I mean the pundits say that we are not going to be very good, and that he has to learn while sitting. I say B. S. if we are going to not be any good then let's play our QB of the future early to get him ready for when we are ready to be real good like the Colts did with Manning do you guys agree?

There are a few reasons. You don't want a guy out there if his supporting cast is terrible. The lack of success will destroy his confidence. Look at John Beck. And you don't want a guy out there if he isn't ready. You want the rest of the offense to have confidence in the QB. Give him a chance to get grounded, so that when he comes in, he can have some success, and build off it.

Tannehill is way more NFL ready than he is getting credit from the weaker pundits. But, there is no reason to rush him. He is more talented than either of the QBs on our roster. And just naturally, at some point in his development, he will give us the best chance to win. He needs to see NFL defenses and learn the speed of the game.

And of course, this is true for any rookie QB. I always believe it's best to let a guy learn a little bit. Even if it's only like Marino, just for a month or so.

Let's get the loss to Houston out of the way. We probably beat the Raiders. Then, let the veteran face the Rex Ryan defense in week 3. And Tannehill takes over in week 4. That gives him 3 games, plus the bye week, to get under his belt before we face the Jets again. If they don't turn to him in week 4, then I think you have him split snaps during the bye week, and take over against the Colts.

Here is the way I feel.

If he is the best guy, start him. If not, let him sit and absorb.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

If there truly is going to be a competition I wouldn't be surprised if he wins the starting job outright.

I don't think we're getting ahead of ourselves at all Chyren. The expectations of a rookie QB drafted in the 1st round have changed since then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2012 08:09PM by 808phan.

All I'm saying is that he can get you some 1st downs with his legs as well as his arm. According to some on this board he is one of those new dual threat new age QB's so why not use him? I mean hell can he do any worse than a journeyman like Moore or a washed up veteran like Garrard?

Finshady Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All I'm saying is that he can get you some 1st
> downs with his legs as well as his arm. According
> to some on this board he is one of those new dual
> threat new age QB's so why not use him? I mean
> hell can he do any worse than a journeyman like
> Moore or a washed up veteran like Garrard?


There's no secrect recipe for success with qb's.

I'll just say that I think he should play when the staff thinks he's ready to play against NFL defenses and be successful.

I don't care if it's next week, mid season or two years from now.

It's one thing to know the play book. It's an entirely different thing to be able to read and understand what defenses are throwing at you.

There's no need to rush this kid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 05:03AM by THE Truth.

2 words: David Carr. Let's be careful how quickly we throw him in.

I think they play it by ear, but shouldn't start him week 1 unless he has an unprecedentedly amazing preseason. They should not rule out playing him this year either. If this season is shot by week 10 or so, and he seems up to the task based on practice, then I am good bringing him in to start the rest of the games IF it is done intellegently (ie, against a weak opponent at home) and not moronically like they did to John Beck (who would've sucked anyway) starting him on the road vs the eagles and then I think the next week vs the Steelers

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

I agree. Leave the door open for him to play, but assume he's not starting Game 1. Last thing Tannehill needs is the weight of the world on his shoulders.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Finshady Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All I'm saying is that he can get you some 1st
> > downs with his legs as well as his arm.
> According
> > to some on this board he is one of those new
> dual
> > threat new age QB's so why not use him? I mean
> > hell can he do any worse than a journeyman like
> > Moore or a washed up veteran like Garrard?
>
>
> There's no secrect recipe for success with qb's.
>
>
> I'll just say that I think he should play when the
> staff thinks he's ready to play against NFL
> defenses and be successful.
>
> I don't care if it's next week, mid season or two
> years from now.
>
> It's one thing to know the play book. It's an
> entirely different thing to be able to read and
> understand what defenses are throwing at you.
>
> There's no need to rush this kid.


