Tannehill To Bengals A Possibility | Page 14 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Tannehill To Bengals A Possibility

probably aren't options via trade provided those incumbent qb salaries etc. id agree. not at $18.7 mil

more likely in that scenario assuming those incumbent qb numbers are accurate and there are no work arounds a cut and free agent market. from a financial stand point alone taking a slight cut to stay in Miami is probably his best bet. but it wont be to no $10 mil number if he does stay and I'm not even sure if Miami has no qb plans this year theyd even ask for a cut. might just play it out with him another year. but assuming they want him out fine cut me would be my answer.
 
Kdawg954 said:
I mean we can’t agree because you are refusing to see the point of the debate.

Defining who potentially is “the better prospect” is not the factor you think it is in determining who is more valuable and worth giving up better assets for. That is what you are stuck on. You are hell bent on saying Tannehill is better than Brissett and Glennon, but using that as the only barometer in determing their value to another team.

Hell with age, injury history, salary, situation, unknown, etc from your perspective . . Nah man, that is not how these things operate.

If you are willing, take a view around the league and see what team right now in the NFL is going to give up lets say a 4th rounder AND pay a 31 year old making 2/38 million on a contract, injured the past 3 years and has never lead his team to anything, QB to add to their roster? Who is doing that?

i did the legwork in VIP

NYG can cut or trade Eli, take a 6.5 million dollar dead caphit and try
Arizona has limited cap invested in QBs so they can try depsite Rosen drafted.
Both Tampa and Tennessee can rescind Winston and Marriota and give it a shot
Cincy can outright cut or trade Dalton with no penalty and try with Tannehill
Oakland can cut or trade Carr, take a 7.5 million dollar dead caphit and try

Teams like Jville and Bmore are too upside down on guys like Flacco and Bortles . . . . not to mention Bmore has Lamar Jackson . . . .and the draft has Haskins and Murray, who could be attractive options to a tram like Jville, NYG, Cincy and Oaklandover the likes of Tannehill.

Meanwhile, there are a few teams, if available, are more than likely willing to give up a third at least for Brissett, because A. The qb class is underwhelming and he is better than anything you can get . . . .and B. He makes under $900K in 2019.

You really believe Washington is gonna add Ryan Tannehill and his $18.7 million dollar contract, on top of Alex Smith’s $21 million dollar cap hit (even if out for 2019) . . . .AND give up draft assets . . . .when they can get Brissett instead for a the same price? Come on. Who is trading and paying for this guy?

Tannehill does not have this perceived value that you are suggesting. Not in a trade and not at that price. Now if Miami cuts him, he won’t go unemployed either . . . .but it won’t cost a draft pick and my guess is the price would be under $10 million AAV.

Tannehill’s best bet is taking a paycut and staying in Miami . . . .if Grier will have him.
Click to expand...
So you don't think I see the point of the debate?

Look at precision passing, definitely not there with Brissett. Look at read and react ability and getting the ball out quickly, definitely not there with Glennon. If you're trying to say that a bad QB is worth more because he has less salary, then I'm afraid you're not even engaging in the debate.

Salary cap management is important, without question. But entrusting your QB position to a bad player is the worst football decision a GM can make.

If you look closer at these acquisitions you see that they were temporary stop-gap actions until the GM could find a better QB solution. In essence, they were the backstop behind home plate. These were not ever intended to be the final move in the QB space for those teams, but rather a way to prevent utter disaster and likely getting fired.

Tannehill represents far better in that category, with the lone exception of injury risk. We agree that his shoulder is a risk. It is less of a risk than the one not taken when the Dolphins passed on Drew Brees and less than the one the player they did get, Dante Culpepper. But, it is still a risk. Less of a risk than the ones (plural because even after he kept not succeeding teams kept taking this risk) on Sam Bradford.

Teams looking for QB's now are almost entirely rebuilding teams, with a few exceptions such as the Denver Broncos and Jacksonville Jaguars who may think they're still within their competitive window. These teams are looking to buy themselves respectability until they can find their next QB in the 2019 or 2020 drafts. The GM's and coaches are doing it because they fear they're getting fired if they keep losing. The Owners are doing it because they want to put butts in seats so their franchise isn't viewed as the laughingstock of the league.

Teams are buying something when they invest in these QB's. Yes, they hope they'll defy the odds and be good or even blossom into great. They're hoping for the Vinny Testeverde or Rich Gannon success when things finally click for guys with talent. But mainly, they're hoping to buy time … time to build a team, and these General Managers, Head Coaches and Owners know they're running short on time.

