Rank Tannehill Among Young QB's? | Page 21 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Rank Tannehill Among Young QB's?

I agree that they were more worried about training and finding out about Tannehill rather than maximizing our win potential, thats not to say they were sacrificing wins necessarily but I think they were willing to accept much more short term variance with maybe a slightly less average win total with the goal of bettering Tannehill and our chances at winning a championship in the future.

What I'm trying to say probably isn't very clear but as an example if Tannehill really was hurt week 17 Matt Moore might have given us a better chance to win that game, say Moore wins 50% of the time and an injured Tannehill wins 45% of the time, it might be wise to sacrifice the 5% for several reasons:
- learning experience for Tannehill and a chance to be the hero
- avoid any kind of QB controversy
- If Tannehill wins the game the momentum could carry us further into the playoffs
- experience a playoff type game

So we sacrifice a 5% chance to win now but its more like an investment that will hopefully pay off in the future.

And fill your boots on QB stats:
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/03/qbs-in-focus/
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/02/qbs-in-focus-by-down-and-distance/

I don't know how hurt he was, but if you're cleared, you play. If not that would scream controversy because it would mean that he was really only slightly ahead of Moore in the coach's eyes. I think it's smart to play him for the other reasons you stated too...experience, chance to be a hero (and also help win over your team), etc.

Thanks for the links, but I actually just came back from PFF and found what I was wondering about. It kind of shows he has a ways to go in that department. To me, stats can lie, but 3rd and 4th down conversions are fairly important I think. A manager type QB can have a decent completion percentage and yardage, etc., but the franchise types, the type I think everyone wants him to become, are the ones who get it done when the defense knows it's a passing situation. It's great to complete a pass for your percentage and a few more yards, but completing a 7 yard pass on 3rd and 9 is pretty pointless. Unfortunately I didn't find 3rd and long which is what I am really curious about, but I have a feeling about it anyway.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2013/01/15/third-down-conversions-quarterbacks/

Unfortunately, at this time, Tannehill is near the bottom (and look who is last, the guy I used to defend fiercely :lol:). I'm not saying he can't rise, but to me this is one stat that tells me he doesn't have it yet. Defenses know how to squat and wait for the short completion and walk up for the tackle and make us punt. Hopefully he thrives in a new offense and can break defenses when they know what he has to do and still get it done anyway. It's just not happening a lot as of yet. I don't want to anger anyone but that's part of the problem I see. Great athlete who is actually pretty good before the snap as he works hard in preparation I think, and seems to understand what to do in the offense and seems coachable. But he has a couple of important issues that I worry about, even for a young QB because they are in areas that are tough to learn. Maybe he can, but I think he needs to soon.
 
Okay I just looked in the link you gave me and I found 3rd and long. Strange. Tannehill has a 40% success rate which I think is pretty okay. Not fantastic but certainly not bad in that situation. Maybe I'm wrong on that. But PFF has him ranked with a negative score overall, and he's near the bottom of the league again in that category. He has some INT's there so maybe that is killing him, I don't know. I don't follow PFF a lot because as I said earlier, stats can lie anyway, but it looks like their ranking doesn't fit with their stats. Maybe someone can help me out.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/02/qbs-in-focus-by-down-and-distance/
A little more than halfway down, the tables entitled "3rd and long". Regardless, he is not doing well in that part of his game yet. That has to improve.
 
pass protection problems were vastly overrated

they COULD run, they chose not to and chose to trust a young QB not ready to be trusted

Ryan was not awful, he was mediocre, if he was good they make the playoffs easily. There were bad games in pass pro but he had many games the pass pro was more than good enough and he still failed.

I get it, I know why you guys make excuses for him, you expect and want him to be the QB for many years to come and he may turn into that guy but he wasn't that guy last year.

58 sacks led the league...analysis showed poor protect.

Bottom half of league in rushing yards AND rushing yards per attempt.

Bottom half of the league in rushing yards allowed per game.

Yeah....those problems are vastly overrated....Or......maybe it's your football knowledge that is overrated?
 
Okay I just looked in the link you gave me and I found 3rd and long. Strange. Tannehill has a 40% success rate which I think is pretty okay. Not fantastic but certainly not bad in that situation. Maybe I'm wrong on that. But PFF has him ranked with a negative score overall, and he's near the bottom of the league again in that category. He has some INT's there so maybe that is killing him, I don't know. I don;t follow PFF a lot because as I said earlier, stats can lie anyway, but it looks like their ranking doesn't fit with their stats. Maybe someone can help me out.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/02/qbs-in-focus-by-down-and-distance/
A little more than halfway down, the tables entitled "3rd and long". Regardless, he is not doing well in that part of his game yet. That has to improve.

From my recollection the o-line forced us to run a lot of screens and rinky dink plays on third and long, it was reminiscent of the Pennington days only in his case he just didn't have the arm strength to convert. I'm not too worried about it and should improve a lot if/when the o-line improves.
 
58 sacks led the league...analysis showed poor protect.

Bottom half of league in rushing yards AND rushing yards per attempt.

Bottom half of the league in rushing yards allowed per game.

Yeah....those problems are vastly overrated....Or......maybe it's your football knowledge that is overrated?

not all 58 were on the OL and QBs have been sacked more and still have led their teams to the playoffs.

after the suspensions the OL played well, so much so it was barely discussed heading into the last 2 games. Miami was a "lock" to make the playoffs after beating NE.

