Herm Edwards: 'Start Tannehill now' | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Herm Edwards: 'Start Tannehill now'

NYPhin24

NYPhin24

Scout Team
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
4,353
Reaction score
8
http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/44971/herm-edwards-start-tannehill-now


"The Dolphins need to start Tannehill now," Edwards writes: "Miami finished 6-10 overall and 3-3 in a tough AFC East last season. After a rough offseason, the Dolphins drafted Tannehill in the first round at No. 8 overall. If they drafted him that high, he'd better be their franchise QB. Right?"

"The real question is: How much better is Matt Moore going to be than Tannehill?" Edwards continues. "Are the Dolphins going to win two more games with him? Maybe go 8-8? What does that accomplish? They are rebuilding. They might as well find out what they have in Tannehill now."

Here is the thing: Edwards now has a cushy job at ESPN. He has the luxury to comfortably say another team should play a rookie quarterback when Tannehill clearly is not ready. If Edwards were still head coach of the New York Jets or Kansas City Chiefs, would he play Tannehill, or any rookie who was too green? Probably not.

In fact, Edwards had a chance to play Brodie Croyle his rookie year over veteran Damon Huard, and Edwards wisely chose Huard and won nine games that year. Croyle didn't start his first game until Year 2. Edwards also had a young Chad Pennington in New York and Pennington didn't crack Edwards' starting lineup until Year 3.

Edwards coined the phrase, "Hello! You play to win the game!" Miami going with Tannehill right now would not give the Dolphins the best chance to win in Week 1.

for once Walker provides some sense in the matter, as he said, easy for Herm to say a two time fired coach now sitting comfy getting paid im sure some absurd salary to give his opinion about teams players he has never coached
 
Even though it's Herm I do agree with him.

I don't see the point in waiting around with Tannehill. Get him in there now. Get him that experience now. Garrard and Moore will only give us POTENTIALLY a few more wins.

And say Tannehill tanks, take him out and start thinking about the future. If he is actually the franchise QB the team envisioned him to be, GREAT. Let's find out in year one instead of waiting til next season to see that he was A) everything we hoped he would be or B) A disappointment and not worth investing more time into.

I say put the kid up to the test. Not like he won't have a solid running game supporting him with Bush, Thomas, Miller, now possibly Slaton in the mix.

Unless he is terrible in preseason I don't see the sense in delaying the inevitable starting of Tannehill just so he can watch middle of the pack QB's just get this team by this season.
 
Well here is thing about what Edwards point, nothing is better than game day experience. Starting Tannehill right off the bat would be fine but you have to be patient. You have to implement the same plan that the Giants used with Eli and see where it leads. The Jets are using the same plan with Sanchez and I cannot fault them at all for it, seeing it through is the right path.

The problem with Miami right now is the knee jerk reactions that come based off limit time, this is a franchise that has a huge winning tradition but isn't living up to the standards so decisions are being made that might not necessarily be in the best interests of the team long term. Short term decisions should have minimal impact to the overall team. It also doesn't help when you have had more starting QB's in the last decade than any other NFL team, the fans and media are short on patience and rightly so. There has been more than enough time to fix this situation and it has been handled with an overall disregard for progress.

If you start Tannehill from day one you better damn sure live with it and see it through. Don't listen to the fans, the media, the critics and play the kid come hell or high water and evaluate him throughly before making a rash decision.
 
Mr_Freezetag said:
Even though it's Herm I do agree with him.

I don't see the point in waiting around with Tannehill. Get him in there now. Get him that experience now. Garrard and Moore will only give us POTENTIALLY a few more wins.

And say Tannehill tanks, take him out and start thinking about the future. If he is actually the franchise QB the team envisioned him to be, GREAT. Let's find out in year one instead of waiting til next season to see that he was A) everything we hoped he would be or B) A disappointment and not worth investing more time into.

I say put the kid up to the test. Not like he won't have a solid running game supporting him with Bush, Thomas, Miller, now possibly Slaton in the mix.

Unless he is terrible in preseason I don't see the sense in delaying the inevitable starting of Tannehill just so he can watch middle of the pack QB's just get this team by this season.
Click to expand...


Im sure the coaching staff in 08' who decided to start Pennington instead of Henne thought they would only get a "few more wins" with Pennington than if they started Henne, howd that work out? You play for the "now" in the NFL

So you use the #8 pick on a guy, if he "tanks" in his rookie season, you automatically just move on? the Chargers didnt even do that with Brees when he was bad, then eventually they thought about the future and Brees went on to be a top 3 QB in the NFL
 
Tannehill was a #8 pick, Garrard or Moore wont put us over the top. Herm has a point.
 
OyeDale305 said:
Tannehill was a #8 pick, Garrard or Moore wont put us over the top. Herm has a point.
Click to expand...

Herm has no point. He didn't start his rookie QB so his yapping is pure irony. The guy made a horrible head coach and talent evaluator. He was simply a "player's coach" because of his persona. We play to win the game right Herm?

Until the rest of the team is settled in (most importantly the O-line), you do not rush him out there. If we're struggling mightily in other areas you risk Tanny developing horrible habits to compensate. Philbin and Co. are handling this the smart way. Wait to see how the team takes shape heading into the regular season.
 
NYPhin24 said:
Im sure the coaching staff in 08' who decided to start Pennington instead of Henne thought they would only get a "few more wins" with Pennington than if they started Henne, howd that work out? You play for the "now" in the NFL

So you use the #8 pick on a guy, if he "tanks" in his rookie season, you automatically just move on? the Chargers didnt even do that with Brees when he was bad, then eventually they thought about the future and Brees went on to be a top 3 QB in the NFL
Click to expand...

You CANNOT compare Pennington/Henne to Garrard-Moore/Tannehill. Two different cases. Pennington was a better QB than the two veterans we have and had proven so when he arrived.

PLAYING FOR THE NOW IS THE REASON WHY THIS TEAM HAS STRUGGLED ALL THESE YEARS. Settling to play it safe by using a veteran at QB instead of a Rookie is exactly the trend this organization has continued to do for the past decade, "howd that work out?"

We have drafted a kid early in the draft to be the franchise QB. No other reason to go that route. You take a player at that point in the draft because he has that upside.

When saying "if he tanks, take him out and start thinking of the future" means if he sh*t's the bed, not having a decent game, but blowing games on his own. He will have his growing pains like most young QB's but if the KID TANKS THAT MEANS HE IS PULLING SOME RYAN LEAF TYPE SH*T. You have to be patient with a situation like this. You take him out if he is tanking = playing TERRIBLE.

But as you say we should continue to do what this organization has done, and take the safe road by starting the veteran and not taking some risks TO GROOM A QB. This is the one regime that I think could get things right for a change.

Logic to me would be for more of a fanbase to support getting a young QB in the mix and give him the time to grow at the position. Will he struggle? That's almost a guarantee, but I would rather see us finally make some strides at this position instead of continually applying band-aids.

But NYPHIN24, keep applying what OTHER teams did in the PAST and try to compare it to our situation when there are so many different factors. Different schemes, different coaches, different personell, DIFFERENT CASES. Pick apart what I say and choose the words you want to hear BRO, but it comes down to this:

Let the kid play.
Let him learn.
Let him f*ck up.
Let's take a risk with him.
1) If he is GOD AWFUL AND IS FALLING APART OUT THERE THEN YES YOU TAKE HIM OUT AND RE-EVALUATE WHERE THE QB POSITION IS GOING
2) If he stays competitive out there, even if he is struggling we accept that as fans because YOU DON'T ALWAYS GET A PEYTON MANNING PLUCKED FROM A TREE AND PLUGGED INTO YOUR ROSTER.
3) If he lights it up, awesome.

I'd rather see 1, 2, or 3 because either we see that he ISN'T the future over the next year or so, OR we see that he is our QB and we can build around him.

But until we do that we will delay the whole process of finding THE QB yet another year or two.

TAKE THE CHANCE ON TANNEHILL
 
If were having this discussion next season i think there will be a problem (barring a fantastic season from one of the older guys), but I think the right decision is being made by those up top if they plan on having him sit to start the year.
 
Considering that he is holding out, his chances are getting smaller and smaller. The simple fact that he IS holding out shows me that he is not ready to be the starting QB.
 
Herm was obviously a brilliant coach. Always gotta take his advice. Lmfao.
 
he's got a point about what does it really matter if we win a couple more games with matt moore or even david garrard...it does nothing for us...although on just about everything i think herm edwards is off the reservation
 
With a better QB in there at the time, you let the best quarterback start. The QB is the most important position. Why? Because if you have one, you can then see how your other players are doing. Your TEs, your WRs, your O-Line, your RBs. You can set that aside and move from there.

Then what does that do? It allows Tannehill to improve through practice and repetition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom