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

Ryan Tannehill Top 10 qb?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by dirtylandry, Dec 20, 2017.

  1. shamegame13

    shamegame13 Madison & Surtain

    3,451
    903
    113
    Dec 15, 2014
    Someone’s cranky...
     
    aesop likes this.
  2. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, for starting QB's the categories "above 1 S.D." and "below 1 S.D" are asymmetric. I think a graph of standard deviations above/below mean for all passer ratings from 2012-2017 is the best way to see this:
    [​IMG]

    Two things worth pointing out here:

    1) The 1 S.D. below the mean cutoff is probably just about right because you can visually see something very different happening from about 1 S.D. below the mean (so -1 on the y-axis), while one could argue the cutoff above the mean should be a bit less at maybe 0.8 S.D. or so. Either way, in terms of QB rank it should probably be something like "top 7" vs. "below 27" or so. All those "middle" ratings tend to fit on the same line more or less.

    2) There is far more variability among the worst starting QB's than among the best ones, with the least variability among those in the middle. So the distribution of starting QB passer rating (which is NOT the same as the distribution of team passer rating) is asymmetrical. For team passer rating it's more or less symmetrical. Have to be careful to use the right one.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2017
    Irishman and DHitchens like this.
  3. rackhound

    rackhound Well-Known Member

    334
    332
    63
    Jan 4, 2008
    miamisburg ohio
    Funny thing is in your original post he was top ten in his last full season.....then in a shortened due to injury season finished well below.......in yards which makes complete sense given he played less games......that said passing yards isn’t what you want for this and you have said that. QBR sucks and can be proven that it sucks and top 10 in completion percentage from the last post is a pretty good indication........he deserves another season and from the way this season looked without him I have a better appreciation for what he brings to the team than I ever have.
     
    LI phinfan likes this.
  4. Dolphin North

    Dolphin North Well-Known Member

    366
    387
    63
    Apr 30, 2017
    Me too, Rack, but I think he is about average, maybe a wee bit above (just outside of the top 10 down to maybe 15). This year I do appreciate him more, but try to remember, we replaced him with an announcer. Okay a former QB who went hunting this year after a very average career, meaning Cutler this year is no longer average. I'd see it through another year without reservation if I knew this FO would draft a QB early to compete with Tannehill. Top 10 QB's can hold of that competition for a few years, and if Tannehill moves into that group he should do so. So I say let's see it. Of course this will not happen, which is why I am going to have to see it through, but I am not very comfortable with that decision.
     
    KeyFin and rackhound like this.
  5. rackhound

    rackhound Well-Known Member

    334
    332
    63
    Jan 4, 2008
    miamisburg ohio

    Above average with the ability to be well above average probably not ever elite but i can hope.....significantly better than cutler. Good enough to keep until a better option becomes available but not by trading up, and giving up crazy stuff to do so. I want Marino play, everyone does I’m sure. How many qb’s in history play to that level? tanehill play is good enough to win in my opinion, with good coaching and surrounding cast.......what are Trent dilfers career numbers compared to tannehills? I guess thats a long winded version of me agreeing with you.....lol
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2017
  6. DHitchens

    DHitchens Active Member

    193
    123
    43
    Aug 12, 2017
    More great work -- thank you. At any rate, I believe one needs to pan back and look at how the league functions in this way (as you and I have here), before determining what rank to which to ascribe this sentiment here about QBs, apparently termed as "top-10" to begin with.

    Now what would be interesting in my opinion would be to calculate the probability of winning associated with each of these groups of QBs. In other words, how much more likely is a team to win if it has a QB in the top group, versus one in the middle group.
     
  7. rackhound

    rackhound Well-Known Member

    334
    332
    63
    Jan 4, 2008
    miamisburg ohio
    I wonder how often having a top tier qb covers up deficiencies on a team.....say a team like green bay or the Marino dolphins.....the colts with Payton......say we had Marino with our current team.....you would think this team now would be super bowl bound year in and out if Marino was our qb....it seems to me that a team with a top 3 qb 75% of the time is lacking in other areas......why is that?
     
  8. DHitchens

    DHitchens Active Member

    193
    123
    43
    Aug 12, 2017
    The league functions in such a way that a top QB enables a team to have only an average defense and still be competitive in the playoffs, and vice-versa. A top pass defense enables a team to have only an average QB and still be competitive in the playoffs.

    No team is competitive with either a poor pass defense or a poor QB. And a team that has both a poor pass defense and a poor QB is easily one of the worst teams in the league (this was the 2017 Dolphins through a major portion of the season).

    In other words, passer rating differential (passer rating minus opponents' passer rating) rules the league at the present time.

    This team can win with Tannehill, but it's going to need one of the best pass defenses in the league to do so. And that winning probably won't be sustained because it's difficult to maintain a top pass defense over time, due to free agency, injuries, and individual player decline/retirement.

    It's far easier obviously to sustain winning over many seasons with a top QB and a pass defense that need be only average or better. That way you have to pay only one player who can last a long time because the league's present rules protect him from injury. That's far easier to maintain than a top pass defense, which may require upwards of six to eight different players.

    This is partly why the Patriots have enjoyed a dynasty. They have one of the league's top QBs, and their pass defense has ranged from average to very good throughout that period.

    You win with either your own QB, or by shutting down the opposing one. It's that simple.
     
    jdang307 and Pauly like this.
  9. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Here's the summary across all NFL history:
    [​IMG]

    Mean win% for top tier (PR > 0.8 S.D.) is 66.6%, for middle tier (-1 S.D. < PR < 0.8 S.D.) it's 48.87%, and for bottom tier (PR < -1 S.D.) it's 30.9%. The smaller variance you see for the middle tier is entirely due to its larger sample size.

    So that gives you an estimate of how important it can be to get a QB in the top tier instead of the middle tier.
     
    Steve-Mo, Pauly and DHitchens like this.
  10. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,500
    6,244
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    Ha ha ha ha!! You guys are some funny mother effers.

    As ridiculous as it may be to start another of the same, typical Tannehill threads and as much as a lot of us know it's ridiculous, still, they are always good for a 15-25 page thread. A painful thread.
    And then........ the same old crazy s--t. Wow! Can't believe it! I couldn't bare to read through it all, but did someone bring up Russell Wilson? Ha Ha Ha!!!

    Oh, I love you guys.
     
    ChrisKo, xphinfanx and Ohio Fanatic like this.
  11. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Something dawned on me...

    Somewhere they have a Jacksonville Jaguars message board, and on that board he has received a TON of criticism, he also likely has a small group of people who have been saying from day one that everyone under the sun is the problem besides Blake.

    Bortles has 5, yes 5! Games this year where that ole so crucial passer rating is over 120.

    I'll say that again, FIVE games with a rating over 120....forget RT, thats Aaron Rodgers type ****.

    So now whats the new narrative on him? Is he a top 10 QB?

    All he needed was a running game, and an OL...so he's set for life now right?
     
    jdang307 and Steve-Mo like this.
  12. Dolphin North

    Dolphin North Well-Known Member

    366
    387
    63
    Apr 30, 2017
    I used to think that way, but it has become such a passing league, ie: a QB league, with the rule changes from around 2005, that getting a very good QB makes a huge difference. I think it makes more of a difference than any other 3-5 players combined can make. So I believe now that you should take a shot every few years at a QB in the draft (fairly early). Obviously if one of the guys you have targeted cannot be had without making a huge trade, you wait for the next year. But if you are investing in the position every few years you are never desperate. IMO we reached for Tannehill even without trading up and that is fine, it's in the past. But had we been investing in QB's we never would have been so desperate for one (as long as you hit on a decent one once in a while). In other words, we may have already had a decent, but not great QB like Tannehill on the roster and could have passed on him in 2012 and spent #7 on another position. So you do sometimes save a pick too, by investing in the position regularly because you are never desperate and can wait for the year one of your guys falls to you. There was actually a lot of pressure on the Dolphins to spend a pick on a QB early if you believe the press (which I recognize is not always a great idea lol, but I think it was true in the GM's case). I think the Dolphins did paint themselves in a corner after years of neglecting the position in the draft. Anyway, I just think you have to keep bringing in and developing QB's until you get a great one. If you are lucky enough to get a great one, go ahead and neglect QB's in the draft for a decade or more, but not many teams get in that position. It's never certain evaluating and picking QB's in particular, but you certainly won't ever get there if you don't take a swing every few years. I hope that shows how my thinking has changed. Obviously I'm no GM though.
    So I guess I'm hoping like you are but I think it would be smart to continue to look until any QB dreams come true.
     
    rackhound likes this.
  13. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Question- are we sure that there's only three tiers? Could there be 4 tiers...or even 7? It seems like there would be a lot of folks on the fringe one way or the other that would probably fit better in their own category for accurate comparisons.

    Or maybe not- just a guess. That's why I asked how we came up with three tiers in the first place.
     
  14. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I believe that teams should NEVER stop looking for their next QB- that's how NE went from Bledsoe in 1993 to Brady in 2001 to Garappolo in 2020 or whenever (if they hadn't traded him). It's how Green Bay went from Favre to Rodgers to Flynn as well. You have to give young talent a few years to really learn the system, get with the program and buy into the philosophies of winning football. I am highly against starting a rookie QB unless it's out of pure necessity (injury or whatever). I think a lot of great prospects get washed out in bad systems because they started too early and never had a fair chance.

    Getting back to GB and NE though, they've been two of the most consistent clubs for well over a decade now. It's not a surprise that they also spend the most time developing QB's in a QB-driven league. It's a lot more of a proven path to success when compared to a team like Dallas who had Romo at a pretty high level for awhile and lucked out with Prescott. More often than not, it goes the route of Manning and Luck....you grab a "can't miss" player and cross your fingers, only to have him hit or miss for most of his career.
     
    Dolphin North likes this.
  15. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    It's a good question and I have to give a somewhat technical answer to this. The most common (and one of the most robust) statistical techniques for determining how many "clusters" there are in data is something called k-means, which finds the "best" boundaries between groups of data points (clusters) so that the collective distance between the data and the k different means (k could be 1,2,3,4,...) is minimized.

    The problem is that YOU have to specify k. That is, only after you specify how many clusters you are looking for does k-means find the statistically best k clusters. There is as of yet no fully principled method that figures out what that k is, so it's not a completely solved problem in statistics to determine how many clusters there are in data.

    So the technical answer to your question is we can't be sure there are k clusters, whatever k is (in this case 3).

    So why did we create 3 tiers? Only because the discussion started off with who is "top 10" and DHitchens has a point that IF you are going to talk about "top 10" (which is arbitrary btw and mostly due to us using a base-10 system lol) you might as well ask whether "top 7" or "top 4" etc.. makes more sense. So it was in response to that question where you can say instead of "top 10" you're better off looking at "top 7". And if you're going to look at "top 7", then you can ask where you'd put the threshold for the "bottom X". So there's nothing principled here about 3 tiers and I can look at more if you want.

    A better approach than asking who is "top 10" or who is in which "tier" is to just take the entire data and fit a mathematical function (in this case a line) through the data, then use the equation for the best-fitting line. There's no reason to invent tiers in the first place if you have that summary data, which I've posted before but I'll post again here:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Those 3 equations are really all you need to estimate how many wins Tannehill or any QB would have had given his passer rating, given passer rating allowed, or given passer rating differential. No need for tiers if you use that directly.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2017
    DHitchens, Irishman and KeyFin like this.
  16. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Salary cap
     
  17. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    That first chart is really interesting because if you bisect the chart top to bottom, most of the QB's fall in the sub-90 range. And if you bisect it the opposite way, you see the about the same amount of dots above and below 8 wins (maybe there's a few more in the "under category"...but it's close).

    For instance, there's around a 76 QBR quarterback in there with 12 wins. We should be looking at that team and figuring out the "why" in that scenario. Awesome run game? Bruising defense? Turnover differential? I'd also look at the other extreme- that 95 QB with 4 wins or the 112 QBR with 7 wins. Where did they go wrong with a great leader under center? How do these three guys defy what the other charts tell us?

