Provocative Tannehill Opinion

[Dolfanalyst]

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/big-name-nfl-offseason-cuts-2017.html/5/?ref=cpc_medium

When it comes down to it, we just don’t see Tannehill ever developing into the type of quarterback that can lead the Dolphins deep into the postseason. He is about to finish his fifth full season as Miami’s starting quarterback, and is still nearly as inconsistent as he was when he entered the league in 2012. In fact, were it not for a solid month of November, Tannehill might have been benched in favor of journeyman veteran Matt Moore for the remainder of the 2016 season.

We are expecting the Dolphins to cut Tannehill next offseason (which would free up $9.9 million in salary cap space), and pursue Jay Cutler, who has an excellent relationship with head coach Adam Gase, as his replacement.

The opinion about whether Tannehill can develop into a QB who can lead the Dolphins deep into the postseason is an interesting one, because, while Tannehill's performance improved in 2016, he nonetheless remained among the league's worst QBs with regard to statistics that measure the performance of QBs while adjusting for the strength of opposing defenses.

In other words, Tannehill's improvement in 2016 appeared to consist of making good against teams with poor defenses, while continuing to struggle against teams with good ones.

Obviously when a team enters the playoffs, its likelihood of facing teams with strong defenses increases.  In my opinion one has to wonder whether Tannehill would make the Dolphins competitive in such a scenario, or whether the Dolphins would need to pull off the unlikely feat of having one of the league's best defenses in their own right, and hope it could sufficiently contain the offenses of opposing playoff teams.

I'm not interested in the Jay Cutler opinion, personally.

[Dolfanalyst]

Whoever moved this here, thank you.  I forgot this (better) sub-forum existed.

[Dave Gray]

Ugh...Cutler?  Seriously?

[Dolfanalyst]

Ugh...Cutler?  Seriously?

Yeah the Cutler proposition I'm not all that interested in.  The more interesting idea for me is whether you pay a QB 10% of your salary cap if you believe your head coach can get about the same performance out of a much cheaper QB.

If Adam Gase is truly the driving force in what's going on here, then I think you pay a QB 10% of your cap if Gase is elevating his QB rating from 100 to 107, not from 87 to 94.  In other words, you pay a QB that much if he has more preexisting ability going in, and Gase adds on to that, not on to a lesser degree of preexisting ability.

You can get 87 to 94 out of a much cheaper guy, which then frees up the cap room to build around that player like you'll need to.

On the other hand Cutler may figure into that if he's in fact the cheaper guy you get from 87 to 94.  I'm not sure what his cap number would be with the Dolphins.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Yes Tanny is expensive but question isn't can you get a qb for less than his cap hit apps $20m, but for less than the $10m you save by cutting him.  If the Dolphins did a straight up trade Tannehill for Cutler it would cost them an extra $6 million dollars in cap space.

[Dolfanalyst]

Yes Tanny is expensive but question isn't can you get a qb for less than his cap hit apps $20m, but for less than the $10m you save by cutting him.  If the Dolphins did a straight up trade Tannehill for Cutler it would cost them an extra $6 million dollars in cap space.

I think at this point you have to wonder if the smart move wouldn't be to cut Tannehill after June 1st, draft a QB #1, and head into next season with a competition between Matt Moore, who will make about 1% of the team's cap, and the first-round QB.

If the first-round QB pans out, you have a much cheaper option than Tannehill for at least the next four years, and if he pans out it'll be very unlikely he's playing significantly worse than Tannehill.

It's not like we're talking about Aaron Rodgers here, where a change is highly likely to result in only downward movement in terms of performance from the quarterback position.  Instead, we're talking about only sightly above-average level play, which, again, Gase could be the active ingredient in.

I think you have to believe he can get at least that same level of play from a first-round (and cheaper) QB.

[fyo]

Matt Moore certainly didn't help his case against the Bills. That was a bad game. His receivers did all the lifting and the offensive line actually gave him plenty of time. Moore was off his game all day. Hopefully, he'll step up against the Patriots, but considering his age and the odds of actually getting a starting-caliber NFL quarterback in the last half of the first round (<50%), keeping Tannehill is a no-brainer.

[Dolfanalyst]

Matt Moore certainly didn't help his case against the Bills. That was a bad game. His receivers did all the lifting and the offensive line actually gave him plenty of time. Moore was off his game all day. Hopefully, he'll step up against the Patriots, but considering his age and the odds of actually getting a starting-caliber NFL quarterback in the last half of the first round (<50%), keeping Tannehill is a no-brainer.

I think that's sensible, but the question at this point also becomes, if Gase is the active ingredient in these QB improvements, is he also capable of identifying the "Dak Prescott," the guy who is taken later in the draft and who he can coach up to play at least at the level of Tannehill?

The thread running through all of these ideas is that if you have a head coach who is capable of coaxing much better play out of a QB, it makes more sense to have a far cheaper QB who is coached up, thus freeing the salary cap money to surround him with talent elsewhere on the roster.

Compare that with the "scared" sort of approach, where you stick with Tannehill because you're afraid of the unknown, and you get none of the benefit of bolstering the roster elsewhere with the freed up salary cap money.

If you're going to pay Adam Gase what he's paid and then watch him do what he's done for a year, at some point you have to move forward with the realization that he is your team strength, and plan accordingly.

IMO that consists of one of two approaches:  1) having a relatively cheap QB who's coached up from 88 to 95 territory, surrounded by a stellar roster, or 2) an absolute stud -- and expensive -- QB who's coached up from 100 to 107, thus necessitating far less surrounding talent.

You don't mix the two approaches and pay the 88 to 95 guy tons of money.  That's what you do when your head coach isn't a quarterback whisperer.

[Baba Booey]

I think at this point you have to wonder if the smart move wouldn't be to cut Tannehill after June 1st, draft a QB #1, and head into next season with a competition between Matt Moore, who will make about 1% of the team's cap, and the first-round QB.

That's the dumbest thing I have read on this board.

[masterfins]

This must have been written by Cutler's agent, because NOBODY is going to be pursuing Jay Cutler for anything other than a backup.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

That's the dumbest thing I have read on this board.

You obviously have missed a lot of posts.  I agree the statement is dumb, but dumber has been posted.

[Baba Booey]

You obviously have missed a lot of posts.  I agree the statement is dumb, but dumber has been posted.

ha! I will take your word for it

[Dolfanalyst]

This must have been written by Cutler's agent, because NOBODY is going to be pursuing Jay Cutler for anything other than a backup.

And that level of demand for Cutler may make him the ideal player, ironically.  In theory, if you can get him very cheaply and get him to play roughly at the level at which Tannehill played in 2016 (which Gase has done before), you can jettison Tannehill and spend the salary cap savings on the defense.

[Pappy13]

From the article: "We are expecting the Dolphins to cut Tannehill next offseason (which would free up $9.9 million in salary cap space), and pursue Jay Cutler, who has an excellent relationship with head coach Adam Gase, as his replacement."

Wait a minute, who was #1 on this list, wasn't it....yeah that's right Jay Cutler. You mean the Dolphins should cut Tannehill to free up salary cap to sign the ONLY QB doing less for more? Do these guys even read what they are writing? That doesn't make sense even if you believe that Tannehill is not the answer. And Cutler is HOW much older than Tannehill? On what planet does this make sense? You want to know who's getting cut next year to save money? Matt Moore. I got a feeling he's trying out for a new team the last couple of weeks. Hell he may go to Dallas to backup Dak. They could get Moore a lot cheaper than Tony Romo. If Miami wants an aging overpaid veteran to come play QB they should look at Tony Romo. He might actually be a step up but how long before he gets hurt?

[Dolfanalyst]

Wait a minute, who was #1 on this list, wasn't it....yeah that's right Jay Cutler. You mean the Dolphins should cut Tannehill to free up salary cap to sign the ONLY QB doing less for more? Do these guys even read what they are writing? That doesn't make sense even if you believe that Tannehill is not the answer. And Cutler is HOW much older than Tannehill? On what planet does this make sense? You want to know who's getting cut next year to save money? Matt Moore. I got a feeling he's trying out for a new team the last couple of weeks. Hell he may go to Dallas to backup Dak. They could get Moore a lot cheaper than Tony Romo. If Miami wants an aging overpaid veteran to come play QB they should look at Tony Romo. He might actually be a step up but how long before he gets hurt?

Actually with the way Matt Moore has played these past several games, the team should be at least thinking about whether it makes more sense to cut or trade Tannehill, draft a QB, and let Moore groom the QB for a year, while both of them make peanuts.

If Matt Moore played a whole season the way he has the past three-plus games, the team would be no less competitive than it's been all year with Tannehill.

And that may not be the most prudent approach, but if the team weren't at least thinking about it, I would consider them to be too closed-minded and rigidified in their approach for their own good.  They need to at least consider all their options.