Question to those Guzzling the Tanny Haterade....

We play spread. Every single QB in college plays spread exclusively. Replacing RT is not an issue. No need to worry.
He needs to get better, that's the bottom line. He is not good enough right now to win the SB. He is making too many mistakes.

Tannehill, imho, has been progressing nicely. His TD-INT ratio has improved every season and he even showed flashes of his deep ball today. The problem with our team, first and foremost, is coaching, and we just don't have enough starpower and talent. We have very few dominant players.

Start Matt Hasselbeck :lol:

"Alex44 wrote:

Start Matt Hasselbeck :lol:

Lazor would love that guy, 50 passes a game guaranteed, all shot gun.

"Pennington's Limp Arm wrote:

What is your exit strategy?

I want you to show me in this thread that there is a better way.
It's easy to say there are 19 better quarterbacks in the league (or whatever your # is), but show me how you think Tannehill can be replaced... because Aaron Rodgers isn't walking through the door any time soon.

-Are you thinking there is a better option we can sign in the offseason?
-Would you draft a QB in the 1st round this year? and do you think a franchise QB will be available in the 15-20 range (who)?
-Realistic Trade?
-Draft a QB to develop slowly and re-sign Moore (or vet) to start for a year or two?

I'm a loyal Tannehill supporter, but show me what options are out there. Open my eyes to this better life without Tannehill if you will.

I'll even give you a hand with research.... 2015 free agent QB's:
http://www.spotrac.com/free-agents/nfl/quarterback/

Its not the posters job here to find a competent QB. Maybe its RT, maybe its not. We'll see how the new coach approaches it. I don't care either way.

"TooGoodForDez wrote:

We play spread. Every single QB in college plays spread exclusively. Replacing RT is not an issue. No need to worry.
He needs to get better, that's the bottom line. He is not good enough right now to win the SB. He is making too many mistakes.

So college quarterbacks are playing the spread?
Sounds like rainbows and superbowls for the Dolphins then...

"HogsHDFinsfan wrote:

Its not the posters job here to find a competent QB. Maybe its RT, maybe its not. We'll see how the new coach approaches it. I don't care either way.

That's why the question is directed to the people who do care and want Tannehill gone. What's next if he is gone?

If you respond in this thread by answering any of the questions posed, does it mean you "hate" Tannehill?

I'd love for you to answer what you think the Dolphins should do instead of keeping Tannehill, since you've made it abundantly clear that you believe Tannehill is holding this team back with his subpar play.

If there's a guy they really like and see value in, I would encourage taking a QB in the first 3 rounds. Tannehill hasn't done enough to be a sure-thing "that's our guy for sure" type of QB, imo. The fact that we're even having this conversation suggests as much.

I would take the approach that the best organizations have lately. New England, Seattle, and Philly have all invested heavily in the QB position. They've just thrown resources at it over and over. I'd do the same. Matt Moore's contract is up anyway, and the way rookie salaries are now the risk is really low.

As for specifics, I'm a big fan of Brett Hundley and think he is being underrated from what I've read lately. As the draft season comes around I'm sure more names will look appealing as well - I've just liked Hundley for some time now. He's also very used to playing behind a crap OLine :shifty:. That said, I don't think he or Tannehill (more project/athletic types) are best-served under a coach like Philbin. This head coach NEEDS to go.

I'm not in the target audience for this thread, because I think they need to give Tannehill next year, because it's the last "cheap" year of his contract, and he has too much potential to just give up now. I'd prefer they give him a new coaching staff, but wouldn't be at all upset if they somehow kept the offense in place while cleaning everybody else out.

I think the thread title is too divisive. Just sayin'.

"Limbo wrote:

If there's a guy they really like and see value in, I would encourage taking a QB in the first 3 rounds. Tannehill hasn't done enough to be a sure-thing "that's our guy for sure" type of QB, imo. The fact that we're even having this conversation suggests as much.

I would take the approach that the best organizations have lately. New England, Seattle, and Philly have all invested heavily in the QB position. They've just thrown resources at it over and over. I'd do the same. Matt Moore's contract is up anyway, and the way rookie salaries are now the risk is really low.

As for specifics, I'm a big fan of Brett Hundley and think he is being underrated from what I've read lately. As the draft season comes around I'm sure more names will look appealing as well - I've just liked Hundley for some time now. He's also very used to playing behind a crap OLine :shifty:. That said, I don't think he or Tannehill (more project/athletic types) are best-served under a coach like Philbin. This head coach NEEDS to go.

I'm not against your idea in principle--the thought of using a 4th round pick on a QB for example.

However, from a practical standpoint, the number of reps in practice is highly limited which means that coaches in the current NFL don't even really have enough time to develop 1 QB, let along multiple guys.

In the NFL today, you have to put all your eggs in one basket. It's not great, but it's forced upon you.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

I'm not against your idea in principle--the thought of using a 4th round pick on a QB for example.

However, from a practical standpoint, the number of reps in practice is highly limited which means that coaches in the current NFL don't even really have enough time to develop 1 QB, let along multiple guys.

In the NFL today, you have to put all your eggs in one basket. It's not great, but it's forced upon you.

Tell that to Seattle and Philly, who brought in a whole bunch of guys - rookies and vets alike - until they found an answer. And even then teams like Philly and New England are investing in guys in the wings to stash and develop for insurance or whatever.

It's a situation where today's cost for a (fairly) high rookie draft pick is really low relative to their potential value on the field, simply because the QB position is just THAT singularly important in the NFL. If we're going to need a second guy anyway as Moore leaves, I say just use that resource, coach em up, and start some good ol' competition. At the very least you fill your empty backup spot with a guy you felt good about in the eval process.

