Question for you..

If he doesn't have a WR that has the speed to get open deep ( which I think we all agree is the case)....and the result of this is that the defense cheats by playing a shorter field, limiting the middle...Is it fair to expect him to have good production in the middle-deep range?

I don't see how it makes sense to judge him on his deep passing when he lacks the cast.

That too much REALISTIC logic fallen on deaf ears...

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

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> To me he
> > combines the best virtues of RGIII, Russell
> Wilson
> > and the brains of Luck.
> >
>
> wow, that's pretty amazing. he's the best QB in
> history in that case.

I don't think that's saying what you think that's saying.


First of all, that's just the positive side of the ledger. He has his faults. One big one is that he tends to overthrow his target when he is behind on the scoreboard late in the game and he is under mental pressure to catch up.

But given early in the game and no pressure, he can be devastating while on the run and a threat to pass or keep running.

Colts - Reggie Wayne not elite? really? The Colts have Wayne, Avery, Hilton, as well as Luck's college TE Fleener. I would say that is more than we have.

You are seriously using Painter as your evidence? Obviously if a team lacks a legitimate starting QB everyone's production will drop....but it is equally true that if you don't have a legitimate Deep Threat WR the QB's production will suffer.


You seem to believe that the QB can elevate the play of the WR but that the Wr can not elevate the play of the QB? Does anyone really buy that?

It is a 2-way street.

Same with Seattle, Russel Wilson has Sidney Rice and Golden Tate...and Marshawn Lynch who has 1266 yds after 13 games causing teams to play hard against the run.The great running game elevates the play of the passing game. Not really a radical concept. Do we have a 1,200 yd rusher? Wouldn't Tannehill have an easier job if teams were worried about our running game?

How would Tanny play if he had a consistent running game and a deep threat WR?

I think Luck & Wilson are excellent...and their potential is not limited by lack of talent. And yes they are able to elevate the play of some of the guys...but they do have the tools necessary to do that. I guarantee that if Luck didn't have a deep threat WR his stats wouldn't be so great.

I don't know why people refuse to acknowledge that we lack the deep threat WR. We don't have one. that either matters or it doesn't. If it matters...we would be able to see and measure the impact of the absence. we can see it...in the passing game.

Yup...

The problem is that not everyone reads carefully.

The point of the thread was to illustrate that a great QB can start out with less than great stats. Not that Tanny is better or as good as Manning, or that the similarity in stats extrapolates.

My optimism is that whenI look at Tanny's stats and factor in the lack of deep threat ....I see no merit whatsoever in the trashing of him.

Anybody that ignores the lack of WR is being obtuse.


That's like saying " I don't like my car, it doesn't handle well" and anyone with a brain can see the tires are bald and the mechanic says .."ya...you need new tires" and you reply..."ya I know my tires are sh#t...but that's not the problem....the car has no traction, it slips when it rains, takes too long to stop. I think I need a new car"

Some of the people who dismiss the impact of our glaring need are the same ones who want to draft a WR. They are right we need to draft a WR...BECAUSE WE NEED ONE!!!! Getting one will have an impact!! It is not rocket science.

eesti wrote: If anyone thinks the talent level on our team doesn't limit our QB you are not looking at the big picture.


I always said the talent on this team was going to make tannehill look bad. OL SUCKS....No receivers whatsoever, fasano is the TE when he probably would be 2nd string on most teams, no running game etc.

Us positive fans look on the brightside and choose to give him a chance and the benefit of the doubt until he proves to be a bust. Until then he is our future.

The negative fans declare him a bust. Most of them didnt like the fact we drafted him in the first round and are bitter because of it.

Overall the jury still out on tannehill and it looks like the current tannehill conversations on this site will go on for at least a couple of years.

wow...thank you.

I am humbled.

It amazes me how some people on the board think Tanny isn't any better than Henne. Well, Henne had Ronnie Brown, Ricky Williams, and Brandon Marshall. That's 3 pro-bowlers on the offense. He also had a healthy Jake Long through much of his tenure in Miami. Tanny has none of that, yet he looks better than Henne EVER did here.

montequi wrote: It amazes me how some people on the board think Tanny isn't any better than Henne.

exactly....


At least tannehill proves he has balls and is not afraid to get hit....Unlike henne that crapped and peed himself in the pants everytime he was about to get hit. its called having heart.

And to me he isnt better than tannehill.

HEnne is gone anyways and i do not give a dam how he turns out.

PS. It helped that he was a wire receiver before. He is definetely not afraid of contact.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ChyrenB Wrote:
> > To me he
> > > combines the best virtues of RGIII, Russell
> > Wilson
> > > and the brains of Luck.
> > >
> >
> > wow, that's pretty amazing. he's the best QB in
> > history in that case.
>
> I don't think that's saying what you think that's
> saying.
>
>
> First of all, that's just the positive side of the
> ledger. He has his faults. One big one is that
> he tends to overthrow his target when he is behind
> on the scoreboard late in the game and he is under
> mental pressure to catch up.
>
> But given early in the game and no pressure, he
> can be devastating while on the run and a threat
> to pass or keep running.


Luck is one of the smartest QBs to come along in ages. RT one of the most athletic, and Wilson with off-the-charts leadership qualities. If RT combined all of those best virtues, we'd be on to something incredible.

No question RT has the althletic skills and arm. But the jury is still way out on his "it" factor at QB. As you note, early in games and with no pressure, he is much better than later in games with the pressure on. That was the knock on him at A&M as well. Hopefully with more playing time and better talent around him, he takes the next step.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

We've been crying for a deep threat WR every season for as long as I can remember and here we are again and the last time I looked there were about 31 other teams that also have "deep threat WR" on their wish lists.
We've brought in dazzling FA would-be saviors before and nothing seems to work. David Boston, Tony Martin, Chris Carter, to name a few, failed to make much impact. We've drafted plenty and they don't seem to work out. Some were speedsters but supposedly couldn't catch, the ones that could catch were slow. Some were injury prone.
It seems like we are always looking longingly at other team's WRs and wondering "what if." And here we are again with more needs than can possibly be addressed in one draft and off season assuming a normal rate of hits and misses.
It's been posted here that it takes at least a couple of seasons for a QB/WR combo to gel and become effective. I don't know if that's really the case but, when have we ever kept a QB/WR duo or coach long enough to see if that's true?
Also, pointing out that Tannehill has been less than stellar is NOT the same as calling him a bust.

The entire point that everyone seems to gloss over is that the jury is still out on all of these QB's. Look at Cam Newton.

Last year everyone thought HOLY CRAP.... This guy is going to be phenominal. Fast forward a year and everyone isn't quite so sure that he can handle the rigors of the NFL.

Now everyone is doing the same thing for RG3, Wilson and Luck. Who's to say that RG3 or Luck doesn't run into some bad luck? Reggie Wayne retires, loses a step or he and a couple other players get hurt and Luck's performance drops off. you just never know.

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

Hooligan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We've been crying for a deep threat WR every
> season for as long as I can remember and here we
> are again and the last time I looked there were
> about 31 other teams that also have "deep threat
> WR" on their wish lists.
> We've brought in dazzling FA would-be saviors
> before and nothing seems to work. David Boston,
> Tony Martin, Chris Carter, to name a few, failed
> to make much impact. We've drafted plenty and they
> don't seem to work out. Some were speedsters but
> supposedly couldn't catch, the ones that could
> catch were slow. Some were injury prone.
> It seems like we are always looking longingly at
> other team's WRs and wondering "what if." And here
> we are again with more needs than can possibly be
> addressed in one draft and off season assuming a
> normal rate of hits and misses.
> It's been posted here that it takes at least a
> couple of seasons for a QB/WR combo to gel and
> become effective. I don't know if that's really
> the case but, when have we ever kept a QB/WR duo
> or coach long enough to see if that's true?
> Also, pointing out that Tannehill has been less
> than stellar is NOT the same as calling him a
> bust.

Funny how almost everyone we brought in whether via FA, trade, etc, during the marino years worked out (Irv Fryer, Gadsden, etc) and everyone we brought in post marino has not. hmmmm.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

When you say "worked out," you certainly don't mean winning lots of play-off games.

no, in the same way that marino "worked out" without winning a SB. Became very good players for us.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Luck is one of the smartest QBs to come along in
> ages. RT one of the most athletic, and Wilson with
> off-the-charts leadership qualities. If RT
> combined all of those best virtues, we'd be on to
> something incredible.

That's what I meant when I said you misinterpret me. I'm not saying he is as smart AS Luck or as athletic AS RG (I think you had a typo) or as great at leadership AS Wilson.

Rather I'm saying that he combines smartness, maybe not as much as Luck but he has more than the average NFL QB, athleticism, maybe not as much as RGIII but more than the average NFL QB including Luck, maybe not as great leadership as Wilson but more than the Average QB.

So if you got a guy who has CONSIDERABLE TALENTS in all those areas, you might just end up with a guy who in the long run, because he combines the best elements of the other three, might turn out to be the best of the three.

Not because he is better than any one of them at their best quality but because he is a hybrid of all three.

To think that Tannehill is anything close to Peyton Manning is delusional.

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

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.

Peyton Manning is one of a kind. So is Brady. So was Favre, Marino, Elway, Montana etc...the list of terrific QBs is long. Each had different attributes and players around them. There are too many variables as I've stated before to properly compare Peyton Manning and Tannehill in their respective first seasons of play.

To read the post and think that was point is ignorant.

realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To read the post and think that was point is
> ignorant.


I was making a general statement, not specific to your point. Sorry you took it that way.

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

Miami Dolphins. Always Perfect.