This is exactly the question, and I posed it probably 20 pages back in the current massive Tannehill thread.

I believe you attempt to put a decent line out there, allowing Tannehill decent time, and the ability to gain confidence in having a pocket, while also allowing Miller to run without being hit in the backfield. If, in that scenario, Tannehill doesn't show that he's worth keeping, you draft a new QB, and you still have your new QB coming in to a good situation.

In the next draft, I go oline, LB, and CB, in no particular order. And that's all I go after. Maybe also a DE, since we might need someone to replace Wake.

 

If you do A pretty much any QB can play well so no need to pay Tannehill crazy money, and you are still always one injury away. Some of us would argue that Tannehill makes the OL look worse by holding onto the ball, backing into sacks, not rolling away from pressure etc..... so in theory you may never have a good enough OL for him.

 

Oh, I agree. I'm just talking about what our most pressing needs are, and I see those as OL, LB, and CB, maybe DE.

But, if a QB you really like drops, definitely pick him up.

 

^ this, although I would probably put CB, LB, then Oline unless there was an incredible oline pick. I also agree with the person that Thill shouldn't paid franchise money until he shows that he can put this team on his shoulders and carry them to victory. That would be worthy of franchise money, until then he's a decent game manager and should paid as one.

 

This is just another Tannehill thread spun in a different way. Take out Tannehill from the equation all together and option 1 is easier to do and more reliable because any average QB could win games in that system. Finding a special QB to win games on his own is harder.

 

A, because B is just so hard to find - there's not many of them around and the chance of being able to acquire one is low. Of course, if you get the chance, you jump at it, but in the meantime you've got to go with A as it's more achievable.

 

It's easy. You build around one you already have. He's capable. He's not elite, he's not one of those guys like Rodgers, Brady, Manning that is going to succeed without a solid team around him. It'd be foolish to throw him away. QB's like the ones mentioned above that can succeed without talent at key positions around them are few and far between. That being said, every position is always upgradable, if you have an upgrade fall into your lap, then I guess you do it, but that definitely shouldn't be our focus right now.

 

Stats also show that he plays poorly in crunch time, the truth is he has the rest of this year and next year to show that he can be counted on in important situations, last week was the 1st test this year and he failed.

So far, Tanne hasn't proved he's worth the money he'll start to receive after next year when the Fins have a buyout of his contract, if he doesn't prove that he can elevate his play when it matters he won't be kept beyond next year, that is why the contract he signed was structured as it was.

So this is really a wait and see thing, and he'll have to show he deserves the 20 mil per in cap hit that will start to kick in after next year.

 

So...you don't want to answer the question? Please don't turn this thread into something it's not supposed to be.

 

Those of you who voted (or will vote) no. Tells us what your plan to find a better QB would be. And I'm not saying this in a douchey way, I honestly just want to know what you guys would do. Keep drafting QB's until you find a better one? Go after a FA QB?

 

This is what I don't get either. I don't fathom how you want to start the whole process over in search of the next Marino or Rodgers when all you need are two good offensive linemen. If tannenbaum cant find two offensive linemen in free agency and the draft or a trade then he should be fired. It's two not five.

 

I think that a team should constantly be trying to get better in every capacity that they can, I think A and B are the same thing, I don't think you can separate them. Thats just my opinion.

 

We all know tannehill didn't play well against the patriots but how did he fail his first test. One, the team is the super bowl champion, two they are undefeated, three they were collapsing our pocket with a three man rush with linebackers sitting in the short zone and five DBS taking away the middle and long area. What exactly was he going to do to sustain drives against that

 

Sorry, editing this out. I don't want to derail this thread, as some are trying to do.

I agree. You either build around Tannehill, or you go back to drafting a QB in the first round.

 

Rodgers also fell into their lap. I doubt the Packers thought for one second he'd plummet down the draft board as much as he did. And like you said, Favre was 36...they probably thought they had 1 more year of him, 2 at most.

 

The problem is that he doesn't play to his own average in those spots, if his play was the same in those situations I wouldn't be so concerned that he wasn't the answer, but that fact is that he usually plays below his own standard in those situations.

 

So, are you really trying to say that if you draft a QB, then the team has to make sure that the Oline and running game remains bad?

You don't think that's a bit disingenuous?

 

He's not insinuating that you "make sure" the oline and running game stays bad, and whether it's disingenuous or not that's exactly what has happened since Tannehill was drafted, and he's played pretty decent football given those circumstances.

I'm having a hard time thinking of any QB that has played well with a bad o-line. Archie Manning maybe? Fran Tarkenton?

 

I'm not sure I see the need for this debate TBH... the team has already made the decision. The route they took was to invest in the QB. You can only address so many issues in one offseason.

This year, we took care of our own QB. Showed that he's the future in doing so. We decided to spend big resources on the DL in Suh. We upgraded the WR position for the long haul.

I highly suspect this offseason, you'll see the OL addressed, and the LB's/CB's with some pass rush help.

The thing is, you can only do so much at one time with the cap.

I think it's pretty safe at this point to say the FO is looking at option A. Maybe not in the exact words you put it. I'd say their approach is more "Build around Tannehill" When you get a QB that's capable, you work with him. At this point, its easier to fix the other issues on this team, than it is to find another capable QB.

 

I'd vote option C, which is the option every NFL team should ultimately take if they're smart.

C) Build around Tannehill, but draft a solid prospect as well.

There's absolutely no reason why the Fins can't do option A and option B at the exact same time, and it's exactly how you see situations like Favre, Rodgers...Bledsoe, Brady...etc. Teams that draft one quarterback and unquestionably name him "the guy" are destined for being mediocre unless you happen to get that superstar that comes around once a generation. And even though I'm a Matt Moore fan, it's obvious at this point that he's not in a position to push Tannehill to compete at a higher level. So we get a complacent QB who settles for average because that's what the franchise dictates....average is good enough.

But the bigger problem here is not who we draft, it's how we develop the talent. Half of Tannehill's pro career was wasted with bad advice/bad mentoring and he's lucky to still be in the league at all, much less a starting QB. The same can be said about our offensive line; there are high picks across the board and they just haven't developed into anything except for maybe Pouncey. That needs to change quickly and the only way to do it is clean house. Hopefully that's why we brought in Tannenbaum...to get some competent coaches in place that have a history of developing talent.

With that said, we don't need a 1st round QB either....we just need a coaching staff that can make our QB's better.

 

It's not so much having a solid line that definds a great qb.. Even with a great line blitzes will get to him, and when the blitz come a good qb knows how to recognize it and audible into a play that counters it.. A great qb can see blitzes and find his man match up in the secondary and call a hot route to try to exploit the void left by the blitzers...

i dont see RT17 doing any of that or even trying to read a defense.. He has one read and he doesn't stray from that unless he is forced to scramble where he seems to be much better...

RT17 seems to be lacking in the most critical area in the position... Read and lead...