Nothing strange there...Ryan improved from year 1 to year 2....I think he expects more progression in year 3 is all and is trying to motivate....no problem.
Tannehill on a shorter leash for 2014
- Thread starter Miami 13
- Start date
Teams make mistakes all the time when trying to predict the future, just like everybody else.
Valandui
Lumberjack Batman
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,211
- Reaction score
- 33
They also have successes. That doesn't change the fact that potential is an actual thing that teams look for in players and therefore can't be hypothetical.
Bravo!
You've just linked your credibility as an unbiased evaluator of Miami QB talent to a Jets fan. I'd mention said Jets fan's undying championing of Mark Sanchez as an "above average QB," but I really don't feel like wading through a swamp of cherrypicked stats today.
This is not his purpose. His purpose is never to give a better plan, only to shoot holes in the existing one. Whether or not the existing plan is a good one or not is irrelevant; he wants to shoot holes in it just because he doesn't like it.
What's hypothetical is whether the potential will ever be realized.
---------- Post added at 06:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 AM ----------
I didn't say anything about how he sees his own team.
What's hypothetical is whether the potential will ever be realized.
---------- Post added at 06:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:34 AM ----------
I didn't say anything about how he sees his own team.
So, to clarify, you're comfortable being in bed with nyjunc's opinions in the Dolphins, (metaphorically, of course), and you view them as unbiased?
My position on the matter is that he's typically better at seeing the team in a balanced manner than the average person here.
Matt Moore won 6 games with that awful 2011 team. That team started 0-7 and Moore won 6 of the last 9 as the starter with them.
Over the last 3 seasons Moore has more or less lead the team to a 7-6 record(the 2012 Jests game Moore was inserted EARLY when Tannehill was injured. There was no score at the time). Virtually the same team that Tannehill has worked with and Moore has a decent record and a better rating than that of Tannehill.
Over the past two seasons in his 31 games, Tannehill is 14-17 and again has a worse rating over the last two years than what Moore has had over the last 3. Yet, somehow Im supposed to believe Tannehill is better? Why?
In fact, I would argue that as far as offensive talent the 2013 team had better players to throw to than the 2011 and 2012 teams. I would suggest Moore's numbers wouldve been even better than his 2011 campaign had he been the starter last year.
Over the last 3 seasons Moore has more or less lead the team to a 7-6 record(the 2012 Jests game Moore was inserted EARLY when Tannehill was injured. There was no score at the time). Virtually the same team that Tannehill has worked with and Moore has a decent record and a better rating than that of Tannehill.
Over the past two seasons in his 31 games, Tannehill is 14-17 and again has a worse rating over the last two years than what Moore has had over the last 3. Yet, somehow Im supposed to believe Tannehill is better? Why?
In fact, I would argue that as far as offensive talent the 2013 team had better players to throw to than the 2011 and 2012 teams. I would suggest Moore's numbers wouldve been even better than his 2011 campaign had he been the starter last year.
ojmcduffy
Seasoned Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2004
- Messages
- 2,991
- Reaction score
- 10
You can't really tell how well Tannehill played this season because the protection was so bad. If Matt Moore gets sacked everytimne he drops back to pass he will struggle to. I don't think Joe Montana could take over 60 sacks and be productive. Changing qbs doesn't help when you have 4 pop warner guys starting on your oline.
The problem I see with Tannehill is that they want him to be Aaron Rodgers, and that's just not the kind of QB he's ever going to be (as I see it). Tannehill has the physical tools. Post-snap, he's slow at processing information. Blame it on inexperience or whatever, but I don't see significantly improving this area, and I don't see him improving his instincts. Instincts is one of those areas where you got it, or you don't.
Does that mean I think we should move on from Tannehill? Not necessarily. If we intend to rely on him to throw the ball 40 times and carry our offense, I don't think he's that guy. But I think that's a stupid approach anyway, so I'm not ready to hit the reset button at QB. Lean on the running game, work off of play action, and pray that Tannehill can improve his deep ball. Bill Lazor MIGHT save Philbin's job. The new GM will also have a lot to do with it.
Does that mean I think we should move on from Tannehill? Not necessarily. If we intend to rely on him to throw the ball 40 times and carry our offense, I don't think he's that guy. But I think that's a stupid approach anyway, so I'm not ready to hit the reset button at QB. Lean on the running game, work off of play action, and pray that Tannehill can improve his deep ball. Bill Lazor MIGHT save Philbin's job. The new GM will also have a lot to do with it.
Can we please just cut Matt Moore and be done with it. He isn't the answer and never was. If you're going to bench your third year starter please at least do it for someone who has potential and not someone who is clearly a professional backup.
If we cross this road those wanting Philbin gone will finally get their wish, might be a quick stop for Hickey too if this happens. I'd hope Joe-Bob isn't this ****ing stupid.
If we cross this road those wanting Philbin gone will finally get their wish, might be a quick stop for Hickey too if this happens. I'd hope Joe-Bob isn't this ****ing stupid.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Philbin is the one who should be on the short leash.
So a guy with a career rating of 79.3 is "clearly a professional backup", but Tannehill and his career 79.1 rating is clearly the way to go and our future?
Sadly, he isn't even any good at it.... persistent.... obnoxious..... yes, but not any good.