Exactly. There are two variables and virtually everyone here prefers flowery interpretation of the second, that Tannehill will improve dramatically with more playing time, while throwing away caution toward the first, that he wasn't playing quarterback at high level in college parallel to his peers. Tannehill was wide receiver or on the bench while guys like Russell Wilson were racking up 8+ yards per attempt at North Carolina State.
Then somehow we're supposed to be surprised when little has changed a few years later.
I believe in early excellence, that more often than not the adjustments don't work. The Dolphins have had four picks in the top 10 within the past decade and three times they preferred to ignore a less than ideal resume. Ronnie Brown redshirted in college without injury excuse at running back but it didn't matter. Ryan Tannehill was 23 years old before he started a college opener at quarterback but it didn't matter. Dion Jordan was a part time player in college but it didn't matter. The only time we relied on a standard resume for a premium pick we took Jake Long. Now, there are questions about the wisdom of naming an offensive tackle number one, and obviously there was a quarterback with a debatable franchise tag available, but at least we didn't reach for someone with a shaky background. And we were rewarded with Pro Bowl caliber play prior to injury.
Late bloomers are fine in limited quantity if you don't pay much. Cameron Wake obviously qualifies. The Dolphin offensive line during the '70s glory years contained several examples. But if you target guys early in the draft who have not fully proven themselves as elite, you are begging to be burned. And more often than not it will play out that way. Good, but not special. This league requires special. It irritates the heck out of me because I believe in playing the percentages, in doing the right thing and allowing the natural course of events to play out in your favor. The Dolphins too often draw to an inside straight without sensing that's the burden they are undertaking.
This forum is hilarious when so many posters prefer the fanciful adjustment, and don't want to be told that their perspectives are flawed and not exactly high percentage. Gravity, for example, uses actual numbers, and ones that are long established as the gold standards. Then he took it upon himself to contact sources from the top stats sites for advice while blending numbers in search of even greater clarity. He's produced some fantastic work here, threads I have shown to betting buddies who reacted very positively.
Yet somehow Gravity is mocked. You've got to love it. Please stay out of our way while we apply the bar stool caliber angles that we've happily grown accustomed to. We're going to continue to adjust -- dammit -- regardless of the duration of the losing streak. Imagine what this site would have looked like if it had existed during the heyday of the Marino era, with 6000+ yards forecast every year along with yet another Super Bowl romp.
