How high is Tannehill's ceiling? | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

How high is Tannehill's ceiling?

3JinMaoAtrium-1.jpg
 
His ability is steadily improving and he rarely makes the same mistake twice. I don't think we should quantify it, his ability to improve is limitless.

Bingo........how high is the sky......then start looking up :-)
 
A-Aron Rodgers ceiling. He sat for how long? Tannehill is just beginning to use his talents effectively. Imagine a year or two more.

Philbin knows what he made with A-Aron, e's going to mold Tanny that way.

Bingo....we have a winner.......of course the Phinz must fix the DANM offensive line ASAP
 
A-Aron Rodgers ceiling. He sat for how long? Tannehill is just beginning to use his talents effectively. Imagine a year or two more.

Philbin knows what he made with A-Aron, e's going to mold Tanny that way.

Except Tanny works with Zac and Sherman on a day to day basis. Regardless he is in good hands though
 
I'm not really comparing Tannehill to Smith. I think Tanne will be better.....but I think ceilings are a made up opinions that mean absolutely nothing.

All of our opinions here on the NFL, pretty much mean absolutely nothing.

Fortunately or unfortunately depending on who you are I guess. Don't really see what's wrong with discussing a players ceiling though. Its a legit question.
 
Well if I had his kind of money, I would get one of those homes with the really high ceilings. With all of that square footage and having it built the way you like it, why not? Im really tall so I like plenty of space when I move around. Just guessing but, I would say his ceiling is at least 12 ft in his living room.

There's still room on the bandwagon.

I know you jumped off and then started shooting the bandwagon with a shotgun...but it rolls on.
 
If he wins us a super bowl he enters into a special group of ppl that includes wade and riles.

His ceiling is whatever he wants it to be.
 
When he was drafted, I thought he would fall somewhere between Tony Romo and Aaron Rodgers. I'm not sure he quite gets to Rodgers' level, but he has some of the same qualities.
 
If you weren't seeing the steps forward the last 7 weeks you weren't looking.The last 5 were larger steps.

They started after the last pats loss and went up hill till the last Pats win.

So, for everyone's education...please enlighten us with exactly what steps forward you have been seeing.
 
Manningesque if you give him 12 more years.

OMG, that's asking a lot, they ran Peyton Manning out, and Manning is having his best years yet. The Colts were positioning for the future, so let me ask you guys this.

Did the Colts make a horrible mistake, especially if Manning wins another Super Bowl.

If Peyton Manning wins a another Super Bowl, as a starter- for a different team, he would without a doubt have to go down as the greatest QB of all time.

Marino was a rare breed, so is Brady and OMG, so is Peyton Manning.

12 years is a long time, and as Jerry Glanville once said, NFL stands for "Not-For-Long". If you're not producing by 4-5 years , you're probably not going to last much longer.

Tom Brady is winning with trash receivers.
 
This is the intriguing question. When the background is very unusual, my theory is to ignore the playing characteristics and conclude that there were reasons for the detours, and the raves will fall short. It works the majority of the time. That's the way I think, to quickly identify the majority outcome, without much stress or subjectivity or second guessing. Others prefer to look at each case individually.

I didn't like the background of Tannehill or Weeden in that draft. When a guy has a strange history I don't mind taking him at a value spot but not premium. I always cringe when draftniks ignore that a guy is 26 or 28 years old or whatever and projected to the first round. That's fine with special cases like Roger Staubach or David Robinson but otherwise you are just asking to be burned.
 
This is the intriguing question. When the background is very unusual, my theory is to ignore the playing characteristics and conclude that there were reasons for the detours, and the raves will fall short. It works the majority of the time. That's the way I think, to quickly identify the majority outcome, without much stress or subjectivity or second guessing. Others prefer to look at each case individually.

I didn't like the background of Tannehill or Weeden in that draft. When a guy has a strange history I don't mind taking him at a value spot but not premium. I always cringe when draftniks ignore that a guy is 26 or 28 years old or whatever and projected to the first round. That's fine with special cases like Roger Staubach or David Robinson but otherwise you are just asking to be burned.

To be fair Russell Wilson had a strange history too, by your standards. The flirtation with baseball and the height, for example, were both oddities. I've seen you post many times that people rarely become special if they're waffling about what they want to be so late in life. And how many quarterbacks that height have we seen come in and succeed?

The problem is you don't get to draft a hundred quarterbacks the way you get to make a hundred bets so you can't afford to be so broad. You only get a few chances. The only guy who fit all the criteria was Luck, and he went #1, as will just about every quarterback who comes down the pipe with that kind of resume.
 
Back
Top Bottom