Tannehill To Bengals A Possibility | Page 15 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Tannehill To Bengals A Possibility

CoryMatthews said:
In Brissetts last 17 starts (all the starts in his career) he has 2 300 yard games, In Tannehills last 17 starts he has had 0.
Click to expand...
CoryMatthews said:
In Brissetts last 17 starts (all the starts in his career) he has 2 300 yard games, In Tannehills last 17 starts he has had 0.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight, in the thread about the Dolphins tanking 2/3 of the posters in there said that we should get Brissett if we want to tank.
Now are saying Brissett is better then Tannehill or worse, because if you think he’s better you should step out of this conversation. Because your hatred for the guy is really showing.
 
Last edited:
Kdawg954 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So much in there.

Let me begin by saying we've read one another's posts many times over the years and we have often agreed. I value your opinion and without question you are a good poster and devoted Dolphins supporter.

That said, we disagree on this issue. Primarily because we come at it from different view points. My viewpoint is to assess the motives and priorities of the decision makers, then predict their actions based on past events and available options. You seem to look primarily at their constraints and a perfect world scenario where making a decision always has a good option. From my point of view, teams in the QB market are almost always choosing between multiple bad options. Nobody wants to tank to get a QB. Nobody wants to pay through the nose to get a QB. And, nobody wants to get fired.

My prediction, which history does seem to support and I've given you a few of the many examples of this, is that when faced with almost certainly getting fired for not taking action to get a QB and having a chance to stay employed and build a team, many GM's choose the lesser of two evils. It may be the correct decision to draft the best player available, which is almost certainly not going to be a QB on day 1 or 2. The correct decision may not be to tank to get a good draft pick in a future draft. The correct decision may not be to trade silly amounts just to move up to get a good young QB in the draft. But the chances of an owner allowing a GM to bypass all of those QB options and retain his job … are very slim.

History is full of GM's who overpaid for their QB's. But teams with good QB's tend to lead to GM's who have longer employment with that team. You are betting on the decision makers--the GM's--not doing what is in their own best interest. I'm betting that the GM's will do what's in their best interest and overpay for a QB. None of these GM's wants Tannehill as their ultimate make-or-break solution. They're all looking at him as either the best they can get, or a stop-gap until they find a QB to draft. The fact that this is a poor QB draft only helps Tannehill's prospects.

You seem to think the Bears were investing in Glennon because they believed in him. I disagree. I believe they invested in him because they were afraid of missing out on a QB and he was the best they could do at the time. When it came down to it, they mortgaged the future to trade up to get Mitchell Trubisky, a guy who nobody thought was an elite QB prospect, and they took him at #2 overall because they couldn't risk missing out on him. IMHO, the Bears signed Glennon because they didn't think they could get the QB they wanted in the draft. Ultimately, they paid a king's ransom to get him, overdrafted him, took their lumps with the backstop Mike Glennon, and couldn't be happier about their decision. The Chicago Bears story isn't unique. I see GM's overpay for QB's less skilled than Tannehill every year, including guys like Brock Osweiler in Houston. It often doesn't work out. But GM's do it not because it's the best possible move, but because it's the options for QB's are limited … and in musical chairs when the music stops either you have a seat (QB) or you don't. And if you don't, the GM is likely to get fired.
 
Kdawg954 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're getting into way more detail than i would but you're wasting your time.

We won't receive any type of significant compensation for Tannehill without a restructure. As is tradition on this board, it will be something other than Tannehill's fault.
 
rent this space said:
also, Brissett has had 7 zero TD games out 17, never had more than 2 in a game. 13 TDs in 23 games is pretty bad, too
Click to expand...
In Brissetts 17 starts he has more passing yardage than Tannehills last 17 starts. Tannehill has 27 tds compared to 13 for Brissett but 14 int compared to 7.

Tannehill also had a coach who’s only goal was to increase his qbs numbers (not actually win games)
 
CoryMatthews said:
In Brissetts 17 starts he has more passing yardage than Tannehills last 17 starts. Tannehill has 27 tds compared to 13 for Brissett but 14 int compared to 7.

Tannehill also had a coach who’s only goal was to increase his qbs numbers (not actually win games)
Click to expand...

Yeah, you've interpreted what Gase said incorrectly, which isn't surprising given the narrative you're so strongly pushing.

Sacrificing stats for wins. Not sacrificing wins for stats.
 
doogle0868 said:
Yeah, you've interpreted what Gase said incorrectly, which isn't surprising given the narrative you're so strongly pushing.

Sacrificing stats for wins. Not sacrificing wins for stats.
Click to expand...

I don’t listen to what the fraud actually says. You can tell by his actions, like 2017 when he ran a shovel pass from cutler to julius Thomas on the 2 yard line.

And the sacrificing stats for wins comment was garbage excuse making from the fraud.
 
CoryMatthews said:
In Brissetts 17 starts he has more passing yardage than Tannehills last 17 starts. Tannehill has 27 tds compared to 13 for Brissett but 14 int compared to 7.

Tannehill also had a coach who’s only goal was to increase his qbs numbers (not actually win games)
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter how you frame it, 13 TDs in 17 starts is weak sauce
 
CoryMatthews said:
I don’t listen to what the fraud actually says. You can tell by his actions, like 2017 when he ran a shovel pass from cutler to julius Thomas on the 2 yard line.

And the sacrificing stats for wins comment was garbage excuse making from the fraud.
Click to expand...

So he's a fraud and Tannehill sucks, but the fraud and the crappy QB put up better numbers? I don't think you're being realistic here.
 
doogle0868 said:
So he's a fraud and Tannehill sucks, but the fraud and the crappy QB put up better numbers? I don't think you're being realistic here.
Click to expand...

Better numbers than a 3rd round qbs first 17 nfl starts.

And gases only goal was to increase Tannehills stats and he failed miserably.

Once again poll all 32 nfl gms and 32/32 would take Brissett over tannehill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom