I was pissed when we traded marshall but I later understood he didn't want to play here as he felt he was wasting his career playing for a losing team and you can't blame him.
Of course he leaves the dolphins and is now having a career year 59 rec,797 yds,7 tds.Amazing what having a decent qb will do for a wr just ask larry fitz.
I cant help what to think tanny numbers would be with a true #1 wr.This team would probally be 7-1 if we kept the guy.
Page 1 of 3
-
well he wouldn't know how to spread the ball around I would assume........
-
Out of the teams in the nfl starting rookie qbs I say with the exception of the browns tanny has the least amount of talent to work with.
Hopefully we hit on a wr in the draft and the marshall trade will be moot for the future.As for now I think we would be competing for the afc title if we kept but thats just my opinion. -
His rating in his four years with the Bears:
76.8 2009
86.3 2010
85.7 2011
85.3 2012 with Marshall
Don't get me wrong, I don't think QR is the ultimate measurement but maybe it gives you an idea of much Marshall would have helped Tannehill. I personally don't think we would be any better with Marshall.Rhody Phins Fan likes this. -
-
Ozzy likes this.
-
I think his stats and the overall offense might be a bit better, but I'm not sure it would be at all revolutionary- Or worth the risk.
Anonymous likes this. -
I don't think it's any secret that I was no fan of Ireland's move get rid of Marshall. But it has more to do with losing a very talented player for less than we played. I think the offense would be better with Marshall, no question. But I also think there's a lot of truth to Philbin's offense not needing an elite #1 WR. I think the offense would be better, but only marginally. My problem with the move to get rid of Marshall has more to do with the value lost. No reason to get rid of a player of his caliber for less than paid.
Also how well an offense performs has so much more to do with the talent of the QB than the talent of the WRs. -
-
Guest
I wasn't so bummed on Marshall, but I felt we should have gotten Mike Wallace. Wallace had a second round tender right? I still think we should have traded a 2013 2nd round pick and if necessary a 2012 3rd/4th round pick. Egnew isn't really doing anything and that just strengthens my conviction on it.
-
Having Marshall here as others have said may have stunted Tannehills growth. A guy with that ego with his demand for the ball could cause Tannehill to force throws his way without reading his progressions and making the correct throw. Of course this is speculation on my part. But I imagine that it would be pretty hard for a rookie to come in to a place with a big name WR who would be vocal publicly and privately about getting his touches and not feel obligated about throwing it his way.
ToddPhin likes this. -
A player of Marshall's caliber does a lot more than add to the passing game! It instantly takes the safeties out of the box which helps the running game. Having that threat helps the entire offense and with a Qb that knows this offense like RT will make teams pay big time if they try stacking the box on the rookie. So would Tannehill be better? Not necessarily but that's not what matters! It helps complete the offense....
-
I like the fact that he's learning the game with solid disciplined skillset players, kind of an inside out approach, he's learning to manage the position with skill players that are not explosive and who lack certain attributes that allow players who have them score touchdowns beyond the scheme..once we add those type of players to to the scheme, it bodes well..
Sure would like to get Eifert or Austin this upcoming draft. -
-
Ofcourse we would be better with Marshall, and so would Tanny. All this Marshall is a problem child is nonsense. We never heard Moore or Henne complain about him. And ofcourse any good WR always wants the ball.
Anonymous likes this. -
We have heard plenty of stories about Marshall going off on Henne.
Yes or no, would you gladly field a team full of guys who had the exact same talent for their positions as Marshall but also the exact same issues? If you say yes, then that means your narrow football view begins and end with talent and that NOTHING else matters or effects wins or loses, just talent.ToddPhin likes this. -
Fin D likes this.
-
-
Larryfinfan 17-0...Priceless Club Member
-
-
-
His issues were not detrimental to this team. His talent was/is undeniable. If your career depended on Chad Henne you would be on edge also. And like I said, I don't want a QB who is controlled by a WR...and I doubt Tanny would've allowed that to happen. -
Under this system with tannehill who knows how good he would have been. -
Here's the definitive statement on this, IMO, from another thread:
Aqua4Ever04 and ToddPhin like this. -
-
There are reports he caused real issues.
The offense in every important stat from yards to TDs was worse when he was here then the year before he was here
Philbin didn't want him. Philbin the offensive guru told him to GTFO. Philbin who has had coached more excellent receivers than Bill Parcells didn't want him.
You have..............
...............
............... -
**** all that. Just talent.
Riddle me this, how come there's interviews and Wonderlic tests if all that maters is talent to a GM? Oh I know, who cares...TALENT!!!!!!! -
Larryfinfan likes this.
Page 1 of 3