I think he needs one year to sit and learn, unless he improves a lot in training camp. People act like Moore and Garrard are chopped liver. I think Garrard was in the probowl a few years ago, with who at receiver?

I could understand putting Tannehill out there if the rest of the team was set and ready but lets face it. Our best WR is a guy who had like 15 catches last year on the Pats.

Everytime we talk about this I just think about David Carr. Ruined his entire career getting thrown to the wolves.

 

Here's an idea. we have an opportunity to sit our rookie QB for a year, something that's rare these days in the NFL. It can't hurt Tannehill and can only help him.
Now, if Tannehill progresses and is playing anywhere close to the same level as Garrard and Moore, then start the guy.

 

Then we may pass up drafting the right guy waiting for the wrong guy. It works both ways, what if the jury is still out on Tannehill but we are on the clock with Matt Barkley staring at us?

I'd draft him.

 

I say sit him out this season. He is not ready, not comfortable with the speed yet, and throwing him out too early would just destroy his chances in the nfl. I say he sits back, and learns from the vets. He will be ready when he is ready, and that is something that is key to his development. If lets say it comes to the draft and we are on the clock with barkely available do not get him. Don't kill me but I personally Barkley would be a setback, Tannehill already knows 85% of the playbook from college so he is comfortable, if he gets time on the bench to develop he will be a good qb for us. So no I do not agree that he should start away, if we do it would be us throwing him into the wolves without any tools or weapons for him to use. Next year he will play ONLY IF we do not go to the playoffs with either Garrard or Moore, which I personally feel we will make

 

If he is NOT READY............let him sit. I will trust the Head Coach over a writer.

 

I don't remember the last time Greg Cote was right about anything.

 

Wow, that dinosaur is still on someone's payroll?


Sent from my iPhone

 

It's just someone's opinion, we're not in a position where he has to start, ala the Bengals last season with Dalton.

 

I think he could enter later in the season, after the team is fine tuned & if we're not poised to make a run with the QB that has the start.
I see no reason to JohnBeck the guy. would not be prudent.:no:

 

I like the new verb

 

My thought exactly when I saw the thread title.

 

How many rookies are ever ready during the first few practices of the offseason/training camp?

The Dolphins need to figure out what their endstate goals are.
Are they trying to win as many games as possible right now, this season?
And if they are trying to win as many games as they can this season how does that help the development of their franchise QB?
Is slowing down Tannehill's development worth winning 1 or 2 more games this season?
If they were happy with Matt Moore or Garrard as their starting QB why use the 8th pick on Tannehill?

I think the Dolphin's are in a unique position to play Tannehill right away because of his familiarity with Mike Sherman's offense.
There are zone-read elements within Sherman's offense that only Tannehill has the skillset to execute at a high level.
In many ways Tannehill is a lot like Cam Newton, yes I am comparing Tannehill's physical skillset to Cam Newton.
Both are good size kids, strong arms, good runners at the QB position, good athletes, good throwing on the move.
Both had limited experience coming into their rookie seasons.
By all accounts Tannehill is a sharp kid (pre-med) and unlike Cam, Tannehill had the benefit of having an offseason.
Now that training camp is around the onus is upon the coaching staff to build and groom their franchise QB.
Tannehill's success is predicated upon the Dolphins ability to coach and groom him.
Are they gonna take the Panthers/Rob Chudinski approach and use the zone-read and other concepts that Cam was already mastered as the basis of the offense, thus facilitating his success?


If the success of the franchise hinges upon the development and success of the franchise QB, then everything the franchise does should forward the goal of that QBs development.
Imo they gotta give Tannehill all the reps in training camp and commit to him as the QB of the future going forward.

 

Play him.
The quicker he plays, the quicker we'll all know the truth.

 

Garrard and Moore can help ease him into place there's no urgant hurry. Sherman can use this time as a transition to learn more and prepare Tannehill.

 

I hear what you are saying but I think its a bit overblown.

Players especially QBs want first and foremost to play.
There are only 64 QB jobs in the world, only 32 starting jobs.
Sure, Garrard and Moore might help Tannehill a little.
But lets not get it twisted these guys want to play and to start, ahead of Tannehill.

The coaching staff is there to get a QB ready to play.
And in this offense specifically Tannehill is at least on equal footing if not ahead of Garrard and Moore when it comes to knowing the offense.
Imo for a QB to learn how to play the position they need reps, they need to play.

 

EPIC knee-jerk reaction. Greg you damn fool.

 

Didn't click the link. I haven't read Cotes crap in a few years. not going to start now.

 

I think the fact everyone seems afraid to let Tannehill start speaks volumes.

 

You mean media or fans? (not a Phins fan so I don't know)
And what do you think it says?

 

You're new so I'll update you.

There are some fans here who hate Ireland to such a burning hot degree, that any player he likes will probably suck in their eyes and was a mistake. If we had drafted Luck, they'd blow up any and all issues to ridiculous proportions and be counting the days to next season, when Ireland is gone and we can draft Barkley. The rest of us say the jury is out on Ireland, so that obviously makes us Ireland lovers.

 

Tannehill should start as soon as he beats out the other QBs on the roster. It shouldn't be any more complicated than that IMO.

 

Who is "we"? Even if he doesn't play in games, the people making decisions should be able to assess his ability.

Playing someone that didn't win the job is a good way to lose the team. I can't see the veterans on the team being alright with playing just to show fans what a rookie QB is capable of.

 

I won't disagree either if Philbin and Sherman say start him I'm all in. But if not there are two good choices to start the season I believe either Garrard or Moore have wins in them until Tannehill is ready.

 

We meant the Miami Dolphins. I know I am not part of the team. But it's a figure of speech.
My point is I don't see why we should coddle him. Let play and learn. Will there be growing pains? Sure will.
But the quicker we know what we have the quicker we can either move on from the QB position or continue to address it.

 

I mean the team and the fans.
Lets find out if Tannehill is the answer or just another in a long list of rejects since Marino retired.
We won't find out until he plays.
If Tannehill evens comes close to winning the QB competition in TC he should be the starter.

 

Sigh.
This has nothing to do with Ireland.
I don't blame Ireland for drafting Tannehill. He almost had to do it.
I'm not convinced Tannehill is the answer, but I'd like to find out ASAP. Sitting him for the sake of sitting him is pointless.

 

He shouldn't be coddled. He should get the exact same treatment that any other player would get. If he can't beat out the other QBs, he hasn't earned the right start.

But either way, I think the coaches will have enough exposure to him even if he doesn't play in games to know what his ability is going forward.

 

And that's fine.
I'm just saying if he's close to winning the job he should get it. It's impossible to know for sure until he plays in real games.

 

But how many rookie QBs actually win the starting job?
For the most part rookie QBs, especially franchise QBs, are handed the starting job.
Rookie QBs are ill equipped to actually 'beat' out a veteran QB on merit.

A franchise QB needs to be a leader.
How can someone develop leadership when they don't play?
I think it creates a needless hurdle.
If he's not playing Tannehill is going to have tone down his role because he won't be the team's leader.
Then when he's handed the ball he's gonna have to assume a new more outspoken leadership role.
It makes more sense to me and seems easier to just let him assume the full role as franchise QB from day 1.
And I think it should have happened the day he was drafted.
Look at Newton and Dalton they were handed the job.
Ponder and Gabbert had to wait.
Flacco, Ryan, Bradford, Sanchez, Stafford handed the job.

The more I think about it the more I wonder if your FO/Ireland is at cross purposes.
Trying to win a couple/few more games with Garrard/Moore (that they might not win) vs. handed the reigns to Tannehill and making the focus of the franchise all about his development.

 

And that's what I'm saying.
As long as he's close in the TC competition, I want him to start.

 

What franchise QBs were handed the starting job?

 

But it doesn't always work like that.

In 2004 Eli Manning was not better than Kurt Warner, yet the NYG franchise thought it would be best for the team going forward to get Eli in there to get acclimated to the game speed of the NFL. The Giants, IIRC, were hovering around .500 too when they pulled Warner in favor of Eli.

In the Dolphins case, you have Matt Moore in the last year of his contract and in all likelihood will not be resigned. You have 34 year old David Garrard on a one year contract also. I don't think it's out of the question that Tannehill gets the nod over those guys if he's ever so slightly behind them in practice. And even if the Dolphins are hovering around .500 by week 10, I wouldn't be at all disappointed or surprised if they pulled Moore or Garrard in favor of Tannehill. It certainly makes sense for the future of this franchise.

Sometimes there's a lot more involved than just merely who the better player in practice is. This is a rookie coaching staff who I'm sure has sold some sort of multi-year plan to the owner (barring a Cam Cameron type of season). They're probably not on some sort of short leash. And playing the veterans on a one year contract while your #8 overall QB is on the bench may not make sense when looking ahead to 2013, 2014, and 2015.

 

Kurk Warner looked pretty washed up in 2004.

 

I mention the ones I remember from the top of my head in the same post you quoted.

Which rookie QBs outright 'won' the starting job?

 

Cam Newton, Andy Dalton for starters.

 

Who did Newton, Dalton, Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford, etc. have on their teams that gave their teams better odds of winning?

Fail forward fast?

 

I don't think its out of the question at all. I hope that Tannehill is the starter. I hope he's the starter because he earned it, not because the coaching staff wants to experiment.

The only way Joe Philbin is successful is if he gains the trust of the players. Players aren't going to trust someone that is sacrificing their personal livelihood because of Joe Philbin's 3 year plan.

 

What makes you say that?
IIRC the plan for those respective teams was to go with those QBs.

The OC was specifically trying to get Dalton ready, which is quite different from having an open competition.
And that was the Panthers plan also, they weren't adding plays from the Auburn playbook to have anyone else other then Cam run them.