Just watched the game DON'T UNDERSTAND the frustration with Tannehill | Page 9 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Just watched the game DON'T UNDERSTAND the frustration with Tannehill

J. David Wannyheimer said:
I don't feel like he needs 'quicker' decisions. He needs to let plays develop now that he has time to throw the football. I also don't see 'more accurate' throws. The pass to Dion Sims, upon further review, was not a bad decision. It was an inaccurate throw.

Of course, I also believe that he was a GOOD quarterback last season. I also do not believe that just because he's had a slow start in the preseason, he won't show improvement during the year.

If he stays healthy, he is going to get 16 games. Let's see what happens. I am a big believer in #17, but he's still got to prove it to me.
Click to expand...

I agree..he has to show it and nothing so far 'proves' he's going to be a top tier QB yet, but I do see improvement. And i was referring to the Hartline throw rather than the Sims throw. and I do agree he was good last year. Not as good as I would have liked, but still progressing.
 
NJ Dolphan said:
Then at least explain WHY it's bogus. My guess is that you haven't, because you can't.
Click to expand...

truedolphan57 has, you just don't understand because you dont watch the games, you go on ESPN and look at the stats a THINK that tells the entire story.
 
psfign said:
truedolphan57 has, you just don't understand because you dont watch the games, you go on ESPN and look at the stats a THINK that tells the entire story.
Click to expand...

I said that I watched all but three games last year, two of them were losses, two of those were on the radio, and one was arguably Tannehill's worst game. So I don't know why that's germane.

In any event, I pointed out that the Dolphins were 20th or below in passing yards, points and rushing yards and that you can't chalk that up to Tannehill having a bad supporting cast. I was then told that was wrong because Tannehill was 10th in passing yards. i responded that statistic was simplistic, if not irrelevant, because it doesn't account for other QBs that missed games due to injury or performance, and that it was much more useful to look at team passing yards.

While not disputing that basic premise, I am then told that the team passing yards are misleading because they include yards lost to sacks. I then point out that every team loses passing yards to sacks and that the amount of yards the Dolphins lost to sacks was not particularly dramatic when compared to another team like the Patriots, which was 12th best in sacks allowed, but lost only 90 more passing yards to sacks than the Dolphins did.

After that I got crickets, except to go back to "you obviously never watched the games."

In the end, Tannehill improved over his rookie year, although he really had nowhere to go but up. So, we've got someone better on our hands than Gabbert or Ponder. Hooray!! Still, I never said we should give up on him. I disagreed with the notion that there's no reason to have gotten frustrated with him, and it isn't glaringly obvious that he's going to be a top ten or even top fifteen QB.

This is the year that the excuses for the frustration end.
 
NJ Dolphan said:
I said that I watched all but three games last year, two of them were losses, two of those were on the radio, and one was arguably Tannehill's worst game. So I don't know why that's germane.

In any event, I pointed out that the Dolphins were 20th or below in passing yards, points and rushing yards and that you can't chalk that up to Tannehill having a bad supporting cast. I was then told that was wrong because Tannehill was 10th in passing yards. i responded that statistic was simplistic, if not irrelevant, because it doesn't account for other QBs that missed games due to injury or performance, and that it was much more useful to look at team passing yards.

While not disputing that basic premise, I am then told that the team passing yards are misleading because they include yards lost to sacks. I then point out that every team loses passing yards to sacks and that the amount of yards the Dolphins lost to sacks was not particularly dramatic when compared to another team like the Patriots, which was 12th best in sacks allowed, but lost only 90 more passing yards to sacks than the Dolphins did.

After that I got crickets, except to go back to "you obviously never watched the games."

In the end, Tannehill improved over his rookie year, although he really had nowhere to go but up. So, we've got someone better on our hands than Gabbert or Ponder. Hooray!! Still, I never said we should give up on him. I disagreed with the notion that there's no reason to have gotten frustrated with him, and it isn't glaringly obvious that he's going to be a top ten or even top fifteen QB.

This is the year that the excuses for the frustration end.
Click to expand...

I just dont agree with using the stats you provide, because they dont show whats happening. So....i agree with that this is the year for him to be what he should be. Either he's going to progress even further or he's going to plateau. If he does plateau, then it's time to bring in competition. But from what I've seen/read this has been a pretty good offseason for him.
 
you can play the if/and/or buts all you want. injures happen. its part of the nfl. you can't project what an injured player woulda/coulda/shoulda done. The fact is, Tannehill threw for almost 40k yards. good enough to be 10th best in the league. you can try to spin team passing yards all day long, and i can spin them the other way. it's just not worth it. you keep believing team passing yards is more definitive of how good a qb is, and you will be the only one. because that's just in, it's TEAM passing. which includes a lot of variables.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
Whoa, there champ. Why not?
Click to expand...

Really? The QB is the most important player in the offense. His play affects how good the rush is, how many points the team scores, how often he gets sacked, obviously how well his receivers perform and ultimately how many games the team wins. Now all of those things are out of the QBs hands to a certain extent, and you can't really come up with a number to quantify it. Or, to take a very extreme hypothetical just to illustrate the point, you could give Peyton Manning, Rodgers, Brady the same exact team, with the same exact coaches as Tannehill got, and the results are obviously going to be better than what we got, although they all might have done better or worse than they did with the teams they're currently on.
 
truedolfan57 said:
you can play the if/and/or buts all you want. injures happen. its part of the nfl. you can't project what an injured player woulda/coulda/shoulda done. The fact is, Tannehill threw for almost 40k yards. good enough to be 10th best in the league. you can try to spin team passing yards all day long, and i can spin them the other way. it's just not worth it. you keep believing team passing yards is more definitive of how good a qb is, and you will be the only one. because that's just in, it's TEAM passing. which includes a lot of variables.
Click to expand...

It is NOT about if, ands or buts. Those are the actual results. So to make it clear, the Browns got more passing yards from a combination of Brandon Weedon, Hoyer and Jason Campbell. The Texans got more passing yards from a combination of Schaub and Keenam. If those QBs don't collectively impress you all that much, you can't say that Tannehill was that impressive, at least if you're going to make a big deal out of the fact that he was tenth in the league in passing yards.
 
NJ Dolphan said:
It is NOT about if, ands or buts. Those are the actual results. So to make it clear, the Browns got more passing yards from a combination of Brandon Weedon, Hoyer and Jason Campbell. The Texans got more passing yards from a combination of Schaub and Keenam. If those QBs don't collectively impress you all that much, you can't say that Tannehill was that impressive, at least if you're going to make a big deal out of the fact that he was tenth in the league in passing yards.
Click to expand...

so what you are saying is, the browns needed 2 or 3 qb's to pass the ball, to beat out 1 tannehill. the Texans needed 2 qb's to pass the ball, in order to beat out 1 tannehill. This is all making perfect sense now. lets compare 1 QB, to a team that needed to use more than 1, whether it by injuries, or the player just sucking and just add them all together. I would bet you a million dollars the browns and Texans would rather have tannehill on their team, than all their qb's combined. you are getting pretty ridiculous.
 
NJ Dolphan said:
Really? The QB is the most important player in the offense. His play affects how good the rush is, how many points the team scores, how often he gets sacked, obviously how well his receivers perform and ultimately how many games the team wins. Now all of those things are out of the QBs hands to a certain extent, and you can't really come up with a number to quantify it. Or, to take a very extreme hypothetical just to illustrate the point, you could give Peyton Manning, Rodgers, Brady the same exact team, with the same exact coaches as Tannehill got, and the results are obviously going to be better than what we got, although they all might have done better or worse than they did with the teams they're currently on.
Click to expand...

You can compare how sacks and OL issues affect other QBs for comparison sake.

1. Roethlisberger was sacked more times in 2009 than 2008 and 2010. Pitt won the SB in 2008 and went to the SB in 2010. They finished 3rd in their division in 2009. Coincidence? Probably not.

2. Matt Ryan and the Falcons finished 4-12 last season. Did he suddenly forget how to play QB? Perhaps poor OL play and injuries to his receivers had something to do with it.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

The idea that there are better QBs than Tannehill doesn't negate the fact that QB play is impacted by poor play from the surrounding cast.
 
NJ Dolphan said:
It is NOT about if, ands or buts. Those are the actual results. So to make it clear, the Browns got more passing yards from a combination of Brandon Weedon, Hoyer and Jason Campbell. The Texans got more passing yards from a combination of Schaub and Keenam. If those QBs don't collectively impress you all that much, you can't say that Tannehill was that impressive, at least if you're going to make a big deal out of the fact that he was tenth in the league in passing yards.
Click to expand...

Cleveland also had more yards than Tony Romo, Andrew Luck, Ben Roethlisberger, and Joe Flacco. They had nearly as much as Tom Brady.

Are you suggesting that the combination of Weeden, Hoyer, and Campbell are the equal of those QBs as well?
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
The idea that there are better QBs than Tannehill doesn't negate the fact that QB play is impacted by poor play from the surrounding cast.
Click to expand...

I never claimed that it didn't, and in fact made it clear that I agreed with what you're saying. (Although last year, Atlanta scored more points and gave up more points by a lot than the Dolphins. Ryan also had more passing yards than Tannehill.) The point though is that you can't chalk it up entirely to the supporting cast, and, if anything, it has just as much to do with the QB.

But more to the point, when the Tannehill led Dolphins make into the playoffs just once, much less consistently, then you can't start calling bad seasons anomolous.
 
It's just the TMZ crowd. Have to create a controversy when one isn't there. I think we should accept the fact we are one of the few teams, that our season won't be done because of a QB, injury.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
Cleveland also had more yards than Tony Romo, Andrew Luck, Ben Roethlisberger, and Joe Flacco. They had nearly as much as Tom Brady.

Are you suggesting that the combination of Weeden, Hoyer, and Campbell are the equal of those QBs as well?
Click to expand...

When Tannehill gets into the playoffs consistently, then that comparison will have more meaning, and in any event, you can also look at other less than impressive teams that were ahead of the Dolphins, but behind the QBs you mention. But again, I never said that passing yards were the end-all, be all. My main point was that the Dolphins offense was at least in the bottom 20 in all offensive categories, and finished at a very lackluster 8-8, when, with competent QB play in the last two games against two bad teams, they would have been 10-6. There's every reason to get frustrated with the QB when those are the results. And, if we get the basically the same results this year, with a better O-line, better coordinator and a better running back, then we have a problem on our hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom