so are we ready to shed millions?

[fansinceGWilson]

I dont care if matt moore will play for free...I cant do anymore of that tape...purge it from the building right after you boot cutlers rear

I agree, but what I want and what I expect are rarely the same. I DO expect Gase to look at other backups. I can't see where getting one with equivalent talent for less money would be difficult.

 

[<O>]

This is how I see our QB situation and its effect on the cap.

First consideration is who will we have in the QB positions:

1) We have Tannehill as QB. There is no scenario I see with him leaving.
2) I remember Cutler as being on a one year contract. There is no reason to believe we will bring him back.
3) Moore is a serviceable backup QB and will probably be back, but I suspect we will look for a replacement backup QB over the next two years.
4) Fales is here as a stop gap measure at QB. Unless he shows himself to be much better than Doughty, he will probably be released.
5) With either Fales or Doughty as our 3rd string QB, I believe we will try to bring in QB competition thru the draft every 2 or 3 years, determined by the quality of QB's available vs. other positional demands of this team. Hopefully one of these men will rise to the position of backup QB, allowing us to develop a new 3rd string QB. I look forward to eventually seeing the Dolphins draft and grow our own 1st string QB.

This should leave us at the same level of QB expense as last year plus any increase in those salaries, unless Tannehill restructures his contract with us, which I hope would actually reduce our QB cost vs. the cap. Because of all this, I feel our expenses at this position are under pretty good control.

The Dolphins are in good shape with regard to the percentage of the salary cap allocated to Tannehill, as they have a starting quarterback who functions on average somewhere between the 50th and 80th percentile in the league, depending on your view of him, and who has a corresponding salary cap hit.

Where they have a problem in my opinion is in allocating so much of a percentage of the salary cap to Suh, who is certainly one of the top players at his position, but who doesn't have enough of an impact on opposing passing games to warrant it.

The situation they're facing with Tannehill and Suh, combined, is that they have a quarterback who performs at a level such that one of the league's best pass defenses is needed to contend for a Super Bowl, while a player who does nowhere near what's needed for the pass defense (Suh) is busy absorbing a great deal of the salary cap money necessary to assemble and pay such a defense.

That's a rather "stuck" position. You need either 1) a better quarterback, in which case you can contend for a Super Bowl with a worse pass defense, or 2) Suh's money freed up, so that the necessary pass defense can be assembled and paid.

If I were running the team I'd approach Suh and indicate all of this to him, ask him how badly he wants to win a Super Bowl with the Dolphins, and then either trade or restructure him, based on his response.

Tom Brady takes regular pay cuts to help keep the Patriots highly competitive. It's time to consider asking Suh to do the same in my opinion.

 

[Danny]

The Dolphins are in good shape with regard to the percentage of the salary cap allocated to Tannehill, as they have a starting quarterback who functions on average somewhere between the 50th and 80th percentile in the league, depending on your view of him, and who has a corresponding salary cap hit.

Where they have a problem in my opinion is in allocating so much of a percentage of the salary cap to Suh, who is certainly one of the top players at his position, but who doesn't have enough of an impact on opposing passing games to warrant it.

The situation they're facing with Tannehill and Suh, combined, is that they have a quarterback who performs at a level such that one of the league's best pass defenses is needed to contend for a Super Bowl, while a player who does nowhere near what's needed for the pass defense (Suh) is busy absorbing a great deal of the salary cap money necessary to assemble and pay such a defense.

That's a rather "stuck" position. You need either 1) a better quarterback, in which case you can contend for a Super Bowl with a worse pass defense, or 2) Suh's money freed up, so that the necessary pass defense can be assembled and paid.

If I were running the team I'd approach Suh and indicate all of this to him, ask him how badly he wants to win a Super Bowl with the Dolphins, and then either trade or restructure him, based on his response.

Tom Brady takes regular pay cuts to help keep the Patriots highly competitive. It's time to consider asking Suh to do the same in my opinion.

Some good points. The Suh deal was just horrible. Just T-buam wanting to make a splash as usual but going about it the wrong way. Great player but you don't pay a DT that kind of money. I'm afraid that he'll do something stupid again this coming off season

Ozzy rules!!

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

gase has done a bang on job as a play caller of putting these qbs in position to succeed and they flat out stink

pack yo ****

I honestly wonder how bad Doughty looks in practice that they like having him throw practice balls but they don't want him even being the backup when Moore is hurt.

Maybe they like the fact that he gives our defense a chance to gain confidence in practice?

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

D) Davone Bess...

How did I forget about that? God, where is the :sidelol: emoticon when I really need it...

 

[where's th'fish]

The thing about passer statistics, advanced or not, is that you can't separate the player from the rest of the offense. Making a statistical argument in favor of one QB over another is a very dicey proposition.

If you go deep into the numbers, you'll find that Tannehill's splits with pressure vs no pressure are the most radical in the league and have been for several years. Without pressure Tannehill is extremely dangerous. With pressure he looks relatively bad. Build a good line and we'll all forget about replacing Tannehill. Don't and we might just have to, eventually. In any case, it's a team issue that reflects strongly on the player's numbers and performance. And god knows Cousins has had pretty good in Washington, which is not to say that I don't like him.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Well then by all means, show how he isn't.

If the post evokes a laugh, it should be all too easy.

His own team has spent the last several years refusing to sign him to a long term contract.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

If you go deep into the numbers, you'll find that Tannehill's splits with pressure vs no pressure are the most radical in the league and have been for several years.

If you go even deeper into the numbers -- looking at actual game situation in which the pressures occurred -- it's even more interesting. Tannehill had the highest yards per pass attempt against the blitz of any NFL quarterback in 2016 with 9.6 yards per attempt when blitzed.

But he fared pretty badly in pressure situations against three and four man rushes. In other words, when teams dropped 7-8 into coverage and still got rushers on him. Those are the plays when he did his best when he was able to break the pocket and get his guys on the scramble drill, as well.

There's more interesting stuff you can dig up about our 2016 passing game actually being pretty good situationally. Everyone knows about the red zone efficiency, but how about the fact that we were actually significantly better than the League average at converting through the air on 3rd and 7+ ? The reason that our third down conversation rate was so bad was simply that we had such a high number of 3rd and 7+ that even being pretty good at it wasn't much of a help.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

If you go even deeper into the numbers -- looking at actual game situation in which the pressures occurred -- it's even more interesting. Tannehill had the highest yards per pass attempt against the blitz of any NFL quarterback in 2016 with 9.6 yards per attempt when blitzed.

But he fared pretty badly in pressure situations against three and four man rushes. In other words, when teams dropped 7-8 into coverage and still got rushers on him. Those are the plays when he did his best when he was able to break the pocket and get his guys on the scramble drill, as well.

This would be true of nearly any QB. The problem is that (IMO) the Dolphins allowed pressure with 3 or 4 rushers too often and too quickly. Pressure from a 4 man rush after 3 or 4 seconds is not the same thing as pressure from a 4 many rush in 2 seconds. Down and distance is another huge factor. Quick pressure from the front 4 is less of a problem on 2nd and 1 than it is on 3rd and 9. Also, less of an issue when leading by 21 points than when down by 21. Up by 21? Eat the sack. No damage to the QB rating. Down by 21? Scramble to make something happen or try a difficult throw. The QB in the first situation is somehow better than the QB in the second.

There's more interesting stuff you can dig up about our 2016 passing game actually being pretty good situationally. Everyone knows about the red zone efficiency, but how about the fact that we were actually significantly better than the League average at converting through the air on 3rd and 7+ ? The reason that our third down conversation rate was so bad was simply that we had such a high number of 3rd and 7+ that even being pretty good at it wasn't much of a help.

Excellent point.

 

[dolphintodd]

I am not saying Cousins is better but he has had some nice seasons and has more playoff experience than Tannehill (zero playoff experience). Saying that the logistics of acquiring cousins is terrible when we have Tannehill for less money.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

I think it was clear in 2016 that Ryan Tannehill performed well enough at situational football that the team would be stupid to dump a team-friendly contract to chase another quarterback who will demand a much less team-friendly contract and has a lot of "question marks" surrounding him. When you're talking #1 in the red zone, #1 against the blitz, good on third and long, ELITE at 40+ yard throws, etc., then quite frankly, we'd be paying money to downgrade. The situation in which you'd do that is if the knee is no good.

I think bringing in another quarterback with starting potential is an EXCELLENT idea. But breaking the bank for Kirk Cousins? Haaaaaaaaaa, no.

 

[SCLSU Mud Dogs]

Only on Finheaven is Tannehill better than Cousins.

 

[Vaark]

I think it was clear in 2016 that Ryan Tannehill performed well enough at situational football that the team would be stupid to dump a team-friendly contract to chase another quarterback who will demand a much less team-friendly contract and has a lot of "question marks" surrounding him. When you're talking #1 in the red zone, #1 against the blitz, good on third and long, ELITE at 40+ yard throws, etc., then quite frankly, we'd be paying money to downgrade. The situation in which you'd do that is if the knee is no good.

I think bringing in another quarterback with starting potential is an EXCELLENT idea. But breaking the bank for Kirk Cousins? Haaaaaaaaaa, no.

Yeah, if we could get our hands on Baker Mayfield (becomes less likely with each passing day and praises about his passion for the game, "It factor," incredible leadership, and comparisons to Russell Wilson), I'd be all for it and be happy to watch it all play out. (just hope the Jets don't get him)

Otherwise, I don't care about any self-serving convolution of statistics or "grass is greener syndrome" love over middle of the road QBs, I've seen enough of Tannehill to hope like crazy he holds up physically for the next 5+years.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

Baker Mayfield is going to be a first round draft pick. Anyone who thinks that guy should go in the second or later does not actually watch football. The crotch chop ain't going to hurt his draft stock, either. What's going to hurt his draft stock is the fact that he's got a DUI on his resume and there are two kinds of men in the world: Those who get DUIs and those who don't. When you put yourself in the first category, you don't get out of it.

There are a number of quarterbacks coming out in this draft class that I've watched and been impressed with. The only guy that would cause me to get upset if we drafted him would be Lamar Jackson. He's likely going in the first round on the strength of his workout numbers, and to say I have serious concerns about him as a thrower of the football would be a huge understatement. Nooooo thank you.

Only on Finheaven is Tannehill better than Cousins.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm certainly not going to agree with it. Seeing this board kill Cutler for a football thrown to Devante Parker that got picked off because it popped out of Parker's hands, with the reasoning that "he shouldn't have thrown it into triple coverage" -- and then seeing people pine for Kirk Cousins. Well, once again, I wish for the :sidelol: emoticon in situations like this.

 

[<O>]

The thing about passer statistics, advanced or not, is that you can't separate the player from the rest of the offense. Making a statistical argument in favor of one QB over another is a very dicey proposition.

If you go deep into the numbers, you'll find that Tannehill's splits with pressure vs no pressure are the most radical in the league and have been for several years. Without pressure Tannehill is extremely dangerous. With pressure he looks relatively bad. Build a good line and we'll all forget about replacing Tannehill. Don't and we might just have to, eventually. In any case, it's a team issue that reflects strongly on the player's numbers and performance. And god knows Cousins has had pretty good in Washington, which is not to say that I don't like him.

The lynchpin in that scenario, however, is the question of how good a line any one team is likely to build, how much it would cost against the cap, and how likely it is to stay healthy.

This team, for example, has been trying to "build" a line for years, to the tune of three, first-round draft picks allocated to the present line, out of five positions, with one of the other two positions' being manned by a former Pro-Bowler who was signed as a free agent (Bushrod).

I'm not making the claim here that any of them is playing well at the present time, but what the situation overall illustrates is that all the intentions in the world to "build" a line can be for naught.

Putting together five separate players -- and paying them what they deserve and keeping them healthy -- such that they function together as one of the best units in the league over the longer haul isn't easy!

What might be necessary, instead, is acquiring a quarterback who plays better under pressure, and for whom as much successful line-building isn't needed.

Tannehill's level of play under pressure is as much (as or more) an indictment of him as it is the line. Notice how other QBs in the league play under pressure, for example, and don't even bother venturing upward to the best ones in the league (Rodgers, Brees, Brady, etc.).