The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

A top-ten draft pick who was being counted to to turn the fortunes of a franchise in a rut, Ryan Tannehill failed to live up to Miami's expectations and sabotaged the team during the seven years he was here.  With a different quarterback who could play better, Miami certainly would have more success.  It is entirely possible that they could have won the Super Bowl with better quarterback play.

In those seven years, Miami only won ten games in a season twice.  They made the playoffs only once.  He failed to win a playoff game.  Everybody on this site has as many playoff wins as Ryan Tannehill.  Quarterbacks with more playoff wins over that time period include Brock Osweiler, Matt Schaub, Colin Kapernick, and Blake Bortles.

He finishes his Miami career with a losing record, despite being given countless opportunities to prove that he could win.  Coach after Coach tried to turn him into a winner.  None succeeded. 

Tannehill supporters make arguments about his supporting cast, but those arguments do not hold water.  If Tannehill was really a good quarterback, he would have won anyway.  To blame other factors for Miami's failures during his tenure here is simply making excuses.  The reality is that success is solely the result of the talent of the individual, which is something Tannehill lacked. 

Get the fuck outta here with this shit, Ryan was only a small part of the problem.  Him never having an offensive line his entire career is worse.

I was not a huge Tannehill fan, but you are ridiculous.  It isn't his fault that the Dolphins spent a high first round pick on what was essentially a Wide Receiver trying to learn how to play QB.  We'll never know if he was any good or not because he had ZERO offensive line talent during his entire tenure here.  He was a middle of the road QB who if he had a decent offensive line might have been a slightly above average QB.   But to talk about him being in the Ring of Dishonor says a lot more about your understanding of football than it does about Tannehill's talent (or lack of). 

That is just making excuses.  His failure is on him.   

As yours is on you.

Things are going pretty good for me right now, so I don't know what you are talking about. 

This thread says nothing relevant about Tanny.  But speaks volumes about the football knowledge of a poster.

Just using your logic, which you so eloquently stated in the Superbowl 53 thread


Thank you for changing my understanding of football.  I now see that Miami's failures during the Tannehill era were entirely the fault of Ryan Tannehill.  If he was successful, he would have won no matter what his teammates or his opponents were like.

This is also why Marino is the 30th best quarterback of all time.

So if Tannehill is 100% responsible for the Dolphins' record over the last 7 years, does that mean that Joe Philbin and Adam Gase carry 0% responsibility?  I've never heard anyone say that Belichick deserves no credit for the Patriots' success with Tom Brady, but I guess that is your position.

My own position is that there are many factors, and they all contribute.  Brady's record is not 100% luck, nor is it 0% luck.  Tannehill's record is not 100% due to his play, nor is it 0% due to his play.  But I suppose that viewpoint may be too complicated for some to understand.

Mark the tape, I agree with you 100%

I was referring only to the stuff you post here.  I would never say anything insulting about you or your life outside of TDMMC.  I don't take anything seriously enough here to sway my opinion about anyone personally. 

Anyway, Tannehill is definitely not ring of dishonor worthy. Unfortunately, he’ll just be another nameless body on the side of the road that has been the Dolphins’ arduous journey in replacing Marino.

Tannehill was the best QB we've had since Marino barring one miracle season of Wildcat & Chad Pennington. Regardless of his losses ... he is so far above of being out on the Ring of Dishonor it isn't even funny.

Side Note: I hate that Penny gets so much credit for that season when in fact it wasn't until the Wildcat that things turned around. Miami went 10-3 over the remaining 13 games of the season, finishing the year 11-5 and making the wildcat forever famous in the NFL.

Yeah, Pennington doesn’t deserve credit for that.  I was a play designed specially to not involve the QB. 

Adjusting for era, Jay Fiedler was probably better than Tannehill.  But Tanny is the next best.

^^^^

I said that earlier and got ridiculed and lambasted.

Jay Fiedler has more playoff wins than Ryan Tannehill.                                    

On a side note, Bill Belichick single-handedly cost New England the Super Bowl against Philly.

Pennington's play in 2008 did have something to do with Miami's success.  I think threw about eight interceptions that year.  

Edit:  It should be pointed out that in "Replacing Marino" all the quarterbacks who have replaced him have the same number of Super Bowl wins as Marino.  In reality, it should be replacing Greise.  He is the only Miami quarterback to win a Super Bowl.  In fact, he won two. 

I completely disagree as did Joe rose this morning. Put Tanny on that team and he would have won more games. Fielder could not throw outside without getting intercepted as his arm wasn't very strong. In fact not having a decent QB and Wanny's 2 runs and a pass play calling killed what was otherwise a very good team.

The way that I remember it is Fiedler was probably the best QB since Marino, and Tannehill the best since Fiedler.

Fiedler's supporting cast on offense was total garbage until they got Ricky, and his results with Ricky were better than Tanny's.

I have the unpopular opinion of thinking that, purely based on talent, Tannehill is probably a top 15 QB in the league.

Unfortunately, he can't stay healthy and he's too expensive.  We're so much better with him, than without him, though.

^exactly, he's a little over mediocre.

Perhaps somebody could explain why when I posted that Fiedler was better than Tannehill, everybody asked if I was on drugs, but when Spider posts it, everybody accepts it as true?

I'm not buying it either. Fiedler was better then he was given credit, but so is Tannehill and Tannehill is more talented then Fiedler ever was. Fiedler may have been smarter, but Fiedler would also get a little over confident at times and make horrible decisions at really inopportune times. The Dolphins defensive talent for Fiedler was way better than Tannehill's. Fiedler was a pure game manager. Tannehill should have been and could have been very good at that in my opinion but unfortunately they never had the defense for it under Tannehill. Too much emphasis is placed on the offensive side of the ball now and Tannehill got most of the blame. Had Fiedler played in this pass happy era he would have been over exposed and drummed out of the league in short order.

Wow, lots to unpack here.

1. Just because nobody has responded to Spider doesn’t mean that everyone or even anyone agrees with his assessment.  Likewise you should not assume anyone agrees with your assessment that Belichick singlehanded cost the Patriots a super bowl nor that Griese is superior to Marino. 

2. While I sometimes  disagree with Spiders opinion, typically it based on a logical and rational foundation.  His reasoning Fieldier is sound.  I disagree with it, but it has a consistent logic. Your reasoning is almost blithering stupidity.  So often it is your rationale rather than your conclusion that is the problem.

3. There is totally of posting.  It is not one post but 100s that have led me to realize that your opinions are often moronic.  Spiders are well thought out.

I think that saying Fiedler is better than Tannehill is pretty crazy, IMO.

Fiedler wasn't a very good player.  He was a game manager and you could limit his mistakes and let your defense win the game.  He was serviceable, but he couldn't produce offense.  He couldn't make the throws.  He would throw pick 6s on quick out routes on a fairly regular basis because he just didn't have the arm-strength.

And I was and continue to be a Fiedler defender.  We weren't losing because of him.  But he couldn't make throws to make people better.

Those were the years where we'd win games 9-6.  We had Madison, Surtain, Zach, Jason Taylor...we had a rockin' defense and didn't need to run an offense that scored points.

I mean...just on the eye test alone, Tanny is a better player, for sure, but the numbers also bear this out. 

Fiedler QB Rating‎: ‎77.1   Completion percentage‎: ‎58.7     TD/INT  66/63
Tannehill QB Rating: 87.0     Completion percentage: 62.8      TD/INT 123/75

Great post Dave!

Dave, I don't think you are accounting for era.  Tannehill has two 4000yd seasons; Joe Montana, John Elway, and Jim Kelly have one 4000yd season COMBINED.  The passing game is simply much different today.  Look at their performance relative to the rest of the league at the time, and I suspect Tannehill is actually WORSE than Fiedler.

Now, if you want to say that Fiedler had a defense, fine... but Fiedler's supporting cast on offense was TERRIBLE until Ricky arrived, and Wanny quickly ran Ricky into the ground.

edit: OK, let's do this.  I went on PFR and pulled up both QBs' rank among NFL QBs for each season.  Keep in mind that Fiedler didn't meet qualifying stats for the leaderboard in 2004 (which was his worst year) and that had he qualified, his averages would be lower.  But I think the point still comes across.

Passer rating
RT: 27, 24, 14, 21, 12, 20 (avg= 19.67)
JF: 24, 13, 16, 23 (avg= 19.0)

Comp%
RT: 22, 22, 5, 21, 7, 23 (avg= 16.67)
JF: 24, 13, 15, 23 (avg= 18.75)

TD%
RT: 30, 20, 14, 23, 11, 6 (avg= 17.3)
JF: 17, 12, 7, 18 (avg= 13.5)

INT%
RT: 17, 24, 9, 13, 26, 27 (avg= 19.33)
JF: 26, 26, 19, 25 (avg= 24.0)

ANY/A
RT: 26, 28, 21, 24, 17, 30 (avg= 24.33)
JF: 17, 10, 10, 19 (avg= 14.0)

So they were around the same in passer rating and comp%, Tanny was significantly better in INT%, and Fiedler was significantly better in TD% and ANY/A.  Tanny's teams had SIGNIFICANTLY more offensive talent than Fiedler's.  If he was a better QB, this comparison should have been a blowout.

This was because of the rule change after the 2003 season.  

Well put, Spider.

Hoodie,

The reason I say Belichick single-handedly cost the Patriots the Super Bowl against the Eagles is because he benched Butler, and refused to put him in even while Foles was carving up his defense.  

I wonder if he did it because he felt he needed to level the playing field after the atrocious decision making of the Falcons the year before.

I mean, it's one thing to bench one of the best cornerbacks in the game, but to not put him AT ALL, I mean, something's going on there.

My logic is usually not blitheringly stupid.  My logic for ranking Greise ahead of Marino is purely based on what you told me.  Greise succeeded.  Marino failed.  The former has two rings, the latter has none. 

Here's what I posted earlier about Fiedler and Tannehill

Fiedler:  1 Division title, 2 playoff appearances, 1 playoff win
Tannehill: 0 1 and 0

In hindsight, this flawed because the real numbers should look like this:

Both Tannehill and Fiedler have one playoff appearance in the Brady Era. 

Marino had lots of talent surrounding him, but he never won the Super Bowl, maybe he belongs in the ROD  ::)

Not gonna lie, that was pretty funny.   Pretty much spot on, but funny also.

It's one thing to suggest that Jay Fiedler might have been a better QB than Ryan Tannehill. It's something COMPLETELY different to suggest RT should be in the Ring of Dishonor. Not really that hard to figure out.

If you wanted a real discussion, you should have asked if Adam Gase belongs in the ROD.  He didn't deliver AND he's on the most hated team.  Fuck the Jets.

^^^Cosigned, sincerely Pondwater

It is not Adam Gase's fault Tannehill was a failure.

It is not Dave Wannestedt's fault Fiedler was a failure.

It is not Jimmy Johnson's fault Marino was a failure.

It is not Don Shula's fault Marino was a failure. 

If a first ballot HoF coach/GM can’t put together a super bowl winning team around a first ballot HoF QB then at least one of them is overrated.

If Shula retired in 1982 he still would have been a first ballot HOF coach, so I am unsure how anything he did during the Marino era could have made him "overrated."
And Marino's lack of rings is always baked into any evaluation of him, including the evaluation to induct him into the HOF on the first ballot.  So I don't see how he could be overrated, either.

Marino is a failure, can we just leave it at that?

Of course we could look at other factors involved, but that would just be making excuses. 

The coach has nothing to do with it.

Belichick sucked as a coach before Brady.  He sucks as a coach with Brady.  He makes so many dumb decisions.  The Patriots could easily have won five Super Bowls in a row with a different coach.  Even in the 28-3 game, he was dumb, trying an onside kick when everybody was expecting it and one more Falcons score would have sealed the game.

Shula was a great coach, if you can ignore the horrible things he did to his players, which quite frankly, should have him serving prison time.  If an employer did things like that to their employees, they'd be in SERIOUS legal trouble

"Imagine how many more Super Bowls Brady would have won with a good coach" is, if nothing else, an innovative take.

Let's look at BB in the playoffs the last several years.

2014:  Letting the clock run at the goal line, although they had only two timeouts anyway, so that is a little understandable

2015:  Going for it twice in Denver territory.  Kick one or both of those field goals, and I have to endure another disgusting Patriots Super Bowl victory

2016:  The onside kick when it was 28-9.  That should have put the game away for the Falcons, but like they have so many times, the defense turned into the 1985 Bears defense.

2017:  Benching Butler, costing the Patriots the game.

The question is not whether Bill Belichick, Don Shula, or anyone else has had a mistake-free career.  All of them have made errors.
The question is: which mistake-free coach are you comparing them to?

