Don't get your blood pressure up, 90% of QB's in football need ideal circumstances. It is life in the NFL. So what our FO needs to do? Is to stop thinking our offense is fine with patchwork interior OL.
Relax. People say this as a negative about Tannehill, but it's stupid. We haven't really even seen Tannehill in an average situation, so saying he needs ideal environments is really jumping the shark. I agree, obviously, the line has needed help, but I don't agree that Tannehill needs the leagues best line, he just needs average play. Like basically every QB not named Wilson.
This is a perfect example of the BS we've endured. A person makes an outlandish statement. We push back with facts and the truth. And we still get painted as "extreme".
1.) Who say's this as a negative?? 2.) Who said that he needed the leagues best OL?? Please answer these questions, this way I can respond to the post with either evidence of this or the hyperbole removed. And if you don't think the Dolphins surroundings were even average?? Then you must think Matt Moore is one hell of a QB.
I'm not playing your game. Read the post I responded to, the claim is made that Tannehill needs ideal surroundings to play average. That's not a negative? This is the argument that has been used for his entire career, and it's false. Not to mention, completely made up stats are used to bolster the argument. I get the point, but I could say maybe Tannehill's ceiling is theoretically a 135, wouldn't make it true, and would have no bearing on anything. Moore has shown over and over why he's a career backup, doesn't matter what his surroundings are, he makes poor decisions and throws far too many pick sixes.
Actually, it is FAR from a negative to suggest he needs ideal surroundings. Thats why I said 90% of QB's do.
It is a negative, and it's not even provable. I'd also like to know where the 90% stat comes from. Wilson is successful without an ideal oline, but has had other things that mitigate a bad oline outside of his natural ability, but I'm not sure that any other QBs have success with poor surroundings.
You are just overly sensitive with #17. If it applies to 90% of NFL Qb's then it is not a negative at all. And the 90% like 99.9% of this board is an opinion.
resnor, I have to agree with Fin-O. Saying that isn't a negative. I do think RT is a really good QB, as you know, and has played better than expected with the poor situation/surroundings he's has to endure.
Thank you. Their are only so many Rodgers and Wilsons who can survive an adequate cast consistently. It doesn't mean we have 30 other bad Qb's in the league.
Whether or not Tannehill is a great quarterback or just an average one is an irrelevant discussion when the TEAM itself has gaping holes, whether or not these holes are the result of draft picks/trades that didn’t pan out or through injuries. This is why I love football above all sports. It is the one TRUE team sport. Without true team play, no player excels. The mention of Rodgers and Wilson in comparison to Tannehill is silly. These quarterbacks have different styles of play suited to their skill sets. Comparing these quarterbacks is as silly as comparing Marino to Vick and claiming that Vick was a better quarterback because of his scrambling ability. But this I will close with. A quarterback or running back is only as good as the line blocking for him
My issue is that they're saying he needs an ideal environment to be successful... Yet he's NEVER even had close to an ideal situation. So, it is a negative, because they're saying he's not been successful, or, best case scenario, he's been average. Now, I don't see an average QB, I see a guy who has been pretty damn successful in a really bad environment.
They were mentioned because it was agonizing for some posters to see that in another man's opinion, they are 2 of maybe 4 guy's in the NFL who can overcome bad surroundings. So, that is why they were mentioned.
Only in the Alt Tanny world is having a RB with the best individual season performance in a Dolphins uniform in over a decade "never been close to an ideal situation" I rest my case when it comes to identifying the extremists.
When did he have an ideal situation? Was it when he had an average oline? Was it when he had the mighty trio of Hartline, Bess, and Gibson? Was it when he had an OC who committed to the run game to relieve pressure on him? Was it when he was allowed to audible? Was it the consistent scheme he ran under three different coaches and OCs? Was it his first coach constantly throwing him under the bus? When did he have this supposed ideal situation?
That's garbage. Ajayi couldn't get on the field cause of attitude issues... Has 2 phenomenal games, and you claim it's "the best individual session performance" of a Dolphins running back? I recall many people pointing out how inconsistent Ajayi was last season. Ajayi didn't compare to Ricky Williams, hell, he didn't compare to Ronnie Brown. But yeah, I'm the extremist.
Lat year was a very solid situation for the entire offense. But I doubt you can admit that, because in your mind it somehow is undermining Ryan's good stretch of play. But it's not. it's just the truth.
Yeah, it finally gelled after three or four games in a completely new offensive scheme. The oline got better once the two turds were jettisoned. Still, I wouldn't call that "ideal," having to install a new system while your receivers and backs can't do their homework and learn the new playbook.
He had (3) 200 yd plus games. Im sorry, but you are off your rocker on this one. So afraid to give credit anywhere but QB. You and a few others are obsessed with that dude, and one of you is just obsessed with trying to be right all the time. It's extreme. Ryan is as we sit here a top 12 QB in my opinion. IF he can play the way he did down the stretch overall last year? We will be just fine at the position. I'm excited he get's a shot to come back with what will hopefully be a more stable cast than ever. I'm confident he will play well next year. But at some point ya'll gotta start being a tad more honest when evaluating the QB.
And in 2 of those 4 games? Ryan himself played bad QB. So make no mistake, sucking early last year was a team effort.
Was he bad? Or did teammates not knowing the playbook, and running bad routes negatively impact him? I know I know, always making excuses.
Given that the first game was his worst statically of the four, then two good, then another bad, I find it hard to place all the blame on Tannehill, especially given that we know other players were lining up wrong and running the wrong routes. Further, I'd expect the QB to look uncomfortable when others are not running the offense right.
Geez. For starters his game vs the Browns was far far from good. I thought he played decent in the Sea game personally. NE was a tale of two halves and Cinci? Well, that was a train wreck. And again.... NOBODY IS PLACING ALL THE BLAME ON TANNEHILL. It still amazes me the lack of basic interpretation around here. I spoke in plain English to my voice-to-text. Wait. I’ve finally figured it out. That’s it. Siri must be Anti Tannehill and is just writing want she wants in some code, that is making the things I say turn in to laughable hyperbole.
Dude, for someone so concerned with people supposedly misrepresenting your posts, you do it all the time. I'm saying, I don't think you can put all the blame for how Tannehill looked on him, given the circumstances laid out. Further, given he had two pretty good games in-between two not so good ones, it would seem that there were probably other factors at work, other than Tannehill forgetting how to play those two games.
Nobody is putting ALL the blame on him. Here is my first 4 game grades. C B C- F In the NE game he had an A+ second half but a C- first half. he did not play well vs Cleveland, even his staunchest of supporters have said as much. And I'd rather not even talk about the Bengals game.
Ok. How much of say, your F grade is Tannehill? I don't really remember the games, but looking at the stats, it's hard for me to say Tannehill played poorly against Cleveland. Over 8ypA, 3tds 2ints, 1 sack, and 300+ yards.
He was bad. His surroundings were as well. They both get an F. He played pretty bad vs Cleveland, I remember accuracy issues and a head scratching pick 6
Maybe later I'll watch a recap. But, his completion% was around 65, and the other numbers don't look bad, other than the picks.
Do you happen to have grades for all games in 2016? Or even better.. do you have grades for all of Tannehill's games from 2012 onwards? I'd really be interested in seeing how your ratings compare to different stats over longer periods. I'd also like to see if there's a bias within your ratings. For example, pff assigns unusually low ratings to the worst QB's given the ratings they assign to all others. I'm wondering if that "F" is indicative of that same bias. So if you just happen to have a ton of ratings for Tannehill games, I'd love to see what they are. Oh, and I need to know your rating scale. For example, if you use a letter scale with + and -, I'm assuming you use "D" and "F" but not "E" correct? Actually, the easiest for me would be if you could just rate on a number scale of your choice (e.g. 0 to 20 points or so). Up to you though.. but I need to know the scale you're using.
You can ask me any game in 2016 and I will give you my honest game grade. He hit a lot of heat for the Sea game, I thought he played okay.