He's not THE solution or THE problem.

We can win a Super Bowl with him. He just needs to be able to consistently bail out his team when they need a big play to afford others breathing room.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You wish he keeps getting better. He's firmly in Tier 3 for me right now. Not high, not low, just right in the middle of tier 3.

Until something better comes along though, he's our guy. He isn't going to carry the team on his shoulders but he won't sink the team either.

 

Opposing coaches with good teams can gameplan defensively to take away the run game and the short passing game and make Tannehill beat them with the downfield pass. That gameplan works too well for the Dolphins to be competitive with their current quarterback.

 

He's not winning a Super Bowl.

 

I didn't say we WILL. I said we CAN. As in if we can keep the run game alive and well, we can. As in he needs to make the occasional big play to give runners breathing room. As in the way Wilson makes the occasional scramble and deep bomb. Or the occasional QB run for 20+ yards.

I believe he CAN do those things, he just needs to play more loosely. He's too robotic. He thinks he's a pure pocket passer. He's not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

He can't and he won't.

 

Agree to disagree. I believe he can but he won't. But I hope he does. He needs to change his mindset and accept he won't get far as a pure pocket passer before he can make the transition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

middle of tier 2. he just needs tannenbaum to get his head out of his *** next year and get him a proper playoff caliber oline like the tier 1 and 2 QBs are used to playing behind

 

That's exactly what I'm talking about. He wants to be a pure pocket passer. It's almost like he wants to forget why he was put at WR by Sherman in A&M.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not unless Campbell sets him straight. I think he will tell him to do so since we've already seen read options more frequently under him.

I doubt Sherman or Philbin or Lazor ever told him to improvise. He never even had full audibles at his disposable. I doubt they ever told him to improvise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Unfortunately I feel the same way. I'm rethinking whether or not he can change and I'm thinking maybe not.

He hasn't been a starting QB for long at a high level so maybe he just doesn't have a feel for the game the way Wilson does.

You've got to have a very high level of awareness to be able to scramble the way he does. That's not just a mindset issue. That's a freaking skill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

exactly

 

if he stays being one dimensional like hes been doing than no, if he and his coaches smack the sh$$ out of him and tell him he needs to be a dual threat to a defense then maybe, unforuately his carries past the los this year is down 2 reps a game, he's averaging about 1.75 carries a game....I repeat his carries are down 2 whole reps..this qb is running past the LOS once a fu$$in game.

thats on him...getting to Lazor, this Putz doesnt accentuate his best trait, which is throwing on the run, to both sides..I would estimate he's rolling on a scripted play about once a game.

so in short, if he, and his coaches, continue to funtion his skills strictly from the pocket amidst a porous offensive line, well, their all stupid...and like the past three, we will be home for the playoffs in the fourth..

qb has to change his whole mindset..coordinator the same..starting in buffalo.

2 less carries a game, down to one, lol....what a crock of sh##

 

Yay. Another tannehill thread. Yay. I honestly now believe there is a collective who would rather see him fail than succeed. That way they can be right. Being right is clearly more important than anything else. Is tannehill Marino? No. But neither are 99.99% of nfl qbs. Let's just go look at the Marino level replacement shelf which is just full to the brim over there. Sheesh.

Is tannehill is mid level then he's better than 50% of other qbs. That means that 16 teams must be looking for a new qb too. Thankfully there are 16 nfl ready qb superstars in this upcoming draft or we would be fecked.

 

No one wants him to fail and no one has said it's easy to find a franchise QB.

I'm in the middle on this one. He's not bad but he's definitely not great and I'm starting to think he never will be. He's certainly not the problem on this team but at the same time he's not good enough to make up for the mistakes his teammates make as all the great ones can. My biggest concerns are he just doesn't make good decisions in the pocket, he turns the ball over way too much and he just doesn't seem to have it mentally. Those are the things that are hard to teach and some people just don't have it. He has all the physical tools and I think we have all been wanting to see the intangibles develop but they just haven't.

I agree that we have far bigger problems on this team like OL, LB, DB and 1-2 spots on the DL. At the same time, I'm not sure if he's the solution. Unlike many on here who seem convinced that they absolutely know the answer to the Tannehill conundrum, I just don't know.

 

That is not really an indicator of the quality of the QB... Neither did Dan!

 

I voted Yes, like there was any question, but it's sort of dependent on the front office making it a priority to give him at least a decent line, with decent backups. Might not hurt to get a new oline coach.

 

Seriously, **** this question.

