This I definitely agree with. Even if they want to still have Moore as the QB to come in if Garrard goes down with injury in a game... Tannehill has to be the #2 QB during the week in regards to practice reps.
Regardless of what your hearing by some of these media folks, the gap is not as big, if any, than some folks would like you to believe, Tannehill is holding his own..
He is not ready yet, i agree that. But so far it doesn look like he is far behind Moore and Garrard. For the start of the season he might not be the best QB in the team but i think he will sooner rather than latter. Regarding the lack of sense of urgency, the best place to get it is being on the field. I agree that he needs to learn from the veterans on how to handle the pressure situations but, talking about the mere "sense" of urgency it is developed only on the field imo.
Maybe its me guys but I dont think Tannehill would be that much of a struggle if he started week one. From reports I have read, no one has truly distanced themselves away to be a clear starter. So I am still standing on RT to be the starter until proven otherwise.
If Marino can not really study and basically go out there and sandlot the game while Peyton can could qualify for a Football Doctorate, then I think its safe to say there is no hard and fast rules here. Some QBs benefit from being thrown into the fire, some benefit from waiting and not one single example of any successful QB is relevant to Tannehill. For the record, the only way we'll ever know for sure about the right way to bring him along is if he's successful. If he fails, there will still be questions and reasons why, but if he succeeds whatever the coaches did was right.
And that is the thing. There is no right answer. My inclination in this situation is to throw him out there and give him the much needed game experience that he needs.
Yep. Sure sounds like it. If I really thought starting Garrard or Moore over Tannehill would win us enough games to challenge for the playoffs, I'd say go with whoever that is. But IMO, this team isn't anywhere near good enough to make the playoffs. Too much change. Too much youth. Too much inexperience.
I loled because you more or less contradict yourself. You say there is no right answer, except you think he should start right away. So why do you think he should start right away?
It's just my opinion. I'm not contradicting myself. Just because I think he should start doesn't make it the right answer.
I don't care about just one year. I want to give us the best chance to develop a QB for our long term. Throwing a QB in early is the best way to start bad habits.
My opinion on the matter is this: It's a fresh new offense, there's gonna be a lot of kinks that are gonna be needed to be worked out. New blocking scheme, new o-lineman, new receivers, new running style. Why not let Garrard work those out instead of Tannehill(who may have kinks of his own to work out). I'm glad he's competing though, shows he has the talent.
3 things. 1. I think Tannehill will be close to beating out Garrard/Moore in TC. Close enough that going with the rookie will at least be discussed. 2. I dont think starting either Garrard or Moore would make the team substantially better. I dont think we sniff the playoffs either way. So why not start Tannehill and find out we have now instead waiting. 3. What is the biggest thing Tannehill is missing? Game experience. Only one way to get that. And its not by holding a clipboard on the siddlines.
He's missing more than just game experience. There's a lot to being a pro and he learns that every day watching a vet in front of him. Going through the game films with the QB coach or OC and the other QBs is invaluable. You get to hear the vet's thought processes on each play and the coach explain when things should have been different. And you get all that without making the mistakes that make the team doubt you. That was what Walsh did with Montana. IMO Montana is inarguably one of the best to ever play the position, but if he had been thrown in right away, I doubt we even remember him. That was similar to the advantage Rodgers had in GB. If he had gone to SF and been thrown in right away, I expect that Rodgers is thought of much like Alex Smith is now. Both of those QBs had the advantage of not having their failures early in their careers. They played when their chances of success were highest. Their team mates learned to expect success with them. You especially saw that with Montana, where Walsh would give him limited scripted plays that he would practice all week for a specific opponent. Montana would be inserted for one drive at the right moment and the success rate was inordinately high. The team came to expect success whenever Montana entered the game. And obviously Montana's confidence and command grew as well.
It's really all about the mental makeup of the peticular player. Tim Couch is an example of a mental midget who couldn't withstand the heat and his career crumbled. Then there is guys like Manning who is mentally tough enough to go threw the motions and be what he set out to be. So to me if I'm a coach and Ryan doesn't have a strong mental makeup, I sit him and watch the team have a 7-9 type season, but if he has the swagger I think he does??? If it's close you go with the rookie and watch him improve week by week.
IMO it's more than that. I actually believe that if Marino had sat a bit longer he might have had a few more championship chances. Marino never developed his post-snap reads much. His release and accuracy were so incredible that he never worked on developing his post-snap reads. Once he was the starter, he was focused on winning now rather than developing his full game. And in that situation he went with what he was best at. I think that in 85 we would have been the Bears' SB opponent (and beaten them) if Marino had better post-snap read skills. In the conference championship, the NE D made nearly every adjustment post-snap and Marino struggled that game.
That seems like a choice by Marino rather than the circumstances. Having Marino to sit longer might have forced him to work on his pre-snap reads more, however there is no proof that it would have stuck.
This is where I don't understand other people's thought processes. I truly think my brain just cannot understand how you agree with me on one hand and feel this way on the other. I'm honestly not capable of it. I say we can't know what the best course of action is because it would be based on a deep understanding of Tanny as an individual. You agree, but then say X course should be taken and you base it on nothing about a deep understanding of Tanny as an individual.
True. I once asked Marino why he didn't work on making his play-action game better and he told me he felt he needed the extra time to look at/read the defense. The truth is that Marino was never a true student of the game. Reading defenses quickly was a weakness and he probably chose to rely on his talent in other areas rather than improving that. My read on RT is that he would be far more inclined to work on his weaknesses.
Correct. Successful bad habits can be a bad thing. A QB is cocky anyway. If they get success doing things wrong, then it makes changing them that much harder. Marino was incapable of adapting. He basically had the natural ability to just increase his Marinoness instead of adapting. If he had half the study habits of Manning or hell, Zach Thomas, he'd have rings for most of his fingers.
I also think if Marino had a defense that wasn't absolutely terrible he would have more rings on his fingers.
Probably. But if he'd have studied I don't think our defense would have mattered much. To think about the things he accomplished just by winging it, is mind boggling and infuriating.
I tend to not agree. Football is too much a team sport. It wasn't like Marino wasn't dominate or clutch. There were games he struggled, however there is not a player in the NFL that doesn't have games they struggle. He rarely had anyone else on his team that could pick up the slack in games he didn't do well. Maybe he could have done more, however it would be a lot like the end of Schindler's List, where Oscar was looking at his ring thinking it could have saved one more life.
Obviously having a better team around him helps a QB and overall team success, but that's not the discussion here. The discussion was about how best to develop the QB alone.
While that is true, however I do believe the team around the player does help in developing a quarterback. I might be off base due to lack of actual data, however I would bet that quarterbacks when went into a good system that was already in place, developed better than quarterbacks going into new systems. One of the reasons to keep Tannehill on the bench is for Garrard to go through the growing pains of the offense, so when Tannehill comes in, it is more of a oiled machine.
Maybe. To me it's all circumstantial. Some people not just athletes learn better on the job, I don't pretend to know if this is the case with Tanny but I certainly think many more factors tell the tale. Far from a cut and dry situation.
I agree, no data but the conclusion seems reasonable. In such situations the QB is asked to do less. Other players take more of the heat. And, of course, there is less heat b/c better teams win more. I really believe that if the team is impatient and throws RT in early that he'll have some early failures that will make players/coaches/fans trust him less forever. It's just human nature. I fully believe that if Alex Smith goes on and wins multiple SBs that a segment of people will never get those early struggles out of their memory and they will always think less of him as a player. And obviously, having those around you believe in you contributes to your success. I fully believe that letting RT sit early and avoid those early failures and increase his chances of having long-term success.
He'll get to do that regardless. But since it seems obvious that most benefit from sitting early, there's no sense in risking him simply b/c fans are impatient. IMO that is cut and dry.
While I can understand the thinking behind getting him in games and getting him some experience, I think I'd much rather have him on the field in a position where he can succeed as opposed to one where the season is over and it doesn't matter one way or the other. Sure, the Dolphins season may be over in November, but it's not like the Patriots are going to go light on us. It'll be best to just have Tanny sit until he's won the job.
I agree. If we want to win games and be competitive this season, a healthy Garrard seems like the best choice to me. Also, there is no case of a 1st round rookie QB being held out his entire rookie season, and have it negatively effect his career long term, but there has been plenty of cases of a 1st round rookie QB being thrown into the fire too soon and have it negatively effect him long term.
The thing is, the Bengals made a conscious decision to sit Palmer as a rookie, no matter what. If anything it helped him long term. Kitna was a decent QB at the time and posted some good numbers during that season as I recall. Had the rest of the team did as well as Kitna the Bengals would have done better than 8-8. Garrard or Moore either one could be our Kitna.
How so? If Garrard stays healthy and starts 16 games, what does it matter as for Tanny's development if he rides the bench as the #2 or the #3?
Couch also injured his right shoulder as a rookie, behind the Browns' 5 matadors OL, and tried to play through it. His arm was never the same again after that.