Sparano and Henne's time in Miami, does anyone recall?

Of course the blame is never 100% in ANY scenario, but we are supposed to draft players to fill actual needs. A good example is Dion Jordan....elite, elite athlete that we took at #3 overall, and two years later we were still saying, "What do we do with this guy? Is he a defensive end, a linebacker, a wide receiver?" We have absolutely zero clue how to use him effectively. And then he got high a few times and this becomes a completely different story...

Back on point though, we drafted Tannehill because HIS COLLEGE COACH BEGGED FOR HIM in a Dolphin uniform. There was no secrets in regards to what Tannehill did well and what he had to improve on, yet we went in an entirely different direction with his development and tried to force him to become something that he's not. Because while he's certainly more accurate than 5 years ago, it does not show in offensive productivity. And for what? Because mobile QB's take more hits? Tannehill takes more hits than any other QB anyway. Some would say that he'd take less hits if he was still doing what he did so well in college, which is rolling out and either throwing bullets or hitting a seam and taking off.

 

Ok, well, Dion Jordan's biggest issue is that he was a clear 3-4 player in my eyes. Had he been drafted by a 3-4 team will a hole to fill he would've been a starter and he would've at least had a chance and his success would've been entirely up to him. Why Miami drafted him when (1) he didn't fit the scheme, (2) they had talent at pass rusher and (3) they had other needs will never be explained except in the word "Ireland."

But when you look at players who do fit the scheme--or who the scheme is built around in the case of a QB--you have to watch them play and figure out for yourself whether or not they're doing all they can and for 3 years we've seen Tannehill be this very awkward QB who generally appears not to be in control of what's going on.

I do agree that he's generally been coached to be more cautious, but I think that's part of what's made him look decent to this point.

 

I was here and do remember people proclaiming we've finally found our QB since Marino.

 

Yes, while Sparano was clueless offensively, my overall analysis of Sparano's scheme is still accurate. The two years at Henne was the full time starter, he threw 451 times in 14 games in 2009 and 490 times in 15 games played in 2010.

Doing the math, that comes to 32 attempts average per game while we only averaged rushing the ball during that same time frame 23 times a game. Keep in mind these are only averages and as such, some games the passing attempts would be higher/lower as would the rushing attempts but bottom line, Sparano's tenure was throw throw throw...particular illustrated in that heartbreaking loss to Cleveland as I previously illustrated

 

There seems to be an implicit philosophy that QBs are dependent on their surroundings to succeed, when I suspect the opposite is true, that QBs, by virtue of their level of talent, make their surroundings either better or worse. The game revolves around the ability of that player to such an extent that the causal relationship is much more likely to be in the direction of "better QB equals better surroundings" than the other way around.

 

I would argue that what you say only applies to the very best of the best. For the next tier down, which is much more common, a good player can play very well with good surroundings, but struggle with lousy ones.

 

That's not really any different than what he said.

What Tannephins is saying is that there's a probably going to be a good correlation between how talented your QB is and how successful your offense is: a good QB leads to good production, an average QB leads to average production, a bad QB leads to bad production, etc.

What you're citing is nothing but a particular case inside his more general premise.

Without doing any analysis, I'd say he's probably close to being correct, lol.

 

It's not a secret that I have not been a Tannehill fan for quite some time now; I think he has some intangibles that are off the charts, but for whatever reason he can't seem to calm down and get through his reads. That's a common rookie problem in the NFL that few players overcome their first year, but I think the problem was compounded for Tannehill because he wanted to use his legs to escape pressure. For example, when we switched to the read option last season, he kept the ball less than a dozen times total...even when the read told him to take off running. And it's not that he was blowing the read....either the DE crashes down or he doesn't. Tannehill just chooses not to run.

But let's forget about the past for a moment and focus solely on the future. What are the odds that starting next Sunday, everything will magically click and Tannehill will make proper reads, scramble when the situation demands it and become a true franchise quarterback? Because here's the thing- Campbell is not invested in Ryan Tannehill and he has little reason to keep him on the field if he's not the guy. So this argument may be a moot point; either Tannehill has a fantastic October or we're going to see Moore by November.

 

I think even in those cases, what you'll see is that the team plays better, because there are more quality elements of it (defense, running game, etc.), whereas the QB plays no better individually. In other words, the surroundings, while better for the team's success as a whole, do no better for the QB individually. The QB's ability still dictates his own performance.