Which coach has made fewer mistakes than Belichick, and how many rings does that coach have?

Words fail me. 

Mofo lives in lala land.

This is something I've wondered about though. If Marino had a running back. He probably would have ended up with a couple of rings himself. I've heard comments from Marino that sounded like he was too sure of himself as a QB, Too cocky, to even have thought or admitted that he need a RB to balance the load and game plan. And I've heard other things too, like Marino had told Shula not to draft RB's. Don't need one, I can do it all myself etc... and Shula bought into it.
Is any of this right, or am I getting stories and facts mixed up? Because if that's the case, Marino shorted himself, and shame on Shula for letting his QB run the show.
Let me be clear on this though. I am not advocating for these two to be in ROD.

Look no farther than John Elway for what could have been. He finally got a defense and running game and finished his career with two Super Bowls. Otherwise he would have been just like Marino.  Marino had great stats but  never had the running game or defense.

Or maybe unlucky? Marino/Shula got to the SuperBowl one year and the AFC championship the next year. Then never made it back partially because there was a team that went to 4 straight superbowls in that span. New England has been fortunate that there haven't been any other dynasties during their dynasty. If there was maybe we'd be talking about them instead of the Patriots.

Also because Shula the GM wasn't anywhere near as good as Shula the coach.   And even drafting mediocre players, Shula the coach won 9-10 games a year routinely, which put him in a bad draft position.

I've told you before Hoodie, In that time span the Dolphins had to get past the Bills, which had a HOF coach, HOF QB, HOF RB, HOF WR, and HOF DE.  Not to mention plenty of other talented players.  A team that no other AFC team could get past to the SB for four consecutive years.  So to say Shula or Marino were over rated because they didn't win a SB is stupid.

Again that's just making excuses.

See if you folks can wrap your heads around this logic.  Although, given that some people on here can't even watch a video and notice something obvious, I have my doubts.

Marino is the 31st best quarterback of all time

Proof:

Winning a Super Bowl = success

Not winning a Super Bowl = failure

success > failure

Therefore Marino ranks 31st among quarterbacks. 

Next, see if you folks can wrap your heads around THIS logic:

(dolphins4life had a very poor rebuttal to the above post, but he decided to delete it.  So I'll be nice and mostly-delete my reply.)

Let me repost it with better logic.

Comparing quarterbacks is different than comparing coaches.

The one season Belichick coached the Patriots before Brady, the Patriots went 5-11.

The fact that the Patriots have won six Super Bowls under him is not a credit to him, it is solely a credit to Brady.

I have NEVER EVER heard anybody use the GOAT term towards BB.

All dolphins quarterbacks except Greise and Morrall are failures

Adam Gase is NOT a failure.  

Can I see your reply now, Spider? 

I'm sure it will produce a great deal of laughter in me.

What is the goal of a head coach in the NFL?  Is it something OTHER than winning the Super Bowl?
Success is success.

The head coach has far more control over the outcome of a game than the quarterback, who can only affect play less the half the time. So if anything, your (absurd and wrong) logic should be placing all the credit and blame at the foot of the head coach, NOT the quarterback.  The quarterback has ABSOLUTELY NO INPUT WHATSOEVER on how the defense plays.

I used to feel sorry for D4L, now I just wish I could block him.

He's trolling at this point.  Even he can't be this clueless.

Just curious,

Are you trolling when you make blatantly false claims about bad calls?  Or when you say things happened that actually did not? (Like an challenged completion to Edelmen in the AFC title game.  There was no such play.  It was to Hogan).       

Are you trolling when you say Tom Brady is a cheater?

It was a mistake, all white people look the same to me.

Tom Brady is a cheater, this is known. 

You’re the best, man. LOL

I've read "Dan Marino is a failure" and Bill Belichick sucked before Brady / is overrated.

This thread is where dreams and hopes go to die.

Jay Fiedler played with a lot of heart, and I liked that goofy bastard, and he gave some great moments ( Denver, Oakland come to mind ) but he wasn’t a great QB. A good QB could have taken those teams far.

Tannehill could have been a good QB, but Miami ruined him. Poor guy was hit all the time and until the injury was tough as hell. Talent wise he was the best quarterback since Marino, but the Dolphins are incompetent.