Do you want Ryan Tannehill to start week 1?

[Pappy13]

I'm not ignoring them. I think he's a good player with a ton of upside; what he did against second Nd third stringers for Tampa is not impressive though. Posting a 60 QB rating against the starters for Carolina should tell you he's not ready. I just don't get what the rush is to get him in there if we all agree it's a losing season no matter who is under center. -EK

We are not rushing him into anything, we just don't have anyone else to put in there that's better. He has earned the job based on the fact that Garrard is injured and can't start and Moore and Devlin aren't any better than him. How is that rushing him into it? Please explain.

[EKnight]

For the last time, it is my opinion that he has NOT outplayed Moore to the degree that he should unseat him as the starter. That is my opinion. You are free to disagree but stop asking me why when the why is that I don't believe he's going to make a difference in game play over Moore or that starting him is going to speed up his development. I don't know of ANY QB's whose development was hindered by holding a clipboard for a year, but the list of guys who started as rookies who turned out NOT to be ready and whose careers suffered for it is substantial. First round QBs over the past ten years who start at any point their rookie year are more likely to suck than flourish. Look at the data- Leftwich, Sanchez, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Matt Leinart, JaMarcus Russell, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder. I'm supposed to ignore those names- who were all better college QBs than Tannehill because Cam Newton or Joe Flacco played well as rookies? Sitting for a while didn't seem to hurt Aaron Rodgers development or Tom Brady's. Favre or Brees either. I simply don't believe Tannehill is ready based on what I've seen. I believe it's a rush. -EK

[MikeO]

Half of those names WEREN'T better college QB's than Tannehill. That is a statement that is made by someone who clearly doesn't watch college football and is laughable to those that follow the college game. David Carr played at Fresno and his best year was like 2,500 yards and that was vs lesser competition EDIT: Messed up on Carr's stats, still doesn't change the fact he played vs lesser talent than Tannehill got in the Big 12. Joey Harrington at Oregon most yards was like 2,300 or so and most TD's in a year was like 20. Ponder at FSU was barely breaking 2,000 yards most years and was lucky to get between 15-20 TD's. And some of the other names were marginal college football players who NEVER came close to years Tannehill had where he threw for 3,700+ yards and 29TD's in 13 games. NFL players would cut off their left big toe for those numbers in 16 games!! Not to mention MOST if not ALL of those guys didn't play in an "NFL READY" offense in college preparing them for the next level like Tannehill did.

Also, by this logic the Redskins should be benching RGIII this year because he has been brutal in camp and in preseason games. He has made Tannehill look like Montana. Oh wait, the Skins AREN'T benching RGII because they want him to take his lumps in games and not hold a clipboard. And Mike Shannhan knows a thing or two about QB's.

Harrington, Carr, Leftwich?  Why not go all the way back to the 1970's and 1980's for some examples, jees! Cam, Ryan, Flacco, Dalton, Bradford, Sanchez. All QB's who started from day 1 in the last couple years who had success individually or team success because of their play. The QB's who didn't start from day 1 Locker, Ponder and such struggled a lot when they did get playing time. Proof is there that you ACCELERATE the learning curve and playing the kids is best. And the Jamarcus Russell example is weak. He was a fat turd who didn't care. Whether he played day 1 or sat a year or two years he was gonna be a bust. The guy didn't care. Horrible example.

WITH THAT SAID, I have no problem if Moore starts Week 1 vs Houston. I "TRUST" Sherman and Philbin. But these blanket statements of why Tannehill can't start day 1 are just incorrect and some of them are just flat out false.

[Pappy13]

For the last time, it is my opinion that he has NOT outplayed Moore to the degree that he should unseat him as the starter. That is my opinion. You are free to disagree but stop asking me why when the why is that I don't believe he's going to make a difference in game play over Moore or that starting him is going to speed up his development. I don't know of ANY QB's whose development was hindered by holding a clipboard for a year, but the list of guys who started as rookies who turned out NOT to be ready and whose careers suffered for it is substantial. First round QBs over the past ten years who start at any point their rookie year are more likely to suck than flourish. Look at the data- Leftwich, Sanchez, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Matt Leinart, JaMarcus Russell, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder. I'm supposed to ignore those names- who were all better college QBs than Tannehill because Cam Newton or Joe Flacco played well as rookies? Sitting for a while didn't seem to hurt Aaron Rodgers development or Tom Brady's. Favre or Brees either. I simply don't believe Tannehill is ready based on what I've seen. I believe it's a rush. -EK

Fair enough, but then lets be clear about what your reasons are, you are scared to start him. You don't care what he shows in preseason or who the QB of the Dolphins is as long as it's not Tannehill. You would rather play Moore and let him get hammered then give Tannehill the chance. I just wanted you to say it.

[Cathal]

Fair enough, but then lets be clear about what your reasons are, you are scared to start him. You don't care what he shows in preseason or who the QB of the Dolphins is as long as it's not Tannehill. You would rather play Moore and let him get hammered then give Tannehill the chance. I just wanted you to say it.

I think his position is clear, in that Tannehill hasn't outperformed Moore enough in preseason (or what Moore did at the end of last year) to start the regular season. I would think he would be OK with Tannehill starting if he didn't stare down receivers, have so many 3 and outs in the 2nd preseason game, etc... He obviously cares what Tannehill does in preseason or else he wouldn't keep saying that he doesn't think he's done enough in preseason to start.

I think you all might be making this much more difficult than it really is.

[EKnight]

Half of those names WEREN'T better college QB's than Tannehill. That is a statement that is made by someone who clearly doesn't watch college football and is laughable to those that follow the college game. David Carr played at Fresno and his best year was like 2,500 yards and that was vs lesser competition than Tannehill got in the Big 12. Joey Harrington at Oregon most yards was like 2,300 or so and most TD's in a year was like 20. Ponder at FSU was barely breaking 2,000 yards most years and was lucky to get between 15-20 TD's. And some of the other names were marginal college football players who NEVER came close to years Tannehill had where he threw for 3,700+ yards and 29TD's in 13 games. NFL players would cut off their left big toe for those numbers in 16 games!! Not to mention MOST if not ALL of those guys didn't play in an "NFL READY" offense in college preparing them for the next level like Tannehill did.

Also, by this logic the Redskins should be benching RGIII this year because he has been brutal in camp and in preseason games. He has made Tannehil look like Montana. Oh wait, the Skins AREN'T benching RGII because they want him to take his lumps in games and not hold a clipboard. And Mike Shannhan knows a thing or two about QB's.

Harrington, Carr, Leftwich?  Why not go all the way back to the 1970's and 1980's for some examples, jees! Cam, Ryan, Flacco, Dalton, Bradford, Sanchez. All QB's who started from day 1 in the last couple years who had success individually or team success because of their play. The QB's who didn't start from day 1 Locker, Ponder and such struggled a lot when they did get playing time. Proof is there that you ACCELERATE the learning curve and playing the kids is best. And the Jamarcus Russell example is weak. He was a fat turd who didn't care. Whether he played day 1 or sat a year or two years he was gonna be a bust. The guy didn't care. Horrible example.

WITH THAT SAID, I have no problem if Moore starts Week 1 vs Houston. I "TRUST" Sherman and Philbin. But these blanket statements of why Tannehill can't start day 1 are just incorrect and some of them are just flat out false.

The 70s? Grab a pen, he of less football knowledge than he professes- those guys were drafted within the past ten or so years. Harrington in 2002 and he was fourth in the Heisman voting his senior year. How many votes did Tannehill get? Harrington was a Pac 10 player of the year with 2 Bowl game wins. Tannehill did what? 19 starts. Wrong on that one Mike. And Carr? Also 2002 and his best year was nearly 5000 passing yards and 46 TDs. You must have missed that season altogether? You clearly don't know enough about what you're saying to continue this. Stop embarrassing yourself. -EK

[EKnight]

I think his position is clear, in that Tannehill hasn't outperformed Moore enough in preseason (or what Moore did at the end of last year) to start the regular season. I would think he would be OK with Tannehill starting if he didn't stare down receivers, have so many 3 and outs in the 2nd preseason game, etc... He obviously cares what Tannehill does in preseason or else he wouldn't keep saying that he doesn't think he's done enough in preseason to start.

I think you all might be making this much more difficult than it really is.

Thank you. Someone gets it! And I'm obviously not the only one who sees this. The Sun Sentinal ran an article after the game that characterized Tannehill's performance in the following way:
"And for all but one solid drive resulting in the Dolphins' only score of the first half, Tannehill's first start resembled a project in chaos, far from being complete.

The numbers were telling.

Tannehill was 11-of-23 passing for 100 yards. Moore worked with the second-half reserves going 5 of 15 for 57 yards.

Neither quarterback threw a touchdown or an interception.

Tannehill led six drives and four of them resulted in three-and-outs. He was constantly harassed by the Panthers' overpowering pass rush.

And there were times Tannehill's indecision proved costly. He was sacked three times and had four tipped passes that never reached intended targets."
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-08-17/sports/fl-miami-dolphins-carolina-panthers-0818-20120817_1_qb-ryan-tannehill-dolphins-fans-carolina-panthers

A project in chaos- that's not an NFL-ready QB. -EK

[masterfins]

Mike these are public forum message boards. The advice was not to never respond, it was to stop attacking personally and getting off topic (you know, like you just did there). If you post something I disagree with, I'm not going to muzzle myself simply because YOU are the one who posts it. I disputed your points. I was at the game. I saw what you saw. For most of the half, Tannehill looked bad. You can't ignore that, but rave about one drive. The drive didn't happen in a vacuum. -EK

EK you gotta problem. Seek help.

[masterfins]

I've been against Tannehill starting Week #1, mainly because I thought it might hurt his pysche if he started off by losing a couple games and the fans started screaming for his ouster.  However, I'm leaning more towards it being okay becuase of the grasp he has on the offense, and the confidence he seems to show.  Whoever starts at QB, if the defensive secondary doesn't step it up it won't make a difference.

[MikeO]

I've been against Tannehill starting Week #1, mainly because I thought it might hurt his pysche if he started off by losing a couple games and the fans started screaming for his ouster.  However, I'm leaning more towards it being okay becuase of the grasp he has on the offense, and the confidence he seems to show.  Whoever starts at QB, if the defensive secondary doesn't step it up it won't make a difference.

And that's a resonable stance to take and one I really agree with (although I think the fans are pretty smart and wouldn't call for his ouster if it was a rocky start). I am leaning towards starting Tannehill this week but if Moore starts the first half of the year I got no problem with that either. As I have stated I TRUST Sherman/Philbin.  But the breaking out of Heisman results of who finished 4th in the Heisman voting from a decade ago and bringing up QB's drafted some 10 years ago like Joey Harrington as a reason not to start Tannehill is just ludacris. I underastand being Anti-Tannehill like some are and all but openly rooting for him to fail so they can come and say "I told you so", but the off the wall reasons and grasping at strawman arguments to NOT play him is just confusing.  It's OK to be on the Matt Moore bandwagon but just say he is better. Bringing up Joey Harrington, Jamarus Russell, and Byron Leftwich as reasons not to start Tannehill is just downright silly and can't be taken seriously.

[EKnight]

And once again, when Mike is wrong he changes the argument. Wrong about how long ago these QBs were drafted, wrong about Carr and Harrington in college. How is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously when every time you're shown you're incorrect you refuse to acknowledge it? I brought up those names because you've said in previous threads that rookie QBs should start and are expected to and pointed at the success of the limited few who have done well as proof. The fact is most rookie QBs are asked to start before they're ready and the names I have should indicate that. But just as you won't acknowledge you were wrong about Harrington and Carr, I'm sure you'll find a way to change your argument and my words on this too. -EK

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I've been against Tannehill starting Week #1, mainly because I thought it might hurt his pysche if he started off by losing a couple games and the fans started screaming for his ouster.  .

That is a horrible reason to oppose starting a QB. 

What is he five years old?

Matt Cassel said the single best piece of advice he got from Brady during the 2008 season was to NOT read the sports pages or watch the sports news.  Just focus on playing. 

[EKnight]

No argument change at all. I said recently drafted qb's who started right away. Last couple years. Going back to 2002 and such I don't consider recent. 10 years ago isn't recent. Where Joey Harrington finished in the Heisman results means nothing on whether Ryan Tannehill should start Week 1 or not. The NFL of 2002 isn't anything like the NFL of 2012. With rule changes and the way the game has changed and is now played, its a different world. Joey Harrington is not recent! Nor are some of the other names you mentioned. I mean yeah if you go back far enough to the begining of the league yeah you will find guys who started off the bat and failed. That is what you are trying to do. Go for it. Knock yourself out. I disagree and think its silly.

But I never said Rookie QB's are "expected to start from day 1" you have either confused me with someone else who did say that or you are making it up out of thin air. I don't know. But I never said it. And I named like 5 or 6 QB's in the past 2 or 3 years (once again RECENT) that started off the bat and had success as a gage to go by. They are Cam, Flacco, Ryan, Bradford, Sanchez, Dalton. Now, I don't considedr going back 5 or 6 or 10 years as reasonable. You obviously do.

And I have no idea why you are so worked up over this. I have stated numerous times (which you seem to ignore just to keep this debate going for some odd reason) if Miami starts Moore Week 1 vs Houston I have no problem with that as i TRUST Sherman/Philbin to do the right thing.  So why you want to go in circles over this I have no idea. My opinion as of 08/19/2012 would be to start Tannehill. Come Friday I might change that. But the thing is at the end of the day I TRUST our coaching staff and stand by any call they make.

That's just it though, Mike. I DO consider 10 years a reasonable amount of time. Just because we disagree on that, doesn't mean you're correct. Using ridiculous hyperbole about the 70s or the start of the league doesn't make you look more correct, it makes your argument look weaker because you have to find something non-related to attack. Further, you can't say, "those guys weren't as good as Tannehill in college," and then when you're proven flat 100% WRONG about one, and shown the other was a Heisman finalist, suddenly ignore the facts and change the argument. Your first stance was, "Half of those names WEREN'T better college QB's than Tannehill. That is a statement that is made by someone who clearly doesn't watch college football and is laughable to those that follow the college game. David Carr played at Fresno and his best year was like 2,500 yards and that was vs lesser competition than Tannehill got in the Big 12. Joey Harrington at Oregon most yards was like 2,300 or so and most TD's in a year was like 20." Now that you're wrong, you change the argument to "Where Joey Harrington finished in the Heisman results means nothing on whether Ryan Tannehill should start Week 1 or not." What's that you're always saying- you can't make this stuff up? -EK

[EKnight]

Talk again in December and we will see who is right or wrong. I am confident in my stance.

So...come December 1, I can expect you to admit you were wrong about Carr, and that you don't know as much about college football as you profess? Got it! I'll mark the calendar. -EK

[EKnight]

For a dozen posts, you refuse to acknowledge that you are completely wrong about Carr and Harrington, and you started again with the insults when you thought you were correct, yet I'm not being rational? Your credibility goes down with every post. Just man up and admit you were wrong. I doubt you can. -EK