Here is your list of rookie QBs who have gotten significant playing time since 2004:
[TABLE="width: 454"]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl65, width: 191, bgcolor: transparent"]QB
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66, width: 129, bgcolor: transparent"]Rating
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl66, width: 127, bgcolor: transparent"]Win%
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, width: 95, bgcolor: transparent"]Rating Z
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl68, width: 64, bgcolor: transparent"]Win% Z
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Ben Roethlisberger
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]98
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]1
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]1.80
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]2.74
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Joe Flacco
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]80
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.688
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.51
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]1.24
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Matt Ryan
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]88
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.688
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]1.08
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]1.24
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Mark Sanchez
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]63
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.563
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.71
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.63
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Russell Wilson
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]91
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.6
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]1.30
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.81
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Andrew Luck
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]77
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.6
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.29
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.81
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]RGIII
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]105
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.455
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]2.30
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.12
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Cam Newton
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]85
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.375
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.87
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.27
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Andy Dalton
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]80
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.563
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.51
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.63
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Vince Young
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]67
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.615
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.42
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.88
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Sam Bradford
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]77
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.438
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.29
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.03
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Jay Cutler
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]89
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.4
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]1.15
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.15
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Trent Edwards
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]70
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.556
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.21
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.60
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Kyle Orton
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]60
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.667
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.92
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]1.13
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Eli Manning
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]55
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.142
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-1.28
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-1.39
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Matt Leinart
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]74
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.364
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.08
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.32
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Matt Stafford
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]61
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.2
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.85
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-1.11
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Josh Freeman
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]60
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.333
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.92
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.47
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Jimmy Clausen
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]58
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.1
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-1.07
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-1.59
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Colt McCoy
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]75
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.25
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.15
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.87
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Charlie Frye
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]73
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.4
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]0.01
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.15
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Alex Smith
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]41
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.286
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-2.28
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.70
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Bruce Gradkowski
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]66
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.273
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.49
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.76
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Blaine Gabbert
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]65
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.286
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.56
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.70
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Christian Ponder
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]70
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.2
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.21
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-1.11
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Brandon Weeden
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]70
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.2
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.21
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-1.11
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl64, bgcolor: transparent"]Ryan Tannehill
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]70
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.4
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.21
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"]-0.15
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: transparent"]AVERAGE
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]72.89
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.431
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: xl67, bgcolor: transparent"]STANDARD DEVIATION
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]13.97
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl63, bgcolor: transparent"]0.208
[/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[TD="class: xl69, bgcolor: transparent"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
As you can see, the average rookie quarterback who has gotten significant playing time since 2004 has a QB rating of 72.89, a little more than two points higher than Ryan Tannehill's current QB rating.
The average winning percentage of those teams during the games those QBs started was 0.431, which is just a tad higher than the Dolphins' current winning percentage (0.400).
The key columns here are "Rating Z" and "Win% Z," which indicate how many standard deviations from average the rookie QB's rating falls, as well as how many standard deviations from average the team's winning percentage falls.
A number of 1 or higher in those columns indicates that the value (either QB rating or team winning percentage) falls at least one standard deviation from average, which puts it at the 84th percentile or higher. In other words, a score of 1 or higher makes the value better than at least 84% of the QBs or teams in the sample.
That's the level at which I'd personally call a value "significant" in this (or just about any) sample. In other words, only if the number in the "Rating Z" and "Win% Z" columns is 1 or higher would I call it "especially good."
As you can see, there are only 4 teams of the 27 listed -- 15% -- that have managed to do significantly better than the average team that's started a rookie QB since 2004.
So, the take-home message is this: if you believe this team should be doing significantly better than its record right now, realize that you're expecting the team to function as well as only 15% of teams with rookie QBs have since 2004.
On the other hand, there are 5 teams of the 27 above -- 19% -- that did significantly worse with a rookie quarterback than the Dolphins are doing right now.
So, when we evaluate how the team is doing right now, IMO we should realize that the team is working with a rookie QB, and based on the recent history in the NFL, there is an 85% chance the team won't do significantly better than it is right now under such circumstances.
IMO we should also realize that the team is nowhere near the 19% of teams that performed significantly more poorly than average with a rookie QB. Instead, the team right now is safely among the 81% of teams that did not perform significantly more poorly than average with a rookie QB.
In other words, contrary to popular belief, there is no cause for alarm regarding the talent surrounding Ryan Tannehill right now in my opinion. :)
Page 1 of 3
-
dolfan7171, Disnardo, toto and 3 others like this.
-
Then again, you have RGIII with a QB rating nearly 15 points higher than Wilson's, and his team has won one fewer game than Wilson's, and only one more game than the Dolphins, despite the fact that Ryan Tannehill's QB rating is nearly 35 points lower.
If there was a team whose surrounding talent I'd be worried about, it's that one (the Redskins).
Could you imagine how furious about the surrounding talent we'd be right now if Ryan Tannehill's QB rating was 105 and our record was 5-6? :huh1: -
Guest
I've always wanted to derail a thread.
What you mean to say is if we had a General Manager who could acquire the talent to block, rush the ball effectively, and break tackles or get open, and they had actually done it, there may be cause for concern.
-
Actually what the data show is that, if you attribute success to the GM, only 15% of GMs in the league have been able to attain significantly better success with a rookie QB than Jeff Ireland is right now.
By contrast, there are 19% of GMs who have done significantly worse than average with a rookie QB, and Jeff Ireland isn't one of them.
Thanks for your contribution. :) -
Yeah keep the status quo, that will work.
-
[h=3]Nov 24[/h] [TABLE="class: agr-almanac-tbl, width: 447"]
[TR="class: agr-almanac-tblrow-th"]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col1"][/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col2"]High[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col3"]Low[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col4"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: agr-almanac-tblrow-odd"]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col1"]Historical Average[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col2"] 78° F [/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col3"] 68° [/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col4"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: agr-almanac-tblrow-even twc-last"]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col1"]Historical Record[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col2"] 85° (1978) [/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col3"] 44° (1970) [/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col4"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[h=3]Reported Conditions[/h] [TABLE="class: agr-almanac-tbl, width: 447"]
[TR="class: agr-almanac-tblrow-th"]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col1"][/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col2"]High[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col3"]Low[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col4"]Precip[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: agr-almanac-tblrow-odd"]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col1"]Yesterday[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col2"] 77° [/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col3"] 57° [/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col4"] 0 in [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: agr-almanac-tblrow-even"]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col1"]Last 7 Days[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col2"]81°[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col3"]57°[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col4"]0 [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: agr-almanac-tblrow-odd twc-last"]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col1"]Month to Date[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col2"]83°[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col3"]57°[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col4"]0.24[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[h=3]Historical Monthly Avg[/h] [TABLE="class: agr-almanac-tbl, width: 447"]
[TR="class: agr-almanac-tblrow-th"]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col1"][/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col2"]High[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col3"]Low[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col4"]Precip[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: agr-almanac-tblrow-odd"]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col1"] November[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col2"] 79° [/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col3"] 70° [/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col4"] 2.74 [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: agr-almanac-tblrow-even"]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col1"] December[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col2"] 76° [/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col3"] 64° [/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col4"] 2.05 [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: agr-almanac-tblrow-odd"]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col1"] January[/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col2"] N/A [/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col3"] N/A [/TD]
[TD="class: agr-almanac-col4"] N/A
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
LOOK NUMBERS!!!!evz, GreysonWinfield, oakelmpine and 3 others like this. -
-
But my feelings and perceptions are so strong that they must be right! And when I'm presented objective data to the contrary, it's too great a blow to my belief in them to admit otherwise! ;)
Ah well, at least we can take solace in the fact that people's arguments tend to get real weak and silly when they're responding oppositionally to stuff like this, in contrast to the vehement, self-righteous garbage we see elsewhere. -
Yeah, the same pieces MMoore had, and yet 6 Td's total.
Henne actually played better than Tannehill, w/o Marshall, yet the cry went up "we now need a #1 wr!!!"
And it made no difference at all, your Qb makes the players around him better, not the other way around Sho, and it should be added that your chart is pretty much useless simply b/c it does not factor in either scheme or resources used to add talent to man it, and existing talent.
INOW, it's crap.shouright likes this. -
Tannehill can't just go hide on the sideline and emerge a year later as a Pro Bowler. He's proven he's ready for the NFL so the more action he sees the quicker he can realize his fullest potential. Any argument toward starting Moore, especially while we're 4-6, is counterproductive to the team's future as it only serves to stunt our development.
padre31 likes this. -
Guest
I feel like the 'C' word is missing from this thread.
Context -
and cupcakes!
-
This is the painful reality phinsational, I'm not arguing MMoore should start now as that would mean he should have started Day 1.
Think of this, Tim Tebow completed about 50% of his passes in Denver last yr, it was said if he had better talent to work with that would improve, insert Peyton Manning and lo and behold.
I suspect our struggle on offense is a marriage b/t Tannehill's learning curve+ an OL that is far better at man on man blocking rather than zone blocking, this means the running game is not going far and the passing game is not going to do a lot.
And here we are, the only short term solutions are either the OL earns their pay, or a shake up in the lineup, otherwise we are very likely to see the same results.
Sorry folks, this is how it is.ToddPhin likes this. -
-
There's no argument the talent surrounding Tannehill is shaky at best. I usually go by the number of players that would start on the majority of other teams. Right now I'm thinking 4 at most on offense and Tannehill isn't one of them. I never expected him to beat out Moore for the starting job, so I'm all for him getting as many reps as possible at this point.
No real surprise though. You simply can't just give away your best players for draft picks and expect an immediate return.
Interesting that most of the higher rated players had a nice array of proven skilled position players. -
THill has not been the same Qb since the knee issue Deej.
-
Sure it could. Good point. Here's how you find out:
See what percentage of teams in the original post had a significantly better record than the Dolphins do right now, with a QB who played for them like Tannehill has played overall this year (i.e., somewhere around a 70 QB rating).
If you can't find many, then it suggests the team's record is attributable to Tannehill and not to his surrounding talent. If you could find a lot, then it would suggest the team around Tannehill is the problem.
The data are all right there for you. -
Can you support that assertion anywhere near as solidly as the data in the original post that are inconsistent with it?
If the talent around Tannehill was "shaky at best," the team would be among the 19% whose record is significantly below average with a rookie QB (the Vikings last year with Ponder, for example), or it would be among the teams whose rookie QB is playing very well (RGIII and his 105 QB rating, for example) but have a record that's highly inconsistent with it (the Redskins at 5-6).
The Dolphins fit into neither of those categories. There is nothing in that data to suggest the talent around Tannehill is "shaky."
Now, I understand that many people hold the personal opinion that the talent is shaky, and that's all well and good. They're certainly entitled to that, regardless of the fact that it isn't supported by any known, objective data that I'm aware of.
However, to hold the opinion that "there's no argument" the talent is shaky, in the presence of objective data to the contrary, and in the absence of supporting data, is a little haughty IMO. :) -
A team that had what you're suggesting here was the Titans with Vince Young, where his QB rating as a rookie was relatively poor (67), though his playmaking ability in ways that are not captured by QB rating spurred the team to a record that was very inconsistent with his QB rating. He had over 500 yards rushing and 7 rushing TDs that year, for example, not that Tannehill is capable of that, per se.
-
Sure, but that's not the sentiment you typically see expressed here. With the sentiment you see expressed here, you'd think Ireland was at least part of the 19% of teams above whose records were significantly below average with a rookie QB, if not among even the worst of them.
The data prove otherwise, however. If you attribute the Dolphins' team data above to Ireland (which is debatable), he's been no worse than average at putting talent around Tannehill.
Again, the GM I'd worry about is the Redskins'. RGIII has a 105 QB rating, which is amazingly high for a rookie, and the team is but 5-6. Those are some fans who should be upset! :yes:
Of course, they have RGIII to be excited about, despite their record, whereas we have to wonder deep down if even Ryan Tannehill is any good. -
-
As was Tebow's, for better or worse they are keeping THill in the pocket and forcing him to read defenses even as a rook.
What has to watched is whether he continues to be aggressive or becomes a check down king.
That is what did Henne in imho.2socks likes this. -
With RT right now the only threat is with the arm, there's no sudden movements that buy time, there's no aniticipation of rush and running to make first downs, and there's no maneuvering the pocket while keeping eyes downfield to make plays..it's drop back, read, and throw.
Maybe we're making this kid learn on the job with the bare essentials, maybe there's a method to the madness..it's almost maddening why there isn't more of an effort to move the pocket, especially considering the guy is like 10 for 10 on the run, filthy on the run, left or right.shouright likes this. -
Tannehill's also been hindered by that knee injury. Even if the physical ailments are cured; there's still some apprehension there. Sort of like Carson Palmer after his ACL tear.
-
No takebacks, no givebacks...Tanne will not be unseated irregardless of the talent that surrounds him. Like my man Mitch Hedberg used to say:
I don't need a receipt for a doughnut. I give you the money, you give me the donut... End of transaction.
I don't need you tell me Ryan Tannehill is a franchise quarterback.
as far as Tanne's mobility, well...
An escalator can never be out of order. It can only temporarily become stairs. Sorry for the convenience... -
I don't remember very many people saying that his accuracy would improve if he had better talent.
-
Sure, b/c they want him to read defenses first and foremost.
This is one of the areas that the VY's fell down, athleticism will win games but it is not a long term growth strategy.
Now D's have stepped up and stopped blitzing, he can take the hits, they drop back into zone, next move is his.
This is one of the reasons why I don't buy the talent stuff, same guys look great earlier this yr, problem is Tannehill is learning.2socks, shouright and Pandarilla like this.
Page 1 of 3