Chris Mortensen talking up Tannehill on Colin Cowherd Show

[MiamiDolphin618]

Look, some guys just have it, and they get it. Others have to really work at it. I'm not saying Tannehill is one or the other, but I hate the assumption that it is some catastrophic error to play him the first year, no matter what. You have to be honest with the team and play to win now. Guys don't want to hear that we're waiting for next year. If, HUGE IF, if Tannehill shows he's the guy right now and the team knows it and the coach decides not to play him, you risk losing some guys.

Yeah, he's young, lacks experience and maybe he turns out to be the best QB on the roster anyway. Maybe he's got it like that? Lord knows we were bound to get lucky at some point. We have suffered in the QB black hole for like 2 damn decades now. LOL.

You make some very good points. I have never understood the concept that starting Tannehill automatically means we will lose more games. Says who? Just because he is a rookie doesn't mean he can't..A) Win and B) outperform what the Vets would do. Of course he will make some rookie mistakes...but its not like we are talking about benching an elite QB for him. Don't get me wrong...I actually think Garrard could be pretty decent for us this year if thats the route we choose to go...but personally Im all for seeing what the kid has

 

[hoops]

True...but Flynn is now just an after thought for me. If Philbin really believed he could be the guy, he would be a Dolphin right now. The fact that he isn't tells me all I need to know. Plus, between Gerrard and Moore we are fine until Tannehill is the guy...which may be sooner rather than later.

how do you know philbin didn't buy in??? ireland could have nixed that...we'll likely never know...that said tannehills ceiling and upside is definitely higher...and if the kids legit i won't complain

 

[nerfball]

You make some very good points. I have never understood the concept that starting Tannehill automatically means we will lose more games. Says who? Just because he is a rookie doesn't mean he can't..A) Win and B) outperform what the Vets would do. Of course he will make some rookie mistakes...but its not like we are talking about benching an elite QB for him. Don't get me wrong...I actually think Garrard could be pretty decent for us this year if thats the route we choose to go...but personally Im all for seeing what the kid has

I just feel like no matter what, people are going to second guess, that is, unless we actually start out winning. If they put Tannehill out there to start the season and we go 0-2, it'll be the "TOLD YOU! We should have started Garrard! The season is lost!" If we start Garrard/Moore and we lose a couple, the immediate chants to bring in the rookie will start. Just win baby.

 

[Vaark]

just an fyi but matt flynn was named the starter for the opening preseason game...so he must be showing something...nice low blow attempt though

or it means that Pete will look extra stoopid for shelling out that money if a third rounder starts a game that is meaningless in the scheme of things.

 

[FinaticalOne]

Look, some guys just have it, and they get it. Others have to really work at it. I'm not saying Tannehill is one or the other, but I hate the assumption that it is some catastrophic error to play him the first year, no matter what. You have to be honest with the team and play to win now. Guys don't want to hear that we're waiting for next year. If, HUGE IF, if Tannehill shows he's the guy right now and the team knows it and the coach decides not to play him, you risk losing some guys.

Yeah, he's young, lacks experience and maybe he turns out to be the best QB on the roster anyway. Maybe he's got it like that? Lord knows we were bound to get lucky at some point. We have suffered in the QB black hole for like 2 damn decades now. LOL.

I have to agree with you on this. I was one of the many who said "let him sit for a year", but I did not expect for Tannehill to show this kind of improvement in such short time. But I still want to see him play in the preseason before changing my mind all together, and if he is showing improvemnt each week (more specifically: making quicker decisions with the ball), than his name should be in consideration for opening day starter. But right now, quick decision-making and accuracy keeps David Garard at the top of the depth chart for now. I trust Joe Philbin will make the right decision on when to start Tannehill.

 

[Nublar7]

Ryan "The People's Choice" Tannehill

 

[FinaticalOne]

just an fyi but matt flynn was named the starter for the opening preseason game...so he must be showing something...nice low blow attempt though

I feel they had no choice, considering the ridiculous amount of money offered. Not starting him will admit they made a mistake. IMHO, I think their recent moves of signing Braylon Edwards and Terrell Owens are attempts to improve QB play. We will see how Flynn performs soon enough.

 

[Dominate]

how do you know philbin didn't buy in??? ireland could have nixed that...we'll likely never know...that said tannehills ceiling and upside is definitely higher...and if the kids legit i won't complain

Obviously I don't know for sure, but don't you think that if Philbin walked into Irelands office and said, "Jeff...I have been working with this Flynn kid for a few years and believe me he has all the tools and could be a top 5 QB in this league for the next 8-10 years if we sign him", we may have actually made more than a cheap, half-hearted effort to sign him?

Agreed on Tannehill...I really enjoyed watching Philbin tell Sherman (almost in a surprised / awed kind of tone) how well he thought Ryan threw the ball.

 

[ChambersWI]

just an fyi but matt flynn was named the starter for the opening preseason game...so he must be showing something...nice low blow attempt though

I guess in early TC, he looked head and shoulders over everybody, but Wilson has closed the gap. Jackson really isn't in the picture (duh)

 

[hoops]

I feel they had no choice, considering the ridiculous amount of money offered. Not starting him will admit they made a mistake. IMHO, I think their recent moves of signing Braylon Edwards and Terrell Owens are attempts to improve QB play. We will see how Flynn performs soon enough.

improve qb play...what??? those moves are about them not trusting sidney rice is healthy and a crappy core...trying to upgrade their depth at wr

 

[nerfball]

I have to agree with you on this. I was one of the many who said "let him sit for a year", but I did not expect for Tannehill to show this kind of improvement in such short time. But I still want to see him play in the preseason before changing my mind all together, and if he is showing improvemnt each week (more specifically: making quicker decisions with the ball), than his name should be in consideration for opening day starter. But right now, quick decision-making and accuracy keeps David Garard at the top of the depth chart for now. I trust Joe Philbin will make the right decision on when to start Tannehill.

Absolutely. It will be evident by the end of camp for sure. And that's the thing, the rest of the team will know it, too. Guys going against him and the other QBs will sit back and KNOW who should start. If the coach sits the best guy then that is a de-motivator. You know, are we trying to win here or not? You have to play the best guy to keep your integrity and reputation with the team.

 

[hoops]

I guess in early TC, he looked head and shoulders over everybody, but Wilson has closed the gap. Jackson really isn't in the picture (duh)

i heard wilson has looked solid but i'll take a money bet barring injury to flynn that wilson doesn't start week 1 if any takers...

 

[BenchFiedler]

That TD to Fasano wasn't easy.. He had to lob 2 defenders. This is a good starting point but like Bill Polian stated, I would let him sit and learn behind Garrard for 1 year.

 

[ChambersWI]

oh and Cowherd/Tannehill is interesting. I always listen to his radio show (dude can be a dick, but he is at least honest and will tell his opinion), and he did say he liked Tannehill but didn't think taking him in the top 10 when he wasn't projected that high before Matt Barkley and Landry Jones decided to stay in school was a smart idea. That and he joked about Tanny only getting attention because his wife was hot (he did interview Tanny and ask him about that and Ryan just shrugged it off)

But yeah Tannehill has looked better than even I, one of his bigger supporters, am surprised. I never cared much about him not getting many starts (he had more than Mark Sanchez in college), just that he needed more time focusing on one position.

 

[hoops]

the fact that cowherd was endorsing landry jones tells me all i need to know...