Do you want Ryan Tannehill to start week 1?

[EKnight]

I slipped up and made a mistake about Carr's stats. Didn't think it was important to the main theme of the debate as I listed about 3 or 4 other examples along with Carr that were dead on and spot on. Being incorrect on Carr doesn't make my stance wrong. I am still correct overall.  I didn't think think there was a reason to harp on it. But you have. So, whatever.

I "harped" on it because you're wrong much more frequently than you will admit to being. It's a constant theme with you, consistent as gravity- if someone disagrees with you, you jump from one foot to the other changing your argument to try and look correct. It's old. -EK

[Tenshot13]

No one cares who's right and wrong by the way. You know what we (or at least me) care about?  Reading a thread that isn't post after post about who is right and who is wrong.

Back on topic, I would like to see Tannehill start week 1, but I too trust the coaches decision.

[David Fulcher]

No one cares who's right and wrong by the way. You know what we (or at least me) care about?  Reading a thread that isn't post after post about who is right and who is wrong.

Back on topic, I would like to see Tannehill start week 1, but I too trust the coaches decision.

Can someone please find the "Citizen Kane" slow clap gif for me, please??   

[Stinger24]

No one cares who's right and wrong by the way. You know what we (or at least me) care about?  Reading a thread that isn't post after post about who is right and who is wrong.

My sentiments exactly.

[Phishfan]

I don't know of ANY QB's whose development was hindered by holding a clipboard for a year,

Not that I am arguing for Tannehill week 1 (I just want the best guy in there) but this is a little difficult to prove isn't it? On one hand you can point to guys who became successful (Rodgers) but you really do not have any to point to on the other because you just don't know how they would have developed if they had played earlier. You have the stats skewed to your favor with this. For example you can argue that they were not hampered by not playing because they were never good enough to begin with, but you have no idea how they would have developed on the field because there is no evidence of it.

[EKnight]

Completely agree, but it's a bigger risk to start them when they're not ready than it is to sit them. That was my point. There really is no way to "measure" it, but it's hard to find guys who did sit for a while and then start who were as liekly to fail. -EK

[Brian Fein]

I'd rather see him work out his "issues" on the practice field and hand him the reins next year, than have him get demolished this year just to give him experience.  Give him experience when games are out of hand - fine.

I want Garrard to start, as I still believe he likely gives us the best chance to win games.   I'm not looking for instant turnaround.  Everyone says they trust the coaches - then trust the process.  10 years of futility is not a reason to rush things in year 11.

This football team is going to take years to build.  Just have patience, and leave the last 10 years worth of baggage at the door.

[EKnight]

^^ 100% agree. I'm not anti-Tannehill. I'm anti-wasting yet another draft on a QB that get's thrown out there to be crushed because his O line and receivers suck, and his defense puts him in a position to HAVE to try to throw to win games. For a guy who only started 19 games in college, that's a lot of pressure. -EK

[Pappy13]

I can't say it any better than this so I'll just let Armando do it for me.

It's clear Tannehill should be the starter

Dolphins coach Joe Philbin has been deliberate and coy about his quarterback decision this preseason. He doesn't give a lot of clues. And he has taken a systematic approach to getting the right player on the field with the first-team offense. This week appears to be no different. Philbin wanted to name a starter for Friday's Atlanta game this week and that's very important because that player is probably going to be the starting QB in the regular-season opener against Houston. But Philbin has tapped the brakes on the idea of making a final decision. "We may have a decision soon, but we may not until, we may play it out another week," Philbin said. "That’s still up in the air. We certainly haven’t come to any decision on that." Well, my question would be why not?

It is clear as day to anyone with eyes that Ryan Tannehill has so far gotten the better of Matt Moore in the quarterback competition. Tannehill has looked better than Moore when you compare their starting assignments this preseason. Tannehill also looked better than Moore when each played with the backups this preseason.

The statistics show more definitively what we've seen on the field: Tannehill is 25 of 44 (56.8 percent completion) for 267 yards with 1 TD and 0 INT. He has an 82.3 quarterback rating. Moore is 12 of 27 (44.4 percent completion) for 136 yards with 0 TD and 1 INT. He has a 44.7 quarterback rating. The competition has been closer in practice, but Tannehill has generally been as good if not better than Moore in that venue. Beyond that, Moore has not led a TD drive yet this preseason. Tannehill has.

So what decision is there to make? Ryan Tannehill should start against Atlanta Friday night. And he has done more to win the regular-season starting job than Moore.

[Brian Fein]

Again, Armando is the most biased pot-stirring "reporter" out there, his blogs and columns aren't worth the kilobytes they're written on.  All he does is stir the pot to create waves and generate hits for his pages.

Wonder why Tannehill has 17 more attempts than Moore?  Each has started one game.  Tannehill's problems can't be shown in stat lines.  If you're OK with a starting "franchise" QB who throws for 56% completions, then great.  I'm not.

None of these conversations include Garrard, so the entire conversation is about who will be the backup once he is healthy.

[Pappy13]

Brian, I get that you weren't on the Tannehill bandwagon from the get go...

http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=20009.0

And I get it that you still aren't on the bandwagon, but you're gonna have to forgive those of us that have been on the bandwagon from the beginning a little. I don't know any more than you do and neither does Armando, but just because we disagree with you doesn't mean that Armando is stirring the pot. That's his honest opinion and it's mine too. There are others that also agree like Bob Griese and other highly respected individuals that are all saying the same thing, that it appears that Tannehill is gonna be able to play in the NFL. We might all be wrong, but at least so far it doesn't appear the Dolphins made a mistake with the 8th pick in the draft and if they did we'd rather find out sooner rather than later. Sitting him on the bench for a year isn't gonna tell us squat.

[EKnight]

FWIW, I think Tannehill will be great- not just good- if given the right coaching and time. I'm just of the opinion that there's no rush to get him in this year. -EK

[Spider-Dan]

I don't know of ANY QB's whose development was hindered by holding a clipboard for a year,

Not that I am arguing for Tannehill week 1 (I just want the best guy in there) but this is a little difficult to prove isn't it?

Precisely.  Henne sat for a year and he ended up sucking.  Is that because he didn't get on the field immediately, or just because he was no good?

You can wash/rinse/repeat for any QB in the league that didn't start the first year and ended up a failure.

[EKnight]

^^That's actually a really great example and I didn't consider it at all. Henne clearly lacked the talent, and obviously sitting or starting wouldn't have made a difference. Nice point. -EK

[Cathal]

Not to diverge off the topic but it seems like Tannehill took all of the 1st team reps. You all follow the writers/sites more than I do so I dunno if what is said is correct or not.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000052337/article/dolphins-ryan-tannehill-takes-starter-snaps?module=HP11_headline_stack