Shame of the Game @Houston

[Brian Fein]

So, by that token Ireland gets the blame for every loss this season, because we have shitty players?

Kind of a cop out.

Tannehill is the ONLY choice.  Tipped balls was a problem in preseason and he's done nothing to improve.  It will continue to be a problem if he doesn't address it.

[EKnight]

So, by that token Ireland gets the blame for every loss this season, because we have shitty players?

Kind of a cop out.

Tannehill is the ONLY choice.  Tipped balls was a problem in preseason and he's done nothing to improve.  It will continue to be a problem if he doesn't address it.

Eagerly awaiting Spider and Mike's responses to this absolutely on point analysis. -EK

[Phishfan]

I am torn between Tannehill and the o-line. It certainly looked like there was quite a bit of staring down received, but CF is right. The 0-line needs to engage the d-line in order to keep their hands down.

[Dave Gray]

I am not letting Tanny off the hook, but if the D-line is able to jump up to knock down balls, that's bad.  The O-line is responsible for pushing against the D-line so that they can't get their hands up, much less jump. 

This might also have to do with the move to the west coast offense, which is faster passes, with less time for those passing lanes to open up.

Either way, the team needs to address this as their #1 priority.

[Spider-Dan]

Eagerly awaiting Spider and Mike's responses to this absolutely on point analysis. -EK

Do you recognize the difference between "I think Tannehill had the worst game of any Dolphin today" and "Tannehill is not the solution at QB"?

I have no objection to the statement that Tannehill is the SOTG.  I do have an objection to claims that Tannehill is a bust after a whopping two quarters of regular-season play in the NFL.  And to my knowledge, you're the only person on this forum that's making that claim.

In fact, I would like to see how many of the people who voted Tannehill as SOTG (I count Dave, Cathal, BigDaddyFin, and maybe Landshark and Phishfan) also agree with your assessment (after less than a full game!) that Tannehill was a wasted pick.

Let's get our cards on the table.

[EKnight]

Sample size of this board is not a very compelling argument. Before he was drafted there were multiple people in the media who thought Miami was nuts to reach for him at 8. AFTER he was drafted there were multiple people saying he shouldn't start this year. One of several opinion pieces from outside this board:

"Ryan Tannehill: Week 1 Struggles Show Rookie Is Not Ready for Big Stage
By Rob Goldberg on September 9, 2012

Miami Dolphins head coach Joe Philbin might have made the wrong decision by starting Ryan Tannehill at quarterback in his first career game.

The rookie from Texas A&M was named the Week 1 starter after beating out incumbent starter Matt Moore during the preseason. Veteran David Garrard was also in the mix until he got injured.

Unfortunately, Tannehill struggled in his NFL debut. In a 30-10 defeat to the Houston Texans, the quarterback threw three interceptions and had zero touchdowns. He finished with a respectable 219 passing yards, but it was on 36 attempts in which he only completed 20 of them. His overall quarterback rating was a 39.0.

What made things worse was the fact that he could not get any aspect of the offense going throughout the game. The unit managed a field goal in the first quarter but were shut out for the rest of the game. A 72-yard punt return by Marcus Thigpen resulted in the only touchdown for Miami.

A poor first game is not uncommon, especially against a Super Bowl contender like the Texans. However, the rookie looked completely overmatched and not ready to lead his team.

Tannehill is hurt by a lack of experience at the position. He was a receiver at Texas A&M until partway through his junior season. When he became a full-time quarterback, he showed great potential with his arm strength and athleticism. However, he also struggled with accuracy at times and showed poor decision-making with 15 interceptions his senior year.

For these reasons, many believed the Dolphins selected the youngster with the No. 8 overall pick of the draft as more of a project. He had talent, but he was too raw to play early in his rookie year if at all.
However, the Miami coaching staff threw him on the field and are forcing him to learn as he goes. This will not only hurt the team as it tries to win games, but it might hurt the quarterback's confidence as well.

If the team turns to Matt Moore, Tannehill can learn on the sidelines while getting limited playing time. Moore performed admirably last season with an 87.1 quarterback rating and a 16-9 touchdown to interception ratio.

Either way, it does not seem like the Dolphins will be competitive in many games this season. At least they can help set up the future by bringing the rookie along slowly.

Tannehill will certainly get other chances to redeem himself. Miami better hope the rest of his career goes more smoothly."

And from ESPN.com:
". It still makes you wonder why Dolphins coach Joe Philbin didn't start veteran Matt Moore until he sorted out what he had at wide receiver. Only nine of Tannehill's 20 completions went to wide receivers. Tannehill continues to have trouble with passes being deflected at the line of scrimmage."

There's a massive world of media outside of this board. In it, you are likely to find that my opinion is not an isolated one. My opinion on Tannehill was that he was a bad pick from the start, had a poor preseason, and his opening game did nothing to change that. Riddle me this- what has he shown you to convince you that he's NOT going to be a bust? Or is this yet another case of you arguing with me simply because it's me? -EK

[Spider-Dan]

I read quite a bit of sports related media.

I have yet to see any journalist declare Ryan Tannehill (or any other player ever) to be a failed pick after two quarters of regular-season football.

And as for what Tannehill has shown me to prove that he won't be a bust:  sorry, I'm not in the habit of anointing a player as "failure" or "legend" after one game.  I'm sure that most reasonably sane Colts or Redskins fans would agree.

[EKnight]

BS or you're forgetting that there were many people saying he was a failed pick BEFORE he played a game because he's not an NFL ready QB and shouldn't have been a top 10 pick. Nice way to dodge my question though- not one shred of compelling evidence that he was worth his pick, but you'll continue your argument because it's with me. He had a crap preseason when he played against first stringers, won the starting job because one guy was injured and the other was a career back-up who flat stinks, but he's clearly been worth the high draft investment so far. -EK

[masterfins]

Offensive Line.  QB needed better protecction.  All rookie QB's are going to have their three INT games this year, RGIII and Luck included.  Let's not over analyse week #1.

[Cathal]

Just to set the record straight for me (not like it matters), I would give him the SOTG but I still think he's the QB of the forseeable future and I want to see him play the entire year.

[Spider-Dan]

BS or you're forgetting that there were many people saying he was a failed pick BEFORE he played a game because he's not an NFL ready QB and shouldn't have been a top 10 pick.

Again, there's a huge difference between:

"I think Tannehill was picked too high" or "Tannehill is a project QB that will need time to get up to speed in the NFL"

vs.

 "Tannehill is not an NFL-caliber QB"

Nice way to dodge my question though- not one shred of compelling evidence that he was worth his pick, but you'll continue your argument because it's with me.

Well, yes... if you continue to say stupid things, I will refute them.  I mean, if you want "compelling evidence" that Tannehill was worth his pick, I suppose I'd say the same thing I said the day he was drafted:

According to ESPN's 2012 NFL Draft page, Tannehill graded out at a 94.  (For comparison, Luck was a 99, RG3 was a 97, and Weeden was an 86.)  Here's how the first-round QBs from some previous drafts have graded out:

2011
Newton (1): 93
Locker (8): 90
Gabbert (10): 96
Ponder (12): 85

2010
Bradford (1): 97
Tebow (25): 78

2009
Stafford (1): 96
Sanchez (5): 95
Freeman (17): 85

So I guess you could say MIA got a QB that graded out higher than Cam Newton!  Or worse than Mark Sanchez and Blaine Gabbert.  Hmmm.

In any case, picking a QB graded 94 at the #8 slot definitely isn't a reach, and could be considered slightly (very slightly) exceeding expectations for the slot.

But let's keep one thing clear: I will not evaluate the success or failure of Tannehill as a draft pick after one game.  You are the only one engaging in that absurdity.

[EKnight]

Apparently I'm not. I listed at least two other national writers who have done the same. Or do you discount any information that doesn't fit your bias? You are aware, too, that one of the knocks on him coming out of college was that he consistently gets balls tipped and batted at the line, right? People who knew his play in college pointed this out- 8 INTs of tips and bats lasts year- which is one of many reasons why he's not an NFL quality QB. What's it going to say for him when he's benched a month in? Will the coaches be wrong then too in their evaluation just because they will have disagreed with you that it's too soon to evaluate his performance? -EK

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I will not evaluate the success or failure of Tannehill as a draft pick after one game

Why not?  I am ready to declare that Drew Brees is washed up and ought retire based on solely on the fact he had a lower completion rate than Tannehill this week. 

[EKnight]

Tannehill week one total QB rating: 3.1. The only starter in the entire league worse than him was Weeden, and at least HIS team kept it close. 3.1... And people have the audacity to go SOTG on anyone else? Wtf? -EK

[Spider-Dan]

Apparently I'm not. I listed at least two other national writers who have done the same.

No, you did not.

The first writer you cited (Rob Goldberg) said, "If the team turns to Matt Moore, Tannehill can learn on the sidelines while getting limited playing time."  The second writer (John Clayton) said, "It still makes you wonder why Dolphins coach Joe Philbin didn't start veteran Matt Moore until he sorted out what he had at wide receiver."

Both of those statements (which strongly imply that Tannehill should be given the nod at starter, just not right now) are light-years removed from your claims that Tannehill is a failed pick and should not have been selected by the Dolphins.

Your personal bias (along with wishful thinking?) is twisting the reasonable statements of others into crazy knee-jerk reactionary moves.  When other posters say, "Tannehill had a horrible game" or columnists say, "Tannehill is starting much sooner than he should be," that is not remotely the same thing as saying "Tannehill is a bust and should never have been drafted."

Reading comprehension matters.