Good post game write up by Wingfield.

"danmarino wrote:

If Gase is average I don't wan to get rid of him. A HC, especially a rookie HC, needs at least 5 seasons in order to see if he's going to be a keeper. This churning over of HC's by the 'Phins is one huge reason why they've been in the bottom half of the league since Shula retired. I'd rather keep a coach for 5 seasons and find out that he's not the one than keep turning over HC's every 1-3 years.

I expect to see big strides from both Gase and Tannehill in year 3 (in the system, sort of, for Tannehill), but I also think they will both be much better in year 5 together. In my experience you tend to see a big change in the comfort level at years 3 and 5. I do agree that the coaching turnover has hurt us as a team and Tannehill's development specifically, but we've also had some horrid coaches who didn't merit getting to 5 years.

IMO Tannehill has elite level accuracy, toughness and work ethic, along with above average arm strength and athleticism, but his bugaboo has been trusting what he sees and letting it rip. I think he sees it so I don't believe it's a processing speed or intelligence thing. I think its a trust thing. Part of that is the constant system turnover and part is that he's a cautious guy. I firmly believe that this is something that will fix itself with time in one good system. I think that if he gets that time (I think injury will be the only thing that prevents it), he'll be a better Alex Smith. I'm talking about the Alex Smith that was a league MVP candidate for most of last season. Smith was always a bit cautious as well. He kind of had to be b/c he has less arm strength so he had to be more precise in his anticipation. It's also more of a limitation in the playoffs against better defenses. So I see Tannehill's ceiling as Alex Smith without the limitations.

If the Tannehill detractors keep talking every season about how he needs to prove it this season or he's done, eventually they will be right. At this point, it will probably be 12-15 years into his career, when he retires a Dolphin. I mean, he's been our starter for 6 years, with three different coaching staffs. If he was as bad as you guys think, he'd have been gone years ago.

It's beyond ridiculous to continue to talk about him as below average, and to criticize everything he does. At this point, it's pure hypocrisy, as no matter what Tannehill does, he gets criticized.

"resnor wrote:

If the Tannehill detractors keep talking every season about how he needs to prove it this season or he's done, eventually they will be right. At this point, it will probably be 12-15 years into his career, when he retires a Dolphin. I mean, he's been our starter for 6 years, with three different coaching staffs. If he was as bad as you guys think, he'd have been gone years ago.

A lot of teams are stuck with average QB’s for lengthy periods. All those 6 years prove is that Tannehill is good enough to be a starting QB in the NFL, which for many posters (including me) isn’t good enough.

What we want is a QB that increases win % relative to what an average QB would do, and Tannehill hasn’t shown that yet. This year really is the year to “prove it”, not to the coaching staff but to the fans who want a SB win sooner rather than later. So for us the benchmark isn’t whether the team keeps him as starting QB but whether there’s clear evidence he’ll make us into a winner.

"resnor wrote:

If the Tannehill detractors keep talking every season about how he needs to prove it this season or he's done, eventually they will be right. At this point, it will probably be 12-15 years into his career, when he retires a Dolphin. I mean, he's been our starter for 6 years, with three different coaching staffs. If he was as bad as you guys think, he'd have been gone years ago.

It's beyond ridiculous to continue to talk about him as below average, and to criticize everything he does. At this point, it's pure hypocrisy, as no matter what Tannehill does, he gets criticized.

What happened to Fin D, by the way? He had a running list of the Tannehill detractor excuses that keep getting checked off year after year. lol

Need to add "He's not a vocal leader" to the list...

"Brasfin wrote:

What happened to Fin D, by the way? He had a running list of the Tannehill detractor excuses that keep getting checked off year after year. lol

Need to add "He's not a vocal leader" to the list...

I think you have to say his name 2 more times.

"Brasfin wrote:

What happened to Fin D, by the way? He had a running list of the Tannehill detractor excuses that keep getting checked off year after year. lol

Need to add "He's not a vocal leader" to the list...

He’s cool..

"cbrad wrote:

A lot of teams are stuck with average QB’s for lengthy periods. All those 6 years prove is that Tannehill is good enough to be a starting QB in the NFL, which for many posters (including me) isn’t good enough.

What we want is a QB that increases win % relative to what an average QB would do, and Tannehill hasn’t shown that yet. This year really is the year to “prove it”, not to the coaching staff but to the fans who want a SB win sooner rather than later. So for us the benchmark isn’t whether the team keeps him as starting QB but whether there’s clear evidence he’ll make us into a winner.

Sure. Yet what is consistently ignored is that Tannehill has already shown that his play is already there, but you need other guys to actually, you know, make plays. I don't care how good your QB is, he still needs other players to make plays.

You guys over complicate this Tannehill stuff so much.

He’s been solid at times and underwhelming at times.

When he’s been solid he was a huge part of it, when he’s been underwhelming he’s been part of it.

Yes he has to prove a lot of things still. Quite simple.

"resnor wrote:

Sure. Yet what is consistently ignored is that Tannehill has already shown that his play is already there, but you need other guys to actually, you know, make plays. I don't care how good your QB is, he still needs other players to make plays.

Tannehill is considered at best average by most insiders (i.e. GM's, HC's, OC's, DC's, personnel evaluators and other position coaches). You know they've had this QB tier ranking where they asked such insiders for 5 years now and Tannehill is consistently in that "Tier 3" category and usually in the lower part of it. In other words, most experts in football put him in the category of "legitimate starter, but needs a heavy running game and defense to win".

So professionals that try to evaluate the player in isolation generally think that Tannehill has NOT shown he's adding to win%.

Then you look at parts of our surrounding cast the 3 years Tannehill played OK, from 2014-2016. Note the running game. You want to look at Y/A here not Y/G because Y/G is affected by having a lead. Well.. in 2014 we were 2nd best in the league in rushing Y/A, in 2015 we were 10th best and in 2016 we were 7th best. So he's had the running game.

WR? How many people here said that with Parker, Landry and Stills we had one of the better WR groups? A lot. That's a decent group regardless of how you slice it. It's only the OL that's been a problem.

Yeah.. so how many good QB's are blessed with above average ability at ALL positions in the supporting cast? Very few.

Either way, from a purely statistical point of view, whether you remove defense, running game etc.. or not, you come to the same conclusion as those experts: average to at best slightly above.

No, Tannehill hasn't "proven" his play is above average. That's a hypothesis that COULD be true but is very unlikely given the data we have so far, and the only way for him to prove otherwise is to actually perform top 10 this year.

And according to Jalen Ramsey, Big Ben is "decent at best."

"resnor wrote:

And according to Jalen Ramsey, Big Ben is "decent at best."

That's why they poll a lot of people (50 in the 2018) in those QB tier rankings, not just one. Jalen's a trash talker, but if you go through what he said about QB's, a lot of stuff he said has some merit. I obviously don't agree with his opinion that Roethlisberger is "decent at best".. I mean I operate from a data-driven perspective and that's just total bullshit.

"cbrad wrote:

That's why they poll a lot of people (50 in the 2018) in those QB tier rankings, not just one. Jalen's a trash talker, but if you go through what he said about QB's, a lot of stuff he said has some merit. I obviously don't agree with his opinion that Roethlisberger is "decent at best".. I mean I operate from a data-driven perspective and that's just total bull****.

Yes, I get that. But how many of these people being polled have actually studied Tannehill and the dolphins? What are they basing their ranking on? I'd be shocked if it's based on anything other than their feelings based on wins/losses or pure stats. People who actually analyze Tannehill's play cone away with a different analysis of his play.

And that's been consistent throughout his whole career.

Also the argument using Parker/Stills/Landry is really flawed. On paper, great lineup. In reality, though, Parker has been underwhelming, Stills hasn't been nearly as effective with an oline that couldn't allow time for routes to develop downfield, and Landry was a target machine for a multitude of reasons outside of the QB.

"resnor wrote:

Yes, I get that. But how many of these people being polled have actually studied Tannehill and the dolphins? What are they basing their ranking on? I'd be shocked if it's based on anything other than their feelings based on wins/losses or pure stats. People who actually analyze Tannehill's play cone away with a different analysis of his play.

And that's been consistent throughout his whole career.

That's definitely possible. But we've also heard a lot of "Tannehill will be top 10 next year" predictions on this forum by people who have followed him (most likely) a lot more closely than those experts.

Point is.. this is a great year because it's about as good a test of which views are correct that we'll have, unless of course Tannehill gets injured again (2017 was supposed to be that year).

"resnor wrote:

Also the argument using Parker/Stills/Landry is really flawed. On paper, great lineup. In reality, though, Parker has been underwhelming, Stills hasn't been nearly as effective with an oline that couldn't allow time for routes to develop downfield, and Landry was a target machine for a multitude of reasons outside of the QB.

Well.. it's not clear how much of a difference a better QB would have made, so I can't dismiss the WR argument.

"resnor wrote:

Yes, I get that. But how many of these people being polled have actually studied Tannehill and the dolphins? What are they basing their ranking on? I'd be shocked if it's based on anything other than their feelings based on wins/losses or pure stats. People who actually analyze Tannehill's play cone away with a different analysis of his play.

And that's been consistent throughout his whole career.

Not enough.

I have him around 15-16 with the arrow pointing up. But to suggest he has PROVEN much beyond a stretch that Cbrad already outlines for everyone is just false.

"cbrad wrote:

That's definitely possible. But we've also heard a lot of "Tannehill will be top 10 next year" predictions on this forum by people who have followed him (most likely) a lot more closely than those experts.

Point is.. this is a great year because it's about as good a test of which views are correct that we'll have, unless of course Tannehill gets injured again (2017 was supposed to be that year).

Well.. it's not clear how much of a difference a better QB would have made, so I can't dismiss the WR argument.

Yes, been some of those predictions... But yet every year we've had an awful oline. LOL.

Yes, if you're going to tout that receiver group as evidence that Tannehill was below average, then you have to factor in the oline, and a new year in the system. Evaluating Tannehill is really not as simple as some guys on here try to make it out to be.

"Fin-O wrote:

Not enough.

I have him around 15-16 with the arrow pointing up. But to suggest he has PROVEN much beyond a stretch that Cbrad already outlines for everyone is just false.

I said his play has proven that with simply average play around him, he would look way different. That's always been the argument. Tannehill could literally change nothing, but if the defense could get a stop, out the oline could block even around average, the results would be drastically different. However, better QB play isn't going to get correct routes run, or an oline to block, or a defense to get stops.

"resnor wrote:

Yes, if you're going to tout that receiver group as evidence that Tannehill was below average, then you have to factor in the oline, and a new year in the system. Evaluating Tannehill is really not as simple as some guys on here try to make it out to be.

I never said he was below average.. either average or slightly above, and of course I pointed out the OL has been an issue.

But you're definitely right that evaluating Tannehill, or any other QB where it's not "obvious" what's going on, is not that simple. Just keep in mind that also goes for those saying he's way better than most people think.

"resnor wrote:

I said his play has proven that with simply average play around him, he would look way different. That's always been the argument. Tannehill could literally change nothing, but if the defense could get a stop, out the oline could block even around average, the results would be drastically different. However, better QB play isn't going to get correct routes run, or an oline to block, or a defense to get stops.

This is also assuming that Wrs aren’t running correct routes for the most part. OL has certainly been bottom tier overall, defense has been average.

You’re right however, Ryan is and has always been a product of his environment. Good and bad.

We should all hold hands and pray Kenyan Srake provides us with a solid run game. If not? History says our season will be a long one.

"Fin-O wrote:

This is also assuming that Wrs aren’t running correct routes for the most part. OL has certainly been bottom tier overall, defense has been average.

You’re right however, Ryan is and has always been a product of his environment. Good and bad.

We should all hold hands and pray Kenyan Srake provides us with a solid run game. If not? History says our season will be a long one.

No, Ryan Tannehill has not been a product of the environment. The win/loss record is a product of the environment.

"resnor wrote:

No, Ryan Tannehill has not been a product of the environment. The win/loss record is a product of the environment.

You just said Ryan suffered because of all these disadvantages surrounding him, now you are saying he isn't a product of his environment?

Which one is it?

"Fin-O wrote:

You just said Ryan suffered because of all these disadvantages surrounding him, now you are saying he isn't a product of his environment?

Which one is it?

You are awful with communication. You are constantly conflating success in stats with how Tannehill is playiNg. You say he is a product of his environment. I disagree. I don't believe Tannehill's individual play is actually affected by the team as much. His stats suffer. I'm saying that Tannehill doesn't play bad when his teammates are bad, or only good when his teammates are good.

"resnor wrote:

You are awful with communication. You are constantly conflating success in stats with how Tannehill is playiNg. You say he is a product of his environment. I disagree. I don't believe Tannehill's individual play is actually affected by the team as much. His stats suffer. I'm saying that Tannehill doesn't play bad when his teammates are bad, or only good when his teammates are good.

Double standards.

You've complained about every single facet of this offense for 5 years, claiming that Ryan has been the victim of his coaches/OL/Wrs and any other nuance you can try and drum up to excuse when he has played poor.

And now, you really are going to say he isn't a product of his environment?

I'll just say what most people know you feel.

When Ryan struggles or is inconsistent, it's usually someone else fault. When his teammates and coaching are very good (see mid 2016) then it's Ryan who finally just has "average" surroundings.

It's comical, but Ive been laughing at people who think this way for 6 years now, so certainly not surprising. I feel like you should be the host of MSNBC with all the double talking you do.

"Fin-O wrote:

Double standards.

You've complained about every single facet of this offense for 5 years, claiming that Ryan has been the victim of his coaches/OL/Wrs and any other nuance you can try and drum up to excuse when he has played poor.

And now, you really are going to say he isn't a product of his environment?

I'll just say what most people know you feel.

When Ryan struggles or is inconsistent, it's usually someone else fault. When his teammates and coaching are very good (see mid 2016) then it's Ryan who finally just has "average" surroundings.

It's comical, but Ive been laughing at people who think this way for 6 years now, so certainly not surprising. I feel like you should be the host of MSNBC with all the double talking you do.

You are a riot.

"resnor wrote:

You are a right.

Fixed...:chuckle: