tannehill has been here. Three OC have been replaced. At some point, the heat is going to be on RT.

Now of course, the best way to make this all go away is to win. And today is game day. Go out and beat NE. On that, we can all agree. Go Fins.

 

The next best thing for a QB then winning is dominating an individual performance and leaving no doubt that you are not responsible...when they drafted Dorsett in the first round completely ignoring their weaknesses, that was a red flag on their head man in charge..