Ryan Tannehill vs Alex Smith | Page 4 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Ryan Tannehill vs Alex Smith

Coming from the guy who thinks Miami can do no wrong. Do you miss coach Joe and all his player development yet?

I had moved on from the heartache and pain, but thanks for bringing up such a horrible memory. :boohoo:
 
Do you really think coaching is the main thing that separates Tom Brady and Alex Smith?

I'm undecided on which is a bigger difference between coaching and QB personality/traits. When you have two physically gifted athletes who are both capable QB's, how much of a factor is coaching compared to personality?

Tom Brady was a 6th round selection in 2000. In his rookie season, the Patriots won the Superbowl in 2001. Has anyone else ever done that? Do we say that Tom Brady elevated that 2001 Patriots team and carried them all the way?

I'm simply asking questions. Consider that Tom Brady could have been drafted by some other team, and if that had happened where would he be today? Who would he be? Would he have even lasted as a starting QB? What were the projections on him coming out of college? Let's compare his scenario with Tony Romo's. Does he even achieve the level of success that Tony Romo has? Romo was quite fortunate to land with the Cowboys for that matter. They understood him before they even drafted him.
 
One things for certain, you're not winning much of anything with either of these QB's.

Two quarterbacks who basically need to be carried by the team, and NEVER vice versa. They'll only ever be as good as their supporting cast.

Game managers.

You may have an occasional playoff appearance with them, if you luck into a weak schedule. But you'll lose the moment you face a team with a real quarterback.
 
Belichick has been there a long time but there's only been one Tom Brady. Matt Cassell didn't become Tom Brady. Neither did Brian Hoyer, Ryan Mallett or Kevin O'Connell. All of those guys have more physical talent than Brady. Why didn't it didn't click for them even with their magical Belichickian overlord.

We've seen this over and over again with great coaches who have and then don't have a great quarterback. If it was all or even mostly them they'd be able to do it with everyone. But they can't and don't. The ability of the player is always going to be the key defining factor. That's why you'll see guys like Tony Romo get better over time even though his coaching has gotten worse.

Calling the difference between the possible GOAT and Alex ****ing Smith mainly down to the coaching one guy has gotten is simply ridiculous. If it were true then it's time to stop putting quarterbacks in the hall of fame.

So Brady has the same success in Cleveland? (post Belichick)

I think Matt Castle is a perfect data point in this debate. He performed his best in New England under Belichick and never had that sucess again.

Castle isn't and never was a Tom Brady but let's not pretend that the Pats system and coaches aren't top notch. Tom Brady wouldn't have had the same success in Cleveland but he would have succeeded because he is an "elite" QB. Add an average QB in an "elite" system and he looks good, and an elite QB to a poor system and it looks good. Add an elite QB to an elite system and dynasties happen.
 
So Brady has the same success in Cleveland?

He would still be a great player. If Brady had gone to Cleveland and Spergon Wynn (who was drafted by Cleveland in the sixth round) had become a Patriot it wouldn't have been ol' Spergon out there leading the Patriots against Kansas City yesterday.

I mean, it's not like don't have data on quarterbacks switching teams. Is Alex Smith a materially different player in Kansas City than he was in San Fran, to cite the topic of the thread?
 
Belichick has been there a long time but there's only been one Tom Brady. Matt Cassell didn't become Tom Brady. Neither did Brian Hoyer, Ryan Mallett or Kevin O'Connell. All of those guys have more physical talent than Brady. Why didn't it didn't click for them even with their magical Belichickian overlord.

We've seen this over and over again with great coaches who have and then don't have a great quarterback. If it was all or even mostly them they'd be able to do it with everyone. But they can't and don't. The ability of the player is always going to be the key defining factor. That's why you'll see guys like Tony Romo get better over time even though his coaching has gotten worse.

Calling the difference between the possible GOAT and Alex ****ing Smith mainly down to the coaching one guy has gotten is simply ridiculous. If it were true then it's time to stop putting quarterbacks in the hall of fame.

No, you are right. The difference doesn't all boil down to coaching between GOAT and Alex Smith. I believe there's personality trait differences as well. However, I could argue that environment plays a huge role in forming a young QB's personality. It certainly could have helped Tom Brady to win a Superbowl in his rookie season. Who goes from a 6th round selection to winning a Superbowl in his first season? Was he a GOAT by that point? Did his talent + traits just fly under the radar until he arrived as a starting QB in the NFL? Tell us what made Tom Brady successful right away.

I would contend that Tom Brady could have been a rookie QB for Joe Philbin and Bill Lazor, gotten told he ain't Superman and not to try and put the team on his shoulders, had his audible and protection calls taken away, and sent out there onto the field to try and work a short passing game while taking blitzers 1.2 seconds after the snap. Then what would see?
 
He would still be a great player. If Brady had gone to Cleveland and Spergon Wynn (who was drafted by Cleveland in the sixth round) had become a Patriot it wouldn't have been ol' Spergon out there leading the Patriots against Kansas City yesterday.

I mean, it's not like don't have data on quarterbacks switching teams. Is Alex Smith a materially different player in Kansas City than he was in San Fran, to cite the topic of the thread?

Im not trying to compare mediocre QB's to Brady. Brady would be a very good QB anywhere, no doubt. But key word is very good, BB ( and Adam Vinatieri) made him great.
 
Im not trying to compare mediocre QB's to Brady. Brady would be a very good QB anywhere, no doubt. But key word is very good, BB ( and Adam Vinatieri) made him great.

7 replies in a thread that sucks?? Not bad!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No, you are right. The difference doesn't all boil down to coaching between GOAT and Alex Smith. I believe there's personality trait differences as well. However, I could argue that environment plays a huge role in forming a young QB's personality. It certainly could have helped Tom Brady to win a Superbowl in his rookie season. Who goes from a 6th round selection to winning a Superbowl in his first season? Was he a GOAT by that point? Did his talent + traits just fly under the radar until he arrived as a starting QB in the NFL? Tell us what made Tom Brady successful right away.

I would contend that Tom Brady could have been a rookie QB for Joe Philbin and Bill Lazor, gotten told he ain't Superman and not to try and put the team on his shoulders, had his audible and protection calls taken away, and sent out there onto the field to try and work a short passing game while taking blitzers 1.2 seconds after the snap. Then what would see?

Brady was in his second year.

What made Brady successful from the time he was a young player is the same thing that makes him successful now: competitive spirit, accuracy, grace under fire and the ability to process information. Those traits existed when he was at Michigan, too. The difference is the college game itself. It's easier. The windows are bigger. Which means you can often throw yourself out of trouble. Drill that ball in there. That's why Michigan went back and forth between Brady and Drew Henson, one of these golden boys who had all the arm talent in the world. That arm made Henson the #1 overall recruit in the country as I recall. And it's what made him a successful college quarterback. After all, all that's important to Michigan is how you play at Michigan. It's not their job to start the guy who has an NFL ready mind.

Henson's problem was he couldn't process information or handle pressure at an NFL level. Those windows close too fast. You can't drill it in there anymore. We've all seen what happens to guys like that when they get to the NFL. Many of them get taken in the first round. After all, that's the ideal. A big guy with superior arm talent who can also process information. Guys like Marino. But most guys aren't Marino.

The ability to process information is harder to quantify than height and arm strength, so it often gets somewhat lost in the evaluation process. You get accused of making stuff up. Of relying on vague words or voodoo. What is "grace"? What is that?

Even with Brady's success you still get guys like Teddy Bridgewater who get underrated because they struggle to get the ball from here to there. Or guys like Drew Brees and Russell Wilson, who were "too short" as if height was more important than how your mind works.
 
I think Matt Castle is a perfect data point in this debate. He performed his best in New England under Belichick and never had that sucess again.

Castle isn't and never was a Tom Brady but let's not pretend that the Pats system and coaches aren't top notch. Tom Brady wouldn't have had the same success in Cleveland but he would have succeeded because he is an "elite" QB. Add an average QB in an "elite" system and he looks good, and an elite QB to a poor system and it looks good. Add an elite QB to an elite system and dynasties happen.

Yup! The pats won 11 games with Matt Cassel as QB... where is Matt Cassel now...
 
Brady was in his second year.

What made Brady successful from the time he was a young player is the same thing that makes him successful now: competitive spirit, accuracy, grace under fire and the ability to process information. Those traits existed when he was at Michigan, too. The difference is the college game itself. It's easier. The windows are bigger. Which means you can often throw yourself out of trouble. Drill that ball in there. That's why Michigan went back and forth between Brady and Drew Henson, one of these golden boys who had all the arm talent in the world. That arm made Henson the #1 overall recruit in the country as I recall. And it's what made him a successful college quarterback. After all, all that's important to Michigan is how you play at Michigan. It's not their job to start the guy who has an NFL ready mind.

Henson's problem was he couldn't process information or handle pressure at an NFL level. Those windows close too fast. You can't drill it in there anymore. We've all seen what happens to guys like that when they get to the NFL. Many of them get taken in the first round. After all, that's the ideal. A big guy with superior arm talent who can also process information. Guys like Marino. But most guys aren't Marino.

The ability to process information is harder to quantify than height and arm strength, so it often gets somewhat lost in the evaluation process. You get accused of making stuff up. Of relying on vague words or voodoo. What is "grace"? What is that?

Even with Brady's success you still get guys like Teddy Bridgewater who get underrated because they struggle to get the ball from here to there. Or guys like Drew Brees and Russell Wilson, who were "too short" as if height was more important than how your mind works.

Here's the ironic narrative I love to hear.

Blair Walsh misses the kick; Blair Walsh loses the game. But if Walsh makes it, everybody talks about Bridgewater as a winner in the postseason.

Looking back to '04 & '05: Adam Vinatieri makes the SB winning FGs, Brady is MVP ('04) and he wins the game.

#QBwinz
 
Its like 1/4 of finheaven has turned into NYJunc when it comes to defending "their man."
 
Back
Top Bottom