If I've said it once, I've said it a million ****ing times: Tannehill isn't the problem.

"MAFishFan wrote:

If I've said it once, I've said it a million ****ing times: Tannehill isn't the problem.

He isn't a solution, not right now.

"TooGoodForDez wrote:

We play spread. Every single QB in college plays spread exclusively. Replacing RT is not an issue. No need to worry.
He needs to get better, that's the bottom line. He is not good enough right now to win the SB. He is making too many mistakes.

He does need to get better. Your statement that replacing him is not an issue is completely wrong. We can do better, but I do not see a single QB available next year that I would pick to replace him. Things may change by the offseason, but I believe my opinion will not change.

Thill has shown enough that I have no problem moving ahead with him. Is he there yet? Nope. But he looks better all the time and that is all I can ask at this point. Other than one season with a gimpy armed Pennington he has clearly been the best Qb this team has had since Marino.

We could always try to bring Cleo Lemon back if you guys are interested in going that route.

"Limbo wrote:

Tell that to Seattle and Philly, who brought in a whole bunch of guys - rookies and vets alike - until they found an answer. And even then teams like Philly and New England are investing in guys in the wings to stash and develop for insurance or whatever.

It's a situation where today's cost for a (fairly) high rookie draft pick is really low relative to their potential value on the field, simply because the QB position is just THAT singularly important in the NFL. If we're going to need a second guy anyway as Moore leaves, I say just use that resource, coach em up, and start some good ol' competition. At the very least you fill your empty backup spot with a guy you felt good about in the eval process.

New England doesn't count, having a HOF qb tends to give you flexibility. And really, none of the New England farmed qbs have proven to be all that good. Jury's out on mallet and cassel wasn't much. Hoyer just got benched. Seattle brought in a bunch of qbs because they had no one. They're not aggressively looking anymore. Philly needed a back up to foles, let's not act like they went out and actively pursued Sanchez.

Just like us, if Moore leaves someone will obviously get signed as a backup.

Here's my thoughts on it:

1. No QB that we have will be good behind our current oline. Fixing the oline is still, after like 6 years, a massive issue.

2. Get a dynamic WR to pair with Landry.

3. Replace LBers.

4. Get another corner.

Once those things are fixed, see where Tannehill is at. If he's no good, look for a serious replacement. Until the team is good, I don't see the point on even trying to replace Tannehill. Of course, I also think that with an average oline, Tannehill would be looking alot better. With a dynamic receiver, he would look awesome.

"DPlus47 wrote:

.

I think the thread title is too divisive. Just sayin'.

Maybe, but it seems a lot of people on the forum are saying/hinting they want Tannehill replaced... thread is directed at them.
If it's that easy to replace a QB with Tannehill's skill and experience, let's hear it. Who is going to do a better job?

Great quarterbacks aren't just sitting around waiting for Miami to call.

So far the thread is what I expected.... crickets for the most part and the odd person saying take an unnamed QB in the 2nd or 3rd round.

Honestly, I am confused when it comes to Ryan Tannehill...because we threw more deep passes yesterday than we have the past 6 weeks combined. He had 2 picks, both his fault, and we saw that 50% accuracy guy when he's playing like a regular QB and not just throwing 2 yard dinks. Then again, he's also had at least 5 TD passes dropped over the past month (I don't have the heart to go back and actually count), so I don't think accuracy is the only issue here. We saw Wallace's SPECTACULAR TD pass but we also see him take entire drives off where he makes almost zero effort....so it's hard to grade a QB when his receivers quit on him. Then again, that's another massive indication that he's not the guy...

While the kid has almost everything you're looking for in a QB1, the only way forward is to draft another answer 2-3 years in a row and let these rookies compete for the starting job. If Tannehill keeps getting the nod then so be it, and if not then that's fine too. From this point forward though, I don't see how you can call him the lock at QB when his December #'s have been consistently among the worst in the league for two years now. And honestly, I don't even want to get into the debate of why...blame the coordinators, the receivers, the line or whatever...but the fact remains that we have a high-powered offense that can't score points. So keeping the same pieces in place and expecting a different outcome is insanity...we just can't keep doing it.

"TooGoodForDez wrote:

He isn't a solution, not right now.

What your asking him to solve Marino, Elway and Montana couldn't solve. Marino couldn't overcome a shifty defense and this defense hads played as bad as those have.

RT isn't Marino and yes Marino was better, but Dan's oline was better.

Its easy when the TEAM is playing poorly to shout RT sucks replace him, yet when we were beating SD37-0 where were you? Or when we. Won by dble digits?

Tired of the borish unfounded bias that think they Know.

How can anyone say the second pick was on Tannehill? Browner smashed Miller, doubling him over before the ball got there, causing the ball to deflect off the top back of Miller's helmet. GTFO. The first was on Tannehill, but show me a QB who doesn't throw a bad pass that gets picked off??

I say keep Tannyhll another year, but start bringing in competition. Spend a first rounder on a QB if a good one falls to us. I don't believe Tannyhill is the long term answer for this team.

I think that an average QB can look good behind a good oline, with a good defense. I say you fix the oline, fix the defense, and get a legit #1 receiver. If Tanehill still isn't what you want once those things are in place, then you start drafting. Until then, it's a waste of high picks if you draft QB's. Of course, I also think that Tannehill will look amazing behind a good oline with a legit #1 receiver on the field making plays.