That is the market for veteran starting QB's. Let's start by understanding the market and the buyer.
 
hoops said:
probably aren't options via trade provided those incumbent qb salaries etc. id agree. not at $18.7 mil

more likely in that scenario assuming those incumbent qb numbers are accurate and there are no work arounds a cut and free agent market. from a financial stand point alone taking a slight cut to stay in Miami is probably his best bet. but it wont be to no $10 mil number if he does stay and I'm not even sure if Miami has no qb plans this year theyd even ask for a cut. might just play it out with him another year. but assuming they want him out fine cut me would be my answer.
Click to expand...

And honestly, depsite my feeling on it, that is absolutely a possibility.

But good lord that has the makings of a PR disaster if this team is really bad and the media keeps mentioning his record and his cap hit.

You bring Tannehill back you still need to take a QB high in this draft.
 
Kdawg954 said:
And honestly, depsite my feeling on it, that is absolutely a possibility.

But good lord that has the makings of a PR disaster if this team is really bad and the media keeps mentioning his record and his cap hit.

You bring Tannehill back you still need to take a QB high in this draft.
Click to expand...


more likely to be a mid rounder developmental type imo if you bring tanny back. in terms of the pr and media I don't think grier cares. nor should he. ross basically said he's got the next 2 years to find his qb. so when he does pull that high trigger for it the clock will start immediately. be that 2019 or 2020. he wont be around til 2021 if he waits that long. not unless he locks up the #1 overall pick in that class in 2020s play. maybe then he'd get to turn in that Clemson kids card. lol

basically I think hes bought himself 2 years here. regardless of if tanny stays or goes.
 
To a certain extent the QB market is a game of musical chairs. If you've got a seat, you're not in the market for a seat. If you don't have a seat, you'll pay through the nose to get one.

IMHO, there are only about 20 or so QB's out there that teams are content with. If the other 12 teams have a shot at a great QB, they're taking him, despite already having a QB. But, in this draft I don't see any of those great QB's, and only 1 guy with the potential--Kyler Murray. Sure, Drew Lock has the tools, and there's a host of productive guys out there, but the step up from college to the pros reduces the margin for error and melts most college prospects.

That musical chairs game is still being played, and right now everyone has every option still open, so I don't expect anything to happen quickly. But, as evaluators start pushing a few of those QB's ridiculously high in their evaluations--kinda like they did with guys like Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, Pat White, Geno Smith, Jake Locker, Tim Couch, yadda, yadda, yadda, we will see teams start to get nervous about their QB situations. If they feel they'll have to trade up to get the draft pick they want, some will start to pick off the trade/FA crowd, and teams will look to trade for someone like Tannehill. It's not surprising to realize that bad teams sometimes have the most cap space. Particularly when looking at a guy as a bridge during their rebuild.
 
Digital said:
So you don't think I see the point of the debate?

Look at precision passing, definitely not there with Brissett. Look at read and react ability and getting the ball out quickly, definitely not there with Glennon. If you're trying to say that a bad QB is worth more because he has less salary, then I'm afraid you're not even engaging in the debate.

Salary cap management is important, without question. But entrusting your QB position to a bad player is the worst football decision a GM can make.

If you look closer at these acquisitions you see that they were temporary stop-gap actions until the GM could find a better QB solution. In essence, they were the backstop behind home plate. These were not ever intended to be the final move in the QB space for those teams, but rather a way to prevent utter disaster and likely getting fired.

Tannehill represents far better in that category, with the lone exception of injury risk. We agree that his shoulder is a risk. It is less of a risk than the one not taken when the Dolphins passed on Drew Brees and less than the one the player they did get, Dante Culpepper. But, it is still a risk. Less of a risk than the ones (plural because even after he kept not succeeding teams kept taking this risk) on Sam Bradford.

Teams looking for QB's now are almost entirely rebuilding teams, with a few exceptions such as the Denver Broncos and Jacksonville Jaguars who may think they're still within their competitive window. These teams are looking to buy themselves respectability until they can find their next QB in the 2019 or 2020 drafts. The GM's and coaches are doing it because they fear they're getting fired if they keep losing. The Owners are doing it because they want to put butts in seats so their franchise isn't viewed as the laughingstock of the league.

Teams are buying something when they invest in these QB's. Yes, they hope they'll defy the odds and be good or even blossom into great. They're hoping for the Vinny Testeverde or Rich Gannon success when things finally click for guys with talent. But mainly, they're hoping to buy time … time to build a team, and these General Managers, Head Coaches and Owners know they're running short on time.

That is the market for veteran starting QB's. Let's start by understanding the market and the buyer.
Click to expand...

This definitely isn’t the times of Testeverde and Gannon.

We just saw Lamar Jackson lead a team dead in the water to a division championship. There is so much more to look at now than ever when it comes to the QB position and the “ability to throw” the football.

So the question is . . . .who are these hypothetical buyers and does Ryan Tannehill represent any sort of upgrade to their current situation and at what cost to their overall cap.

Because when I look at Jacksonville . . . .yea I can buy Tannehill being an upgrade over Bortles. Not sure I would call it a major upgrade, but an upgrade none the less.

As a GM, knowing this upgrade, do you cut Blake Bortles . . . .taking on $16.5 million in dead cap, in addition to now adding Ryan Tannehills $18.7 million . . . .AND having ro give up a 4th round pick and probably having to address QB in the draft at some point . . . .or do you look at an option like Brissett who IMO is also an upgrade from Bortles, maybe not the upgrade Tannehill is but the gap isn’t huge, but you give up similar draft compensation but only $900k in salary and still some unknown as he doesn’t have the experience or injury history if Ryan Tannehill.

The same can be said for Denver who is in the exact same situation with the Keenum contract.

I still think there is this fascination by some who think the same 27-28 year old Ryan Tannehill is still in the building and the last 2+ seasons need to be forgotten. Dude is gonna be 31, with two seperate knee rehabs and a now a shoulder injury and a team with “no” QB doesn’t want him anymore.

So sure a team can attempt to buy time with Ryan Tannehill but is a team gonna double their QB cap alottment for such a marginal potential upgrade and give up noteworthy draft compensation in the process . . . . I don’t see it.
 
CoryMatthews said:
Well Brissett has never had a three game stretch that he had under 300 net passing yards. Tannehill did in his three most recent games.
Click to expand...
He's only had one game in his career over 300 yards passing(including 29 yards lost on 3 sacks).
 
Kdawg954 said:
This definitely isn’t the times of Testeverde and Gannon.

We just saw Lamar Jackson lead a team dead in the water to a division championship. There is so much more to look at now than ever when it comes to the QB position and the “ability to throw” the football.

So the question is . . . .who are these hypothetical buyers and does Ryan Tannehill represent any sort of upgrade to their current situation and at what cost to their overall cap.

Because when I look at Jacksonville . . . .yea I can buy Tannehill being an upgrade over Bortles. Not sure I would call it a major upgrade, but an upgrade none the less.

As a GM, knowing this upgrade, do you cut Blake Bortles . . . .taking on $16.5 million in dead cap, in addition to now adding Ryan Tannehills $18.7 million . . . .AND having ro give up a 4th round pick and probably having to address QB in the draft at some point . . . .or do you look at an option like Brissett who IMO is also an upgrade from Bortles, maybe not the upgrade Tannehill is but the gap isn’t huge, but you give up similar draft compensation but only $900k in salary and still some unknown as he doesn’t have the experience or injury history if Ryan Tannehill.

The same can be said for Denver who is in the exact same situation with the Keenum contract.

I still think there is this fascination by some who think the same 27-28 year old Ryan Tannehill is still in the building and the last 2+ seasons need to be forgotten. Dude is gonna be 31, with two seperate knee rehabs and a now a shoulder injury and a team with “no” QB doesn’t want him anymore.

So sure a team can attempt to buy time with Ryan Tannehill but is a team gonna double their QB cap alottment for such a marginal potential upgrade and give up noteworthy draft compensation in the process . . . . I don’t see it.
Click to expand...
Your fixation on the salary cap and disregard for the playing field are where I cannot see your logic. There definitely is a relationship, but throwing any money away is a bad idea, and that's exactly what Glennon and Brissett represented. They were done as means to an end, buying time to find a QB solution.

Talented QB's do not come available often. The fact that you think Tannehill is in the same category as Blake Bortles is, at best, surprising. Bortles, with a great run game and defense, was not nearly as productive as Tannehill over his career, and Tannehill never had a run game and only in the beginning was his defense very good.

I get it, you think Tannehill was in no way handicapped by his OL. You think his stats are the same as every other QB. You think Tannehill is just equal to every other mediocre QB but with a higher price tag. Look deeper my friend. You know the OL Tannehill played behind, the lack of run game he played with, and the defenses his teams had. To have superior statistics to those other QB's who had better situations … it's simply not a good analysis. Tannehill may be on his way out the door, but let's not let that cloud our view of what he did and the situation in which he found himself. He's not Aaron Rodgers, but to consider him less than Jacoby Brissett and Mike Glennon is not being objective.
 
Digital said:
Your fixation on the salary cap and disregard for the playing field are where I cannot see your logic. There definitely is a relationship, but throwing any money away is a bad idea, and that's exactly what Glennon and Brissett represented. They were done as means to an end, buying time to find a QB solution.

Talented QB's do not come available often. The fact that you think Tannehill is in the same category as Blake Bortles is, at best, surprising. Bortles, with a great run game and defense, was not nearly as productive as Tannehill over his career, and Tannehill never had a run game and only in the beginning was his defense very good.

I get it, you think Tannehill was in no way handicapped by his OL. You think his stats are the same as every other QB. You think Tannehill is just equal to every other mediocre QB but with a higher price tag. Look deeper my friend. You know the OL Tannehill played behind, the lack of run game he played with, and the defenses his teams had. To have superior statistics to those other QB's who had better situations … it's simply not a good analysis. Tannehill may be on his way out the door, but let's not let that cloud our view of what he did and the situation in which he found himself. He's not Aaron Rodgers, but to consider him less than Jacoby Brissett and Mike Glennon is not being objective.
Click to expand...

Excellent Gish Gallop.

Tannehill never had a run game? Lol. The only reason he had a small amount of success in 2016 was because of the run game. He has never been the reason that the dolphins won.
 
Digital said:
Your fixation on the salary cap and disregard for the playing field are where I cannot see your logic. There definitely is a relationship, but throwing any money away is a bad idea, and that's exactly what Glennon and Brissett represented. They were done as means to an end, buying time to find a QB solution.

Talented QB's do not come available often. The fact that you think Tannehill is in the same category as Blake Bortles is, at best, surprising. Bortles, with a great run game and defense, was not nearly as productive as Tannehill over his career, and Tannehill never had a run game and only in the beginning was his defense very good.

I get it, you think Tannehill was in no way handicapped by his OL. You think his stats are the same as every other QB. You think Tannehill is just equal to every other mediocre QB but with a higher price tag. Look deeper my friend. You know the OL Tannehill played behind, the lack of run game he played with, and the defenses his teams had. To have superior statistics to those other QB's who had better situations … it's simply not a good analysis. Tannehill may be on his way out the door, but let's not let that cloud our view of what he did and the situation in which he found himself. He's not Aaron Rodgers, but to consider him less than Jacoby Brissett and Mike Glennon is not being objective.
Click to expand...

First off I never said Tannehill was lesser than Brissett or Glennon, I said at the time Glennon got his 3/45 from Chicago and Brissett before he was traded and even now . . . .they were better options for teams to give up a better asset than for Ryan Tannehill today on his current deal.

Truth is its probably a smart thing for you to continue ignoring the issue at hand . . . .which is potential buyers of Ryan Tannehill in the trade market . . . .this undeniable aura that teams must feel for this guy if Miami officially puts him on the trade block and the no brainer compensation we are theoretically getting for this talent.

Just point us in the right direction because all of this back and forth about what hindered Ryan Tannehill can be searched for on this site by putting the date range from 2012 to 2019.

You are a good poster but you either fail or refuse to realize the Tannhill is no more than a variable to me at this point in regards to this discussion. If you wanna take it back to preinjury or hell his draft profile and “his potential” . . . .by all means keep doing you. GMs have 90 games of tape to see his greatness for themselves.

But Jacksonville is not racing to turnover their $21 million dollar cap hit for Bortles for an over 30, injury prone, newly discarded, not respected, 90 games but hasn’t done ****, coach killing, player turnover quarterback named Ryan Tannehill . . . .increasing that cap hit to over $35 million after the dead Bortles hit. . . .AND giving Miami anything worth a damn from a draft pick compensation.

Its not a fixation of the cap, its understanding that Ryan Tannehill is not the guy to blow your cap budget on from a positional standpoint or give up anything decent from a draft pick perspective.

Ryan’s best shot is with Cincy because of the Taylor connection and the lack of a dead cap hit from the Dalton contract.

Or staying here.
 
CoryMatthews said:
Excellent Gish Gallop.

Tannehill never had a run game? Lol. The only reason he had a small amount of success in 2016 was because of the run game. He has never been the reason that the dolphins won.
Click to expand...

Over 1800 yards rushing in both 2014 and 2016.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom