Greg Cote: Tannehill doesn’t need to be great — just consistently good | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Greg Cote: Tannehill doesn’t need to be great — just consistently good

G

gafin

Practice Squad
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
2,135
Reaction score
4
You know when the Dolphins will truly have a chance to be something special? When this might finally be a steady playoff contender able to think about ending Miami’s long estrangement from the Super Bowl?

It will happen when performances like we saw from Ryan Tannehill on Sunday begin to be routine – expected – and not an aberrant cause of international celebration among pleasantly surprised Dolfans.

One great game doesn’t anoint Tannehill’s future any more than one bad performance should kick the legs out from under it. Week-in, week-out reliability is what the club needs from its young quarterback. He must find that. He found a higher plane Sunday in London, now he must consistently stay there to begin to lift this franchise and make sure last week’s silliness over his starter’s status doesn’t have a chance to be repeated.

Tannehill had a surreal, fantastic first half at Wembley Stadium, completing 17 of 19 passes for 204 yards and two touchdowns. That’s great for anybody, any time. “Good rhythm, good tempo, good command, very decisive,” coach Joe Philbin called it.

The performance was decorated in nobility. Tannehill got to play the mentally tough leader who rose about the distraction caused by his own head coach and stuck it to anybody who doubted him.

But it also is fair to note Tannehill was pretty ordinary in Sunday’s second half (6 of 12, 74 yards and a tipped-pass interception), and that the opponent, sad Oakland, was buffooning and stinking to a 10th consecutive loss dating to last season.

Besides, Tannehill’s blockers kept him sack-free, Miami had 157 rushing yards, and his receivers got open, made great catches and avoided drops. When a QB has all of that going on AND a lousy opponent, well, he SHOULD have a great game. The stats SHOULD be gaudy.
Click to expand...


http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/greg-cote/article2304413.html
 
He is correct. Some of us have said this all along.

And yes, the stats should have been gaudy. They werent. They were in the first half.

This was Tannehill's best game as a pro. He will never have a monster game like the elite QBs do. Hell, Matt Moore has several games in his career with better numbers than Tannehill has ever had despite having more starts than Moore.
 
WVDolphan said:
He is correct. Some of us have said this all along.

And yes, the stats should have been gaudy. They werent. They were in the first half.

This was Tannehill's best game as a pro. He will never have a monster game like the elite QBs do. Hell, Matt Moore has several games in his career with better numbers than Tannehill has ever had despite having more starts than Moore.
Click to expand...

I seriously hope you just become a Falcons fan. You could hard on Matty instead.
 
I look fwd to seeing if RT can develop this season and be a long term answer for the franchise. We have to find out. If not…you turn the page. If he can be, then we can continue to build the team around him.
 
That is how our team is supposed to perform, its a system and the QB is the key-stone element of that system. They aren't going to do it every week even at the best of times but when the QB plays well we should crush and when the QB doesn't play well we'll look bad. If we can get lucky and be hot at the right times we could run off a bunch of wins.

An example of how luck can play into it is if Tannehill performed like that at KC we win that game and we probably beat the Raiders even on a bad day. So instead of 1-1 those games had Tannehill been hot at the right moment we're 2-0.
 
WVDolphan said:
He is correct. Some of us have said this all along.

And yes, the stats should have been gaudy. They werent. They were in the first half.

This was Tannehill's best game as a pro. He will never have a monster game like the elite QBs do. Hell, Matt Moore has several games in his career with better numbers than Tannehill has ever had despite having more starts than Moore.
Click to expand...

We were up 24-7, the second half plan was obviously to run the clock out.

He would've had 300 yards and 3 tds if Sims didn't get called for PI.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
I seriously hope you just become a Falcons fan. You could hard on Matty instead.
Click to expand...
wtf does matt ryan have to do with this?

we know wv is a matt ryan fan, which is fine, but he never mentioned matt ryan in this post, just simply made a comment on the article by greg cote, yet the only thing u can think of is matt ryan?

did greg cote say something wrong in this article, or should he have said tannehill can continue to be up and down and everything will be ok?

cotes article sums it up perfectly, and he also gives u stats of how when tannys qb rating is above a certain level, we are basically unbeatable, 90 was the rating i believe.
 
Ilovemyfins4eva said:
wtf does matt ryan have to do with this?

we know wv is a matt ryan fan, which is fine, but he never mentioned matt ryan in this post, just simply made a comment on the article by greg cote, yet the only thing u can think of is matt ryan?

did greg cote say something wrong in this article, or should he have said tannehill can continue to be up and down and everything will be ok?

cotes article sums it up perfectly, and he also gives u stats of how when tannys qb rating is above a certain level, we are basically unbeatable, 90 was the rating i believe.
Click to expand...

He's only hit over 100 5 times as a pro.. lolwut.

If he maintains a 85+ rating Miami will be in the playoffs.
 
Ilovemyfins4eva said:
wtf does matt ryan have to do with this?

we know wv is a matt ryan fan, which is fine, but he never mentioned matt ryan in this post, just simply made a comment on the article by greg cote, yet the only thing u can think of is matt ryan?

did greg cote say something wrong in this article, or should he have said tannehill can continue to be up and down and everything will be ok?

cotes article sums it up perfectly, and he also gives u stats of how when tannys qb rating is above a certain level, we are basically unbeatable, 90 was the rating i believe.
Click to expand...

What does Matt Moore have do with this? Nothing. Yet WV takes the opportunity to bring up him or Matt Ryan in every single thread.
 
Ilovemyfins4eva said:
cotes article sums it up perfectly, and he also gives u stats of how when tannys qb rating is above a certain level, we are basically unbeatable, 90 was the rating i believe.
Click to expand...

The team is 13-1 when Tannehill has a rating of 88+

We need to do a better job of winning the games Tannehill doesn't play well in, and the New England game was a good start. And Tannehill needs to hit that 88+ rating more often.
 
roy_miami said:
The team is 13-1 when Tannehill has a rating of 88+

We need to do a better job of winning the games Tannehill doesn't play well, and New England game was a good start, and Tannehill needs to hit that 88+ rating a lot more often.
Click to expand...
exactly, when tannehill plays well, we win. its simple.

i feel like i have gotten into so many useless arguments on here about what is needed to win. everyone knows the qb is the most important position on an nfl team, obviously everyone needs to do there part, but those numbers that cote throws out in his article do not lie.

when tanny plays to an 85 plus rating, we win, because that means tannehill played well.

its not rocket science, and i am glad cote and most ppl do understand this.
 
A couple of weeks ago it was about scoring 30 points. Do that and the Dolphins win a lot with this defense was the mantra. He does that but somehow it's not good enough and has now become about putting up big numbers in garbage time to move into the elite catagory. Cote clearly spells out he doesn't have to be great just consistently good which is correct.

Do you guys even read some of the crap you sling at the wall? He had a good game. The team executed in all facets for the most part. Still some miscues to be concerned with but that was definitely much better than the first three games. Try and enjoy it for a couple of days.
 
Lousy opponent? Weren't the Raiders ranked 6th defensively and didn't they just hold the Pats to 16 points at home? Sure they're bad offensively but Tannehill wasn't throwing against their O.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom