QB Development | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

QB Development

This will answer it all.
Do you think any other teams would hire Zac as their QB coach?
 
Sherman and T'hill did not win at A&M and they are not winning here. I would like to see T'hill with different coaches to see what he could do.
 
I believe after 6 years with the same guy that a change is never a bad thing to maybe look at your technique and decisions with a new pioint of view. They aren't terrible but I really think Sherman sees flaws in Ryan's game that may not be flaws at all. Sometimes when you ahve a pupil that long you continue to look at them the same way again and again. I think he needs a new coach to get him to the next level.
 
Namor said:
This will answer it all.
Do you think any other teams would hire Zac as their QB coach?
Click to expand...

Maybe as someone to deliver Peyton's or Brady's coffee.. but certainly not to develop a raw QB looking up at a steep learning curve where his alternative points of professional reference are Matt Moore and Devlin
 
Namor said:
This will answer it all.
Do you think any other teams would hire Zac as their QB coach?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but rumor has it that he's extremely highly regarded and has aspirations to be a Head Coach in the NFL (we heard the same rumors about Jason Garrett when he was QB coach). Just because he is Sherman's son-in-law doesn't mean that he doesn't have talent. While many on here are extremely critical of Tannehill, I see good improvement and believe that he can be a successful QB. If this is the case, then maybe Zac Taylor has had something to do with his development to date.
It is always difficult when family members are appointed. Even if they do a good job the perception is often bad. I would expect that Joe Philbin would not tolerate incompetence and if Taylor was there only on the family connections, he wouldn't survive. Be open to the possibility that Zac Taylor is good.
 
You could be correct, but I'm also open to the possibility that entrusting a valuable raw talent to someone who never coached QBs at any level nor has any experience with NFL QBs or the defenses he faces, based on blind faith is as il-conceived as entrusting your own personal wellbeing as a passenger to a first time 747 pilot who flew a Cessna a few years ago. Leaving either to fate is a nebulous idea IMO.

spiketex said:
I don't know, but rumor has it that he's extremely highly regarded and has aspirations to be a Head Coach in the NFL (we heard the same rumors about Jason Garrett when he was QB coach). Just because he is Sherman's son-in-law doesn't mean that he doesn't have talent. While many on here are extremely critical of Tannehill, I see good improvement and believe that he can be a successful QB. If this is the case, then maybe Zac Taylor has had something to do with his development to date.
It is always difficult when family members are appointed. Even if they do a good job the perception is often bad. I would expect that Joe Philbin would not tolerate incompetence and if Taylor was there only on the family connections, he wouldn't survive. Be open to the possibility that Zac Taylor is good.
Click to expand...
 
Better line a true tight end and a running back that goes north n south not dances behind line .
 
tay0365 said:
It may be very RaRa of me to say this considering he really has no experience, but I would love to see Penny given the job of QB Coach.
Click to expand...
I thought that I heard him interviewed and he'd prefer to breed cattle and coach kids than become an NFL coach. He'd be very good but I don't think he's interested. Unless he changed his mind.
 
The fact that The son in law is the QB coach is ridiculous. Taylor has never developed a pro QB in his life. Why this franchise would draft a seemingly franchise QB and then proceed with a nepotism hire of Sherman's son in law is beyond me. Just another reason the Fins flounder. This staff is sub par, flat out.
 
Vaark said:
You could be correct, but I'm also open to the possibility that entrusting a valuable raw talent to someone who never coached QBs at any level nor has any experience with NFL QBs or the defenses he faces, based on blind faith is as il-conceived as entrusting your own personal wellbeing as a passenger to a first time 747 pilot who flew a Cessna a few years ago. Leaving either to fate is a nebulous idea IMO.
Click to expand...
Vaark - your logic is solid, I can't argue with you. Entrusting the most valuable raw talent to walk into the joint in 14 years, to someone who never coached QBs at any level and with no NFL experience seems preposterous. However, I repeat, the raps on Taylor are that he is extremely good and has a big coaching career ahead of him. Time will tell.
BTW - most guys I know would hate the thought of working directly for their father in law.
 
My knock on Taylor isn't that he's doing a bad job -- we don't know what kind of job he's doing. My knock on Taylor is that he has no damn experience, and I'd prefer to have a coach with a track record.
 
If we continue to use this style of offense and with so few rushing attempts, there is no such thing as quarterback development. The particulars will vary slightly but not the bottom line or any of the relevant issues. Tannehill a year from now will be virtually on the same level as today.

We need basic formations, considerably more emphasis on play action, less shotgun, rushing attempts in the 28-34 level per game, and to all but eliminate garbage like empty sets and 4-receiver looks. These are the same themes I was posting prior to the season. Now there are related threads, like the ones pointing out that Tannehill fares best out of standard sets. No kidding. It's hardly Tannehill alone. It's quarterbacks of that caliber period. I have considerable advantage because I worked in a stats office for a long time alongside very, very sharp people. We used to break it down by Cream, Crowd and Crap. Cream can violate any rule. Crap is not saved even by ideal strategy. Crowd has to do the right thing. Sorry, but Tannehill ain't cream. There are dunce coaching staffs all over this league who learn the wrong lesson from the top handful of quarterbacks and try to force that style with a mediocrity behind center. It's like watching John Daly or Bubba Watson carry a water hazard at 300 and then sending your guy Corey Pavin out there to try it. What could go wrong?

It's a damn shame that Bill Walsh died relatively early because he wouldn't be silent about this. Walsh ranted against 4 and 5 receiver sets as the future of football. Of course, the rules have changed, and that's largely responsible for the Cream abuse of the open and empty sets. But overall it's sickening football. Walsh's old school Stanford is one of the few programs that get it right. Hard to believe I've actually seen knocks on David Shaw on this forum, with posters saying they wouldn't want him, due to the Jonathan Martin irrelevancy. Give Tannehill fundamental power sets like that and he'll come as close to finding his upside as possible. If we throw 40 and run 17, there is no upside.
 
Change is good. Too much of the same coaching can be a ceiling in itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom