Disagree, Tannehill's lack of performance is setting him up to be..a typical Rookie Qb.

Nice touch w/ the ESPN insider stuff

However I tend to ignore their opinions.

Took them 2 yrs to even recognize Cam Wake..a gasp..CFL refugee, was kinda good.

Now they will line up to kiss his tentacles, which is par for the course with those short rounds.

 

When did this become a compelling argument on this website?

 

Agreed. The fins have a load of offensive talent. The biggest mistake is keeping the all pro Qb Matt Moore off the field though.

 

That article pretty much echoes the consensus here.

 

I don't really like bleacher report.

 

Hmm, since we are passing out excuses:



Lots to choose from, Dolphins fans are good at doing so.

 

Er, he was being facetious.

 

I love how coming into the league and lighting it up as a rookie quarterback is now supposed to be the norm ... smh

 

how in hell can we lose to Tenn and be ranked ahead of them ? and the jets may be in the playoffs and yet they get a better draft pick then us . if the jets , tenn and buffalo each beat us then i would thing Miami would pick befor them or is that even a possibility?

 

this was obvious before the season.

 

Yep, do believe that was changed, if you make the playoffs you are then in the mid 20's automatically

Not sure where the Titans are but head to head and the same record I thought was the scale tipper

 

What are you talking about first of all?

 

For rookie quarterbacks, failure is the norm.

 

lmao

 

There's no doubt Tannehill was set up for failure this year. The only thing I can imagine is that Tannehill winning the starting job was not considered an option. It's good for him though, this game is 80% mental and he's a very smart kid.

 

If anything, Tannehill was set up for success by having the offense he ran in college called by someone who knew him very well, his college head coach.

These ideas are incredibly one-sided and insane IMO.

 

Let's be clear here, I believe Tannehill will be fine moving forward.

HOWEVER, let us not see what we wish to see and not what he is actually doing.

He's playing consistency level is quite erratic, good and bad, flashes then poor play, this is what happens when you draft a Qb with that few college starts.

What does annoy me is this idea that somehow, like magic, "if only he had!!!".

That is delusional.

 

You are my new favorite poster!!! Rookie of the Year in my book.

 

Right, but if you can't believe Tannehill was only X, Y, or Z from becoming one of these stud rookies like RGIII, Luck, or Wilson, then what do you have to feel good about with this team?

There's an incredible push to feel good about something here. Note the thread entitled "What Are We Good At?"

 

Shou, a college offense in the pros?

Guys on the other side of the ball are a bit better then "freshman starting S at Texas" types, all in all THill has done okay, but is limited by his inexperience and erratic accuracy.

Sometimes he sticks a beautiful throw, then botches the simple one, that is the mark of inexperience (which is very different from the 5% I've spoken about)

 

And it's also 40% physical:shifty:

 

Then why isn't the team doing any worse than the average team since 2004 that's had a rookie QB who has played like Tannehill?

 

Plenty, he can stick a slant, for the first time in forever we have a Qb who can do that, he has toughness and moxie, can create yards when a play is not there, he can get the ball up and down past defenders.

 

The same college coach who was **** canned? The same college coach who failed, quite miserably? the college coach who, as a coordinator here, has at times been terrible?

Sherman and Tannehill's familiarity is vastly overrated. He is not playing Tulsa this week, this is the NFL.

Tannehill was not set up for success. He has no receivers, an inconsistent running game and the offensive line has at times tried their best to get him killed.

 

Do the 10 other guys have familiarity in the offense as well? Well except the fullback.

 

If Tannehill was so set up for failure, why is he playing no worse than the average rookie QB since 2004, and why is the team playing no more poorly than the average team since 2004 that's had a rookie QB who has played like him?

These ideas are theories that sound good that can't even incorporate simple data such as that. One simple piece of data blows them away very easily.

 

Honestly, that has -0- effect on my view of Tannehill's Rook performance.

Good and Bad, and don't really care what the Mayock's have to say, know what I've seen for the last 3 months.

His deep ball accuracy worries me, that is the one issue with him I've not seen really improve

 

Bleacher Reports has been under a lot of stress recently, can't blame them for **** articles

http://www.theonion.com/articles/furious-bleacher-report-editor-will-make-staff-ran,30662/

 

If the players around Tannehill were at fault, the team would be doing worse than the teams since 2004 that have gotten play from their rookie quarterbacks that is no different from Tannehill's. That isn't the case, however.

This is all very simple. Tannehill is playing like an average rookie, and the team is doing no worse than the teams since 2004 that have gotten that kind of play from their rookie QBs.

 

:lol: :up:

 

Which is one of the reasons why I think if MMoore had started we'd probably be in the playoff hunt.

We've lost a fair amount of games by 7 pts or less if THill is playing like the usual Rook Qb, it is not unreasonable to then submit that MMoore would have done more with the same Roster.

 

Interesting. I'm feeling the same way.

 

Michael Jordan practiced on a rim that barely fit the ball.

I wonder if playing with those harder conditions had any affect on his game? I just think most rookie QBs are handicapped by the playbook. The coaches compensate for that, with a simpler play selection and in a league that favors the forward pass its easier to have quicker success. We have a unique situation in that the playbook was not an issue, but the supporting cast is. That's harder to mask. In the end, as long as the QB's confidence isn't shaken, he could just as realistically come out the other side of this season a better QB than a worse one. We've seen the talent with our own eyes. Its obviously there.

 

For real? Like the rims at the carnival games?

I agree, it's like they are giving him the Mr. Miyagi treatment.

 

And I would agree with them, but then 32 people would be wrong. :)

 

I don't know what's so funny about Matt Moore. The guy played well when we need him this year and really well for most of last year. No, he's probably not an all-pro. But he's a pretty decent player. Having said that, no, I don't think he should be playing over Tannehill. Tanny has flaws, most of which I hope are due to inexperience. But he's shown me enough to continue to invest in his future. And that means getting at least one player who can make defenses back away from the LOS. I really like Hartline and Bess. But I'd agree that as currently constructed, this team is not giving whatever QB we play the best chance to score points.