Phinatic8u
Club Member
When they don't deserve the credit.
Rank Tannehill Among Young QB's?
- Thread starter So Be
- Start date
When they don't deserve the credit.
Miami has been a 7-9/8-8 team for a while. I don't understand how Tannehill's situation qualifies as "the worst circumstances." And if we're speaking strictly of offensive support, Tannehill's case against Wilson gets weaker. Both O-lines struggled, but Tannehill had the much better WR group - while Wilson had the better group of RB's. According to conventional wisdom (WR's being more valued than RB's), Tannehill had the better supporting cast on offense. Miami hasn't taken a significant step forward since Tannehill's arrival. Seattle has - very obviously - taken a significant step forward since Wilson's.
Again, Wilson has played GREAT - historically great - on a great team, and Tannehill has played below average on an average team. Tannehill offers more upside at the QB position than any Miami QB since Marino, but until that upside is realized, Miami is in the same spot it's been for year. 7-9/8-8. You're "worst circumstances" comment has no footing in reality.
Phinatic8u
Club Member
I'm also not downplaying the greatness of Wilson either. He is the best young qb, I was just stating that he wasn't the only thing that turned that team around.
Are you suggesting that the change in QBs were the only changes to the two teams?
Why do all the Tannehaters avoid the basic question. Was the rest of the Dolphins offense any good? It is really not that hard to figure out.
Yessir
Dolfan for Life
Lol right. There is a reason quarterbacks are generally the highest paid players. They have by far the biggest impact on a team. Wilson turned that Seattle team around with his poise and leadership at the quarterback position.
Andrew Luck, despite playing with a weak o line(one that has a couple of Dolphin rejects starting at one point), weak defense, an average running game, and an average group of receivers, had turned out a 22-12 record as a starter. Two for two for playoff appearances.
History says (more often than not), you're as good as your quarterback. Tannehill has been an up and down, average quarterback, and our team has been average. You can be a homer, and make up all the excuses that you want,but Tannehill has not shown to be on either of the aforementioned players level. Results are the bottom line.
And Joe Montana wasn't THE reason SF turned it around in the 80s. He was just a huge part of the equation - as is Wilson in Seattle.
I think a lot of Miami fans have no idea how to evaluate the QB position, because our most recent ideal is Dan Marino. Marino had to do everything for Miami to win, so Miami fans tend to dismiss great QB play unless the QB is literally carrying the team on his back - WHICH IS A TERRIBLE FORMULA FOR SUCCESS. Ask Dan Marino.
Twitches Brew
Active Roster
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 1,263
- Reaction score
- 5
But he was the biggest thing that turned them around. You conveniently ignored the part where I showed that Seattle had a strong top-10 defense before he arrived...and yet they were a mediocre 7-win team. He walked through the door and they won +4 games, +6 games, and a Superbowl. I just can't believe we're talking about a QUARTERBACK not being given the most credit for a team that suddenly improves by leaps and bounds the second he walks into the organization. It's ridiculous.
He replaced TAVARIS JACKSON. My mother is good for a 2 game turnaround from that bum.
Historic success for Wilson. Look it up.
Why would I want a QB who is doing things that have never been done before? This guy over here might be struggling, but I like the look of him! Makes tons of sense.
And that's a fine point. The Seahawks have a great system. Ironically, they also have a coach who knows what type of player he wants and a GM that can get those players.
At the same time I've always maintained that Ryan Tannehill is the least of our issues on offense. He has shown me enough to feel he deserves this year, and maybe next (depending on how he does in 2014) to prove whether or not he's a franchise QB. I do think that he absolutely has to figure out his issue with hitting Wallace deep. Yes you aren't going to hit every deep ball, but we missed way too many that probably cost us 2 wins, maybe more. The Seattle WRs aren't exactly a star studded group (nor are their TEs), but Russell Wilson tends to hit them down the field if they're open.
Now that can lead to questions of whether or not timing was knocked off with our WRs due to us using a timing system. You can make of that for a few of the misses, but not all.
But again, I'll repeat, I think Bill Lazor will help dramatically. Mike Sherman had some schemes that work, but he lacked creativity anymore. Again, that's not deflecting blame from Ryan Tannehill, but there is too much proof out there that Mike Sherman was an issue for the team.
Keep ignoring the historically bad pass blocking and running game. Keep your head in the sand and hope that the only thing holding the Dolphins back is a good QB.
The Seahawks outscored the Dolphins by 100 points. Only 21 of those were due to passing TDs. They allowed 100 fewer points. Is that Tannehill's fault too? That is a 200 point differential in scoring and only 21 of that is directly attributable to the QBs.
Russell Wilson was responsible for a much lower % of his teams offensive output than Tannehill. Period.
Regarding the sacks. The Dolphins led the league in sacks due to blown blocks by a wide margin. They led the league is quick sacks by a wide margin. The two OLs were not similar in their performance. Miami's was much, much worse, especially when you consider that they couldn't run block either.
I couldn't agree with you more, except that it isn't Marino that clouds their judgement, its Fiedler, Henne, Feeley, Culpepper, etc. Some don't recognize a good QB any more.
Miami had a playoff caliber team around the QB a year ago so while he didn't have the Seattle D he had a talented team and a D that did all it could to get Miami to the playoffs and couldn't b/c of Ryan.
That bum is 17-17 as an NFL starter, the great Ryan is 15-17.
Put Wilson on Miami last year and they battle for the div title and at least earn a WC.
I agree with this but will add one thing. While we may say that Seattle's group wasn't star studded, they were way more successful at fighting for contested balls and were generally operating against a defense that had to respect the run.
Historic success???? Please. Josh McCown and Nick Foles had better years than Wilson last season. You are seriously over rating Wilson.
You only have to go back to his college career. When he was a focal point of the offense, he was no better than many other college QBs. When he was directing a run first offense, he was historically efficient.