 

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of OL play is pretty bad in today's NFL. The better QBs are from a different era or have the ability to extend plays. Until Tannehill figures out how to extend plays behind the LOS consistently, I'm going to question hs worth in relation to his compensation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

I say no way because he's just not that good of a pocket passer and the only guys who last in the NFL (without being journeymen) are the ones who can beat defenses from the pocket.

As an aside I would say that Newton and Wilson have added A LOT of credibility to the idea of having a mobile QB but Newton has an incredible arm and Wilson is highly accurate on touch passes down the field from what I've seen so they both make plays as passers enough so that they don't hold their team back.

With Tannehill, he's got the intermediate throws down but he's not great reading defenses and I suspect that he's deficient when seeing DBs down the field as evident by how many times he puts the ball in harms way when he tosses it up into double coverage. I'm also comfortable saying I think his accuracy down the field is generally bad. He's no where near as consistent as I'd like to see in a franchise NFL QB. That could certainly being something mechanical or it could simply be a good athlete who doesn't quite have an NFL-level feel for the position.

Furthermore, I don't think he understands defenses or offensive concepts as well as we think given the fact he's not out there calling plays, making audibles and running the offense. The safety against NE was embarrassing. Everyone was ready except him and he's looking all over the place I assume because he doesn't know what he's looking at.

I could be wrong but I'm really starting to suspect Ryan Tannehill, in terms of how he understands the game and operates mentally, might be woefully inept when compared to the premier QBs in the league. I think he's got all the physical tools and them some but that's not what makes a solid NFL QB. I don't see Tannehill processing information as rapidly as I do most of the other QBs I watch.

At the end of the day I'm left asking, 'how much does this guy really know what he's doing out there?' If I'm still asking that after 55 games, it's pretty damning which is why I'd be pretty shocked if Tannehill turned into something remarkable.

 

Imo, if we built a team good enough to win with Tanne, then it would be good enough to win with a lot of middling QBs.

Pretty much agree, except I wouldn't want to pay him like a franchise QB, so I'd cut bait after next year if he's still a tier 3 QB, that money would be better used elsewhere, especially with that ridiculous contract we gave to Suh.

 

He as much a long term solution as Bradford and Alex Smith are for their teams.

Everything has to be perfect for Tannehill to succeed.

 

I agree. I'm really curious to see how McCarron would do with this team. The Bengals would probably part with him for a 4th rounder.

He was pretty solid as a game manager and hitting the occasional play action pass. After getting used to the speed of the NFL, I think he would complement this team very nicely, especially for the price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Is Matthew Stafford the long term solution in Detroit? That's a guy that has thrown for 5,000 yards in a season and over 40TDs I believe, yet he's having an atrocious year to date.
Even Phillip Rivers had a bad year I think about 3 years ago. He was terrible in fact.
My point is sometimes there is more to a team than just the quarterback. While it's true that a quarterback is the starting point of a team, it's not the all seeing all knowing omnipotent force behind it unless you're Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, or Aaron Rodgers. I excluded Brady because 2008 they won eleven games without him.

Like it or not, Tannehill is our gut until he completely fails. As i've said before, I think he's on the better side of the quarterbacks in this league. There are maybe eleven of them I would take over him. He's a shade above the middle tier guys in this league, andcwith a good offensive line, he might be top ten.

 

Is Matthew Stafford the long term solution in Detroit? That's a guy that has thrown for 5,000 yards in a season and over 40TDs I believe, yet he's having an atrocious year to date.
Even Phillip Rivers had a bad year I think about 3 years ago. He was terrible in fact.
My point is sometimes there is more to a team than just the quarterback. While it's true that a quarterback is the starting point of a team, it's not the all seeing all knowing omnipotent force behind it unless you're Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, or Aaron Rodgers. I excluded Brady because 2008 they won eleven games without him.

Like it or not, Tannehill is our guy until he completely fails. As i've said before, I think he's on the better side of the quarterbacks in this league. There are maybe eleven of them I would take over him. He's a shade above the middle tier guys in this league, andcwith a good offensive line, he might be top ten.

 

I'm not so sure about Tannehill anymore either. But with his contract he just signed and all the other holes on this team he will be here for at least another 2-3 years. I am willing to give him more time. The thing about Tannehill to me is his lack of going deep down the field. He checks down way too much. And when does he ever throw the ball away or at the players feet when no one is open? He just takes the sack or forces the throw. Sometimes he holds onto the ball too long. He is hesitant. He doesn't always have time to throw with this O line but there are plenty of plays each game where he takes too long on his reads or will hesitate. If there is no run game he completely dismantles. I don't see that happening to Rivers, Wilson, Brady, or Rodgers though. Rivers threw for over 500 yards with no run game against the Packers this year. One problem with the run game is Tannehills lack of getting the ball down the field. You can stack the box against Miami and defend everything short. The O line needs to block better but Tannehill also needs to open it up more with some plays down field. 4 and 5 yards passes won't do that. Belichick and the Pats had the perfect game plan for Miami.

 

really hard to say, when our oline looks good, to does tanny. when the oline looks like ****, so does tanny.

maybe in the next draft we should use our first rounder on another wr that we dont need instead of addressing our biggest weakness which is the offensive line

 

I've never been a Tannehill defender but he's definitely the best QB we've had since marino. If we get him an awesome D and a good O line he will do just fine.

 

Ryan Tannehill is the quarterback for the foreseeable future here, and I think you are badly confused if you think there is a strong possibility otherwise regardless of your assessment of his ability. A new coach will almost certainly choose to work with Tannehill rather than start over. That's almost certainly going to be true even if he plays poorly for the rest of the year- due to his contract, due to his upside, and the nature of the business in general.

I don't think you're even having this conversation if you had a coaching staff that was capable of managing an offense appropriately. This coaching staff- and I'm including this Dan Campbell-led staff based on the Patriots game will put the game on the quarterback in a fashion that is frankly untenable for all but maybe Aaron Rodgers at this point. The number of 3rd and long situations that the staff puts on the quarterback is genuinely asinine, and that's compounded by how bad your pass protection is and that it is painfully obvious that your division rivals know your protection schemes inside and out.

If you have Hue Jackson or Kyle Shanahan as your coach next year, you're not having this conversation.

 

The issue with your argument is at least those guys have done something to elevate their teams. Tannehill hasn't done it for a single season yet.

Not even a winning season. Our record hasn't improved much at all with him. Not saying W/L is solely a QB stat, but if they're not helping contribute more wins than previous QBs, what's up? What other QBs have had 4 non winning consecutive seasons that were under appreciated? I guarantee you next season he'll have a fifth and still won't help lead us into a winning season.

Are you implying Brady isn't an omnipotent force the way Marino, Manning and Rodgers are?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I voted no because Tannehill is a mid tier QB who has zero pocket awareness and is an effective passer only when he is throwing the ball on short timing routes. He hardly ever extends plays and half the sacks he takes would never happen with QB's who actually move around in the pocket.

Other than at the TE position, I think the Dolphins offensive unit is superior to the Patriots offensive unit on the OL, at WR, and at the RB position. Put Brady on the Dolphins and they would easily be a playoff team. Put Tannehill on the Patriots and they would be an 8-8 team, even with Belichick as their head coach, IMO.

If you are happy with a mediocre record, year after year, Tannehill is the long term answer at the QB position for this type of record. If you are looking for a QB who can lead this team to a win in the SB, I do not feel he is the answer.

He obviously is the best QB on the roster at this time but to get to where all Dolphin fans want this team to be in the coming years. I think the next HC and GM are going to have to find an upgrade at the QB position in the next few years.

 

I wonder what this poll would look like if asked after the Texans game...

I'm pretty much staying out of the Tannehill debates. I'm an admitted Tannehill homer. Just look at my sig. Consistency has again been a problem, in this, his third year. He does not do well enough in the big games down the stretch. He doesn't do enough to help his team when they need him to - injuries, on the road, playoffs on the line, etc. That's been an issue every single season. I'd really like to hope most of that was coaching. Hoping the lights come on like they did for Andy Dalton this year. We laughed when Andy Dalton got that contract. He's playing like he deserves it. Tannehill isn't so far. At least not consistently. I vote yes because I'm a homer. If I were being ovjective...I'd say need to see more.

 

The Texans game was hardly indicative of how good Tannehill is. If you think he was mostly responsible for his perfect QBR then you're a real homer. Stats show how much YAC he got. The Texans defenders simply didn't tackle the WRs even when there were a bunch of them around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Tannehill played better in the Jacksonville game (a loss) than he did in the Texans game (a win) if you ask me so I don't necessarily think wins and losses or even point totals are what you should look at.

In fact, I don't think many people do in fact do that.

Technically speaking, points and wins aren't what this discussion is about. It's about general QB play.

 

You contradict yourself. You use win/loss to say he isn't good enough, then say it's not a QB stat. Then why bring it up? It's been hashed to death, but a couple defensive stops last season, and we win at least three more games, and we're in the playoffs.

 

He's speaking in general terms to point out that this would be an historically significant moment wherein a good QB was losing over an extended stretch.

It's actually a good point. Has a good QB ever had 4-5 losing seasons in a row?

That might actually be meaningful.