    Even the 117 QB with 11 wins would give some answers since that guy should be one of the best ever....but they dropped 5 games anyway.

    I think the main takeaway is that a high 80's/low 90's QB appears to be "good enough" to get you in the playoffs....if we assume that 9-10 wins is usually the necessary goal. But even your 15 win QB is around a 97 QBR, so it's kind of tough to say Tannehill as a low 90's guy can't take us all the way.
     
  18. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah.. I should have said something: those are team passer ratings, not individual QB passer ratings. So unless your starter played all snaps the team passer rating will often be a bit below average starting QB passer rating because backups usually aren't as good. Anyway, from 2014-2016 the league averages for passer ratings are 87.1, 88.4, 87.6 so basically you should expect half to be below 87.7 and half above.

    Who is that 76 rating with 12 wins? That's the famous Peyton Manning in 2015 who had a 67.9 rating, but where Denver as a team had a 76.3 rating. And of course you know how great that defense was because that's what won them the SB.

    What about that 117 rating with 11 wins? That's Matt Ryan with a 117.1 rating in 2016. They also went to the SB.

    As far as what's necessary to get 9 wins or 10 wins etc.. I think it's best to get used to using those equations to answer that question. Take the equation from the first graph: W = 0.189*PR - 8.97.

    If you want to solve for say Wins = W = 10, then calculate 10 = 0.189*PR - 8.97, which is equal to 18.97 = 0.189*PR, or a 100.37 rating that you'd expect to need for 10 wins. For W = 9 the solution is 95.08. That third graph with passer rating differential is of course what you'd use if you want to take defense into account.
     
    DHitchens and KeyFin like this.
  19. Drizzy

    Drizzy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    2,775
    3,246
    113
    Nov 18, 2017
    replacing Cutler's name with Tannehill's actually works in this article....

    http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/armando-salguero/article190690689.html

    And the thing is Tannehill offers the most frustrating and dangerous form of failure.

    He fails while giving off the vibe that he’s close to succeeding. He fails but only enough to suggest that if he gets a little more time, and things change just a little bit here and there, there can be success.

    In that regard Tannehill is a coach killer.

    Because his talent suggests he can be a pretty good, exceedingly gifted NFL starting quarterback who just needs a little work to be elite.

    Except he’s not elite. Never been. Will never be. He is a middle of the road guy who will lose as many games as he wins. I’m being kind because his career record as a starter is 74-77 (37-40).

    He’s just a guy.
     
    shamegame13 likes this.
  20. Drizzy

    Drizzy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    2,775
    3,246
    113
    Nov 18, 2017
    which is why I cited his impressive individual achievements, which I guess weren't impressive enough to you, what level of production would have satisfied you?
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
    adamprez2003 likes this.
  21. Drizzy

    Drizzy Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    2,775
    3,246
    113
    Nov 18, 2017
    it's literally the definition of cherry picking.
     
  22. Patster1969

    Patster1969 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    679
    788
    93
    Nov 8, 2017
    The main argument is that we had one of the greatest QB's of all time and because the supporting cast wasn't good enough, he didn't earn a ring. If you look at most of the QB's that have won SuperBowls, there aren't many where you can say that he won it by himself (in fact, the majority have had a Top 10 defense & competent running game). Then you factor in SB winning QB's like Brad Johnson, Dilfer, Flacco, Eli, Peyton with Denver (and QB's like Butt Fumble, Kaap and others who have got to the Championship game/SB) and you have to realise that it takes a team to win.
    Do we need RT to be Top 5 if we improve the Oline & the defense - no. Do we need him to be at least Top 15 & decent if we improve both areas - yes. Does that mean we don't pick a QB with upside in the draft - no but we don't need to do this in the 1st 2 rounds or reach unless he is the BPA. As has been said, if there are QB's like Wilson/Brady to be had in later rounds, you don't not pick them if you think they can be at least a decent back-up. Maybe you'll get lucky and you can turn that back-up into draft picks or a starter in the future. If he's the BPA, go get him.
     
    cuchulainn and Hiruma78 like this.
  23. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,070
    22,827
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    not sure I can think of a single example where a QB carried his team to a superbowl win. maybe P Manning with the colts. but in that case, the opposing team was just horrible for a superbowl team
     
  24. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Definitely Manning. Maybe Elway too. I'm sure there are others but I'm not thinking of them.
     
  25. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No it's not.

    Cherry picking would taking just his best performances. Which is not the case here. The team literally cut 2 starting players and the VERY FIRST game without those players everything changes. Not seeing that proves a person has a narrative.

    Again I have literally years of posts predicting that turnaround based on 3 specific things being fixed. The first game all of those things are fixed until he's hurt, he plays at a top 10 level....and you want to act like it is all made up or something? Yeah, no.
     
  26. DHitchens

    DHitchens Active Member

    193
    123
    43
    Aug 12, 2017
    And as I said above, all of that is going to depend on a team’s pass defense.

    The lower the offensive passer rating, better the team’s pass defense is going to need to be.

    You win with your own QB, or by shutting down the opposing one.

    The team can win with Tannehill, but it’s going to need one of the best pass defenses in the league.
     
  27. MikeHoncho

    MikeHoncho -=| Censored |=-

    52,652
    25,565
    113
    Nov 13, 2009
    Well, he's Top 10 in my heart.

    Hope this settles that for you.
     
    KeyFin, Fin D and aesop like this.
  28. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Before i comment...did his inclusion knock me out of that Top 10?
     
  29. DHitchens

    DHitchens Active Member

    193
    123
    43
    Aug 12, 2017
    Part of the confusion about Tannehill in this regard lies in the fact that he had a similar, sudden change in play after game three of the 2014 season, that resulted in 13 games of play on his part at a level that wasn’t meaningfully different from the 2016 stretch noted above.
     
  30. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    danmarino and KeyFin like this.
  31. Hiruma78

    Hiruma78 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    I disagree that P. Manning won anything alone: in the first super bowl, if I recall correctly, the true difference maker was the defense (this is his stat line in the final game 25 38 247 1 1 e 82 rating in the super bowl, very very mediocre
    this vs the Ravens, 15 30 170 0 2, a beautiful 39.0 rating...
    the only decent game he had was vs the Patriots, otherwise he was exceptionally average if non exactly bad)
    the second one with denver isn't even worth a mention, because it was all about the defense

    Idem with Elway, he won because of Terrell Davis, not because he did the helicopeter in a game where he posted this (almost embarassing) stat line
    12/22 123 td 0 int 1

    the only qb that I would say that was almost a one man show is Rodgers: he won playing AMAZING (IMO almost without any comparison before or after) football with a good-but-nothing more team (but even then you could say that he won the one year when the defense was decent-good, with matthews, raj, woodson, ecc, playing at high level) against a veteran team with much talent like the Steelers
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  32. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    You know what that tells me? It's a darn shame we only had Pennington for slightly more than one season. That was a magical season...we should have called him three months ago.
     
    DHitchens likes this.
  33. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,975
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    Using wins to determine individual ability/greatness is just stupid and lazy. Barry Sanders' record was 81-94... He sucked, right? Or in reality was Barry Sanders the GOAT and the LIONS were 81-94 while he played?

    No individual player in the NFL has a won/loss record. None. TEAMS have won/loss records. The media plays up to this because it's easy and the masses are stupid and buy into it.

    RT may be average, he may be above average, he may very well be elite. However, I don't think anyone can really "guess" at this point. You can have an opinion, of course. For example, I DON'T think RT is elite. I don't think it's impossible and I would never claim that he "never will be". In his first 7 years in the league no one thought Brady would be "elite". Well, I guess some who think that Super Bowls and wins determine individual greatness may have, but no one that thinks more in depth than that thought this, not Charlie Weis, not Belicheat, no one saw "elite" in Tom Brady. They saw a smart game manager. (Then after the cheating that may have changed with some)

    The ONLY thing you can do is give him the eyeball test, look at the team's situation, and look at his numbers.

    Nearly all experts give RT a good grade on the eye ball test. This is just a fact. Now, a person can say that the eye ball test is just opinion, and they'd be right, but IMO that doesn't lessen the fact that people who are paid to do that give him a good grade.

    As for the team's situation...do I need to delve into that mess? How many coaches? How many OC's? How many different WR's. How has the oline been? Defense? I think it's safe to say that RT has been a part of one of the most dysfunctional teams in the NFL.

    Numbers. This is the hard part. It seems that if you give RT an average o-line, a decent coach that allows him to audible and actually play the position, and an OC/HC that game plans to his strengths RT plays at a very high level. Granted, all QB's would do better with those surroundings, but would they play at a top 10 QB level? Because RT has and did. Saying that, no one not named Manning or Rodgers has played with below average defenses, poor o-lines, or just poor overall teams and won.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
  34. DHitchens

    DHitchens Active Member

    193
    123
    43
    Aug 12, 2017
    Pennington was the league MVP runner-up that year.
     
  35. danmarino

    danmarino Tua is H1M! Club Member

    15,354
    20,975
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    God I miss Marino.... *sniff*
     
    Dol-Fan Dupree and Hiruma78 like this.
  36. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    First day and I'm already disagreeing with you lol buuuuuuuuuttttt......

    A massive part of Penny's success was the wildcat. In fact, the wildcat got implemented because Penny couldn't make any chunk yardage happen his arm was so dead.
     
    miami365, Hiruma78 and KeyFin like this.
  37. Hiruma78

    Hiruma78 Season Ticket Holder Club Member



    [​IMG]



    I miss him so much, Sir, so much!
    he was just mesmerizing, because he was absolutely out of the world good: in a league where qbs usually had to sit to understand the game and be at least semi-competitive and don't die (an interesting fact, if you think about, because now we talk about how much more complicated the game is today, how much more cerebral the game is, how much study is needed and all that... and still rookies qbs are dominating the game from day 1... in the past the game was much more simple, apparently, and still, a rookie qb couldn't see the field without being destroyed physically and psychologically) on the field he just arrived and destroyed everything and everyone
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
    Fin D and danmarino like this.
  38. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    10,488
    12,821
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I agree for the most part, old noodle arm was the perfect fit for the Wildcat and the team we had built at the time (Bess, Hartline, Fasano, etc....Camarillo maybe?). I just loved that season because everything was so unexpected- I still remember trashing New England out of nowhere with Ronnie Brown at QB and Pennington throwing 12-yard bombs. It was just a magical year and Pennington fit perfectly.

    You're right though, Pennington wouldn't know what to do with Grant, Parker and Stills....but don't ruin my fantasy here!
     
    mor911, danmarino and Fin D like this.
  39. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    Making it to the playoffs is not an individual achievement. Also, neither is throwing 40 touchdowns.​
     
    Fin D and danmarino like this.
  40. bigballa2102

    bigballa2102 Well-Known Member

    1,318
    638
    113
    Oct 22, 2013
    So CAL
    something posted today from ESPN's BIll Barnwell:

    "Tannehill is going to be a fascinating proposition this offseason. The former Texas A&M receiver has been missing for a full year since injuring his knee last December and re-injuring it during training camp. He also hasn't really grown much as a pro, having settled into a range as an average quarterback from 2014-16. He's good enough to win games with, but after 77 starts as a pro, has anyone ever gotten the sense that the 2012 first-round pick is about to make it to the Pro Bowl or win a championship?

    A more conservative organization would stick with Tannehill, but the Dolphins are as aggressive as any team in football when going after talent, and if they sense an opportunity in free agency or in the 2018 draft, it would hardly be a surprise to see them push all-in for a new franchise quarterback. It's also fair to say that Miami could use the cap room -- the Dolphins would save $15.2 million and currently have just $14.1 million in cap room for 2018."
     
    jdang307 likes this.

Share This Page