I didnt think tannenhill was first round material but I don't see this as news worthy. He's a rookie qb before his first training camp.
This. When we drafted him we knew he wasn't going to start, especially early in the year. This guy is a guy you have to let sit on the bench for at least half a season Right now, Tannehill is a college quarterback competing against guys who have started and won NFL games. He needs the game to slow down
I dont know, I think this situation is different from any other rookie QB since I can remember. The guy has had a 2-3 year head start on the offense over Moore and Garrard. He should be able to come in and at least compete for the job. If guys like Dalton, Ponder, Locker, etc. can come in their first years and have success when they didnt even have offseason activities, this guy should be ahead of the curve. I think it is alarming that he isn't. I'm not saying if the guy doesnt start that it is alarming or a failure, I'm more concerned with the fact that he's not even playing well enough to be considered in the competition.
He only played QB at A&M for a year and a half. And sure, he has a head start on knowing the offense, although it is not an exact replica, but that does not equate to being able to run it in the NFL. Andy Dalton was a 4 year starter at TCU. Ponder was a 3 year starter at FSU. Locker was a 4 year starter at UW. Not making excuses for the guy but again we didn't expect him to compete when we drafted him. If recent history has taught us anything, it is the importance of slow-cooking a QB a la Eli Manning, Aaron Rodgers, etc. It isn't even training camp yet. If he hasn't improved at all after that then I will start to get worried.
I'm not sure I'm understanding all of these jokes about David Garrard A career 89-54 TD to INT ratio, 85 QB rating all while playing for the Jaguars and halted due to injury Not saying he is a top-tier QB by any means but at what point in his career was he ever a bad QB?
I just do not believe that at all. Recent history? Recent history tells you that the guy should be able to come in right away and play (Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Christian Ponder, Blaine Gabbert, Jake Locker, Sam Bradford, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, Matthew Stafford, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco and the list goes on). Plus other QBs from this year (Andrew Luck, RGIII and Brandon Weedon) have already competed and won jobs. All that without knowing the offense coming in. So I'm not sure what recent history you're looking at that tells you to "slow cook" QBs.
Doesn't matter to me in the slightest what you believe. He was a project pick and was picked so high due to the importance of the QB position. Cam Newton+Dalton+Ponder+Locker+Bradford+Freeman+Stafford+Ryan=0 Playoff wins. Sanchez and Flacco have the wins but I seriously doubt you are envious of them...correct me if I'm wrong Sorry but I want my QB to get the playoff wins and the rings, and recent history has shown us that letting your QB take his lumps (Aaron Rodgers, Eli Manning), is the best way in my opinion when you don't have a good team to support a growing QB. I don't need him to put up 500 yards in a loss come day one. That means nothing to me. Who cares if he can't beat Matt Moore or David Garrard. Who did Tom Brady beat out in TC?
Rodgers and Manning sat because they were playing behind two future hall of famers. Your guy cant even show enough to be considered competition to two scrubs. But keep ignoring the grand canyon like difference.
I would also like to point out the ridiculous difference in wait time for Eli and Rodgers as well, they are horrid comparisons. Eli waited like 6 games. Rodgers waited 4 years to step on the field because he had a HOF'er in front of him. Tannehill doesn't have the luxury of that much time to sit and wait.
First off I'd like to say I was a little drunk when I typed out that last post. 4th of July and all that. :beer: 2nd...I just do not understand where you are coming from. You are saying he hasn't shown enough after OTAs and drills without pads on to be in the competition. Who cares? 3rd...They aren't "scrubs". They might not be good. But they would give Fitzpatrick a QB battle Forget the Eli and Rodgers thing. Who says he doesn't have the luxury of time? We just hired a new coach. Do we have a shot at winning the division this year? I say hell no. So what's the rush? If he beats out Moore/Garrard in TC then thats fantastic...He is ahead of expectations. But if he doesn't start until later in the year or even next year that is no big deal to me. I have dealt with enough losing to take one more losing year if it means developing a QB properly. Don't see why everybody has this need to make a proclamation right now all the time. Just chill I mean for fucks sake...this was in the article after all:
This is no news to me ... Matt Moore specifically played well enough last year to not have me as desperately concerned at QB this year. The West Coast Offense seems to suit Garrard by the looks of OTAs so far ... but then again we will see when the pads come on in training camp. Tannehill knows the offense and this has been voiced already by a number of vets including Garrard, but the speed of the game is simply too much for him right now, which is not to be unexpected. Knowledge will get you far, but until you can process things at the an efficient rate without thinking too much ... it is not good enough. Once the kid gets used to things (and I think he will), I think he has the physical tools to give him a chance to do well, whether he will or not is remains to be seen
