Skip to main content

Like with Flacco, Kaepernick, and Dalton before him, I'm not ready to buy into the new Ryan Tannehill contract

Over the past couple of years, I've often times found myself disagreeing with ESPN writers and analysts regarding large contract extensions for young NFL quarterbacks. While quarterbacks tend to be the "face" of the franchise, a lot more goes into running a successful program and making a Super Bowl run than just a good quarterback. Like in baseball where the best pitching staffs often find themselves in the playoffs, the same is true in football with the top defenses. This is also true with regard to the top offensive lines in the league. A great offensive line can make average quarterbacks and tailbacks look like Pro Bowlers, and on the other end of things, a bad offensive line can make Pro Bowl-worthy quarterbacks and running backs appear average.

Over the past couple of years, the following three quarterbacks received big contract extensions, and while 95% of ESPN felt these were good moves, I pulled a Lee Corso and said, "Not so fast my friend!": Joe Flacco, Colin Kaepernick, and Andy Dalton. Flacco's contract was the most warranted, for he did lead his Baltimore Ravens to a Super Bowl victory the year before. However, the Ravens won the trophy that year for many reasons other than Flacco, and due to his contract, they had to let go of some key components of that team which made the Super Bowl run. For this reason, I said, "Don't be surprised to see the Ravens follow up their Super Bowl victory by not making the playoffs," and guess what? They had to watch the playoffs from home. Colin Kaepernick is young and exciting, but he hadn't shown much (if any) progression in his time as an NFL starter, so once he was given the big contract extension, once again I said, "The Niners will now be forced to release a of key guys that made them such a contender these past few years," and what happened? They failed to make the playoffs, and last I heard, the team is falling apart more quickly than a mime giving a commencement address. Lastly, Andy Dalton was provided a nice contract extension, and for the third time, I had my doubts, saying, "While he has led his team to the playoffs, he has not proven that he can win in the playoffs, and the Bengals have been good largely due to their opportunistic defense and playmakers at receiver." While Cincinnati made the playoffs, they again fell in the first round.

Sure, it's unknown at this time how these three franchises will fare in the next 3-5 years, but one of the three took at least a short-term stumble (Baltimore), one appears to be in even deeper trouble (San Francisco), and one has appeared to be stagnant (Cincinnati). So, at least in the short-term, I'm a perfect 3 for 3 with my doubts, while ESPN is 0 for 3 with their optimism.

That brings us to the most recent such contract, as Miami Dolphins quarterback Ryan Tannehill signed a $96 million contract extension this week. Of all the four moves I've talked about, this one makes the least sense to me. At least with Joe Flacco and Colin Kaepernick, they have a history of at least some post-season success. Even with Andy Dalton, at least he's helped lead his team to the playoffs, albeit with no success in the postseason. Ryan Tannehill's career record as a starter is 23-25 and has never led his Miami Dolphins to the playoffs. Granted, his numbers have improved in each of his three years and I'll be the first to admit quarterbacks shouldn't always play the scapegoat for a team's lack of success; yet it's difficult not to see that while Tannehill's numbers have improved, his team's record has not (7-9 in 2012-13, 8-8 in 2013-14, 8-8 in 2014-15). Before this past season, it was rumored that Tannehill was on a short leash and could be yanked early in the season if he didn't produce. That didn't happen, of course, but given that talk, it amazes me how a team can go from an 8-8 record with thoughts of benching the guy to an 8-8 record with thoughts of giving the same guy a $96 million contract extension. Tannehill is young and has upside, and while these reasons alone have convinced most commentators at ESPN that the contract extension was a smart move, I'm still not ready to say that's the case. Over his three-year career, Tannehill has completed 61.9% of his passes, which is rather average in the NFL. His quarterback rating is 84.0, which is again pretty average for the league. He's thrown 63 touchdown passes and 42 interceptions, which is yet again fairly average. This is also the case with his yards per completion, which is at 6.8 for his career. Where Tannehill is more dangerous than a lot of "average" quarterbacks is with his feet. Over his three years, he's run for a combined 760 yards (5.2 per carry) and 4 touchdowns. No, those aren't Michael Vick or Robert Griffin III types of numbers, but they do mean he's quicker and more athletic than most quarterbacks.

The Miami Dolphins have not made the playoffs since Ryan Tannehill took over behind center three years ago, en route to a 23-25 record. While the guy may be young, exciting, and have some upside, he hasn't shown me enough to warrant getting a $96 million contract extension at this point in his career. As Indianapolis Colts punter Pat McAfee tweeted following the news about Tannehill's new contract, "Well today's market showed that a 25-25 record gets you 96 million American dollars... Andrew's about to own a team I think #Tannehill #Luck"

He might not be far off there...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2470898-pat-mcafee-questions-ryan-tannehills-96m-extension-says-luck-will-own-team

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TannRy00.htm

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"