Explain the "Jump" Tannehill made in 2016 | Page 18 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Explain the "Jump" Tannehill made in 2016

Yessir said:
I’m not arguing from a position of Tannehill holding anyone back. You have always argued that he has been held back by the team.

Philhin, Sherman, Lazor, Oline, skill players. This list goes on with the scapegoats.

My position is Ryan Tannehill doesn’t move the needle either way.

Tannehill is gonna have you a 6-8 win team, with a 1 and done postseason outlier thrown in there 1 every few years due to a soft schedule. Why are you so hellbent on settling for this? I have no earthy idea.

Why hasn’t Ryan Tannehill made a pro bowl, or earned an all pro selection? You would think a first round prospect would’ve managed to to do that at least once in 5 years.
Click to expand...

Teams with solid rosters do not make wholesale changes every year unless they feel players and/or coaches are under performing. Dallas Thomas, Billy Turner, Shelley Smith, Sam Brenner, Bryant McKinnie, Darryn Colledge, Jason Fox, Nate Garner, Jonathan Martin, Josh Samuda, John Jerry, Tyson Clabo, Jamil Douglas, Ulrick John, Jeff Linkenbach, and Jacques McClendon all really DID SUCK. No amount of blaming Tannehill is going to change the fact that they sucked and played significant snaps when they shouldn't have been in the NFL.

That really is a list of the players from the OL. Were they cut for poor performance or not? What is your alternate explanation?

Philbin, Lazor, and Mike Sherman really did suck. They were not sacrificed to protect Ryan Tannehill.
 
I like how all the Tannehill supporters argue the fact that Tannehill doesn't suck and its the pieces around him. When in fact no-one is saying he sucks just that he's an average QB. No one is saying he is the source of all our problems just that he's not the solution. We went 6-10 in Tannehill's 4th year, we went 6-10 with Jay Cutler, we went 6-10 in 2011 with Matt Moor and Chad Henne.

He's a mediocre QB, he's average, he is in the Alex Smith, and Andy Dalton class of QB's. If you put a good team around them, they can win some games but are never going to put a team on their back are never going. Most importantly are never going to take you all the way and play lights out in the playoffs.
 
superphin said:
I like how all the Tannehill supporters argue the fact that Tannehill doesn't suck and its the pieces around him. When in fact no-one is saying he sucks just that he's an average QB. No one is saying he is the source of all our problems just that he's not the solution. We went 6-10 in Tannehill's 4th year, we went 6-10 with Jay Cutler, we went 6-10 in 2011 with Matt Moor and Chad Henne.

He's a mediocre QB, he's average, he is in the Alex Smith, and Andy Dalton class of QB's. If you put a good team around them, they can win some games but are never going to put a team on their back are never going. Most importantly are never going to take you all the way and play lights out in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

QBs don't put teams on their backs. That is nonsense. Why wouldn't just compare records in consecutive years with the majority of the team the same? 10-6 vs 6-10. Playoffs vs non-playoffs.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
QBs don't put teams on their backs. That is nonsense. Why wouldn't just compare records in consecutive years with the majority of the team the same? 10-6 vs 6-10. Playoffs vs non-playoffs.
Click to expand...

They don't? so when the Colts went 2-14 without Manning, that had nothing to do with him being injured?

I didn't use consecutive years because I was illustrating how 3 different QB's got us 3 similar results in the last 7 years.
 
superphin said:
They don't? so when the Colts went 2-14 without Manning, that had nothing to do with him being injured?
Click to expand...

Then they went 11-5 with a QB sporting a 76 QB rating. They tanked for Luck, plain and simple. You also have to look at the quality of the replacement QB. Orlovsky and Painter were part of the plan to tank. Manning didn't lift a 2-14 team to 10-6. He may have improved a 6-10 team with an average QB to 10-6. Orlovsky and Painter dragged a 6-10 team with an average QB down to 2-14.

superphin said:
I didn't use consecutive years because I was illustrating how 3 different QB's got us 3 similar results in the last 7 years.
Click to expand...

And conveniently ignored the impact that losing Tannehill had on the 2017 season.
 
Dolph N.Fan said:
That fact that 5-6 years in we’re still debating about our QB shows Miami still doesn’t have a definitive answer at the position.
Click to expand...

Or it shows that they still haven't fixed the flaws in the roster and some still cling to #QBwinz. The proof is that Tannehill's stats and the teams W/L record from 2014 - 2016 are excellent when the OL is simply average. That has been true for three years and suddenly wasn't true of the QB play this season.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
Then they went 11-5 with a QB sporting a 76 QB rating. They tanked for Luck, plain and simple. You also have to look at the quality of the replacement QB. Orlovsky and Painter were part of the plan to tank. Manning didn't lift a 2-14 team to 10-6. He may have improved a 6-10 team with an average QB to 10-6. Orlovsky and Painter dragged a 6-10 team with an average QB down to 2-14.



And conveniently ignored the impact that losing Tannehill had on the 2017 season.
Click to expand...

So manning took a 6-10 team and made them 10-6. Tannehill took a team that 5 years prior to him averaged 6.4 wins and over 5 years has averaged 7.8 and thats being generous and crediting him for 10 wins in 2016. So he is good for 1.4 more wins.

Looks like the impact he had on the 2017 season is 1.8 wins so instead of 6-10 we probably go 8-8. Hooray crappier draft choice and no playoffs.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
QBs don't put teams on their backs. That is nonsense. Why wouldn't just compare records in consecutive years with the majority of the team the same? 10-6 vs 6-10. Playoffs vs non-playoffs.
Click to expand...
ur right, its just a pure coincidence that every year tom brady has played a full season, with the exception of 2002, where they won 9 games, the patriots have won double digits every year, made the playoffs yearly, and we all know the rest. im sure your counter argument will be '' bill bellicheck'', only problem is, before tom brady every took a snap under bill, his career record as a head coach was 42-58, with 1 playoff appearance, and 1 playoff win. bellicheck never won a damn thing without tom brady .

peyton manning all those years with the colts, same thing, double digit wins yearly, playoffs yearly, etc

big ben always has the steelers in contention

aaron rodgers always has the packers in contention, and its not because he has a great team or coaching staff around him

im sure the eagles will always be in contention if wentz stays healthy, as will the texans if watson can stay healthy

andrew luck when hes healthy on an awful team has took them to the playoffs several times in his career, including an afc championship game

again, u want to have your cake and eat it too, that is why u try to downplay the importance of the qb, and act as if its just as the right guard position, or the tight end position etc, so that when tannehill is mediocre like always, u can say that qb dont put team on there backs, but if he has a stretch where he plays elite football, u will be here saying look how tannehill is carrying this team.
 
superphin said:
So manning took a 6-10 team and made them 10-6. Tannehill took a team that 5 years prior to him averaged 6.4 wins and over 5 years has averaged 7.8 and thats being generous and crediting him for 10 wins in 2016. So he is good for 1.4 more wins.

Looks like the impact he had on the 2017 season is 1.8 wins so instead of 6-10 we probably go 8-8. Hooray crappier draft choice and no playoffs.
Click to expand...
considering he was the starter for 8 wins, why credit him for 10 wins? if we are doing that, we should give him the loss to the pats in week 17 and the loss vs the steelers in the playoffs, which obviously wouldnt make sense both ways because he didnt play in the final 4 games.
 
Ilovemyfins4eva said:
considering he was the starter for 8 wins, why credit him for 10 wins? if we are doing that, we should give him the loss to the pats in week 17 and the loss vs the steelers in the playoffs, which obviously wouldnt make sense both ways because he didnt play in the final 4 games.
Click to expand...

Because for some reason Tannehill supporters keep gifting him 10 wins and saying he finally led us to the playoffs even though an 8-5 record is not a playoff record ever in the history of the NFL.
 
superphin said:
Because for some reason Tannehill supporters keep gifting him 10 wins and saying he finally led us to the playoffs even though an 8-5 record is not a playoff record ever in the history of the NFL.
Click to expand...
agreed, but no need to give into there cult like mentality in defending a mediocre qb, who has never won anything meaningful in his football life, be it college or nfl.

last year he was our starting qb for 8 wins and for 5 losses, and there is zero guarantee we make playoffs if he finishes season. we may very well have done so, but nothing is for sure, especially based on his track record of playing like total garbage in buffalo in his career, and not being very good up in east Rutherford either.
 
Ilovemyfins4eva said:
ur right, its just a pure coincidence that every year tom brady has played a full season, with the exception of 2002, where they won 9 games, the patriots have won double digits every year, made the playoffs yearly, and we all know the rest. im sure your counter argument will be '' bill bellicheck'', only problem is, before tom brady every took a snap under bill, his career record as a head coach was 42-58, with 1 playoff appearance, and 1 playoff win. bellicheck never won a damn thing without tom Brady .
Click to expand...

Correlation is NOT causation. Doesn't mean that Brady isn't great or didn't deliver a couple of key wins each year. It just means that BB is a damned good coach who was smart enough to take advantage of an awesome weapon which allowed him to develop his system and have a safety net to make sure that every player fit (or was out damned fast).

Ilovemyfins4eva said:
peyton manning all those years with the colts, same thing, double digit wins yearly, playoffs yearly, etc

big ben always has the steelers in contention

aaron rodgers always has the packers in contention, and its not because he has a great team or coaching staff around him

im sure the eagles will always be in contention if wentz stays healthy, as will the texans if watson can stay healthy

andrew luck when hes healthy on an awful team has took them to the playoffs several times in his career, including an afc championship game
Click to expand...

All fair observations. But not all of those years ended with SB wins. So, to play *your* game, why if those teams had ELITE QBs, didn't they win the big game every year? Could it be that there are 30 or so other players involved? Could it be that some of those other players are almost as important as the QB?

Take this years Steelers. Big Ben is a great QB. But the team is so much better and harder to defend when they have all 3 of their elite players in the game. The (lone) exception to this rule is the Patriots. Clearly, they are a scheme driven team with Brady and Gronk adding a layer of "oh crap, how the hell are we going to play them this week" into every DC's life. But even when one of them is out, the rest of the team is (almost) ALWAYS playing in-sync and rarely do you have players "over playing" in an effort to cover for other problems (great coaching for sure).
 
fin415 said:
Correlation is NOT causation. Doesn't mean that Brady isn't great or didn't deliver a couple of key wins each year. It just means that BB is a damned good coach who was smart enough to take advantage of an awesome weapon which allowed him to develop his system and have a safety net to make sure that every player fit (or was out damned fast).



All fair observations. But not all of those years ended with SB wins. So, to play *your* game, why if those teams had ELITE QBs, didn't they win the big game every year? Could it be that there are 30 or so other players involved? Could it be that some of those other players are almost as important as the QB?

Take this years Steelers. Big Ben is a great QB. But the team is so much better and harder to defend when they have all 3 of their elite players in the game. The (lone) exception to this rule is the Patriots. Clearly, they are a scheme driven team with Brady and Gronk adding a layer of "oh crap, how the hell are we going to play them this week" into every DC's life. But even when one of them is out, the rest of the team is (almost) ALWAYS playing in-sync and rarely do you have players "over playing" in an effort to cover for other problems (great coaching for sure).
Click to expand...

first bold- while bill b is a very good coach, fact of that matter is that he never won anything without tom brady. i am not even talking about superbowls, his record as a head coach before brady came along was 42-58. 6 plus seasons worth of games, very big sample size. To be fair though, every coach needs a top notch qb to win consisently in the nfl, and he has done that once brady came along, so no taking that away from him.

second bold- well if there are many elite qbs in the nfl, obviously only 1 team can be superbowl champions each year, so there will always be elite qbs who dont win each year. the point was that the op had said that qbs dont carry teams on there back, and my point was thats just not true, as there have been plenty of top qbs who have carried there teams for years, and that make a substantial impact on the teams success when they are there.

third bold- yes, big ben no doubt has 2 other elite guys alongside him, but is antonio brown and leveon bell having the monster years they have year in and year out without big ben, and say they had joe flacco or alex smith as there qb instead? highly doubt it. So yea, he deff has talent around him, no denying that, but he also gets the best out of them , and has done it before bell and brown were around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom