Can Tannehill Lead Miami to a Super Bowl Within 3 Years?

[So Be]

I did read the OP. But, I did make the mistake of not explaining that IMO the rest of the OP was moot because I don't think that Philbin/Coyle/Tannehill will be in Miami much longer. Yes, I'm being overly negative here... and I'll continue to do so until this team proves me wrong and starts winning!

IF that happens, the team goes back to square #1, with a rookie QB having 5 years to do the same. I would have a problem in dealing with that.

 

[gofins60]

The post you responded to is arguably one of the most idiotic posts I've ever read. Thank you for responding because I certainly felt it didn't deserve a response. Dude clearly knows nothing about football if he thinks it's but a team sport

Idiotic? Why? Because I don't think that Tannehill can lead this team to a Super Bowl? I assume that your quote above is supposed to say "...if he thinks it's NOT a team sport", which is why my post compared Tannehill to Marino. The team is important! Marino did not have a "complete" team around him for the majority of his career, which is why he never made it back to the Super Bowl. Tannehill is no Marino, so he's going to need a strong team and great coaching to reach a Super Bowl. Sorry, but I'm of the opinion that Philbin is not HC material and the defense has regressed under Coyle, so I don't see a strong team that can reach the Super Bowl with Tannehill.

Yes, I'm negative. It's been extremely frustrating to watch this team lose year in and year out, and it's going to take one heck of a season to push me back toward the positive side.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

You've got to be kidding. Not only would I trade it I'd give a heck of a lot more than 17 years. The Marino years were an absolute insult, a pantyhose waste.

I can understand younger fans not wanting to accept that, but not anyone who experienced the Dolphin glory years.

You are in a tiny minority. The Marino years were a blast to watch.

 

[phintim]

Don't beat me up on this but IMO RT is probably just as good maybe better right now than a Joe Flacco or possibly Eli Manning whom both won the Super Bowl. But as Assi Dooger pointed out this team lacks the same talent in both players and coaching that the Baltimore and Giants teams had to assist those two teams in the Super Bowl. Ryan T. is certainly not great but good enough if surrounded with the proper talent to make a dent. Assi pointed out even when we had the great Dan Marino it was not enough and on the up side while this roster has no great players on it, there is the possibility that if Dan Marino was playing today with same roster we would be looking at least winning into the second or third round of the playoffs this year. Also regardless of how this year turns out we are almost certainly going to have RT under center next year too.

 

[Patrick_Bateman]

IF that happens, the team goes back to square #1, with a rookie QB having 5 years to do the same. I would have a problem in dealing with that.

I agree, however it is what it is. If Tannehill is next in the neverending line of mediocre QBs then you really have to know when to cut the ties, well you don't have to know the Dolphins front office does

That said, I'm not convinced one way or the other on Tannehill, although when he was drafted I decided I would wait until he had three seasons under his belt to try to form as informed an opinion as I can. The fact that I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired of having a ****ty QB situation doesn't really affect my opinion as to whether I think he should stay or go.

I'm convinced the majority of folks that made arguments about keeping Henne way back when were only doing it because they were sick and tired of rebuilding - surely they had to see how low his ceiling was and how crappy his overall play as a starter was. But QB is a tough spot to take care of unless you get lucky ala the Pats or the 49ers back in the 80's or even the Phins when Marino fell all the way to the next to last pick in round 1, or just manage to somehow finish dead last everytime a major college can't miss QB is set to join the NFL ala the Colts.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

This would appear to be a very premature question but, I find it more interesting than if Brady leaves the Pats within 3 years. I was listening to Pollian and others yesterday who say that a teams best chance to get to a SB is when they have a VG QB before he signs the BIG contract. The reasoning is simple and does make sense. The team can afford to pay surrounding talent much more before than after.

With that in mind, IF Tannehill looks to be the "Chosen One" his year, is it possible for him to do that in the next 3 years or, is it a far fetched dream?

After reading some of the other responses and re-reading the OP, I admit I was a bit harsh in my first response. Clearly I didn't read the OP closely enough.

My bad, apologies to you.

Actually it is a good question and can be looked at in two extremes with a continuum between the two extremes:

1. Is Tannehill good enough right now to lead a solid team to the SB and will the team be solid enough in 3 years?

2. Will Tannehill be good enough within the next three years to lead a flawed team to the SB?

IMO, 1 is a partial yes right now. IMO, he is as good as several QBs that have won SBs. Whether the team can fix all the other flaws (OL, running game, run defense, etc) is another question and nobody can answer it because Hickey is so new.

2 is a harder question about Tannehill to answer. Will he be Rodgers, Brees, Manning, or Brady in the next three years? Probably not.

The real future is somewhere in the middle. Tannehill will improve and give the team a larger margin of error. The team will hopefully make other improvements and also needs some good fortune. Will that be enough the win the SB within the next three years? Probably not, but IMO, it won't be because of Tannehill.

 

[So Be]

After reading some of the other responses and re-reading the OP, I admit I was a bit harsh in my first response. Clearly I didn't read the OP closely enough.

My bad, apologies to you.

Actually it is a good question and can be looked at in two extremes with a continuum between the two extremes:

1. Is Tannehill good enough right now to lead a solid team to the SB and will the team be solid enough in 3 years?

2. Will Tannehill be good enough within the next three years to lead a flawed team to the SB?

IMO, 1 is a partial yes right now. IMO, he is as good as several QBs that have won SBs. Whether the team can fix all the other flaws (OL, running game, run defense, etc) is another question and nobody can answer it because Hickey is so new.

2 is a harder question about Tannehill to answer. Will he be Rodgers, Brees, Manning, or Brady in the next three years? Probably not.

The real future is somewhere in the middle. Tannehill will improve and give the team a larger margin of error. The team will hopefully make other improvements and also needs some good fortune. Will that be enough the win the SB within the next three years? Probably not, but IMO, it won't be because of Tannehill.

No need to apologize. I completely agree with Pollian in a VG QB having a better chance when a team has much more money for other players. Would Wilson have been there if Seattle could not afford to have Lynch, Avril, or Bennet? Would CK get there with less talent, as well as Flacco? Don't think so.

An elite QB is a different story as they can overcome more than a VG one, who needs more help, with more money making that easier to do. The team needs to have the other big contract players play up to the pay but, having the cap options does give them better odds to do so.

Also, Peyton and Brady are close o being gone in a weak AFC, Luck, with more talent, is on the same BIG contract deal, and Dalton's deal will hurt Cinci in the next year.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

No need to apologize. I completely agree with Pollian in a VG QB having a better chance when a team has much more money for other players. Would Wilson have been there if Seattle could not afford to have Lynch, Avril, or Bennet? Would CK get there with less talent, as well as Flacco? Don't think so.

An elite QB is a different story as they can overcome more than a VG one, who needs more help, with more money making that easier to do. The team needs to have the other big contract players play up to the pay but, having the cap options does give them better odds to do so.

Also, Peyton and Brady are close o being gone in a weak AFC, Luck, with more talent, is on the same BIG contract deal, and Dalton's deal will hurt Cinci in the next year.

The challenge to the front office is to either sign him to a team friendly deal or get good value for other players. That is why the deals for Wallace, Wheeler, and Ellerbe are so troubling. They are paying too much for those players. Ultimately, the team will need to do well in the draft. Add young players that can contribute early in their careers, then plan on replacing many when it is time for big contracts. This is largely what has fueled Seattle's success.

 

[So Be]

The challenge to the front office is to either sign him to a team friendly deal or get good value for other players. That is why the deals for Wallace, Wheeler, and Ellerbe are so troubling. They are paying too much for those players. Ultimately, the team will need to do well in the draft. Add young players that can contribute early in their careers, then plan on replacing many when it is time for big contracts. This is largely what has fueled Seattle's success.

Agreed, and depending on production, we can get rid of anyone (other than Albert and Grimes) cap wise next year. We would still have to eat some of the contracts but, not to the point where we have to keep players.