What if...?

[Wallace17Miami]

Drew Brees.

Actually Drew Brees did not start in his first year so I took the numbers in his 2nd and 3rd year. The numbers should even be better because he had a full year to sit and learn. I'm not saying Ryan Tannehill is going to become Drew-Brees-like, I am just responding to your challenge.

View attachment 13184

I'd be more interested to see Tannehill Vs. Luck, as they have had ot play with the same rule set in place. The league become MUCH more pass friendly from the time Brees was a young gun to now.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

Drew Brees.

Actually Drew Brees did not start in his first year so I took the numbers in his 2nd and 3rd year. The numbers should even be better because he had a full year to sit and learn. I'm not saying Ryan Tannehill is going to become Drew-Brees-like, I am just responding to your challenge.

There are a lot. I actually thought responding to this claim was pretty pointless, TBH. Very few QB's come out of the gate as "elite" or carrying the franchise on their backs.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

I'd be more interested to see Tannehill Vs. Luck, as they have had ot play with the same rule set in place. The league become MUCH more pass friendly from the time Brees was a young gun to now.

Meh. Andrew Luck was one the best QBs prospects to come out of in a long long time. Ryan Tannehill was a project with minimal experience at the position. FWIW, here are their stats in 35 games.

Luck:

ATT: 1,323 COMP: 768 %: 58.0 ATT/G: 37.8 YDS: 9,108 YPA: 6.9 Y/G: 260.2 TD: 55 INT: 30
RATE: 83.6

Tannehill:

ATT: 1,196 COMP: 707 %: 59.1 ATT/G: 34.2 YDS: 7,831 YPA: 6.5 Y/G: 223.7 TD: 40 INT: 32
RATE: 78.6

 

[Wallace17Miami]

Meh. Andrew Luck was one the best QBs prospects to come out of in a long long time. Ryan Tannehill was a project with minimal experience at the position. FWIW, here are their stats in 35 games.

Luck:


Tannehill:

Agree with the prospect comment.

Thanks for posting.

 

[BlueFin]

The whole point...which the "rush to judgement"..."sky is falling" crowd misses is....this is not about a one, two or three game performance....good or bad....this is about assessing the performance over a long enough period of time to make an accurate assessment.

Much more accomplished evaluators than exist on this board have made mistakes by not accounting for surrounding cast.....scheme change...etc etc etc

In my opinion...we need to see thing through this year and find out what Tannehill can do.

If we don't see adequate production and growth.....we can then enter the draft with a coaching change.

 

[Gonzo]

The whole point...which the "rush to judgement"..."sky is falling" crowd misses is....this is not about a one, two or three game performance....good or bad....this is about assessing the performance over a long enough period of time to make an accurate assessment.

Much more accomplished evaluators than exist on this board have made mistakes by not accounting for surrounding cast.....scheme change...etc etc etc

In my opinion...we need to see thing through this year and find out what Tannehill can do.

If we don't see adequate production and growth.....we can then enter the draft with a coaching change.

Jeez, could you be any more passive aggressive about insulting the people you disagree with?

Let me try. Is one season really going to be enough for the "everything is fine" "he just needs 10 years" crowd? Won't he need several years under the new offense, especially when literally everybody else on the team sucks (apparently)? Something tells me we're going to be reading similar things to that if he doesn't improve by the end of the season (and again, I must note that I want him playing the rest of the season, regardless of how he does).

 

[BlueFin]

Jeez, could you be any more passive aggressive about insulting the people you disagree with?

Let me try. Is one season really going to be enough for the "everything is fine" "he just needs 10 years" crowd? Won't he need several years under the new offense, especially when literally everybody else on the team sucks (apparently)? Something tells me we're going to be reading similar things to that if he doesn't improve by the end of the season (and again, I must note that I want him playing the rest of the season, regardless of how he does).

No.....If by the end of the season he has not shown significant progress over his performance last year....taken as a whole....I will be the first one calling for the drafting of another top prospect (ala San Diego...Brees/Rivers) to compete and either push Tannehill up or out.

I don't think considering all aspects of what this prospect has had to deal with....poor receiving corp. 2012....pathetic O-line and pass protect and running game 2013....that giving him an entire season to evaluate his abilities (taking into account an entirely new offensive scheme) is too much to ask or unreasonable.

If you think I am a QB apologist you are mistaken...I was Jay Fiedler's harshest critic...I was screaming for the drafting of a top quarterback since Danny retired.

But in my evaluation we have to let this season play out...good or bad....then we can address the head coaching and QB position in 2015.

 

[ChrisTRD]

Well Miami sure has had Oaklands number as of late. Here's the last 3 meetings.....


MIA 35, OAK 13
MIA 34, OAK 14
MIA 33, @OAK 17

 

[Sarnics13]

Been hearing/reading that for 3 years now.

Really? So you're saying our play calling has been good for the last 3 years?

 

[Ilovemyfins4eva]

Really? So you're saying our play calling has been good for the last 3 years?

give me a break with this excuse.

do u think its a coincidence that since marino retired, the only season we rarely heard about our playcalling be poor was in 2008, when we had a very good qb season from pennington ( and u can tell me all u want how we also had the wildcat, pennington finished 2nd in mvp voting behind peyton, he was really good that year, it was not just the wildcat, with a horrible wr core that is)

so maybe its more our qb play rather than playcaling, because all those other years we had average at best, and that is being nice, qb play.

im just so sick and tired of it always being the coaches and the playcalling, maybe the quarterbacks r just really bad? could that be a possibility?

 

[Finland]

What if Ryan Tannehill just torches the Raiders Sunday?

I, for one, will visit here just to watch the carnage.

And please, pretty please, don't start with "No way it happens". In all honesty, I don't think things can get much more ridiculous with this team...so it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm sure everyone would love to see him break out and finish the season strong.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

It would be a good start. That's a solid pass defense and will only become more so as Mack continues to develop.

Charles Woodson is still pretty good from what I've seen. Don't want to throw at him.

 

[JTC111]

What if Ryan Tannehill just torches the Raiders Sunday?

You mean "What if on Sunday RT torches one of the worst teams in the NFL just like most qbs in the league should be able to do?" I'm sure that will convince some people that we have our franchise quarterback.

When you're playing against one of the worst teams in the league, all you can really do is falter. If you light it up, well... wasn't it to be expected? Isn't that what most other NFL qbs should be able to do? It may not sound fair, but I think the reality is that this game is only meaningful to RT's tenure as the Fins starting qb if he fails. Should he "torch" a team with a decent passing defense, that's another story. That's when the RT fans can point to a game and say that shows us something.

 

[Sarnics13]

give me a break with this excuse.

do u think its a coincidence that since marino retired, the only season we rarely heard about our playcalling be poor was in 2008, when we had a very good qb season from pennington ( and u can tell me all u want how we also had the wildcat, pennington finished 2nd in mvp voting behind peyton, he was really good that year, it was not just the wildcat, with a horrible wr core that is)

so maybe its more our qb play rather than playcaling, because all those other years we had average at best, and that is being nice, qb play.

im just so sick and tired of it always being the coaches and the playcalling, maybe the quarterbacks r just really bad? could that be a possibility?

I really don't understand what you're getting at. Where did someone say that it's always been play calling bc we have been blessed with better than avg QB's since Marino? If anything it's constantly been pointed out how inept we have been for years at QB.....so play calling is a fairly new "excuse".

So back to my original post that you commented on....are you then saying that our play calling has been good over the last 3 years?

 

[truedolfan57]

You mean "What if on Sunday RT torches one of the worst teams in the NFL just like most qbs in the league should be able to do?" I'm sure that will convince some people that we have our franchise quarterback.

When you're playing against one of the worst teams in the league, all you can really do is falter. If you light it up, well... wasn't it to be expected? Isn't that what most other NFL qbs should be able to do? It may not sound fair, but I think the reality is that this game is only meaningful to RT's tenure as the Fins starting qb if he fails. Should he "torch" a team with a decent passing defense, that's another story. That's when the RT fans can point to a game and say that shows us something.

except Tom brady only torched them for 16 points.