Jump to content
Rhg1084

Miami to move on from Tannehill

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

He'll get another chance with another team. He's had success in this league. He can play. Is he a top QB? No. But he can play in the league.

There's actually going to be quite a few quality options available for a team like the Giants next year. Bridgewater, Foles, and Tannehill are all intriguing options for teams looking for a QB with a weak draft class at that position. Carr might be available via trade as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giants don't usually bring in mediocre stopgaps.  When things go bad, they draft a new QB.

 

Exceptions might be Foles, who has had up-and-down regular seasons but now has shone brightly in two relief stints including a Super Bowl victory, and Carr, who is still young and has shown ability.  I don't see Tannehill going to the Giants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScarletKnight89 said:

He'll get another chance with another team. He's had success in this league. He can play. Is he a top QB? No. But he can play in the league.

There's actually going to be quite a few quality options available for a team like the Giants next year. Bridgewater, Foles, and Tannehill are all intriguing options for teams looking for a QB with a weak draft class at that position. Carr might be available via trade as well.

Broad definition of the word success

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ScarletKnight89 said:

He'll get another chance with another team. He's had success in this league. He can play. Is he a top QB? No. But he can play in the league.

There's actually going to be quite a few quality options available for a team like the Giants next year. Bridgewater, Foles, and Tannehill are all intriguing options for teams looking for a QB with a weak draft class at that position. Carr might be available via trade as well.

Bridgewater is still largely an unknown but he will get most likely get a shot.  I'm not sure a team will bring him in as defacto starter though.

Foles (or Wentz?!) will get a starter role next year.

Tannehill is, IMO, less likely than Bridgewater to get a clear shot at a starter role.  Maybe a competitive situation or he may get a short deal with a team that is also drafting a QB to be a bridge.  I just don't see a team being willing to trust him with the keys based on his body of work.

If Carr is cut loose, he'll start but that just opens up a need in OAK so it's basically a wash.

So that's 2, at most 3 QBs that will move to new teams to maybe start.  There are anywhere from 3-5 teams that should recognize they need a new QB.  So when the carousel stops, you may have just 2 teams looking to draft a QB in the first round.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody's mentioned this, but the veteran QBs available this offseason. Foles, Carr, Flacco, Bridgewater, Tannehill, Bortles, Winston, maybe Mariotta and Mullens from SF, look a lot better then anyone coming out in the draft. If most of them are on the market, they will negate the need for anyone to trade for a better pick in this draft. Why pay a ransom for mediocrity, when the market is glutted?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

Nobody's mentioned this, but the veteran QBs available this offseason. Foles, Carr, Flacco, Bridgewater, Tannehill, Bortles, Winston, maybe Mariotta and Mullens from SF, look a lot better then anyone coming out in the draft. If most of them are on the market, they will negate the need for anyone to trade for a better pick in this draft. Why pay a ransom for mediocrity, when the market is glutted?  

Tbh 3-4 of those guys are as good or better than Kirk Cousins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kelticwizard said:

Giants don't usually bring in mediocre stopgaps.  When things go bad, they draft a new QB.

 

Exceptions might be Foles, who has had up-and-down regular seasons but now has shone brightly in two relief stints including a Super Bowl victory, and Carr, who is still young and has shown ability.  I don't see Tannehill going to the Giants.

Foles has to play in a certain version of west coast otherwise he’s useless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Philc1 said:

Broad definition of the word success

Enough success to get another chance somewhere to be the starter. He'd be a great backup.

He completes about 62% of his passes and has a solid TD-INT ratio. He's far from a star, but he can play.

If I was a team that needed a QB I would give him a look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ScarletKnight89 said:

Enough success to get another chance somewhere to be the starter. He'd be a great backup.

He completes about 62% of his passes and has a solid TD-INT ratio. He's far from a star, but he can play.

If I was a team that needed a QB I would give him a look.

He sucks.  He’s going to demand too much money to be a backup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Close to 100 million contract with the recent restructure. Two ACL's since 2016 and about 26 million per the next two years.

 

If their intention is to tank then they should cut him if not getting rid of him is dumb considering who is out there on FA market.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, JetFreak89 said:

 

 


Kirk Cousins-itis.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile

 

Cousins is a lot better than Tannehill but I get the point.

22 hours ago, jamesr said:

Bortles wasn't why they sucked - but at the same time he couldn't do enough to offset the issues around them. And they've always played around him rather than through him, never trusting him to win them games (with good reason).

If they can get their D back up to scratch (or at least decent) and have a healthy year from Fournette, they'll go much further with a Flacco type of QB rather than Bortles.

Bortles is like most QBs in this league, he needs help to succeed.  Bortles is basically a younger, more athletic Eli Manning.  When things are almost perfect around them they succeed but if not they fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Philc1 said:

Bortles the first 3 years was the same way.  Good player on paper sucked in real life

correct or a guy like Eli the last few years.  He's put up the best #s of his career but he's been atrocious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nyjunc said:

Cousins is a lot better than Tannehill but I get the point.

Bortles is like most QBs in this league, he needs help to succeed.  Bortles is basically a younger, more athletic Eli Manning.  When things are almost perfect around them they succeed but if not they fail.

Bortles is no Eli.

 

Eli has had great years, he's had so-so and even lousy years, but from his third year on he's clearly had the ability to lay the ball out there perfectly for the receiver a good percentage of the time.  Timely accuracy leads to big plays that make successful years.  Neither Bortles nor Tannehill has shown that accuracy.  It makes Eli frequently dangerous in a way Bortles or Tannehill have never been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kelticwizard said:

Bortles is no Eli.

 

Eli has had great years, he's had so-so and even lousy years, but from his third year on he's clearly had the ability to lay the ball out there perfectly for the receiver a good percentage of the time.  Timely accuracy leads to big plays that make successful years.  Neither Bortles nor Tannehill has shown that accuracy.  It makes Eli frequently dangerous in a way Bortles or Tannehill have never been.

Eli has never been great and bortles and Eli's numbers are very similar at the same stage despite Eli playing with much better talent.

 

Eli spent most of his career throwing the ball up for grabs with excellent receivers hauling them in.  Something's it worked and something's he threw INTs.  He always threw a million INTs until recently when he started taking sacks instead of throwing INTs and the football world then determined it was all the fault of his OL rather than his slow, poor decision making

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 12:19 PM, kelticwizard said:

Giants don't usually bring in mediocre stopgaps.  When things go bad, they draft a new QB.

 

Exceptions might be Foles, who has had up-and-down regular seasons but now has shone brightly in two relief stints including a Super Bowl victory, and Carr, who is still young and has shown ability.  I don't see Tannehill going to the Giants.

Kerry Collins says Hi!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, nyjunc said:

Eli has never been great and bortles and Eli's numbers are very similar at the same stage despite Eli playing with much better talent.

 

Eli spent most of his career throwing the ball up for grabs with excellent receivers hauling them in.  Something's it worked and something's he threw INTs.  He always threw a million INTs until recently when he started taking sacks instead of throwing INTs and the football world then determined it was all the fault of his OL rather than his slow, poor decision making

Uh-huh.

 

When you can describe a scenario where somehow Blake Bortles improves his game to where he  wins four games on the road to win the Super Bowl twice, I'll take seriously comparisons between Eli and Bortles.  Not before.  Bortles might be nearing the end of his career right now.  And I've never heard anyone say that Bortles can amaze you sometimes with the accuracy of his throws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, peebag said:

Kerry Collins says Hi!

Okay, you got me.  I'll amend that to say that since they got Phil Simms, the Giants haven't had many years where they went free agency before drafting their own QB, which is usually the best way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 2:14 AM, kelticwizard said:

Uh-huh.

 

When you can describe a scenario where somehow Blake Bortles improves his game to where he  wins four games on the road to win the Super Bowl twice, I'll take seriously comparisons between Eli and Bortles.  Not before.  Bortles might be nearing the end of his career right now.  And I've never heard anyone say that Bortles can amaze you sometimes with the accuracy of his throws.

Blake Bortles won 2 games on the road last year including one where his defense allowed 42 points.  Eli Manning has NEVER won a playoff game where his D allowed more than 20 points.

Bortles has played 74 games

1546-2604, 59.4%, 17539 yds, 103 TDs, 74 INTs, 81 rating

Eli's first 74 games:

1296-2313, 56%, 14879 yds, 99 TDs, 75 INTs, 76.3 rating

 

It's eerie how similar they are, the biggest difference is the Giants had MUCH more talent around the QB than Jacksonville had.

 

First 3 playoff games:

Bortles: 49-85, 594, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, 91 rating.  Led O to 22.7 PPG

Eli: 46-72, 459 yds, 4 TDs, 4 INTs, 77.2 rating.  Led O to 14.7 PPG

 

this doesn't include rush yds.

Bortles 277 carries, 1760 yds w/ 8 TDs(6.4 YPC).  playoffs 17 carries for 121 yds(7.1 YPC)

Eli  112 carries, 212 yds w/ 3 TDs(1.9 YPC).  Playoffs 20 carries for 45 yds(2.3 YPC)

 

 

Bortles is just Eli w/ legs

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And without Super Bowl championship seasons.  You just can't take a Borles whose stats are somewhat similar to a player who had trouble early in his career, (Eli), and declare that because Eli went on to win two Super Bowls, so would have Bortles.

 

But I'm sure that is exactly what you will say, in one form or another, for the rest of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2018 at 6:49 AM, nyjunc said:

Blake Bortles won 2 games on the road last year including one where his defense allowed 42 points.  Eli Manning has NEVER won a playoff game where his D allowed more than 20 points.

Bortles has played 74 games

1546-2604, 59.4%, 17539 yds, 103 TDs, 74 INTs, 81 rating

Eli's first 74 games:

1296-2313, 56%, 14879 yds, 99 TDs, 75 INTs, 76.3 rating

 

It's eerie how similar they are, the biggest difference is the Giants had MUCH more talent around the QB than Jacksonville had.

 

First 3 playoff games:

Bortles: 49-85, 594, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, 91 rating.  Led O to 22.7 PPG

Eli: 46-72, 459 yds, 4 TDs, 4 INTs, 77.2 rating.  Led O to 14.7 PPG

 

this doesn't include rush yds.

Bortles 277 carries, 1760 yds w/ 8 TDs(6.4 YPC).  playoffs 17 carries for 121 yds(7.1 YPC)

Eli  112 carries, 212 yds w/ 3 TDs(1.9 YPC).  Playoffs 20 carries for 45 yds(2.3 YPC)

 

 

Bortles is just Eli w/ legs

 

These are very interesting statistics.  That's a pretty heavy indictment on Eli.

Thank you.  I'm now going to share this with several of my Giants fan friends and tell them they'd be smart to make a move for Blake Bortles as he's a younger version of Eli...."with legs."  :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 7:59 AM, nyjunc said:

correct or a guy like Eli the last few years.  He's put up the best #s of his career but he's been atrocious.

The giants lose because their defense stinks and their OL can’t protect Eli he is the least of their issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Philc1 said:

The giants lose because their defense stinks and their OL can’t protect Eli he is the least of their issues

Uh, yeah that's it.  Never mind they have changed coaches, players, GM and the results stay the same because they don't change the QB.  

The OL looks like it can't protect because the QB can't make decisions and now he takes sacks rather than throw INTs like he used to 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kelticwizard said:

And without Super Bowl championship seasons.  You just can't take a Borles whose stats are somewhat similar to a player who had trouble early in his career, (Eli), and declare that because Eli went on to win two Super Bowls, so would have Bortles.

 

But I'm sure that is exactly what you will say, in one form or another, for the rest of the thread.

Eli won two SBs because his defense played extraordinary defense.  Eli has never won a playoff game when his D allowed more than 20 pts, last yr at Pittsburgh bortles won a playoff game when his D allowed 42.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He could be a starter if he could stay on the field. Not a "good" starter or someone that keeps you from looking for another opportunity at QB, but his injury history makes it a moot point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, nyjunc said:

Eli won two SBs because his defense played extraordinary defense.  Eli has never won a playoff game when his D allowed more than 20 pts, last yr at Pittsburgh bortles won a playoff game when his D allowed 42.

And yet, oddly, Eli in 2008 became the first QB to throw two go-ahead TDs in the 4th quarter of a Super Bowl.  And the Giants defense gave up 274 yards to the Patriots, but Eli's offense made 338 yards.  Oh yeah, I can really see Bortles doing this.

 

Next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2018 at 9:31 PM, UntouchableCrew said:

Flacco is basically what Eli is though -- a statue behind a bad o-line.

Tannehill actually makes a ton of sense for them as a bridge if they do move on from Eli.

Tannehill will easily land with another NFL team next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Websites, SEO & Social Media

Mile Social
×