Wow! He's making sense.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whoa. Whoa. We're getting WAY ahead of
> ourselves.
>
> It might end up being a "replace Woodley with
> Marino" situation but that was completely
> different.
>
> Woodley had failed to complete a single pass in
> the second half of a losing SuperBowl.
>
> Woodley started the game against the Los Angeles
> Raiders (I was there)in what was the opening game
> of the season that next year. He began to suck as
> usual and, I have to disagree with the memory of
> another poster, we ended up being down something
> ridiculous when Marino was put in. Here is a
> block and paste
>
>
> Dan Marino's first NFL regular season pass came on
> September 19, 1983 in a Monday night game against
> the Los Angeles Raiders. It was a 9 yard
> completion to Mark Duper in the 4th quarter of a
> Raiders 27-14 victory at Los Angeles Memorial
> Coliseum in Los Angeles. Marino had come in the
> game, with the Raiders leading 27-0, in relief of
> starter David Woodley and guided the team to two
> TDs. He threw his first two TD passes in this
> game, a 6 yarder to Joe Rose was the first and a 2
> yarder to Mark Duper was the second.
>
> So that was a situation wherein we knew that was
> the time to replace quarterbacks.
>
> I say we have to stick by Tannehill and hope for
> the best. But I'm not sure that starting
> Tannehill at the outset might not be going too
> far.
>
> I don't think either Matt Moore or David Garrard
> are David Woodleys.

********************************************************

I don't think Marino was being held out for lack of experience or not being ready. Woodstrock just came off a Super Bowl season and if I'm not mistaken, Miami's record was 3-1(?) when Dan started vs the Bills. Because the offensive output was basically nil (although they were winning), Shula put Marino in vs Oakland then later started him vs Buffalo.

Now, as far as Tanney. I also agree that Tanney should sit for a while, but....if he is clearly the best QB on Miami's roster, which could be the case since he is way ahead of the other QBs in knowing the playbook, then he may be the one to start. If he is not playing that well in practice and the preseason, it would be good to let him sit and watch for a while until he is ready, unless of course the team starts out terrible and/or the other QBs don't have a clue.

My take on this is to let Tanney sit for a while and put him in at the right time (his learning curve and the coach's decision).

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Finshady Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All I'm saying is that he can get you some 1st
> > downs with his legs as well as his arm.
> According
> > to some on this board he is one of those new
> dual
> > threat new age QB's so why not use him? I mean
> > hell can he do any worse than a journeyman like
> > Moore or a washed up veteran like Garrard?
>
>
> There's no secrect recipe for success with qb's.
>
>
> I'll just say that I think he should play when the
> staff thinks he's ready to play against NFL
> defenses and be successful.
>
> I don't care if it's next week, mid season or two
> years from now.
>
> It's one thing to know the play book. It's an
> entirely different thing to be able to read and
> understand what defenses are throwing at you.
>
> There's no need to rush this kid.

*******************************************************

As someone on this board already mentioned -- John Beck, enough said!

The speed of the game is said to be all that Tanney (probably) won't be able to handle early on. His 19 game college career was not enough to get him on an NFL field right away.

It won't hurt for him to sit for a while.

I think the play of the offensive line will also factor into it.

I wouldn't start a rookie QB behind the porous line we had last year.

With John Beck, our line was so bad he was getting sacked on running plays. No wonder his hands were shaking so much he couldn't hold onto the ball.

But hopefully with a healthy Jake Long and absent Marc Colombo we'll have better o-line play this year.

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is the way I feel.
>
> If he is the best guy, start him. If not, let him
> sit and absorb.


Exactly . No one wants to start winning moe then I do, but we have to be patient. Plus I can't wait to see his wife cheering him on.........

I found it interesting, that in the Ireland interview with Agler, he said, I hope Tannehill, or Moore or Garrad, win the starting job outright, so there will be no question(paraphrased) but he did say Tannehill's name first.... He went on to say Moore and Garrad are profesionals and scrappy, so they are going to fight for it. So it sure seems, Ireland isnt ruling out Tannehill, but agrees he is leaving it up to the coaches ultimately.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2012 01:23PM by Crowder52.

Training camp and Pre Season will be the most exciting its been in YEARS. I might even have to get my ass down to Davie for a practice or Two.

The Jets allowed wink wink Sanchez to win the starting job as a rookie, and lead them to the playoffs. I believe Tannehill is more athletic, and has a better delivery than Sanchez. So why not start Tannehill his wife will definately show up to the stadium to watch him play that alone will sell more tickets lol. Sorry sexist but very true. What have we go to lose let the man play, and learn either way. We stand to win 6-10 games depending on how the season breaks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2012 03:20AM by Finshady.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Finshady Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > All I'm saying is that he can get you some
> 1st
> > > downs with his legs as well as his arm.
> > According
> > > to some on this board he is one of those new
> > dual
> > > threat new age QB's so why not use him? I
> mean
> > > hell can he do any worse than a journeyman
> like
> > > Moore or a washed up veteran like Garrard?
> >
> >
> > There's no secrect recipe for success with qb's.
>
> >
> >
> > I'll just say that I think he should play when
> the
> > staff thinks he's ready to play against NFL
> > defenses and be successful.
> >
> > I don't care if it's next week, mid season or
> two
> > years from now.
> >
> > It's one thing to know the play book. It's an
> > entirely different thing to be able to read and
> > understand what defenses are throwing at you.
> >
> > There's no need to rush this kid.
>
>
> Wow! He's making sense.


And... the last thing we wanna do is get this kid hurt right out of the gate. Let your journeymen battle as the kid lurns and this new regime gets everything into place and routines down. We have the opportunity to do it right, I agree "There's no need to rush this kid."

Finshady Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Jets allowed wink wink sanchez to win the
> starting job as a rookie, and lead them to the
> playoffs.

The Jets made the playoffs that year in spite of Sanchez. He was a simple caretaker.

I think you can either play or you can't. P Manning started right away and you could tell he had "it" even though he threw a million picks.

It didn't ruin him because he is a competitor. Same with Marino, Elway and many others. Elway really struggled at first but we all know how that turned out.

John Beck clearly doesn't have "it" and looks overwhelmed most of the time he is on the field. Same way in Washington even though he has improved.

Sanchez has some good qualities as a QB but he just can't put it all together. He started fewer games in college than Tannehill at QB and many less if you take into consideration that RT played two years at WR.

I don't think the speed of the game is going to be a huge issue for RT. He is an athlete and will be one of the fastest/athletic QB's in the league.

Sanchez had a great year at USC but was surrounded by top level talent at a consistently top ranked program.

How much of that talent did RT have in Texas? Not much. 4 players were drafted this year. One player in 2011 and one player in 2010.

By comparison, USC has about 10 players drafted every year. In 2008 they had 4 first round picks. 2009 3 first rounders but Rey Maualuga dropped to the second.

As we all know Marino was the last QB selected in round 1. On a side note. Another QB was taken in 1983 as the first pick in the 8th round from Texas A&M......Gary Kubiak.

I have a good feeling about this kid!

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

There's also the potential that we go into the season with the continuity of Moore as our starting QB and he plays well and we win some games. What do you think we do if Moore starts the season as our starter and he's playing good not great, maybe good enough to lead us to a winning record by week six (maybe 4-2). Stick with him and let Tanny sit and learn til Moore screws up?

Panteraize, my opinion, probably not shared by the frenzied RT people, is that you play Moore (if he beats out Garrard) until, at least, he loses. Even Marino did not start until after a loss by David Woodley against the Raiders in the Coliseum.

It's pretty simple really, the play of ALL the QBs should dictate when Tannehill plays, if he's playing better in camp, you start him. If Moore/Garrard wins the job, and keeps winning then you play whomever it is. Doing anything else would risk Philbins cred with the team. If Tannehill sits all year, so be it.

Yeah, to start a QB over any other, when the players themselves can see who is the best, is a discredit and disrespectful to the other players.

Example- if Matt Moore is hands down the best QB in camp, but they start Gerrard or Tannehill, then Philbin and the rest of the coaching staff will lose all credibility.

One thing is certain, the best QB in camp will start opening day.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

I agree with you Chyren. The only reason a rookie QB should start is if he is head and shoulders better than any other QB on the roster. If its close, you give the vet the nod because of experience.

Like you said, it is way easier to pull a struggling vet and plug in a rookie than pull a struggling rookie and plug in a vet. Pulling a rookie might hurt his confidence and/or turn the fan base against him.

But 1423, that exactly what I said. If he is the clear cut best QB you have to start him.

As far as Chyren, I only read your first paragraph, your post are too long for me to read. But, yes I'm sure Marino did outplay him. But what we don't know is did Marino know the entire playbook? A lot of other things go into why Marino didn't start the season as the starter. I.e playbook knowledge, attitude, leadership, actually the best thing to do, is just ask Don himself why Marino did t open the season as the starter....

I'm getting on that as we speak.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"