Credit to Shou for the original thread. The sequel is due.
How do you feel after watching Tannehill and the team in Carolina?
Should Ryan Tannehill Start the Regular Season?
-
Yes
101 vote(s)79.5% -
No
26 vote(s)20.5%
Page 1 of 5
-
Yes.
-
Yep.
-
-
dolfan22 Season Ticket Holder Club Member
I feel very positive. He faced tough circumstances and situations , wasn't rattled at all , led a strong td march , made some big 3rd down conversions , and made line changes , aligned players . Showed me a lot , IMO this team isn't arguably better in the win/loss column with any other QB option they have , and the playing time and learning experience will only benefit him and the team.
Not saying this would be the result , but if this team is a 5/6 win team with 17 starting , they are no more than a game or two at best better than that with one of the other options. That to me doesn't warrant him not getting the starts and being the guy. -
I said "No" due to the state of the OLine and WRs, not Tannehill. I was impressed with Tannehill. So much, in fact, that I'm feeling more protective of him than our offensive line is.
Tone_E, emocomputerjock, MAFishFan and 8 others like this. -
Yes.
-
I say yes, but with a little reservation after seeing how bad the right side of our line and our receivers are. I don't want that to kill his confidence, but ultimately I think is probably good enough and strong minded enough to make it work and get through those issues.
-
The happy medium:
You carefully script two series for him per game, and then insert him as the starter when the team is out of playoff contention, which shouldn't take long.
At that point you don't let the score dictate the plays you call, and you remain balanced on offense so he can develop appropriately, rather than trying to have him bring you back from large deficits by passing a ton.PhinsRock, fin13, P h i N s A N i T y and 1 other person like this. -
As of now, yes. We will need another poll after the third preseason game if he's the starter in it. If he executes, a game plan as well as he has been playing in adverse situations, then we are in for a treat within the next couple of years.
Bpk likes this. -
-
-
Larryfinfan 17-0...Priceless Club Member
I think that most of fans feel that he's the guy of our future and that in reality he should spend some time learning the nuances of the game at this level, given his inexperience. The problem is that because of our decade of QB mediocrity (and worse for much of that time), we all want the future to be now...The result of this poll is simple...
-
I think he wins by default,Garrard has been unable to play and Moore has not played well.Is he ready?I guess he has to be,hope he improves with each game under his belt.
-
Yup, while he may not have had the most perfect game, he was still far and away better than Matt Moore.
One other thing I know in my mind for sure, is that I'd be doing everything I can as well to keep Pat Devlin on this roster somehow. -
Hmm...81%
Yet it was barely 2 weeks ago I was shat on pretty good for saying he should start.... -
Ideally we would have Moore starting the season and playing well, as trade bait. There's no rush with RT. If Moore plays well with this offense, and another teams QB goes down...... we could possibly get a 4th or even better for him, or maybe a WR. RT could still get 10-12 starts in that scenario.
But if they really believe Tannehill is the better QB right now, then he has to start Game 1. I don't care how inexperienced he is. -
Garrad wont be ready week 1 and this offense isnt for Matt Moore.
He's the guy. -
yep... I'm more convinced after week 2 even though it wasn't as good of a performance as week 1. Sometimes it's about how you bounce back during a game rather than playing well overall. How do you pick yourself up off the mat? Having said that... offensive line must play better or he won't last 16 games as our starting quarterback.
Bpk likes this. -
What's the reason, Fin?
-
-
lol I think I've said my peace about it in that merry-go-round of a debate. But the summary is that the kid is ready as an individual (which is WAY ahead of where I thought he would be), but the team isnt ready to support his development IMO. If after a few games, the OL is gelling and protecting the QB, and the WRs are getting used to the passing game and are creating seperation... get the kid in there. Hell, get him in there even if his WRs are struggling to create seperation, b/c he can at least practice throwing into tight windows and more importantly throwing WRs open. But we have to be able to protect him so he can properly learn how to stand tall and calm in the pocket and properly go through his progressions based on his post-snap reads of the defense. If hes running for his life behind a poor OL, he can form bad habits of happy feet or too quickly looking for the checkdown man... which can set back, stunt, or even ruin his development IMO.
-
It will never be a perfect world for a young QB.
-
I'm not asking for a perfect world. I'm asking to give the kid 3-4 seconds in the pocket. He can deal with everything else, but he needs to be able to get AT LEAST average protection. What he got on Friday was a dumpster fire...Bpk likes this.
-
If he wins the job, yes he should start. If he is the best QB in camp, you start him, rookie or vet. I still don't think you can make the call yet, but if he out performs Moore this week, than he is our starter.
-
Exactly, I think we have the skill pieces on offense, it is the OL that is a serious problem..again
If one looks at the young Qb's who had success lately they stepped into a gelled offensive line, the ones who did not have that did not succeed, so IMO Dolfans should understand this and give it a couple of games at least. -
You understand there are other possible realities between HORRIBLE and perfect, right?MrClean likes this.
-
Here's a question.... can anyone tell me how many sacks-per-game Tannehill would take if our O-line continued playing at it's current level?
And how would that compare with some other 1st year QB situations and outcomes over the last couple years?
I'm curious if the number of sacks-per-game stat relates to success and failure rates significantly among 1st year starters. Then we know how much weight to give it in this argument.FinNasty likes this. -
That made me laugh. Hard.
Can someone with the ability make me a sig with that pic with my name and my "plight" :lol:unluckyluciano and Bpk like this. -
Good Lord man..:lol:
Think about it, Ryan, Sanchez, had settled OL's when they broke in, Stafford did not and got murdered, as did McCoy.
guys like Newton and Freeman are so large and so mobile it does not matter as much, THill can move but he is not 6'5 270 either. -
Some people need to see it in black and white evidence before believing there is a relation between giant men beating the crap out of you, and not perfectly mentally processing and technically executing precise passes at a pro-bowl level. No relation at all.
You know, the guys who can score 100% on the LSAT while riding a unicycle and being beaten with baseball bats. lol.
For this faction, I seek hard evidence that being murdered can impair performance.FinNasty likes this.
Page 1 of 5