Herm Edwards: 'Start Tannehill now' | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Herm Edwards: 'Start Tannehill now'

j-off-her-doll said:
Translate this to your own experience:

Have you ever seen a promising employee promoted too soon? Some work their way through the difficult period; some crack under the pressure.

When a person feels better prepared for a job, he/she does better initially, and that usually leads to greater long-term success.

. . .

There's nothing like game action, so there will be struggles for any and every QB when he starts playing in the NFL. But some struggles are obstacles to overcome, and some struggles can appear to be impossible to overcome. We don't have Brett Favre, but whether or not Favre was there, Rodgers wasn't ready to start as a rookie. Some QB's come out more polished than others. People develop at different rates. I'd say that Rodgers, over the past few seasons, has played the position as well as anyone I've ever seen.

This all boils down to what the staff feels is in Tannehill's best long-term interest. It's a person-to-person issue. Aaron Rodgers didn't start his NFL career nearly as quickly as Matt Ryan. Hell, you can argue that over his first two seasons, he struggled more than Chad Henne. Sometimes you get P. Manning, and you put him in and let him figure out everything on the fly. Sometimes you get A. Rodgers, and you let him learn at different pace. The important thing is the end result.
Click to expand...

Aaron also had this "thing" in front of him named BRETT FAVRE.

Without The Brett he doesn't sit that long.
 
j-off-her-doll said:
Translate this to your own experience:

Have you ever seen a promising employee promoted too soon? Some work their way through the difficult period; some crack under the pressure.

When a person feels better prepared for a job, he/she does better initially, and that usually leads to greater long-term success.

. . .

There's nothing like game action, so there will be struggles for any and every QB when he starts playing in the NFL. But some struggles are obstacles to overcome, and some struggles can appear to be impossible to overcome. We don't have Brett Favre, but whether or not Favre was there, Rodgers wasn't ready to start as a rookie. Some QB's come out more polished than others. People develop at different rates. I'd say that Rodgers, over the past few seasons, has played the position as well as anyone I've ever seen.

This all boils down to what the staff feels is in Tannehill's best long-term interest. It's a person-to-person issue. Aaron Rodgers didn't start his NFL career nearly as quickly as Matt Ryan. Hell, you can argue that over his first two seasons, he struggled more than Chad Henne. Sometimes you get P. Manning, and you put him in and let him figure out everything on the fly. Sometimes you get A. Rodgers, and you let him learn at different pace. The important thing is the end result.
Click to expand...

Aaron also had this "thing" in front of him named BRETT FAVRE.

Without The Brett he doesn't sit that long.
 
I think the point is that there a number of questions surrounding. With the competition being mere stop gaps, why not at least try to start finding answers to these questions ASAP. I'm not saying that he should start from game 1 but our team isn't good enough to allow a QB that we chose at 8 in the draft to sit a year.
 
Let's hope Tannehill's development is better than Chad Henne's
That was a disaster.
 
Tureo said:
I think the point is that there a number of questions surrounding. With the competition being mere stop gaps, why not at least try to start finding answers to these questions ASAP. I'm not saying that he should start from game 1 but our team isn't good enough to allow a QB that we chose at 8 in the draft to sit a year.
Click to expand...

Let's examine that comment .... "Our team isn't good enough."

So you want to saddle a wet-behind-the-ears QB with only 19 college starts behind that team that isn't good enough? Why would you want to subject him to an O-line that gave up nearly 50 sacks and a WR unit with no identity learning the WCO? Do you realize the kinds of bad habits a young Tannehill could learn while running for his life and dealing with the chaos of his receivers not being in the right spots?

Let Philbin get this team together and the veteran QB's handle the awkward stage. Make the situation the most optimal it can be before the baptism by fire. It's smart, responsible coaching.
 
Mr_Freezetag said:
Aaron also had this "thing" in front of him named BRETT FAVRE.

Without The Brett he doesn't sit that long.
Click to expand...

There's this "thing" in my post named WORDS THAT ALREADY ADDRESSED YOUR COUNTER. Read the entire post next time.

And whether or not they would have rushed Aaron Rodgers into action, he wasn't ready for at least the first two seasons. Read up.
 
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...

that has to be the dumbest thing I've heard to date
 
Those games win or lose means nothing if it's not with the future because Garrard is not the future of this team, although the wins will make us fans feel good but it's going to hurt long term because Tannehill isn't the QB
 
NYPhin24 said:
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
Click to expand...


no one no matter how experience at the sport says what they truly feel .. they say whats good for tv and read off a teleprompter ESPN has become as much of a joke as MTV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom