Ryan Tannehill to start the season as the number 1 QB

[EKnight]

How did Miami finish with a "high ranked" offense? They were 15th overall. That's NOT high ranked. It doesn't matter how often or in what way you claim they were. 15th is middle of the pack. -EK

[Spider-Dan]

How did Miami finish with a "high ranked" offense? They were 15th overall. That's NOT high ranked. It doesn't matter how often or in what way you claim they were. 15th is middle of the pack.

Miami finished with a 20th-ranked scoring offense, and no one said they were high-ranked.

Oh, are you going to respond that you obviously meant defense, and that I shouldn't be so pedantic and asinine as to pretend that I didn't know what you meant?  At the same time that I have repeatedly referred to Miami's scoring defense and not mentioned their defensive-yards-allowed a single time?

I look forward to your hypocritical reply.

[Doc-phin]

The game where Moore was 5 of 15 against 2nd and 3rd string defense and Tannehill was 11 of 22 against first string defense? It seemed to you that Tannehill was slow in getting the ball out and Moore seemed to know where to go with the ball before the snap? Well if that's the case then Moore's accuracy is suspect or his pre-snap reads were wrong and since Tannehill was still able to complete more passes against the 1st string defense even though he was slow getting the ball out, imagine how good he'll be once he's able to get the ball out on time.

Did you watch the game?  Nearly every incompletion was a dropped ball or receiver issue. 

[EKnight]

Nothing hypocritical. It was a typo. You said high ranked defense. That's what I was referring to. 15 is not high ranked. I have repeatedly referred to the fact that looking at only the scoring defense on a team that went 6-10 is misleading, and the TOTAL defense is a better indicator of their play- which was far from "very very good."

Consider that Pittsburgh, Arizona, Seattle, Denver, and Kansas City ALL scored fewer points than Miami and all finished with a better record. How did that happen if Miami's defense was so good and the ONLY stat that matters is points scored? Shouldn't Miami have had a better record than those teams? They scored more points didn't they? How is this possible?? -EK

[Pappy13]

Did you watch the game?  Nearly every incompletion was a dropped ball or receiver issue. 

Yes, I did watch both games and Tannehill is throwing to the same receivers.

Players who have "dropped the ball" (figuratively) for Moore:

Bess - 2
Clay- 1
Gates - 2
Moore - 1
Wallace - 1
Johnson - 1
Pruitt - 1
Miller - 1
Egnew - 1
Fuller - 1
Thigpen - 1
NA - 1 (I guess they couldn't figure out whom Moore was throwing to on this one.)

That's a total of 14 "dropped" balls for those players out of 19 passes thrown to them. That same group of players have "dropped" 13 passes for Tannehill, but he's thrown to them 35 times. I guess Tannehill just throws a more catchable ball.

*Note - Tannehill has not actually thrown any passes to Gates, Johnson, Thigpen or NA.

[EKnight]

I find it interesting that Marshall was vilified for the number of drops he had in Miami, but it looks as though the current group has all of the stone hands and none of the big yardage potential that he brought. Someone from this group- even in a West coast, spread the ball around system- needs to step up. -EK

[Pappy13]

I find it interesting that Marshall was vilified for the number of drops he had in Miami, but it looks as though the current group has all of the stone hands and none of the big yardage potential that he brought. Someone from this group- even in a West coast, spread the ball around system- needs to step up. -EK

Bess is a perfect 2 for 2, Pruitt is 6 for 7 and Fuller is a perfect 2 for 2 with Tannehill at QB. I'm actually quite surprised that Naanee hasn't seen more passes thrown his way, he's only had 2 and I expect to see more on Friday.

I expect that Bess, Hartline, Naanee and Pruitt will be the top 4 WR's for Miami going into the season and will get most of the work this year. I think Wallace will be #5 and I think it's possible that Fuller is #6 and makes the team. I suspect that Miami would like to put Cunningham and/or Matthews on the practice squad and they might get a chance too if one of the others goes down.

[EKnight]

Hartline has great hands. Is he ever going to be healthy for 2012? -EK

[Doc-phin]

Pappy,

I really don't have a problem with you supporting Tannehill.  But please get off this notion that I am supporting Matt Moore.  After you brought it up, I looked at myself and asked honestly if I am being biased.  I truly believe I am not.  

I am not a big stat guy.  I know a good bit about football and use my eyes to make judgements.  In my opinion, there are too many variables that affect stats and their accuracy.  Even if I looked at the stats, they seem to back me up as far as the drops are concerned.

My personal feelings are that they are GIVING the job to Tannehill, instead of him taking it.  Tannehill now has 1 half of starting football experience and it wasn't too good.  It wasn't bad, but it wasn't good.  I think this decision is another step toward losing the locker room.  It would have been better to wait for Moore to struggle and Tannehill to get a little more preparation time.  We aren't going to the Super Bowl with Tannehill, so what is the rush?

[Pappy13]

Hartline has great hands. Is he ever going to be healthy for 2012? -EK

Yes. They know what they have in Hartline, he did practice some in OTA's. There's no reason to rush him back as he's recovering from surgery as well. He's not going to be in game shape for game 1, so probably won't see him much the first week or 2, but by week 3 or so I expect he'll be one of the starting WR's.

[EKnight]

Pappy,

I really don't have a problem with you supporting Tannehill.  But please get off this notion that I am supporting Matt Moore.  After you brought it up, I looked at myself and asked honestly if I am being biased.  I truly believe I am not.  

I am not a big stat guy.  I know a good bit about football and use my eyes to make judgements.  In my opinion, there are too many variables that affect stats and their accuracy.  Even if I looked at the stats, they seem to back me up as far as the drops are concerned.

My personal feelings are that they are GIVING the job to Tannehill, instead of him taking it.  Tannehill now has 1 half of starting football experience and it wasn't too good.  It wasn't bad, but it wasn't good.  I think this decision is another step toward losing the locker room.  It would have been better to wait for Moore to struggle and Tannehill to get a little more preparation time.  We aren't going to the Super Bowl with Tannehill, so what is the rush?

I tend to agree here. I've heard several "talking heads" note that this sends a message to the locker room that they acknowledge they won't be competitive and are giving in to the premise of "it's a rebuilding season, we know we won't win." Not a good message to send. -EK

[Pappy13]

Pappy,

I really don't have a problem with you supporting Tannehill.  But please get off this notion that I am supporting Matt Moore.  After you brought it up, I looked at myself and asked honestly if I am being biased.  I truly believe I am not.  

I am not a big stat guy.  I know a good bit about football and use my eyes to make judgements.  In my opinion, there are too many variables that affect stats and their accuracy.  Even if I looked at the stats, they seem to back me up as far as the drops are concerned.

My personal feelings are that they are GIVING the job to Tannehill, instead of him taking it.  Tannehill now has 1 half of starting football experience and it wasn't too good.  It wasn't bad, but it wasn't good.  I think this decision is another step toward losing the locker room.  It would have been better to wait for Moore to struggle and Tannehill to get a little more preparation time.  We aren't going to the Super Bowl with Tannehill, so what is the rush?

You are welcome to your opinion and I'm allowed to have mine. I'm not trying to be combative, just giving everyone here the counterpoints to your points. As you can see I AM a big stat guy because I believe that while using the "eyeball" test is certainly valid, I think the stats should at least partially back you up. If the stats show something completely opposite of what the "eyeball" test is telling you, I think you have to consider the possibility that you're not being as objective as you think you are.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Pappy13]

I tend to agree here. I've heard several "talking heads" note that this sends a message to the locker room that they acknowledge they won't be competitive and are giving in to the premise of "it's a rebuilding season, we know we won't win." Not a good message to send. -EK

I've heard that said as well, but typically they preface that by saying "Regardless of who the QB is".  Tannehill is not going to stunt the development of this team, rather the team is probably going to stunt the development of Tannehill. I don't care. I want to see how Tannehill does. I think it will be valuable experience that he can't get by holding a clipboard. Most of the talking heads agree with that sentiment.

[Doc-phin]

You are welcome to your opinion and I'm allowed to have mine. I'm not trying to be combative, just giving everyone here the counterpoints to your points. As you can see I AM a big stat guy because I believe that while using the "eyeball" test is certainly valid, I think the stats should at least partially back you up. If the stats show something completely opposite of what the "eyeball" test is telling you, I think you have to consider the possibility that you're not being as objective as you think you are.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

We are cool.  Just wanted to keep this from going to far.

[Spider-Dan]

Nothing hypocritical. It was a typo. You said high ranked defense.

I meant scoring defense, which should have been apparent from the multiple times that I have already referenced "scoring defense" in this thread.

15 is not high ranked.

6 is.  And for you to say "15th is not high ranked" when it is clearly obvious that I am still referring to the 6th-ranked scoring defense is... well, pedantic and asinine.

Consider that Pittsburgh, Arizona, Seattle, Denver, and Kansas City ALL scored fewer points than Miami and all finished with a better record. How did that happen if Miami's defense was so good and the ONLY stat that matters is points scored?

What an outstanding metric to use!  I wholeheartedly consent to this line of logic.  So let's see... 5 teams (actually 6; you missed Tennessee) with worse scoring offenses than MIA's finished with a better record.  I wonder how many teams with superior records had a worse scoring defense than the Dolphins?

SEA, TEN, CIN, PHI, KC, NO, CHI, NE, DAL, ARI, ATL, GB, NYJ, SD, DET, DEN, NYG, OAK.  18 teams.

Five of these teams (ARI, SEA, DEN, KC, TEN) are on both lists, so we can't exactly use them to prove one way or the other, now can we?  Gotta cross them off.  So that leaves your list with... the Pittsburgh Steelers, otherwise known as the team with the best scoring defense in the league last year.   So yes, while PIT's was able to win with a scoring offense was even more pathetic than MIA's, their scoring defense was better than literally every other team!

So, to summarize: excluding the teams that were worse in scoring on both sides of the ball, EXACTLY ONE team with a worse scoring offense than Miami finished with a better record (the team with the best scoring defense in the league).  In contrast, THIRTEEN teams with a worse scoring defense than the Dolphins finished with a better record.

Every response you post makes my point clearer and clearer.  The offense was the lead balloon on this team.