Can Tannehill really lead us to a Super Bowl?

[SerenityNow]

I still believe that Ryan can definitely get us a Super Bowl, but we have to actually give him the opportunity to do so. We didn't run the offense that got us to the playoffs today, played scared offensively, and got beat. Teams are going to sell out to stop Derrick especially in the playoffs, and Vrabel and the offensive staff needs to be able to evolve and let Ryan take the reigns in situations like that if we're ever going to have a real chance at a Lombardi with this squad.

[titans0021]

8 minutes ago, SerenityNow said:

I still believe that Ryan can definitely get us a Super Bowl, but we have to actually give him the opportunity to do so. We didn't run the offense that got us to the playoffs today, played scared offensively, and got beat. Teams are going to sell out to stop Derrick especially in the playoffs, and Vrabel and the offensive staff needs to be able to evolve and let Ryan take the reigns in situations like that if we're ever going to have a real chance at a Lombardi with this squad.

I saw 74% of Derrick’s runs were against 8-man boxes. Just plowing into a wall play after play. And even when we did pass it on 1st down, three of them were bootlegs with short options to the flat and one was the TE screen fiasco.

If you want a QB to lead you to a Super Bowl, you have to let him drop back and dissect a defense. Until we are willing to do that as a primary function of our offense instead of a last resort, we will never know what our QB and our offense as a whole is capable of in the playoffs.

[twotonebluenation]

He needs a defense that takes pressure off the offense not adds to it. We put too much on the offense this year. The offense we run NEEDS a complimentary defense. To keep the running game alive all game and punish teams we need a d who can put us in great positions. We know who Tannehill is at this point. He will be 33 next year. He is a quarterback who is super solid and doesn't put the team in bad positions, but isn't a guy that is going to elevate his play to the point where he can carry. He needs perfect circumstances around him to win a SuperBowl. Imagine if Henry got hurt? What would our offense look like? We live and die by him. And if you think Tannehill would be a qb that could lead this team to the playoffs without Henry, idk I just don't see it. To me you go one way or the other. You buy into what Tannehill brings and sellout to get the resources to make the d great. Whatever you have to do, trade for big name players, move up in the draft etc. , use all assets on defense. Or you start to think about the possibility of grooming a young guy behind Tanne. I like the latter.

[Andrei01]

1 hour ago, twotonebluenation said:

He needs a defense that takes pressure off the offense not adds to it. We put too much on the offense this year. The offense we run NEEDS a complimentary defense. To keep the running game alive all game and punish teams we need a d who can put us in great positions. We know who Tannehill is at this point. He will be 33 next year. He is a quarterback who is super solid and doesn't put the team in bad positions, but isn't a guy that is going to elevate his play to the point where he can carry. He needs perfect circumstances around him to win a SuperBowl. Imagine if Henry got hurt? What would our offense look like? We live and die by him. And if you think Tannehill would be a qb that could lead this team to the playoffs without Henry, idk I just don't see it. To me you go one way or the other. You buy into what Tannehill brings and sellout to get the resources to make the d great. Whatever you have to do, trade for big name players, move up in the draft etc. , use all assets on defense. Or you start to think about the possibility of grooming a young guy behind Tanne. I like the latter.

There aren't that many quarterbacks, if any, that could effectively, by themselves, carry teams to a Super Bowl. Brady couldn't do it, he usually had good teams around him when he won, the most elite quarterbacks out there, Rodgers, Brees, Manning couldn't do it either without the perfect situations around them. The odds of stumbling onto such a quarterback are close to 0. Tanny is fine.

[twotonebluenation]

13 minutes ago, Andrei01 said:

There aren't that many quarterbacks, if any, that could effectively, by themselves, carry teams to a Super Bowl. Brady couldn't do it, he usually had good teams around him when he won, the most elite quarterbacks out there, Rodgers, Brees, Manning couldn't do it either without the perfect situations around them. The odds of stumbling onto such a quarterback are close to 0. Tanny is fine.

I'm not saying we need a quarterback that can just carry the whole team and every game. I am saying you need a quarterback that can carry in some stretches and come up BIG in big games. When has Tannehill ever been the guy that has been the reason we have won big games or can even carry in stints when we need to lean on him? He hasn't. In every playoff game he has managed, I have never seen him take over in big games. Fine doesn't win super bowls. All those players you named I have seen them take over for stints in big games and be the REASON they won. Tanne has never done that. When is he going to do it? How long do we wait? It's not like he hasn't been in the league for a minute. We know who he is.

Edited January 11, 2021 by twotonebluenation

[TitanSlim]

2 hours ago, twotonebluenation said:

He needs a defense that takes pressure off the offense not adds to it. We put too much on the offense this year. The offense we run NEEDS a complimentary defense. To keep the running game alive all game and punish teams we need a d who can put us in great positions. We know who Tannehill is at this point. He will be 33 next year. He is a quarterback who is super solid and doesn't put the team in bad positions, but isn't a guy that is going to elevate his play to the point where he can carry. He needs perfect circumstances around him to win a SuperBowl. Imagine if Henry got hurt? What would our offense look like? We live and die by him. And if you think Tannehill would be a qb that could lead this team to the playoffs without Henry, idk I just don't see it. To me you go one way or the other. You buy into what Tannehill brings and sellout to get the resources to make the d great. Whatever you have to do, trade for big name players, move up in the draft etc. , use all assets on defense. Or you start to think about the possibility of grooming a young guy behind Tanne. I like the latter.

I mean shouldn’t this be the case no matter what.  Whether it’s with Tannehill or a young QB.

Either go all in on this 2-3 year window of prime Tannehill and Henry (Saints with Brees style) or take advantage of a young QB on his rookie deal(Chiefs, 2010s Seahawks style).

[twotonebluenation]

4 minutes ago, TitanSlim said:

I mean shouldn’t this be the case no matter what.  Whether it’s with Tannehill or a young QB.

Either go all in on this 2-3 year window of prime Tannehill and Henry (Saints with Brees style) or take advantage of a young QB on his rookie deal(Chiefs, 2010s Seahawks style).

Well drafting a young qb would take away from that. You would be giving up a high pick and using it to get a good qb through the draft. Of course you still work on both. But In the case I am saying in getting a young guy you have to take a guy in the first 3 rounds where you could be taking defenders. A lot of it depends on who is available also. Mahomes went 10th, I think if a guy is there first round for us that we like, I like the idea of taking him.

[Andrei01]

56 minutes ago, twotonebluenation said:

I'm not saying we need a quarterback that can just carry the whole team and every game. I am saying you need a quarterback that can carry in some stretches and come up BIG in big games. When has Tannehill ever been the guy that has been the reason we have won big games or can even carry in stints when we need to lean on him? He hasn't. In every playoff game he has managed, I have never seen him take over in big games. Fine doesn't win super bowls. All those players you named I have seen them take over for stints in big games and be the REASON they won. Tanne has never done that. When is he going to do it? How long do we wait? It's not like he hasn't been in the league for a minute. We know who he is.

He has, especially last year, early on when we made the switch, balled when we needed him to. KC final drive last year (regular season), BAL this year (regular) final drives come to mind right now.

When you have to rely on a quarterback to win you games by himself, you should know that you're not in a good situation to begin with.

Brees, Rodgers, Manning, they all won Super Bowls only with great defences and/or supporting casts around them. Before Kamara, Thomas and the resurgence of that OL, Brees was missing playoffs, and Rodgers needed a top running game, a switch in play-calling, to go with the elite OL he has had for years as well as the top 5 WR he has had for years in order to contend again. All those guys need perfect situations around them to win Super Bowls.

At some point, yeah, we have to plan for life after Tanny and look to bring in someone that could take over the job when needed. But it's not a pressing need right now.