Stat I saw on social media.

"cuchulainn wrote:

No argument there. Wished we had drafted him. Still, he had to be coached up and given time to develop. He got to ride the pine on a play off team for a few seasons, not come in, like Tannehill, as an inexperienced rookie project and become the franchise savior.

I don't think the GM, who drafted him at 8, or the coach, who played him right away, feel he was a project. If so then they f***** up real bad.

"jdang307 wrote:

I don't think the GM, who drafted him at 8, or the coach, who played him right away, feel he was a project. If so then they f***** up real bad.

Not at all. Go back and watch the draft and Hard Knocks again. They talked about his inexperience and being considered a project with tons of potential. They knew he'd take time and fully planned to sit him behind Garrard and Moore and let him get a year to season and learn from the vets. Instead, he was pressed into play when Garrard was lost to injury and Moore was all Moore-like and they rolled the dice with him. Trial by fire as per Sherman and Philbin.

"KingMotion wrote:

What about the GM who signed David Garrard or the coach who named him the starter before injury?

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk

Exactly. They signed and started a guy who ended his career by turning around at the pool.

"cuchulainn wrote:

Not at all. Go back and watch the draft and Hard Knocks again. They talked about his inexperience and being considered a project with tons of potential. They knew he'd take time and fully planned to sit him behind Garrard and Moore and let him get a year to season and learn from the vets. Instead, he was pressed into play when Garrard was lost to injury and Moore was all Moore-like and they rolled the dice with him. Trial by fire as per Sherman and Philbin.

You don't start projects at QB in the NFL. That's just ridiculous. You start QBs because you think they give you the best chance to win NFL games. If that happens to be a project than someone effed up majorly on building the roster. You don't go tossing away 3 seasons just because of a project.

"jdang307 wrote:

Exactly. They signed and started a guy who ended his career by turning around at the pool.

That's a completely disingenuous way to put it.

"jdang307 wrote:

You don't start projects at QB in the NFL. That's just ridiculous. You start QBs because you think they give you the best chance to win NFL games. If that happens to be a project than someone effed up majorly on building the roster. You don't go tossing away 3 seasons just because of a project.

This is just something that sounds good when you say it fast on ESPN, but in the end it doesn't hold up.

After Garrard went down, the rookie Tannehill, project or not, was as good as the other QBs on the team. At that point, you'd be an irresponsible coach not to start him. You aren't going to the playoffs with Moore or Devlin (Devlin that early in his career and in a new system), so why not start the guy with franchise POTENTIAL and get reps under his belt.

Unless you put Tannehill into the exact offense, with the exact defenses opposite and the same coaching and play calling the comparison is pretty irrelevant. Supporting cast plays a huge part of a players ability to make plays. Also, Rodgers is a supreme talent. He's HOF bound. I love Tannehill and I'm hopeful for the future but I don't think he's nearly the player Rodgers is. As long as he shows progress, the team shows progress, and the staff show progress, he'll be our QB going forward and I'm happy with that. This is the point where the doomsday contingent ask me if I'm happy with mediocrity. No, I want to see them win a SB, but 31 teams go home empty handed at the end of the year and the dolphins have no right to expect anything other than a team who look like they want to compete on the field.

"cuchulainn wrote:

Was about to point out the same thing...

Rodgers was drafted in 2005 and spent his first two seasons behind Favre and learning from the sidelines. By 2009 he was a 4 year vet on a solid team apart from the Offensive Tackles. This was a team that was 13-3 in 07, and had a down season in 08 where Favre was falling apart.

Also in 09, they had Nelson, Finley, Jones, Driver, Jennings, etc... at receiver, and Ryan Grant put up over 1200 yards on the ground. Jennings was a 1300 yard receiver. Huge difference in team talent levels and the maturity of Rodgers vs Tannehill, who had revolving doors in front of him everywhere but Center and no where near the talent level at receiver or running backs that Rodgers had.

But yeah, go Social Media...

Great post.

It was simply a bad comparison. Rodgers also had many more games under his belt from college.

"Fin-Omenal wrote:

Hard to say, Aaron is a special player...he was born not bred IMO.

Actually this is extreme it seems to me.

He was not so great that people drafted him #1. In fact he went, what, 22nd? After Alex Smith went #1? He was a very good QB in college but no one saw him as a great QB.

He was in fact bread. It's both nature and nurture (as Darwin recognizes), not one or the other. What he did have was a great offense to walk into at GB. You can't ignore the comparisons by Unlucky and Cuchulainn above. It's not just that Rogers is a great QB and better than RT coming out - but that the comparison based on sacks alone misses so many other variables that Rogers had over RT. It's simply bad science because it doesn't account for those other influences noted by those guys above.

Clearly, RT needs to improve. I don't think you'll get much disagreement. But, in reality, we really don't know how good this kid is or could be unless we get a strong supporting cast around him - including a strong OL. One factor that if often ignored is that QBs can be pretty fragile and if they get the right team behind them that can take some pressure away, they can develop confidence and then, they can become a top tier QB.

Football is the ultimate team game of all the major sports. Being a great QB is nothing at all like being a great pitcher for example (not saying you are making that comparison).

I bring it up every offseason, but:

Rodgers college stats:


Games
Cmp
Att
%
Yds
Yrds/A
TD
Int
Rate


25
424
665
63.8
5469
8.2
43
13
150.3

Tannehills college stats:


Games
Cmp
Att
%
Yds
Yrds/A
TD
Int
Rate


26
479
765
62.6
5450
7.0
42
21
134.2


* I omitted the 9 attempts he took in 08 & 09 since he wasn't really QBing then.

Tanny threw more passes in 19 games than Rodgers did in his career? Is that right?

"PhinFan1968 wrote:

You can compare the 2 all year long and come out with the same result....Rodgers > Tannehill.

Good thing you don't need Rodgers to win the Super Bowl.

???? Huh

This thread is a dud, lets talk about more pressing matters like McClean, who in the hell is that girl in your signature? I'm in absolute love with her.

"Da 'Fins wrote:

Actually this is extreme it seems to me.

He was not so great that people drafted him #1. In fact he went, what, 22nd? After Alex Smith went #1? He was a very good QB in college but no one saw him as a great QB.

He was in fact bread. It's both nature and nurture (as Darwin recognizes), not one or the other. What he did have was a great offense to walk into at GB. You can't ignore the comparisons by Unlucky and Cuchulainn above. It's not just that Rogers is a great QB and better than RT coming out - but that the comparison based on sacks alone misses so many other variables that Rogers had over RT. It's simply bad science because it doesn't account for those other influences noted by those guys above.

Clearly, RT needs to improve. I don't think you'll get much disagreement. But, in reality, we really don't know how good this kid is or could be unless we get a strong supporting cast around him - including a strong OL. One factor that if often ignored is that QBs can be pretty fragile and if they get the right team behind them that can take some pressure away, they can develop confidence and then, they can become a top tier QB.

Football is the ultimate team game of all the major sports. Being a great QB is nothing at all like being a great pitcher for example (not saying you are making that comparison).

When I say born not bred I'm talking about Aaron was going to succeed IMO regardless of how long he sat and waited for a chance. He had that chip on his shoulder his whole career. Did it help him?? Yes.

As far as supporting casts, I'll say it again...AROD has had as a whole even worse OLs rankings wise than any QB in the league. The running game has NEVER been any good until they drafted Lacy, so basically Aaron has had a good RB for about 7 games in his NFL career. As far as WRs go, I think Aaron has a lot more to do with their success then they do his.

Draft a QB this year in the later rounds and see what could be.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Rodgers was also further along in his career and had a better supporting cast, and a better coach. Not an apples to apples comparison.

Not to mention years of sitting behind one of the best of all times.

"SICK wrote:

Not to mention years of sitting behind one of the best of all times.

A guy who would barely speak to him, the time to sit helped for sure. But Aaron isn't Aaron because he had to wait.

"Fin-Omenal wrote:

A guy who would barely speak to him, the time to sit helped for sure. But Aaron isn't Aaron because he had to wait.

The bold contradicts the underline.

If sitting helped him, then waiting absolutely played a part in Aaron being Aaron. Had he not sat and waited he may be a different QB today or at the very it may have taken longer for him to become what he is.

"MrClean wrote:

Brady's wife is a beard? What does that mean to you?

A beard is a when you're gay but you have a girlfriend/wife to cover up that you're gay.

Hard to top a runway model for one. GOAT beard... lol

"Fin D wrote:

The bold contradicts the underline.

If sitting helped him, then waiting absolutely played a part in Aaron being Aaron. Had he not sat and waited he may be a different QB today or at the very it may have taken longer for him to become what he is.

Yes it does. I'll be more specific, Aaron's incredible ability is something that can't be taught. Now as far as being ready to perform at a high level out of the gate? Absolutely that practice time and mental reps helped.

If you've watched him his career you see an abundance of ability that simply can not be taught. Tanny has been thrown into the fire and nobody should expect him to be a top 3 QB likely at any point in his career. Just want to see some significant growth, no excuses this year.

"Fin-Omenal wrote:

Yes it does. I'll be more specific, Aaron's incredible ability is something that can't be taught. Now as far as being ready to perform at a high level out of the gate? Absolutely that practice time and mental reps helped.

If you've watched him his career you see an abundance of ability that simply can not be taught. Tanny has been thrown into the fire and nobody should expect him to be a top 3 QB likely at any point in his career. Just want to see some significant growth, no excuses this year.

That's all well and good, but there hasn't been "excuses" for Tannehill up to this point. There have been "reasons".

"Fin D wrote:

That's all well and good, but there hasn't been "excuses" for Tannehill up to this point. There have been "reasons".

Debatable. He needs to improve in multiple areas.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

"Fin-Omenal wrote:

Debatable. He needs to improve in multiple areas.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

- Terrible WR corp his first year is not an excuse or debatable.
- Terrible oline last year is not an excuse or debatable.
- Terrible OC both years is not an excuse or debatable.
- Having less experience then most other QBs is not an excuse or debatable.

"Fin-Omenal wrote:

THIS IS NOT A THREAD TO BASH RYAN TANNEHILL OR ANY OTHER RED BLOOD AMERICAN.

Thought this was interesting .. Aaron Rogers vs Ryan Tannehill:
In 2009 and 2012, Aaron Rogers was sacked 51 and 50 times respectively. What were his combined numbers for those two seasons:
8,728 yards, 69 TDs, 15 INTs, 101 sacks, 105.6 rat
Team record: 22-10
Ryan Tannehill's numbers over the last 2 years where he was sacked 35 times and 58 times respectively:
7,207 yards, 36 TDs, 30 INTs, 93 sacks, 79.1 rat
Team record: 15-17

The point of this is to recognize that while RT had one of the 10 worst OLs in football this season, performing well is still not beyond the realm of possibility. Mr Tanny? The time is NOW, play like a franchise QB this year or you will lose my support and many others. #noexcuses

Sometimes you gotta compare apples to apples... In 2009, Rodgers had spent 3 yrs on the bench, plus two years as a starter when he had the season with all the sacks.... He also started 2 yrs in JUCO and 2 yrs at Cal. Tanny had 19 starts as a QB in college and that was his second year as a starter. You also have to compare the differences in the teams...Rodgers was on a SB winning and SB contending team in those two years as the GB starter...I don't think we can say the same about the cast surrounding Tanny these last two years....

I'm sorry, I don't see the comparison...good or bad with Rodgers and Tanny at this point....

Russel Wilson played one season of cfb, had a worse OL and his best WR was A young Golden Tate.

Ofcourse it's debatable. But, for the most part I agree with what you are saying.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

"Larryfinfan wrote:

Sometimes you gotta compare apples to apples... In 2009, Rodgers had spent 3 yrs on the bench, plus two years as a starter when he had the season with all the sacks.... He also started 2 yrs in JUCO and 2 yrs at Cal. Tanny had 19 starts as a QB in college and that was his second year as a starter. You also have to compare the differences in the teams...Rodgers was on a SB winning and SB contending team in those two years as the GB starter...I don't think we can say the same about the cast surrounding Tanny these last two years....

I'm sorry, I don't see the comparison...good or bad with Rodgers and Tanny at this point....

I get that, hence the first line of the thread. I was simply proving that having a bad OL doesn't answer the questions on if Ryan IS our guy.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

"Fin-Omenal wrote:

Russel Wilson played one season of cfb, had a worse OL and his best WR was A young Golden Tate. Ofcourse it's debatable. But, for the most part I agree with what you are saying.Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

wilson played more than 1 year of cfb. dont forget he was a starter at nc state before wisconsin.