walk-no need to sign smith. I can play there as effectively.

Aaron Rodgers, Eli Manning, Drew Brees and Tom Brady run pretty explosive offenses...and none of them has a top-notch OL. You need a QB that can read, react and get the ball out quickly, and receivers that make plays after the catch. That's how you build an explosive offense. Having a great OL is nice, but it's certainly not a necessity these days.

Aaron Rodgers has been sacked more than any QB in the NFL this year.

Vick has been hit more than any other QB.

Yep. He gets hit and sacked a tons of times every season...yet he's the best QB in football. By no means am I saying Tannehill should be as good as Rodgers...but the point is, great QBs don't need great O-lines.

I didn't even mention Rapistberger...he's the poster child for QBs that excel despite having crappy OLs.

Yup. Luck was "Lucky" some of those were not picked. Had they been, this would of been a completely different ball game....

Miami was up in the fourth quarter 17-13. Bottom line is the defense let Miami down. Bess and Hartline are what they are. # 2&3 receivers promoted to #1&2 because we don't have a true play maker. Bess and Hartline are good role players but they aren't the play making receiver a QB like Tannehill can rely on in crunch time. They haven't been that player the last five years and it was apparent they weren't that player on Sunday. Even having career years it is apparent by the amount of touchdowns they have this year that they aren't redone threats.

Comparing Tannehill to Rodgers, manning, and brees is not a fair comparison unless you also compare the receivers that these guys throw to. The packers, giants, and saints have far superior receiving corps than Miami. It's why many of you were drooling over the possibility of getting a packer castoff. Those teams invested in playmakers and we invested in a fourth round pick and a FA. We followed parcells out dated blueprint.

All I know is I would rather have 4 more years of Ireland then Obama.

At the rate we are going we will have both.

Comparing the packers O line to how outs played against the colts is absolutely absurd. They didn't even play mediocre. They were flat out awful. Brady doesn't look good when he gets flustered and harassed in the pocket. Neither does Rodgers. Vick looks like crap this year so also not a good analogy. Rodgers may get sacked more. But I would bet on average its not close to the amount of pressures hits hurries and sacks Tanny dealt with on Sunday. And I bet he has way more time to throw it too.

Absolutely ridiculous and no reason to debate it. It's plain as day. A common fact. And I will repeat. Most any good Qb would have had a similar performance under the same circumstances. You guys expect tannehill to be god or something. He's a rookie Qb running for his life and he still looks quite promising.

This fallacy on this board about not needing a good line is just pure bullshit.

You need a good line to protect your QB. You, on this board, may not think that the lines that have protected the Super Bowl winning QBs are worth anything, but when it mattered, the lines were rock fucking solid.

Protecting your QB is paramount to winning. How many times have we said that pressuring a guy like, say, Brady, will win us the game? Draw the parallel.