Re-Poll After Carolina: Should Ryan Tannehill Start the Regular Season?

Right, but that type of idealism rarely manifests itself in the NFL. Defenses carrying teams in the NFL is extremely rare. The reality is that teams are carried by QBs.

 

They really have no choice without having egg on their faces, because of their premature ill advised decision. Right now today, IMO, Any of Murtha, Jerry, or Garner, at least, would be a better option at RT.

 

Wow. My point here is that you have no guarantee that those things ever happen. The defense could be worse in 2013 than 2012. Are you still going to bench the QB then because his bed isn't made?

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. I'm saying that this team has warts like every other team in the league.

 

It'll be the fault of the combination of everything, which is why IMO you don't start Tannehill. You let David Garrard get pounded into the ground until you're out of playoff contention and you can run a balanced offense.

This team is a perfect storm rationale for not starting Tannehill: Poor defense, poor receivers, rookie right tackle. Put this mess on Garrard.

 

Right, but defenses are good enough not to let games get out of hand, which lets QBs enjoy balance on offense, which is what rookie QBs need.

Rookie QBs are rarely able to carry teams. They need help, and if you can't give them that help, you wait until you can give it or until they develop to the point that they don't need it.

On this team that would be waiting until we're out of playoff contention and the offense can stay balanced.

 

Cant really find any fault with this argument, it is sound, based on logical reasoning. I am torn because I think he is ready and the supporting cast isnt as bad as what we are seeing, plus Hartline will help tremendously. But I am coming around to your argument.

 

That's what I mean. It seems like you're comparing us to the norm rather than the top 5 or 6 teams where the warts are considerably less.

 

No, because at that point Tannehill would presumably have at least a half a season of starting experience under his belt and would no longer be a rookie who's in such need of certain things surrounding him to be successful.

This is a rookie QB we're talking about this year. After this year he's no longer a rookie.

 

Carry teams to what? If you're saying Tannehill can't carry them to a Super Bowl, I agree.

If you're saying that he can't carry himself to not taking sacks with an arguably terrible RT, then I very much disagree.

 

I don't agree that the warts are less. The strengths (QB) are just much stronger. Generally speaking of course, because you do have teams like SF and BAL that don't have very strong QBs.

 

Well, I've never been a fan of throwing Tanny into the fire as a rookie under any conditions, BUT, if we do so the by far #1 thing we need to have a solid offensive line in front of him.

 

By "carry the team" I mean often being put in the situation where the team is down big on the scoreboard, can't run the ball, and has to pass to come back.

Obviously all teams are in those situations from time to time, but teams with weak defenses are in them more, and I don't think it's a good idea to start a rookie QB with a poor receiving corps on a team with a weak defense.

The first quarter against Carolina was a study in this. At the end of the quarter we were down 17-0. If that were the regular season, the game would then be on Tannehill's shoulders.

Next year, fine. But not this year, when he's a rookie.

 

I don't believe the conditions would compromise his chances, nor do I believe it to be urgent. The best player should start IMO.

 

What teams are these? If you look at teams like NE or GB, their pass defenses have been very bad. The Steelers have had a very bad OL for years now. There are a lot of teams out there that are successful with major issues.

When I look at our team I don't really see a situation thats any worse than what the Bengals put Dalton in last year.

 

He had better receivers to work with, especially Green.

 

Overall, when you factor in depth across the board (WR/TE/RB) I think the two are comparable.

 

I would not agree with that at all. They also did not have a revolving door at right tackle.

 

Yes, I think Tannehill should be the week 1 starter and yes, I think Martin will get better every day. It's been 23 days since camp opened and it's 21 days until the season opener vs. Houston. Why all the angst?

 

Considering he's taken less repetitions at QB compared to a guy like Luck, IMO it's plausible to say that any negative surrounding conditions (poor protection, ineffective ground game, and unsupportive D) have a greater chance of leading to bad habits since his habits are likely less engraved than a more experienced rookie QB's.

That's one reservation I'd have for starting him from day 1 if the rest of the team is lagging behind. With all the changes, why not give the team a few weeks to settle in so that Tannehill is hopefully introduced to slightly more favorable circumstances (or should I say "less drastic circumstances" if that happens to be the case)?

 

Martin should attend a "Go For It" session, because I think Matt Foley could help him get back on the right track.
Ok Jonny boy either you learn to pass block or you're gonna be eating a steady diet of govt cheese and living in a van down by the river.

 

I honestly don't expect Tannehill to ever be like a top 5 QB in the league. He may be annually a top 10-15 about on the level of guys like Flacco, Schaub, Cutler, or Hasselbeck in his prime. That's his ceiling IMO.

 

That skit is hilarious....I imagine it would take a LOT of cheese to feed Martin.

 

I can see this, if the OL can't shape up on the right side, particularly at RT. In that scenario though I think you have to start Garrard, not Moore. Bring Tanny along at a slow but steady pace and yes, we will be out of the hunt by mid season so then Tanny should get the starting job.

 

If I could add to his argument, the time it takes for both sides of the ball to get comfortable in the new schemes.

Haven't decided yet what I would do, kinda like the coaches, but I've said before I'm not opposed to giving Moore a chance til the bye to produce a winning record.

I want to see how he reacts after the start last week, if he takes more control or not, ( which I think he should, establish more of a voice from the get, impose some leadership to this thus far uninspiring offense)

I think we're dealing with a set of circumstances where a case can be made that he's a lot more ready than the normal situation.

 

I voted for RT in the original poll, and I vote for him here.....the drop-off between RT to MM/DG is not much IF any ay all...

 

I agree. I also like Shou's idea tho dont know if it is feasible but would help transition but worry about Moore's/team's psyche. Do they view this as a no confidence vote?

I think that if Hartline doesnt play preseason and oline struggles continue, then go with Moore and settle the support cast while Ryan learns & isnt required to take the beating

 

While I think Tannehill is better than Moore, I don't think you can look at the remainder of the team so far and think that we'll be putting Tannehill in a position to succeed.

 

I think right now everyone is overeacting to a bad game by the OL... and not just any game, a preseason game. I think we all know by now that the preseason is very difficult to judge. If we looked at the first preseason game where our OLine didnt surrender a single sack, we could have threads about how great our OL is and how well they would protect a young starting QB. Now because we had one bad PRESEASON game, everyone is making snap judgements about the protection of our QB and the effect it will have on his psyche and future success. I think everyone needs to temper their outlook based on the little we know right now.

That being said, I'm still not sold on Tannehill starting. At this point in time I would rather see Matt Moore or Garrard taking over to start the season, not because I don't believe that Tannehill isnt the better QB, but because I think there is alot to be said about easing a rookie QB into the starting position.

 

I think a large part of this competition we are not privy to, this staff has to be in tune with the teams mindset, if they think we're playing RT to get him exp for the future, you may lose the locker room and have players not playing their hardest during the season, he has to completely demonstrate to his teammates that he is without question the best player at his position on several different levels.

 

I think people are hoping that M Moore can reproduce what he did last season, finishing 6-3 (even though I believe he was 6-6 overall?).
I have serious concerns that much of Moore's success was based on throwing nice long balls for B marshall, and w/o BM, Moore will not only struggle, but may flounder in Philbin's system.
Even taking into consideration that Tannehill is a rookie and will make some stupid mistakes that will cost us games, I don't see Moore doing any better.
I'd rather have Moore as a backup than the starter.

the more interesting question is what happens when Garrard comes back? does he get cut?

 

In the 6 quarters that Tannehill and Moore have played there has been 71 pass attempts and 3 sacks. Other notable QBs like RGII 14/3, Matt Flynn has 26/3, Joe Flacco 24/3, Sanchize 17/5 seem to have it much worse.



I’m not defending Martins play against the Panthers. I’m simply noting that in almost 3x the attempts, the sack total doesn't appear to be as bad as many are making it out to be.

 

We'll be putting him in position to take care of his business, though. That's important. You do your job regardless of what the guys around you are doing. If it doesn't result in enough points, so be it. But you still do your job, make good decisions, make good throws, manage the pocket...look like an NFLer because that's what you're supposed to be.

 

All I know is that my lifes enemy is now David Garrads swimming pool.