Live Blog for the first game of the season

[MikeO]

He had MORE college starts than Cam Newton and Mark Sanchez. WTF is it with you and college starts. It's a meaningless thing to judge things by.

[EKnight]

What is it with college starts? What kind of redshirt senior has only 20 of them? Every drawback on the guy in terms of his scouting report was lack of experience. He doesn't have the talent that a Cam Newton has to overcome that. Going back to April, Mike Mayock said Tannehill "will get eaten alive" if he has to play in 2012. No one outside of Miami felt like he had the experience or talent to start this year. That's what it is with me and his college starts- he lacks the experience at QB to be successful, and further, lacks the talent to overcome that. 3-13 is 3-13 whether he sits and develops or gets killed physically and mentally every week. He's off to a pretty good indicator that maybe sittin him for a year may have been a better decision. -EK

[miamid45]

You look at Alex Smith and think about how he was almost run out of SF.......but with time and a solid supporting cast he arguably has been one of the better Qbs in the NFL from last season and including today...staying with and even outperforming Rodgers.

Tannehill should be judged after a few more starts....meaning if by week 4, his stat line consistently shows too many batted down balls, and INTS, then put the clipboard in his hands.  Until then, I think he will show improvement and win us a few games.  Oakland and Houston are 2 different teams on both sides of the ball.....the latter being elite.

By the way...
Stafford 3 INTS
Vick.      4 INTS
Fitz.       3 INTS
Weeden. 4 INTS
Luck.       3 INTS
Newton.   2 INTS / game in progress

He wasn't alone in having a less than stellar performance.

[Spider-Dan]

He didn't do anything in college to warrant a first round pick.

Perhaps you should go tell that to the professional NFL talent evaluators, who rated him higher than last year's #1 overall pick.

Clearly he wasn't as good as some people believed or he would have been a clear cut starter from the get go.

This is among the most ridiculous statements you've ever made, on multiple levels:

1) Ryan Tannehill started the very first regular-season game after being drafted and you're bashing him for... not earning the starting job fast enough?  Or perhaps you're just bashing him because the coaching staff actually made him earn the spot, instead of just handing to him on draft day?

2) Whether or not you are handed the starting job on day 1 has very little to do with how good you are and everything to do with how bad your team's QB situation is.  Eli Manning did not start on day 1.  Neither did Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers, or Jay Cutler.

Hope you folks are stocking up on crow, because I'm telling you he isn't the answer and sooner or later one of two things happens- you all see it and can admit you're wrong and I was right, OR he turns oh to be the team savior and wins a ton of games, at which point I'll gladly admit I was wrong.

So basically, if Tannehill wins a bunch of rings and/or makes multiple Pro Bowls, then you're wrong, but otherwise, you're right.  What a bold and risky position you have taken!

Using this same logic, the Dolphins have drafted, what, five "good" players in the last 35 years?

[EKnight]

When did I say he needed to do any of those things? You looooove taking the Reductio ad absurdum approach, but honestly- it's tired. Get some new material.  If he wins a ton of games over the next, say, three years- and by a ton, I mean more than 30, which would be 30-18 in three years- I'd consider myself wrong. If he's, say 18-30, or if he doesn't even make it that far (this would be my guess) then I'm not. -EK

[stealth3ltt]

I think everyone is flying off the handle.  I was the person who said they should pull Tannehill, and its not because I think he is the worst player ever.  The reasons why I said pull him was becasue we were only down by 17pts and we had lots of time to try and get back into the game.  Also after throwing 3 picks I was more concerned with his confidence.   he was getting beaten on pretty hard and maybe throwing Moore into the game could get the team moving.   But next game start Tannehill.   I like Tannehill and his skills i just didnt want the rookie getting thrown to the wolves.  

[Spider-Dan]

If he wins a ton of games over the next, say, three years- and by a ton, I mean more than 30, which would be 30-18 in three years- I'd consider myself wrong. If he's, say 18-30, or if he doesn't even make it that far (this would be my guess) then I'm not.

So in other words, he needs to average 10 wins a year (0.625 win pct) in his first three years for you to retract your opinion (issued after one half of the first game) that he is not an NFL quality starter (read: a bust).

Here are some totally unrelated statistics for the consumption of the viewing public:

Mark Sanchez- 27-20 over his first three years (average of 9 wins per year, 0.574 win pct)
Tim Tebow- 8-6 over his first two years (0.571 win pct)

I'm sure that your publicly stated evaluations of those two players (relative to their win percentages) is perfectly consistent with the expectations you just laid on Tannehill, right?

[EKnight]

My publicly stated opinion that Sanchez sucked the second half of last year and that I got caught up in the Tebow hype and completely overrated him as a QB? Guess you missed those posts. Just stop, Spider. You have no chance WHATSOEVER of convincing me of your POV. Tannehill is not NFL ready. I don't care what you say, how you say it, or what previous posts you bring up- it isn't going to change my opinion of him. So stop wasting your time. -EK

[Spider-Dan]

I actually have no expectation that your position will be consistent, because I vividly remember that you were trashing Sanchez (during the FIRST half of last season) until I pointed out that any evaluation that grades Tebow as good would have to grade Sanchez as great.  Then you immediately turned on a dime and started praising Sanchez.

So as far as this relates to Ryan Tannehill, I fully expect that you will trash him until such time that it becomes inconvenient for some new argument that you're in, at which point you'll pull a 180 and "change your mind" to avoid having to abandon some other position you've taken.  I am doing this to point out to astute readers that while there will be detractors to Tannehill, some of the points being made against him are not entirely consistent and should be weighed as such.

As for my own position on Tannehill: I neither proclaim him a savior, nor a bust.  I say that (given the position at which he was drafted, not his performance in college or any other such nonsense) Miami needs to give him at least two full seasons before they can properly evaluate him.  Chad Henne got more than that, and he was a second-rounder.

[miamid45]

Well said!

[MikeO]

Preach Spider!

[EKnight]

Shocker! Spider's bandwagon chimes in. There were three or four other people who also said the loss was on Tannehill and that he stunk Sunday. The "Shame of the Game" thread is predominantly naming Tannehill, but as usual, I'm the one Spider and Mike go after. If anyone else said the exact same thing, you'd have nothing to say- and your silence toward others validates that. Credibility? Zero. -EK