I'm not really sure hows he's been inconsistent for awhile now. He's still developing, but he's shown enough to sign him to a long term contact IMO. Tannehill needs to become a bit more of a risk taker, take shots down the field. That kind of stuff can be coached. Physical skills can't be.

I definitely think we should look at a QB maybe in 3 or 4. even if you were positive about 17..you need to have a good QB being developed. We dont really, so need to get that.

 

I agree with VT.

I'm not convinced he's ever going to be Aaron Rodgers or Petyon Manning but he has gotten better. I think there are parts of his game that are limited and definitely need to be improved. His deep ball accuracy has been discussed ad nauseam. Even bigger than that is his pocket awareness. I'd like to see him get better at shuffling around, sensing pressure or when pressure should be coming and use his athleticism more.

Having said that, I think the current state of our OL post-Albert and for much of RTH's tenure has been pretty bad. I think in front of every great QB is usually a great OL.

 

You give him one more season, because that is all they have before they need to make a decision on signing him long term.

 

What it looks like to me is that, unless Tannehill develops further substantially, what you have is a quarterback who is confined to a system and has a hard time making plays outside of it. Things have to go too well elsewhere on the field for that to work well enough. The line has to block very well, receivers have to run crisp and correct routes, defenses can't surprise anybody with unexpected blitzes that overwhelm parts of the line, etcetera. In other words, the game has to unfold in a very sort of standard, predictable way for that sort of quarterback play to be effective at the level at which it needs to be for the team to be highly competitive. Contrast that with Russell Wilson, for example, who has withstood years of fairly poor offensive line play, as well as substantial changes and drop-offs in the talent around him at receiver, on the strength of being able to use his athleticism to overcome these other variables I mentioned above. And don't tell me his running game and defense are responsible for that, because, while they're good, they hardly account for Wilson's individual performance, and when the running game and defense don't play as well, Wilson plays well anyway.

 

To try cutting through the stream of 'supporting cast' excuses...I have reservations about him because of issues that he had in college that have yet to be addressed.

IMO, during the draft process there were a few big questions. Namely:
1) Is he a natural leader on/off the field?
2) Why is his YPA so low? (He finished 65th and 67th in the country in this key stat at around 7yds/a.)
3) Why did that 2011 team underachieve by losing that many big games? As a preseason top-10 team, they went 1-5 against ranked opponents, and themselves ended up finishing unranked.

These questions are still legitimate concerns even into his third year in the NFL.

Here's what Mayock said about him, which still applies today:

That said...I want to see him next year under a new HC. You cannot afford to let Philbin stick around in such a key year for the QB decision.

 

I think that he gets a minimum of two more years on the team, and if it were up to me, I'd sign him long term with a contract that starts in 2016. I am absolutely opposed to drafting a QB high, and also opposed to the notion that quarterbacks need competition or to be pressed. Show him he's the man and that you believe in him, build the offense around him and give him every opprotunity to grow and succeed.

He may never been one of the very best QBs in the game, but I think that he's clearly shown that he's going to be in the 10-15 tier, and thats by far not only better than anything we've had since Marino retired, its better than most of the other first round QBs taken in the last decade too.

 

I still can't believe how often we have to discuss this stuff. Tannehill was not Andrew Luck coming out. Everyone KNEW he needed time to develop. If a four year college starter gets three years to "get it," shouldn't our project get more than three years? Especially when he has shown good progress every season? I wish we could see at least an average oline in front of Tannehill for a whole season.

 

A Lot of people have made a big deal about Tannehill's high completion percentage this year. He has completed nearly 67% of his passes, which ranks him 6th in the league.

Unfortunately when it comes to yards-per-attempt he ranks 31st at 6.6 yards per attempt. I think any starting QB in the NFL could have the same high completion rate if they basically threw short passes throughout every game.

After nearly three seasons, I still have no clue if Tannehill is the long term answer for this team or not. I think he is good enough if you are looking for a QB who can lead your team to a mediocre record year after year. I just don't know if he is good enough to get this team into the playoffs.

Again unfortunately, the Dolphins aren't going to be selecting high enough in the draft to get one of the top tier college QB's in the draft and I don't see any free agent QB's who are better than Tannehill.

All we can hope for at this time is that the next head coach will be able to come in and help Tannehill get to that next level. Right now I think we are in a situation where we will be going into year four with Tannehill being the starting Quarterback and we still don't know if he is the right man for the job or not.

 

The problem with that sort of thinking is that the game is such that 10-15 level quarterbacking necessitates an unlikely caliber of play elsewhere on the team to be highly competitive (i.e., Super Bowl level). In other words, with the salary cap, teams are unlikely to field the sort of talent around a 10-15 quarterback necessary to put themselves in Super Bowl contention. With that being the case, teams should hardly "stand" on a 10-15 level QB. They should continue to "hit" in the draft, because they're about as likely to win a Super Bowl going that route as they are trying to put the necessary talent around a 10-15 QB.

 

Actually the Dolphins have to decide by this coming May if they want to pick up the fifth year of Tannehill's contract. If they do pick it up, he will count fifteen million dollars against the cap in 2016.

So basically the Dolphins are in a situation where they pick up the fifth year, sign him to a new contract, or let him play out the 2015 season and possibly lose him in free agency after the season.

I will leave it up to the next head coach to make the decision if he wants Tannehill to be this teams QB in the future or not.

 

Those figures (completion percentage and YPA), with a relatively low interception rate such as Tannehill's, essentially make him a game manager. In other words, he's not losing games for you (with incompletions and/or INTs), but he's not winning them either (with explosive passing plays). That can certainly change in the future, but as of now it's a very "Alex Smith" level of play. And again, that isn't likely to put a team in Super Bowl contention unless it pulls off the unlikely feat of surrounding that sort of play with lots of talent elsewhere.

 

THat's what I said, they have one more season to decide.

 

I like how much Tanny has improved this year and he is growing however, we only have him 1 more year before we have to make a huge financial decision on him. I think in the best interest of the team and Tanny that we should draft for development this year. There are some good signal callers out there in college and I never want us to get caught with our pants down again. Also, in case of injury to Tannehill is another reason for insurance. He still has some proving to do for me to be all in on him yet.

 

Mind boggling how the answer always seems to be "get rid of X so we can draft the next guy that can try our patience as we go through the growing pains all over again."

Why not instead "hey let's shore up the offensive line and make everybody's job a little easier"?

 

I think we can win with him with good coaching,running game,great not good defence.My biggest concern is if they give him a jay culter contract that will cripple us from fielding an elite team because at the moment in free agency, draft, etc,nothing better is going to come along at least in 2015.
I think he is what he is a game manager and thats all he is ever going to be so we need to pay him accordingly.

 

However this plays out, unless Tannehill has a monster year, if we do re-sign and keep him, at least it wouldn't, or shouldn't, be a monster contract.

Fix the OL.

 

IMO, he just needs a better O-line, and a guy (or two) that will go up and get the ball. A team like Baltimore, that can put as much pressure on a QB, shows you that when he's under max pressure he can quite get through his progressions fast enough. Which is not at all unusual for a young QB learning to play the game at the NFL level. With more time, better playmakers at the X & Z positions, and another year in this offense, he will be consistently better.

But, what he really needs is a HC that knows what he is doing, and knows how to develop young QB's. So, I think the better question is how much more time do we give Philbin to prove he's got "it"?

 

The offensive line arguments should be put to rest in my opinion, because Tannehill's key figures haven't changed since Texas A&M, despite variation in his offensive line play since then, and there is no relationship between the number of times he's sacked in a game and his passing numbers. In other words, when he's sacked less, he doesn't play any better. When he's sacked more, he doesn't play any worse. In fact, his sack rate has decreased by 2.1% this year, and his YPA is no different. His QB rating is higher, largely by virtue of having a higher completion percentage and throwing fewer interceptions, but as others have mentioned, that may be accounted for by the low "degree of difficulty" associated with running a short passing game. At any rate, "game manager" is the term that best describes his current play, and I don't think that has anything to do with his offensive line or his receiving corps at the present time. I think it has everything to do with what he's capable of right now.

 

I think it all comes down to value in the draft.. if a high rated QB falls to us at some point in the draft we can and should take him, but I wouldn't advocate actively pursuing a QB trading up to do so, unless we mange to get a steal of a trade a la Dion Jordan.
QB is not a high need IMO, but a need nonetheless... we need a high upside developmental guy in there, waiting in the wings, who can at least be a cheap adequate number 2 guy to replace Matt Moore.

 

This completely. The constant shuffling isn't building this team. During the off season the debate was who is better? Foles or tannehill. Nobody even thought of debating if kapaernik or rg3 were in that discussion. And looking at it now I'd keep tannehill over all of them. Fins Hipster - you have this aversion to game managers and you see tannehill as one. I looked back at the list of sb champs since 2000. They all had good qbs. In fact you could argue that brady Manning and Rodgers deserve goat consideration. In addition to that though they also had superb talent elsewhere. That's what we lack. The team is talent deficient in a number of areas. You couldn't honestly look at our backs or TE group, our OL or DL or lbs or dbs and say these guys areare a on the best in the league. You could maybe argue the DL but they appear to be crapping the bed the past few weeks. The attempt to put all our success or failure on tannehill ignores everything about this team sport. 22 players plus your special teams. We don't live or die by tannehill. The obvious issue as stated loads of times is who is the pick? Who is the qb at our pick who is gonna transform us into perennial sb champs? The fact that we play against 31 other teams all aiming for the same thing makes it even harder. Build around tannehill. Secure the line and build a run game. When we run we move the ball. It builds in the passing game. Unfortunately we either can't or ar choosing not to. Why Miller doesn't get 25 carries every game is a mystery. He's a good runner. Give him the line and he'll help tannehill. Get a go up and grab it WR to help tannehill. We all saw wallace quit last weekend, we can moan about the deep ball but it's been shown by many people that he throws easily with an acceptable range to every player except wallace. My conclusion, wallace is the issue.

 

You made a lot of good observations but came to the wrong conclusion. Philbin is 1-3 against the BIlls and 0-2 against the Ravens in the last two years. He has a sub .500 record. He ran an unbalanced offense last year and he's doing it again this year. The shotgun dump off on 70% of your play calls isn't enough to get it done consistently in todays NFL.

 

He needs to play at high pace consistently, in rhythm. He is up and down. We know he can do it, we just don't know whether he can do it consistently. Having Albert for full season would have helped. Better balance would have helped this year to make the determination. Those things did not happen. Give him another year.

 

Considering our Oline woes since he got here, we are really luck he doesn't have David Carr/Joey Harrington syndrome. Keep him around and keep drafting QBs so we don't keep repeating the mistakes of our past.

 

What'll be interesting here in the near future is to look at how Johnny Manziel plays, and then figure whether the Dolphins should've drafted him this year. They missed Aaron Rodgers in favor of Ronnie Brown, and hopefully they didn't miss a similarly good QB in favor of an offensive lineman.

 

I think we can win games with Ryan Tannehill.

He might just be that type of QB who will be just short of being considered elite, but will be always in the top 8-12 in the league. I think we should defintely give him more time to develop, and build a team around him to see exactly where his ceiling is. Unless he has a huge season next year, he will not be that expensive to sign long term compared with other QB's.
The plan from then on would be to continue to build around Ryan, and if we have the opportunity to pick up a good QB in future drafts, we do it and hope to have a Philip Rivers/Drew Brees situation. What we should NOT do is let Ryan go and put all of our chips into a guy coming out in the draft who we don't even know if he can be better.

 

To me he's shown enough to keep him around..unless we can find a better Qb, which isn't going to happen anytime soon. He's good enough to win games and gives us a chance so getting rid of him doesn't make much sense. He's a good Qb. Is he great? No, he may never be, but he is a good Qb and has shown that he can win against good teams when we give him a chance to throw and our defense plays well. Should we draft a backup that can challenge him? I think so. But we shouldn't dump Tannehill, he's shown that he can play in the NFL and with the right team I do think he can win a Superbowl down the road. He's not going to carry us with his arm but I do think we can put the right team around him and we can have a good run that leads to a championship.

 

We don't know that. If we had Albert for full year and better run balance this year, we would be able to tell whether he can be a playmaker when he has consistent rhythm. We know he can play in rhythm, we don't know if he is a playmaker, and his playmaking comes from having consistent good rhythm in this offense. We are just unable to tell that extra part this year.

 

I also believe Tanny has shown he is a qb you build around, the deep ball remains a concern and them not calling them at all is a big issue. I am hopeful that is is a combo of Tannehill having to learn a new offense and an inconsistent line with injuries that they pulled back on that part of the O and plan for that development in the spring when they have fixed the Guards

BUT having said that, he was completely inexperienced comoing out, it isnt unreasonable to think that the book may take a little longer to write. Taking a qb at #1 would send the wrong signal IMO when it isnt necessary to send that signal. JMO

 

Signing Tannehill to a long term contract is doing exactly what Mike Brown, the owner of the Bengals, did last offseason - going full ******. And atleast Dalton has been to a playoff game, yet he still doesnt deserve half that money, Tannehill even less deserves that kinda contract and has done NOTHING to warrant that.

Exercise the fullest extent of his options, whatever they are, and make better use of that money by signing a #1 receiver, tight end and a guard or two. If Tannehill starts succeeeding afterwards, give him an Alex Smith kinda deal.

 

With the limited body for case study of "rhythm" he has had, T-Hill demonstrated play making ability.

 

We won't know much about any of our guys until we get a real head football coach in here. Tanny has shown he can win a d perform in this league. Our coach has show. He can not get the team up to play in clutch situations. Its been the defense as much (if at all) as its been Tanny. He has Impoved and its silly to keep citing the short passes - use your eyes.

I'm not saying he is or is not the answer - but its time to get a better HC with a fresh pair of eyes to see what they can do to elevate Tanny and then make a decision.

 

No he has not. There are several problems. At times he does not recognize wide open routes. At times, he throws to wide open routes but the throws are poor, especially when throwing long. Considering he is charged as a QB, with recognizing mismatches, and deciding when to run or pass, he has not done a good job of that consistently, especially in the red zone and down the stretch in games.

 

And he needs to begin making more plays when his rhythm is disturbed, as well.

 

Honestly what better options are out there? At least Tannehill has us "in the hunt" for the playoffs for 2 straight seasons. Henne & Moore didn't even come close. One more year I guess.

 

While I won't disagree that Wallace has shown us the catch radius of a toddler lately, I can't agree that he is the entire problem either.

IMO, he is not a traditional #1 wr. At best he is a #2 bubble screen and 9 route guy. Let's go and get a true #1 opposite Wallace. We like to think he is a #1 because that is what his contract dictates (thanks Jeff), but in reality he is not an all route threat.

 

Actually, that deal is the exact idea they need to apply to Tannehill, except for less money. Dalton got 6 years and 96 million. Sounds ridiculous, but if you actually look at the details they have set themselves up great. It was only 17 million guaranteed, and almost all of that is being paid off in the first 2 years. After 2015, the dead money is well below the cap hit making him an easy cut if he doesn't live up to the contract. His cap hit doesn't even reach 15mil until 2017 and by that time they can save money cutting him. They were very wise to not give him 15 mil guaranteed for that option when you can get much greater value out of an extension. The 49s did something similar with Kap I believe.

 

I'm not saying I want Matt Moore to start, but in his last stint as a starter, Matt Moore wasn't significantly worse, overall, than Tannehill. His floor was worse in that he threw interceptions more often and helped the team lose more than Tannehill, but he balanced that more than Tannehill does with explosive plays that help teams win. In other words, he was less of a game manager, but more of a playmaker, and overall I'd say his impact on the team was about the equivalent of Tannehill's. I don't think we should have the perception that Tannehill's current level of play is all that much better than what Moore is capable of. Tannehill may (or may not) have a higher ceiling, or upside, but where he's playing now isn't a whole lot, if at all, better than Moore's most recent body of work as a starter.

 

Philbin has put Tannehill in the position to prove he has "it" several times just this season alone. Green Bay game if you have "it" you should be able to keep making plays in the clutch. Same goes for the Detroit game, just make one ****ing 5 yard pass or scramble. Denver game now its your turn to engineer the comeback drive. Even in the Jets game a TD would have gone a lot further in increasing our chances to win.

You want to show you have "it" Mr. Tannehill, go out and beat Tom Brady today.