Poll: FH Tannehill Level of Confidence Consensus (With Draft & FA Implications)

[Padfoot]

Eagles, Vikings, Jaguars - two made the conf championship with backup QBs and one made it with a QB that should be a backup.

This year yes. Do you think they will stay contenders for a while? Top defenses get teams far but they are hard to maintain.

 

[Padfoot]

Marino had his most complete team early in his career (especially the defense with the hold over effect of Bill Arnsparger). The team went 7-2, 14-2, and 12-4 with one SB appearance with Marino at QB. After that, the defense went downhill and Marino led teams went 8-8, 7-5, 6-10, 8-8. A sub 0.500 record during the prime seasons of the greatest QB of all time. The rest of his career alternated between okay and sub-par season, with the GREATEST QB OF ALL TIME.

I simply cannot understand how a DOLPHINS FAN can fail to grasp such a simple point.

Because the game today is not the same as when Marino played.

 

[Blake the great]

Eagles, Vikings, Jaguars - two made the conf championship with backup QBs and one made it with a QB that should be a backup.

Sure, if you're satisfied with never getting the ring. Go ahead and settle, I want my TEAM to be complete so that we can win the SB.

First off, I highly doubt Eagles make it to the superbowl if Wentz goes down in week 9. Wentz and the eagles pretty much locked up everything prior to Foles stepping in.

Secondly, It should be obvious that this year was more of a nominally that those teams made it as far as they did with the QB's they have. I agree that it is a team game, but it so much more difficult to build and keep a defense like that together.

You said that you want to actually win a superbowl, well history has shown us that majority of the time, if you want to win a superbowl you have to have an above average QB to win it all. And usually before a team wins a superbowl they have several playoff appearances prior to winning a superbowl. Teams we consistently make the playoffs have top tier QB's. And the ones that don't, don't win superbowls (Most of the time). It increases a team's chance of winning a superbowl with a top tier QB. Chiefs and Bengals have made the playoffs several times but struggled to make it to the superbowl. Is it because Alex Smith and Andy Dalton aren't top tier?

Joe Flacco won a superbowl a few years ago, I understand he isn't top tier but in the playoffs, he has played like a top tier QB same with Eli Manning. So my point is, relying solely on building a great team around a average starting QB is going to be much more difficult to sustain success over a period of time.

So I feel like you contradict yourself a little when you say " you don't want to settle and want to win a superbowl" - and just because we want to upgrade the QB position doesn't mean we wont continue to build a great team. Having a top notch QB just increases our chances of winning a superbowl.

 

[phintim]

Its up to Gase to see what he can do with RT. RT was lost the first 4 games last year the lights went on Jay Ajayi started running the ball and good things to happen. Year and a half off and only 9 or so complete games in the system expect some rust.

 

[tcdrover]

He didn't do enough BEFORE the 1st knee injury to keep that job IMHO.

I would draft a qb in the first 2 days of the draft and another one in the later rounds.

Start RT this year, but also start to groom a new starter for 2019.

If RT shows out, then we have a good problem.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

First off, I highly doubt Eagles make it to the superbowl if Wentz goes down in week 9. Wentz and the eagles pretty much locked up everything prior to Foles stepping in.

Secondly, It should be obvious that this year was more of a nominally that those teams made it as far as they did with the QB's they have. I agree that it is a team game, but it so much more difficult to build and keep a defense like that together.

You said that you want to actually win a superbowl, well history has shown us that majority of the time, if you want to win a superbowl you have to have an above average QB to win it all. And usually before a team wins a superbowl they have several playoff appearances prior to winning a superbowl. Teams we consistently make the playoffs have top tier QB's. And the ones that don't, don't win superbowls (Most of the time). It increases a team's chance of winning a superbowl with a top tier QB. Chiefs and Bengals have made the playoffs several times but struggled to make it to the superbowl. Is it because Alex Smith and Andy Dalton aren't top tier?

Joe Flacco won a superbowl a few years ago, I understand he isn't top tier but in the playoffs, he has played like a top tier QB same with Eli Manning. So my point is, relying solely on building a great team around a average starting QB is going to be much more difficult to sustain success over a period of time.

So I feel like you contradict yourself a little when you say " you don't want to settle and want to win a superbowl" - and just because we want to upgrade the QB position doesn't mean we wont continue to build a great team. Having a top notch QB just increases our chances of winning a superbowl.

Upgrading the QB position is fine, but at what cost and with how much certainty. Drafting a QB early is no guarantee and also costs the team opportunities to improve at other key positions of need. Drafting a QB late has even less chance of improving the starter but at least will net the team a backup QB.

For the record, IMO, Tannehill is an above average QB and plenty good enough to win the SB. The SB is won most years by a QB who is not a top tier QB. Flacco, Eli (x2), Peyton, Wilson, Roethlisberger (x2), are all recent examples of QBs that won SBs when they were not "top notch" QBs.

 

[BlueUndertow]

Yeah, there's no guarantee of any player panning out in the draft no matter when you pick them. QBs are harder to evaluate because you only have one that you typically play each game. Other positions even if they aren't first string often see playing time.

In terms of top tier QBs (which I'd roughly say that the top 10 QBs would be top-tier, next 10 would be middle, and the rest would be the bottom), about 75% of the time, the QB playing in the superbowl is top 10 in QB rating that year (sure QB rating can be flawed but it is one number to rank QBs on):

23 of 30 were top 10 in the Superbowl Year in the past 15 years (all that ESPN had stats for) or roughly 76%. Years like 2015 Peyton Manning were clearly an aberration and we know that the defense carried that team.

Regular Season Years (Superbowl would be the year number after)
2016
Matt Ryan #1 QB Rating 117.1
Tom Brady #2 QB Rating 112.2
2015
Peyton Manning #34 QB Rating 67.9
Cam Newton #8 QB Rating 99.4
2014
Tom Brady #5 QB Rating 97.4
Russell Wilson #10 QB Rating 95.0
2013
Russell Wilson #7 QB Rating 101.2
Peyton Manning #2 QB Rating 115.1
2012
Joe Flacco #12 QB Rating 87.7
Colin Kaepernick Not Qualified lack of playing time but 98.7 rating
2011
Eli Manning #7 QB Rating 92.9
Tom Brady #3 QB Rating 105.6
2010
Aaron Rodgers #3 QB Rating 101.2
Ben Roethlisberger #5 QB Rating 97.0
2009
Drew Brees #1 QB Rating 109.6
Peyton Manning #6 QB Rating 99.9
2008
Ben Roethlisberger #24 QB Rating 80.1
Kurt Warner #3 QB Rating 96.9
2007
Eli Manning #25 QB Rating 73.9
Tom Brady #1 QB Rating 117.2
2006
Peyton Manning #1 QB Rating 101.0
Rex Grossman #24 QB Rating 73.9
2005
Ben Roethlesberger #3 QB Rating 98.6
Matt Hasselbeck #4 QB Rating 98.2
2004
Tom Brady #9 QB Rating 92.6
Donovan McNabb #4 QB Rating 104.7
2003
Tom Brady #10 QB Rating 85.9
Jake Delhomme #14 QB Rating 80.6
2002
Brad Johnson #3 QB Rating 92.9
Rich Gannon #2 QB Rating 97.3

For comparison, Tannehill's years look like this:

Tannehill
2016 #12 QB Rating 93.5
2015 #21 QB Rating 88.7
2014 #14 QB Rating 92.8
2013 #24 QB Rating 81.7
2012 #27 QB Rating 76.1

Which seems middle tier.

 

[The Ghost]

Tannehill
2016 #12 QB Rating 93.5
2015 #21 QB Rating 88.7
2014 #14 QB Rating 92.8
2013 #24 QB Rating 81.7
2012 #27 QB Rating 76.1

Which seems middle tier.

So your saying Tannehill has been consistently improving and the last time we saw him we saw the best version of him.

The best part of that list is most of the QB's are old and/or in the NFC.

You know what the AFC doesn't have? Any QB's younger/better than our's. You want to make a case for Andrew Luck, Derek Carr or Marcus Mariota. Go ahead. Deshaun Watson might become something special for sure and the Browns might hit a home run with the No.1 Pick and Saquan Barkely.....but I like our odds.

 

[Blake the great]

Upgrading the QB position is fine, but at what cost and with how much certainty. Drafting a QB early is no guarantee and also costs the team opportunities to improve at other key positions of need. Drafting a QB late has even less chance of improving the starter but at least will net the team a backup QB.

For the record, IMO, Tannehill is an above average QB and plenty good enough to win the SB. The SB is won most years by a QB who is not a top tier QB. Flacco, Eli (x2), Peyton, Wilson, Roethlisberger (x2), are all recent examples of QBs that won SBs when they were not "top notch" QBs.

That is where we will disagree. Tannehill is closer to Flacco and MAYBE Eli but he's no where near Peyton Manning, Wilson, and Big Ben. We have seen Flacco and Eli come up huge in the biggest moments throughout their careers. Still waiting for Tannehill.

And I think the cost is really priceless for a franchise to obtain a QB who can play at an elite level. Im not saying we should draft a 1st round QB every year but one pick is all it would take. Philly sold out on Wentz and now are in the superbowl. Im not saying lets sell the farm for a rookie but if the right QB is there in the first and falls in our lap, then its a no brainer.

You think the Browns are happier they passed on Wentz /Goff/Watson and got.....whoever in return? You think the 49ers are upset they gave 2nd round pick for Jimmy G?

Cant find that top notch QB if you don't make the effort. Tannehill is nice, but we certainly can do better. We can afford to pass on a Patrick Peterson/J. Clowney prospect for a franchise QB and while there are no guarantees the QB will pan out.....you can say the same thing about the other prospects at key positions.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of going QB in round one this year because I want to see how Tannehill does in 2018. But I would like to see us use a 3rd - 4th round pick on a QB. At the very least you have competition and potential backup QB. If Tannehill continues to be mediocre in 2018, then its time its time to get serious about finding his replacement.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Yeah, there's no guarantee of any player panning out in the draft no matter when you pick them. QBs are harder to evaluate because you only have one that you typically play each game. Other positions even if they aren't first string often see playing time.

In terms of top tier QBs (which I'd roughly say that the top 10 QBs would be top-tier, next 10 would be middle, and the rest would be the bottom), about 75% of the time, the QB playing in the superbowl is top 10 in QB rating that year (sure QB rating can be flawed but it is one number to rank QBs on):

23 of 30 were top 10 in the Superbowl Year in the past 15 years (all that ESPN had stats for) or roughly 76%. Years like 2015 Peyton Manning were clearly an aberration and we know that the defense carried that team.

Regular Season Years (Superbowl would be the year number after)
2016
Matt Ryan #1 QB Rating 117.1
Tom Brady #2 QB Rating 112.2
2015
Peyton Manning #34 QB Rating 67.9
Cam Newton #8 QB Rating 99.4
2014
Tom Brady #5 QB Rating 97.4
Russell Wilson #10 QB Rating 95.0
2013
Russell Wilson #7 QB Rating 101.2
Peyton Manning #2 QB Rating 115.1
2012
Joe Flacco #12 QB Rating 87.7
Colin Kaepernick Not Qualified lack of playing time but 98.7 rating
2011
Eli Manning #7 QB Rating 92.9
Tom Brady #3 QB Rating 105.6
2010
Aaron Rodgers #3 QB Rating 101.2
Ben Roethlisberger #5 QB Rating 97.0
2009
Drew Brees #1 QB Rating 109.6
Peyton Manning #6 QB Rating 99.9
2008
Ben Roethlisberger #24 QB Rating 80.1
Kurt Warner #3 QB Rating 96.9
2007
Eli Manning #25 QB Rating 73.9
Tom Brady #1 QB Rating 117.2
2006
Peyton Manning #1 QB Rating 101.0
Rex Grossman #24 QB Rating 73.9
2005
Ben Roethlesberger #3 QB Rating 98.6
Matt Hasselbeck #4 QB Rating 98.2
2004
Tom Brady #9 QB Rating 92.6
Donovan McNabb #4 QB Rating 104.7
2003
Tom Brady #10 QB Rating 85.9
Jake Delhomme #14 QB Rating 80.6
2002
Brad Johnson #3 QB Rating 92.9
Rich Gannon #2 QB Rating 97.3

For comparison, Tannehill's years look like this:

Tannehill
2016 #12 QB Rating 93.5
2015 #21 QB Rating 88.7
2014 #14 QB Rating 92.8
2013 #24 QB Rating 81.7
2012 #27 QB Rating 76.1

Which seems middle tier.

Looks to me that Tannehill's rating from 2016 is right in the mix so we're good. He as 12th last season after a slow start by the offense. So why change now? I'll also argue till the day I die that his ratings in 2014 and 2016 were despite having a subpar supporting cast.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

That is where we will disagree. Tannehill is closer to Flacco and MAYBE Eli but he's no where near Peyton Manning, Wilson, and Big Ben. We have seen Flacco and Eli come up huge in the biggest moments throughout their careers. Still waiting for Tannehill.

Flacco has the same number of SB wins as Rodgers and Brees and Eli has twice as many.

Tannehill is very close to the Big Ben that won two SBs or the Tom Brady that won his first three or Russell Wilson.

Until you or anyone else can explain why the Big Ben that averaged around 3300 yards and 20 TDs pass won two SBs while the Big Ben that averages 4200 yards and closer to 30 TDs has zero SBs, I'll continue to think that the team is just as important as the QB. Similarly, Brady won SBs at a higher rate before he became a superstar.

And I think the cost is really priceless for a franchise to obtain a QB who can play at an elite level. Im not saying we should draft a 1st round QB every year but one pick is all it would take. Philly sold out on Wentz and now are in the superbowl. Im not saying lets sell the farm for a rookie but if the right QB is there in the first and falls in our lap, then its a no brainer.

You think the Browns are happier they passed on Wentz /Goff/Watson and got.....whoever in return? You think the 49ers are upset they gave 2nd round pick for Jimmy G?

Do you think the Browns are happy that Brady Quinn, Brandon Weeden, and Johnny Manziel fell into their lap?

Cant find that top notch QB if you don't make the effort. Tannehill is nice, but we certainly can do better. We can afford to pass on a Patrick Peterson/J. Clowney prospect for a franchise QB and while there are no guarantees the QB will pan out.....you can say the same thing about the other prospects at key positions.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of going QB in round one this year because I want to see how Tannehill does in 2018. But I would like to see us use a 3rd - 4th round pick on a QB. At the very least you have competition and potential backup QB. If Tannehill continues to be mediocre in 2018, then its time its time to get serious about finding his replacement.

That is where we disagree. Tannehill wasn't mediocre in 2014 or 2016.

 

[fin415]

...
And I think the cost is really priceless for a franchise to obtain a QB who can play at an elite level. Im not saying we should draft a 1st round QB every year but one pick is all it would take.

Philly sold out on Wentz and now are in the superbowl. Im not saying lets sell the farm for a rookie but if the right QB is there in the first and falls in our lap, then its a no brainer.
...

Agreed, having an Elite QB is priceless. But for the other 30 or 29 teams, we have to make do with very good.

As for Philly selling out for Wentz, there is a question that always seems to be discounted. Was Philly all ready with a really good team and Wentz was the final piece or did every other player suddenly become good because Wentz walked into the locker room? Take Indi for example. Luck was supposed to be this generations generational QB. Having Luck gave them an extra 2 or 3 games a season that a lesser QB wouldn't have won, always giving Indi hope that they were close and ready to compete. They weren't. And even better, because they had a really bad line, he got hurt, possibly wrecking him going forward.

I think there are two ways to play this: A) build around good players and when the opportunity comes around to replace them with a great player, do it; B) build around a QB and hope you can support him with a complete team fast enough.

While B) give the QB time to grow his skills, given they are a rare and expensive commodity, I'm in camp A). Tannehill is good enough to build around and continue to make progress. One day, when we have more pieces in place, it might make sense to spend some draft picks to reach for that rare talent if Tannehill ceiling is the final missing piece to fix. More importantly, with the A) approach, if you miss with that reach for talent, it doesn't set you back years because you still have a core of solid players to build on.

 

[Ray R]

Eagles, Vikings, Jaguars - two made the conf championship with backup QBs and one made it with a QB that should be a backup.

Yes, but weren't the defenses and offensive lines on those teams pretty solid?

 

[Ray R]

The basic truth is this:
You can never have too many good Quarterbacks on your team!
I thing we have a real good one in Tannehill. I wouldn't complain if we got one or two more.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Yes, but weren't the defenses and offensive lines on those teams pretty solid?

That is the whole point