would feel better because we probably would be 9-4, 8-5 right now

 

I'd feel a lot better about Tannehill, but I'd be feeling a lot worse about Coyle. For us to have the same record as we do now with a passing game that good means our defense is a complete CF.

On a related note, I think the Redskins would be leading their division now had they not lost Orakpo, Carriker and Merriweather.

 

Worse. If we were three games under .500 with that kind of quarterback play, there would have to be deeper problems in the overall construction of the team.

 

So let me get this straight, you want to know if everything else was the same, but we had an extra positive, would we be happier than now without the extra positive?

Great question, John Madden.

 

I would be happier because I would then know it is team, not Tannehill. Right know I am not so sure. The more time that goes by and games that are played I am not feeling good about Tannehill. There have been several missed opportunities, over throws and misreads. From a Optimistic look we could say at least Tannehill recognized the op. Executing it will come with time. At least we would then have a direction. Right know I feel like the approach is/has been well lets throw it at the wall and see what sticks.

Weather right or wrong Ireland drafted Tannehill and ultimately will live and die by drafting him. We have holes everywhere. Fixable holes. We are positioned well with salaries and things. We are what we are and that is a mediocre team with a mediocre Rookie QB and talent. We have seen this team play straight up with some of the best teams in the NFL. So giving credit to Ireland where it is do. On the other side of the ball Ireland has some work to do. I still do not think any of the backs we have are going to get it done. We need a replacement for Long and some additional depth. Then their is the receiver position. We got our #2 and #3 guys. We need 2 excellent #1's to move this team to the next level.

We have been going back and forth about Tannehill and receivers and I think the argument is pretty clear. The QB carries a team but has to have a supporting cast to do it with. We are close but not where we need to be. I really feel we are 4 or 5 players away from being a force to reckon with. Some better receivers to supplement what we have will help to also take Tannehill to the next level. We are going to most likely have to bet the farm to make it happen. I believe that farm will involve Jake Long and/or possibly Reggie Bush in a blockbuster trade. People are going to go crazy when it goes down but it is the Jeff Ireland way. I sure would like to see a vet in here. Someone who is going to teach how to get separation and run these routes more efficiently and crisper. Maybe someone retired. Jerry Rice? I don't know but we need some help over here.

 

You're basically asking how would people would feel if our defense was ****ty instead of our offense.

 

If Tannehill had a 104 QB rating, we would be a SUPER BOWL contender.

So that would have to be some ****ty defense to be 5-8. So yeah, I would feel worse.

 

Having a great QB and ****ty defense is actually very encouraging in today's NFL.

 

If you want to go 8-8 every year. Where did I hear that before? Been there, done that. No thanks.

 

So, we're back to the loaded poll questions again?

 

He has a point that a lot of the recent success has been had by teams with good offense and substandard defense (GB, NE, NYG, NO, etc.), but I have two issues here:

1) Under the conditions of the OP, we'd still be 5-8, and presumably, in 3rd place. I don't think that that's any more encouraging than our current situation, and as we have been suggesting, it would mean that there are a great wealth of other problems (poor run game? defense? pick your poison to satisfy the hypothetical) that need to be addressed.

2) The mid-2000's had a bunch of teams that fit that mold (Bengals, Chargers, Panthers, Packers, Falcons, Chiefs), and absolutely nothing, ultimately, came out of it for them.

I think that the good offense-bad defense relationships between the recent super bowl winners are merely coincidental. You're not going to convince me that bad defenses win championships.

 

No, but I would view the probability of improving a defense a lot higher than finding a great QB. You could even blow your load in FA and build a good defense in the short-term.

 

fair.

 

Nope.

If the only confirmed difference is in quarterback play, one must draw the conclusion that some other aspect of the >100 QBR Tannehill team has a flaw that the present one does not.

 

I wouldn't feel very good if our qb had a knee injury already like rg3 does. Also don't see the point of comparing tannehill to luck or rg3. There's a reason those qbs went 1st in the draft there better players we reached on a project qb because ireland is a clown gm and we have to live with whatever he turns into.

 

I believe we are on the same page then. I'm not saying that Tannehill is or will be a bust, but he has been the one holding us back this year. A quarterback like Palmer, Cutler, Romo, or Schaub probably has us at 10 or 11 wins right now, all else equal.My original statement was simply in response to the OP. If we were to sustain our record with improved play from our limiting factor (that's my opinion), then something else had to give.

 

DATS a FARGIN trick question!!!

 

SOmewhat better, because being certain about your QB allows you to focus your resources.

With question marks, we will split resources between things the QB 'may need' to play better... as we debate all the time, are the WRs, the OL, the TE cauing the rookie QB to play worse than he could be... but if he were performing great, we wouldn't be worried about 'guessing' and plugging holes at random without knowing whether they'd really have any affect on things or not.

Instead, we could focus on whatever was killing us game after game... probably, as others have said, in that scenario it would be the defense....

 

The scenario I would feel MUCH WORSE about is Ryan having a 104 QB rating, us having a 5-8 record...

and the head coach being a huge cause of the problems.

If Tannehill was great but Philbin sucked rocks, we'd be in trouble.

 

Anyways, we may never have to worry about it if Tannehill never has a QB rating that high.

 

you have no idea if they would of taken him he might of took a huge slide in the draft like most qbs that don't go 1st do

 

While you can't say for certain there were rumors that Seattle was interested.

http://seattle.sbnation.com/seattle...2012-seahawks-trade-up-to-grab-ryan-tannehill

 

I can concur. There was a lot of talk of Tannehill going to Seattle in the first round

 

would feel worse

 

Boom!

 

ABout as good as I feel right now. I wouldnt feel any more or less that he is our franchise QB.

 

I wouldn't feel any different. Any 6-10 team that enters the next season with a depleted starting lineup is doomed from the start. How on earth does anyone expect something different?

 

I have a written statement to the distinguished member who started this threadthis thread

 

Well its impossible to have a QB Rating that high with this cast of mediocre weapons but if by some miracle Tannehill had achieved such measures I would have anointed him the second coming of Christ. Id still feel equally bad though because we'd still be 5-8 even with a QB who was having a very strong season. The only thing that would cement for me would be confirmation that Tannehill is what I thought he would be. I still think we will see the day for this type of rating if we get adequate players around him.

 

If we had a QB with RG3s stats, I would be excited for every Sunday and likely wouldn't be bored out if my mind for three hours when I do watch the fins.

 

Bastage.

 

Don't be a farging icehole!

 

Better, such a high QB rating would mean we RT has already 1 or 2 or #1 receivers and a really good TE, we would not need to look for them either in FA or the draft, We would have to worry only about the defense because with that great offense you D has to be really bad to be 5-8.