Cutler better than Tannehill? No. This article says it all

[Vaark]

He had a similar stretch in 2014 under Lazor. He's done it before, it's the inconsistency in his game.

When he's on he's top 10 no doubt. But he's not on enough to warrant the excitement.

Well actually, that was the season when PFF ranked the OL dead last (in '15 they "improved" to #31). So if anything, Tannehill should be lauded for that "stretch" in '14 and be given every benefit of the doubt in terms of what he could do/had done with even a mediocre-avg OL in '16. Sorry, when you factor in the guys who protect and give him time, it's just not apples to apples.

 

[Snoop]

So you don't feel Tannehill deserves praise for being a top 10 qb up until his injury?

Tannehill was never a top 10 QB.

Brady
Rodgers
Brees
Big Ben
Wilson
Ryan
Luck
Carr
Cam
Rivers

He isn't even better then Stafford, and the majority of coaches and GM's would take Cousins over him, and Mariota and Winston.

 

[nick1]

Tannehill isn't even playing this year and still we have endless debates involving him

 

[Awsi Dooger]

The biggest upside Cutler offers over Tannehill is the ability to evade pressure and make plays in the face of it. That will extend drives that would've otherwise stalled, which is a major difference. The pass to Parker the other night was a prime example.

Yes, and if Tannehill had been transferred into that situation and stood there allowing a sack, it would have gone down as one of those "unavoidable" sacks as categorized by Fahey.

That adjuster stuff and especially the offseason bloated versions are largely subjective confirmation bias. Somehow the local sports media doesn't understand as much because I noticed they were printing and linking a few months ago. Sad and lazy.

j-off-her-doll's description of the 30-70 contrast is very good. There are going to be many fun games in which our passing attack is simply more aggressive than Tannehill ever delivered and Cutler avoids the key mistakes. Then there will be other games in which we seemingly have the best of it and Cutler will give it away for seemingly no reason. In games that set up poorly due to situational deficit or simply a superior opponent, it will probably look worse because Cutler is more moody and error prone, and he won't be as enthusiastic during garbage time when cheap passing yards and points are available.

Overall I'm looking forward to it, as I posted after the first exhibition game. It's easier to look forward to it if you didn't have high expectations entering 2017. It was most likely a regression year. I noted that j-off-her-doll hinted at that in this post in this thread.

 

[<O>]

Tannehill was never a top 10 QB.

Brady
Rodgers
Brees
Big Ben
Wilson
Ryan
Luck
Carr
Cam
Rivers

He isn't even better then Stafford, and the majority of coaches and GM's would take Cousins over him, and Mariota and Winston.

Even if everyone were to agree that Tannehill is top-10, he would fall at roughly 9 or 10, and the QBs in the league at that level aren't offering their teams quarterback play that's significantly better than average.

So, "top-10" in this instance becomes meaningful when "top-10" also means about "top-7." Obviously it's far better than "bottom-10," but it doesn't carry the meaning some would expect. In fact it's not all that different from "middle-10."

 

[<O>]

Yes, and if Tannehill had been transferred into that situation and stood there allowing a sack, it would have gone down as one of those "unavoidable" sacks as categorized by Fahey.

That adjuster stuff and especially the offseason bloated versions are largely subjective confirmation bias. Somehow the local sports media doesn't understand as much because I noticed they were printing and linking a few months ago. Sad and lazy.

j-off-her-doll's description of the 30-70 contrast is very good. There are going to be many fun games in which our passing attack is simply more aggressive than Tannehill ever delivered and Cutler avoids the key mistakes. Then there will be other games in which we seemingly have the best of it and Cutler will give it away for seemingly no reason. In games that set up poorly due to situational deficit or simply a superior opponent, it will probably look worse because Cutler is more moody and error prone, and he won't be as enthusiastic during garbage time when cheap passing yards and points are available.

Overall I'm looking forward to it, as I posted after the first exhibition game. It's easier to look forward to it if you didn't have high expectations entering 2017. It was most likely a regression year. I noted that j-off-her-doll hinted at that in this post in this thread.

Exactly. At the very least there will be a different "script" this year, which will make it interesting. And if the defense improves considerably, which is possible, 10-6 can happen again. It won't take smoke and mirrors like it did last year if Cutler can play at roughly Tannehill's level, and the defense improves a great deal.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

Well actually, that was the season when PFF ranked the OL dead last (in '15 they "improved" to #31). So if anything, Tannehill should be lauded for that "stretch" in '14 and be given every benefit of the doubt in terms of what he could do/had done with even a mediocre-avg OL in '16. Sorry, when you factor in the guys who protect and give him time, it's just not apples to apples.

And Bill Lazor is condemned as the worst offensive coordinator of all time despite dealing with those #32 and #31 lines. The adjustments and benefit of a doubt only attach where it aligns with the bias and preferred storyline. Lazor's schemes were "dismantled," or so we were told here.

What are the odds of one team having a string of the worst imaginable NFL coaches, whether they are head coaches or offensive coordinators or whatever? I'd say next to nothing. There are only a handful of elite coaches and a handful of coaches who probably advanced too far. That is sampling normalcy. It will hold up decades from now, and decades after that. Otherwise it's a league that is logically congested, via every team having access to the same collegiate talent pool, revenue sharing, coaching pool, and basically the same coaching salary structure.

Joe Philbin, Mike Sherman and Bill Lazor were not terrible coaches. They occupy that vast Crowd category of coaches. They become denounced as inferior only because fan bases prefer to believe they are annually wronged. The national media hates us. The schedule makers hate us. The referees slant against us. Our great players are held back because our coaches are so inept.

 

[tay0365]

Yes, Cutler is not Tannehill, Cutler probably will not be as effective as Tannehill was about to be this season, BUT, Cutler can be a very good QB for the Dolphins this season.

Cutler's problem is not skills, Cutler's problem is not lack of wanting to play football (As some seem to believe), if it was, he would have stayed in a Booth criticizing other player, and not told the Dolphins he would be interested, but only as a starter.

Cutler's problem is in his head, he makes very stupid decisions, but with Gase in his ear, the Decision making should be better, then considering he will have top weapons at receiver, a power RB that looks to be the next up and coming player at his position, and two TEs that at worse will be better then solid....Tannehill or Cutler, it will yet again fall on how well the O-line does, and how well the defense will look this year. I may be in the extremely small minority, but I still see a very good team that could be something special after week 8.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Tannehill was never a top 10 QB.

Brady
Rodgers
Brees
Big Ben
Wilson
Ryan
Luck
Carr
Cam
Rivers

He isn't even better then Stafford, and the majority of coaches and GM's would take Cousins over him, and Mariota and Winston.

How many, exactly, have you spoken to?

Cam Newton completed less than 53% of his passes last season and had QB rating of 75.8.

Wilson, Rivers, and Newton all had worse years than Tannehill (QB rating, YPA). That puts him 8th on your list. He finished the year around 12th in QB rating including the poor start.

We were specifically talking about the stretch of games when the offense got in sync. During that stretch Tannehill was playing as well as nearly anyone in the league.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

And Bill Lazor is condemned as the worst offensive coordinator of all time despite dealing with those #32 and #31 lines. The adjustments and benefit of a doubt only attach where it aligns with the bias and preferred storyline. Lazor's schemes were "dismantled," or so we were told here.

What are the odds of one team having a string of the worst imaginable NFL coaches, whether they are head coaches or offensive coordinators or whatever? I'd say next to nothing. There are only a handful of elite coaches and a handful of coaches who probably advanced too far. That is sampling normalcy. It will hold up decades from now, and decades after that. Otherwise it's a league that is logically congested, via every team having access to the same collegiate talent pool, revenue sharing, coaching pool, and basically the same coaching salary structure.

Joe Philbin, Mike Sherman and Bill Lazor were not terrible coaches. They occupy that vast Crowd category of coaches. They become denounced as inferior only because fan bases prefer to believe they are annually wronged. The national media hates us. The schedule makers hate us. The referees slant against us. Our great players are held back because our coaches are so inept.

Please tell the HC or OC positions occupied by those esteemed coaches since they were railroaded out of Miami?

 

[DolfanISS]

Tannehill was never a top 10 QB.

Brady
Rodgers
Brees
Big Ben
Wilson
Ryan
Luck
Carr
Cam
Rivers

He isn't even better then Stafford, and the majority of coaches and GM's would take Cousins over him, and Mariota and Winston.

Phillip the turnover machine Rivers is not a top 10 QB anymore. Cam was awful last year and Luck, while still pretty good, is the most overrated player in the league. Seriously listen to the way people talk about Luck. You'd think he's won 5 passing titles and 5 Super Bowls in his 5 years in the league. Reality is while he's pretty good he's right up there in the Eli Manning category at turning over the football.

 

[Vaark]

Please tell the HC or OC positions occupied by those esteemed coaches since they were railroaded out of Miami?

I've long maintained that the league is egalitarian when it comes to assessing and hiring/re-hiring talent. To me it's no coincidence that Lazor is a QB coach, Zac Taylor (talk about a nepotistic abomination of the blind leading the blind) is out of the NFL, Cam Cameron defacto demoted and then was unwelcome in the NFL, back in the college ranks, fired from LSU and last I looked, euphemistically "at liberty," Sparano is an OLC , as is Philbin. All seem to be either stuck in place or further circling the drain.

Mistaking any which one of these bozos as a Belichick incarnate, rising like Lazarus is purely delusional. So, going back to Logic 101, if after years of trying to rehabilitate themselves as underlings, considering that nary a one of them has been offered an opportunity to get back to the relative level at which the Fins kicked them to the curb, the league has pronounced our former gaggle of coaches as virtually worthless in jobs comparable to the ones they held in Miami.

 

[<O>]

I've long maintained that the league is egalitarian when it comes to assessing and hiring/re-hiring talent. To me it's no coincidence that Lazor is a QB coach, Zac Taylor (talk about a nepotistic abomination of the blind leading the blind) is out of the NFL, Cam Cameron defacto demoted and then was unwelcome in the NFL, back in the college ranks, fired from LSU and last I looked, euphemistically "at liberty," Sparano is an OLC , as is Philbin. All seem to be either stuck in place or further circling the drain.

Mistaking any which one of these bozos as a Belichick incarnate, rising like Lazarus is purely delusional. So, going back to Logic 101, if after years of trying to rehabilitate themselves as underlings, considering that nary a one of them has been offered an opportunity to get back to the relative level at which the Fins kicked them to the curb, the league has pronounced our former gaggle of coaches as virtually worthless in jobs comparable to the ones they held in Miami.

How do you explain the fact that Tannehill's performance during his last 12 games under Lazor in 2014 was indistinct from his higher-quality stretch under Gase last year?

 

[fishfanmiami]

I'll take a shot at that one. The kid's pretty good once he gets use to a system. Long term Lazor's dink and dunk was not the way to go but he executed it well during that stretch.

 

[<O>]

I'll take a shot at that one. The kid's pretty good once he gets use to a system. Long term Lazor's dink and dunk was not the way to go but he executed it well during that stretch.

That makes sense, but it doesn't incorporate the fact that Tannehill's yards per completion under Gase during that period were 10.7, while during the period under Lazor they were 10.6, just a tenth of a yard fewer. Gase was just as dink and dunk as Lazor during these periods.