Plays were there to be made, games were there to be won and he failed.
 
not all 58 were on the OL and QBs have been sacked more and still have led their teams to the playoffs.

after the suspensions the OL played well, so much so it was barely discussed heading into the last 2 games. Miami was a "lock" to make the playoffs after beating NE.

Plays were there to be made, games were there to be won and he failed.
clown shoes.jpg
 
I agree that they were more worried about training and finding out about Tannehill rather than maximizing our win potential, thats not to say they were sacrificing wins necessarily but I think they were willing to accept much more short term variance with maybe a slightly less average win total with the goal of bettering Tannehill and our chances at winning a championship in the future.

What I'm trying to say probably isn't very clear but as an example if Tannehill really was hurt week 17 Matt Moore might have given us a better chance to win that game, say Moore wins 50% of the time and an injured Tannehill wins 45% of the time, it might be wise to sacrifice the 5% for several reasons:
- learning experience for Tannehill and a chance to be the hero
- avoid any kind of QB controversy
- If Tannehill wins the game the momentum could carry us further into the playoffs
- experience a playoff type game

So we sacrifice a 5% chance to win now but its more like an investment that will hopefully pay off in the future.

And fill your boots on QB stats:
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/03/qbs-in-focus/
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/02/qbs-in-focus-by-down-and-distance/

What you wrote made perfect sense. I think the same can be said for forcing Tannehill to play from the pocket. He may have been more effective in the short term running around, but I can't think of any QBs that have had long term success if they could not play in the pocket with consistency. Also, a QB that doesn't play within the system slows down the learning process for the rest of the players. Whether the system should include more designed rollouts in another matter.
 
not all 58 were on the OL and QBs have been sacked more and still have led their teams to the playoffs.

after the suspensions the OL played well, so much so it was barely discussed heading into the last 2 games. Miami was a "lock" to make the playoffs after beating NE.

Plays were there to be made, games were there to be won and he failed.

As has been stated.....the 85 Jets suffered half their sacks in the 5 losses...including 10 in the season opener....not the same situation.

Randall Cunningham was sacked Alot due to his style of quarterbacking...not the same situation.
 
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.

How many QB's in NFL history have started their careers with back-to-back seasons with a 100 QBR and averaged over 8.0 yards YPA? And how many of those QB's helped their teams win a SB?
 
From my recollection the o-line forced us to run a lot of screens and rinky dink plays on third and long, it was reminiscent of the Pennington days only in his case he just didn't have the arm strength to convert. I'm not too worried about it and should improve a lot if/when the o-line improves.
Not screens with this line. They couldn't get out to run one. But a lot of short slants I believe, and quick outs to try and do what teams do with screens. Our guys just couldn't get out there and block. That's part of the type of linemen I think they would want in this rebuild for Lazor's system. I just don't see enough of them yet on our roster (mind you I don't know all of our linemen well enough). Rebuild's not done though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How many QB's in NFL history have started their careers with back-to-back seasons with a 100 QBR and averaged over 8.0 yards YPA? And how many of those QB's helped their teams win a SB?

How many QB's in NFL history got drafted by a stacked team and started as rookies. Usually rookie QBs only start on bad teams.

Roethlisberger's first two season consisted of 98 QB ratings, YPA of close to 9, records of 15-1 and 11-5, a trip to the conf championship and a SB victory. Everybody who watched that team realized that Ben was acting as a game manager on a run first offense and a dominant defense.

Sound familiar?

You want to rank Wilson ahead of the guy that was better (by your measures) in his first two season and has been to two more SBs (winning one) since his first. Now doesn't that sound absurd?
 
How many QB's in NFL history got drafted by a stacked team and started as rookies. Usually rookie QBs only start on bad teams.

Roethlisberger's first two season consisted of 98 QB ratings, YPA of close to 9, records of 15-1 and 11-5, a trip to the conf championship and a SB victory. Everybody who watched that team realized that Ben was acting as a game manager on a run first offense and a dominant defense.

Sound familiar?

You want to rank Wilson ahead of the guy that was better (by your measures) in his first two season and has been to two more SBs (winning one) since his first. Now doesn't that sound absurd?

Wait...how does Roethlisberger not prove our point perfectly? He's going to be my go-to example from now on, thank you for that.

Group A: Felt like he was great and had the stats to back it up, historic stats at the time no less.
Group B: He was carried by the team and was nothing special, stats don't mean squat.

So which group ended up being correct?
 
From my recollection the o-line forced us to run a lot of screens and rinky dink plays on third and long, it was reminiscent of the Pennington days only in his case he just didn't have the arm strength to convert. I'm not too worried about it and should improve a lot if/when the o-line improves.

Lot of screens? I was BEGGING for screens last year. Tannehill only had ONE 1-step-drop pass all year long. I really grew to dislike Sherman a LOT by the end of the year.
 
Wait...how does Roethlisberger not prove our point perfectly? He's going to be my go-to example from now on, thank you for that.

Group A: Felt like he was great and had the stats to back it up, historic stats at the time no less.
Group B: He was carried by the team and was nothing special, stats don't mean squat.

So which group ended up being correct?

Group B for the first few years. His game evolved and when asked to take a larger role, he was able to do it. Same is true for Tom Brady. Just because they went on to bigger roles in their teams offense doesn't mean they weren't caretakers in their early years. I'm not willing to give Wilson credit for that ability until he shows it. I'm not saying Wilson can't be the focal point of an offense, just that he hasn't been so far. Sorry, but that's just a fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom