Hey finshady just curious of what you think of our 1st round qb pick? Do you like his game? like what do you think of the kid?

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The werid part of the question of Tannehill
> starting.. Is just because you are the best player
> in the system on the field. Does that mean you are
> ready...


The other weird part is that after one presser and a few interrviews with his wife, people are already saying he's the beat player. I would wait to see him throw a few passes in the NFL before amnoiting RT as Dan Marino II.

People are fired up about this qb, no doubt. I sure hope he doesn't dissapoint..

DolfanKing, I was more referring to his knowledge and understanding of the system and playbook. And Matt Moore's lack of it... I am surely not the guy annointing Tannehill as the next Dan Marino. But I think with his knowledge of the playbook and system, it gives him an advantage over the players he his competing against. That is why I aksed the question... Moore has never played in the WCO, and Garrad didnt play football last year.... Which is why, I said just because Tannehill beats out Moore and Garrard based on his 4 years of knowledge in the system and their lack of knowledge in the system, does that mean he is really ready, or is it that Moore and Garrard are not...

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

I think JP brought up a great point. He said...

"At some point that knowledge (of the offense) is going to even itself out, and the difference is going to be the decision-making, the accuracy, the playmaking ability."

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

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DolfanKing, I was more referring to his knowledge
> and understanding of the system and playbook. And
> Matt Moore's lack of it... I am surely not the guy
> annointing Tannehill as the next Dan Marino. But I
> think with his knowledge of the playbook and
> system, it gives him an advantage over the players
> he his competing against. That is why I aksed the
> question... Moore has never played in the WCO, and
> Garrad didnt play football last year.... Which is
> why, I said just because Tannehill beats out Moore
> and Garrard based on his 4 years of knowledge in
> the system and their lack of knowledge in the
> system, does that mean he is really ready, or is
> it that Moore and Garrard are not...

Crowder - I wasn't talking about you as anointing him the next Marino. You have been one of the few voices of reason I've seen regarding Tannehill.

As for playbook advantage, I don't think the advantage is that great. Moore has already had to learn several playbooks, and seems to have done just fine. As you pointed out, Gerrard knows the WCO, so I don't really see Tannehill's advantage.

Tannehill struggled against better competition in the NCAA, and yet he knew his playbook just fine then. I just don't see Tannehill making the jump to the NFL overnight. Although RT was picked 19 slots ahead, he is clearly not Marino coming out of college. People that treat him that way are either delusional, or only looking at his draft position and then heaping expectations on the lad.

Our first year starter will be Gerrard. He has been an NFL starter for the past 5 years and will go a long way to helping the offense make its transition. The coaching staff is installing a new offense and will need a veteran field general to do it right. Moore is the kind of guy you can bring off the bench in the middle of a game and still have a chance to win with. This year, Moore will be the backup.

Expect Tannehill to start the season as the #3 Emergency QB. He will be a first round, top ten clipboard holder. I know its hard for some fans to swallow, but when it comes to Tannehill the mantra will be "Maybe next year".

eesti Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RESPONSE: No, what that says is that LIKE ANY
> OTHER ROOKIE (especially one acknowledged prior to
> the draft to be a project) you DON'T rush him in
> and start him UNLESS YOU CAN SEE (GUARANTEE) that
> he IS a Marino.
>
> That may be what you meant to say but it's not
> what you wrote. You want to add to it and clarify,
> fine but I was debating what you typed. Your
> elaboration has not really added additional points
> anyway. You still repeated the same argument.
> There can be no guarantees.
>
> No one is saying we should RUSH him into anything.
> Those are your words. I said he should play if the
> coaches decide he is ready.
>
> That's not the same as saying nobody should be
> allowed to play Quarterbacks except those who can
> play like Marino.
>
> Those are TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THINGS.
>
> Splitting hairs. What you said was Tannehill
> should not play unless there is a guarantee he is
> Marino. I'm saying that is impossible and
> illogical. Even Andrew Luck, the most highly
> touted QB to come out since ???, still can not
> offer any guarantee to be Marino so the statement
> is illogical.
>
> RESPONSE: Money has nothing to do with it. As many
> people have observed, this is a
> "quarterback-driven league."
>
> Where did I say anything about money? I said
> timing due to contract being up.
>
> The fans are not willing to give a QB the patience
> that was afforded Manning in the 1990's or Elway
> in the 1980's.
>
> NO respectable STAFF lets fans run their team.
> Come on...seriously?
>
> Hell just look at yourself.
> Are you sure that your belief he should be thrown
> in if he has a good pre-season alone is not based
> on your impatience to see a better QB on the
> field.
>
> My "belief" or idea that he play never said
> anything about being "thrown in" anywhere.
> Impatience? If he wins the job and shows a better
> understanding and better results than the other
> two guys and gets benched for it then, like
> several other posters have stated, management
> loses the players because they learn that the best
> player doesn't play. Not a good message.
>
> RESPONSE: The question is not "do you have it or
> not" but "will you be given the best opportunity
> to prove it or not?"
>
> I see what you're saying if you are referring to
> giving him talent to play with ala WR's but I
> don't believe you hold him back until that
> happens. It may never happen. Having "it" means
> you make the players around you better.
>
> > I don't believe we are that bad of a team.
>
> RESPONSE: I do and most of the posters on this
> board do. And if most of the posters believe that
> that is the basis for you taking your position
> then you are gathering votes for my side.
>
> Huh? So you're speaking for the majority now? I
> really don't even know what you are saying here
> other than you think we have a bad team.
> OK...that's your opinion. I respect that. I don't
> need "votes" to believe in my opinion.
>
> >I also
> > believe we are better right now than we were at
> > the end of last season...when we played pretty
> > well.
>
> RESPONSE: If you say because of drafting people
> like Martin, edited to say I was thinking of
> Cunningham , etc. I would agree.
>
> Wow, you almost lost me again. I'll have to
> re-read this one. ..ok...so Martin (a RB that may
> or may not be good and didn't fill a huge void)
> and a late round WR like Cunningham who is not
> even guaranteed to make the team, makes us better?
> but a 1st round QB does not? There is some logic
> for ya I guess. You must think we really stink.
>
> > I'm not saying he should or shouldn't start day
> > one. I think that assessment has to be left to
> > Philbin.
>
> RESPONSE: Everyone agrees on that because it's his
> butt on the line first for drafting him and it
> would be again for playing him.
>
> Speaking for everyone again. How presumptuous of
> you.
>
> But now that we've left what SHOULD BE and
> transitioned to what WILL BE, consider this.
>
> One thing comes to mind here. A quote from one of
> my favorite movies. True Romance. Christopher
> Walkin..
>
> "You don't wanna show me nothing but you're
> telling me everything"
>
> No player is better at the beginning of his career
> THAN HE IS AT THE HEIGHTH OF HIS CAREER. That's
> not subject to argument. That's science and not
> opinion.
>
> Actually it is subject to argument b/c some
> players are at the height of their careers at the
> beginning...so...science? not so much.
>
> Therefore, if Philbin believes this, then he will
> probably be more conservative in his choice of
> WHEN to play Tannehill. Know why?
>
> Because if Tannehill is a bust, their butts are
> gone. And since a player is likely to perform
> worse when he BEGINS his career then at the top of
> his game, PHilbin will not want to rush him in
> immediately.
>
> He's rather let people judge RT based on how he
> performs in September of 2013 rather than
> September of 2012.
>
> Wow, you really like to speak for other people.
> Now you're telling us what Joe Philbin would
> rather do?
>
> If Tannehill is a bust then yes, obviously
> everyone gets fired. Not exactly breaking news.
> Its either gonna happen or it's not. If sitting on
> the bench for 16 games makes or breaks him then he
> was probably never equipped to be a QB to begin
> with...


Reading that post was like deja vu all over again...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2012 09:19AM by THE Truth.

It was exhausting.

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

eesti Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was exhausting.


I feel your pain.

Copying that much text on the forum warrants a similar criminal penalty as should be issued for:

1. Fat Chick in a bikini on the beach
2. Big belly dude in a speedo
3. Excessive redundant phorum dialogue

$50 ticket for grossing people out

And he used to be a moderator.