Tannehill on a shorter leash for 2014

[jnewmant]

why do people keep saying this. he was pick number 8 that is really high in draft. that mean u can play football. started last 24 game in nfl don't want hear that it bs.

the reason people keep saying this is because it was known he only played a handful of starts at the qb position in college and he was far from a finished product when we picked him. It was also known he had all the physical tools to develop into possibly the best qb in his draft class if his development was handled properly. He was pick number eight because we needed a qb and he wouldn't have made it to the second round. could we have traded down and picked him up a couple of picks later? maybe, but imagine how much bitching would go on week to week when he was making steady progress for another team.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

why do people keep saying this. he was pick number 8 that is really high in draft. that mean u can play football. started last 24 game in nfl don't want hear that it bs.

Tony Gonzalez was quoted this week saying Matt Ryan is still learning. He has 6 years in the league and 3 years in college. People expect too much too quickly.

 

[Shouright]

No it's wrong...not a disagreement at all...just wrong...a misread by a good poster

Not like you would know though...

The pocket isn't an issue though other than McKinnie gets smoked to the inside...everyone else was holding up rather well for as long as the action was live...brenners getting jacked but there's space there for tannehill to make a throw...what kills it all though is the backside inside pressure from mckinnies man

Unless you're never wrong, or he's never right, both which we know can't be the case, we have no way of knowing who's right and who's wrong here. You think you're right, and he thinks he's right. It's a disagreement.

And because that happens all the time here, with regard to the same topics and the same events, then there is no way of knowing what is correct on the basis of any one person's subjective perception or opinion, which is why we should adjudicate these issues with the objective data. We won't be right all the time doing that, but we'll surely be right far more often than we would be in choosing one subjective opinion or perception over another, in my opinion. :)

 

[j-off-her-doll]

That's not a good example...both clay and sims are working double moves...hartline underneath on the crosser is his next option but that is not a 3 step ball must come out play off the routes that the receiving options to that side are working...and when he does try to look to the inside and feels that backside pressure before he can even start to get out he's sacked...

That sack is on the oline...Bryant McKinnie getting beat to the inside too early...you can't allow those double moves to develop when the pass pro does not hold up...that's Miami trying to take a shot on dbs squatting on under routes and a 3 step drop...why they though are working double move verticals with sims is anyone's guess...I guess to try and surprise the d...honestly though he doesn't look half bad on it

The db to the outside doesn't take the bait on clay so the if he had time to actually set up and throw off the double move play is either sims down the seam dependent on if or where the deep safety is or to take the under route of hartline...looks like clay was the primary presnap and it wasn't there...

If that's not a play where the ball comes out when his foot hits, I don't see why he didn't change it after seeing the off coverage. The QB has to know how limited his time is on a three step drop with five blockers against four rushers. It looks to me like he goes from Clay to Hartline (rather than Sims). On that play, you have time for a pump and throw. If he had gone from Clay to Sims, he had him, and he had time to get it to him. He would have taken a hit, but Sims won in time. Again, though, upon another look, I think he's going from Clay to Hartline. Once he sees that the defender doesn't bite on Clay (assuming Clay was the #1 option), I still think he needs to throw that over Clay's head. To me it comes down to my basic stance on our situation:

The O-line struggled, and Tannehill received more pressure, more often, than you'd like, but Tannehill isn't the kind of QB (right now, anyway) that has the quick decision making or elusiveness within the pocket to relieve pressure on the O-line. Maybe that's the next step for him, but the only upper-tier QB's who take sacks at rates close to that are guys who try to buy time with their feet - Rodgers, Big Ben, Wilson. Tannehill doesn't do that. He should have a sack rate that looks more like Manning's than it does Rodgers'.

 

[shamegame13]

Tony Gonzalez was quoted this week saying Matt Ryan is still learning. He has 6 years in the league and 3 years in college. People expect too much too quickly.

Well, Matt Ryan is a lame duck QB, Atlanta should of brought in competition this year, but they are too retarted to see it...same thing going on here.

 

[Shouright]

If that's not a play where the ball comes out when his foot hits, I don't see why he didn't change it after seeing the off coverage. The QB has to know how limited his time is on a three step drop with five blockers against four rushers. It looks to me like he goes from Clay to Hartline (rather than Sims). On that play, you have time for a pump and throw. If he had gone from Clay to Sims, he had him, and he had time to get it to him. He would have taken a hit, but Sims won in time. Again, though, upon another look, I think he's going from Clay to Hartline. Once he sees that the defender doesn't bite on Clay (assuming Clay was the #1 option), I still think he needs to throw that over Clay's head. To me it comes down to my basic stance on our situation:

The O-line struggled, and Tannehill received more pressure, more often, than you'd like, but Tannehill isn't the kind of QB (right now, anyway) that has the quick decision making or elusiveness within the pocket to relieve pressure on the O-line. Maybe that's the next step for him, but the only upper-tier QB's who take sacks at rates close to that are guys who try to buy time with their feet - Rodgers, Big Ben, Wilson. Tannehill doesn't do that. He should have a sack rate that looks more like Manning's than it does Rodgers'.

Are you aware that Russell Wilson was pressured more often than any other QB in the league other than Case Keenum, and that Wilson's sack rate was even higher than Tannehill's?

However, when you consider the sack rate that would be expected for Wilson based on the frequency of the pressure he experienced, and you do the same for Tannehill, you find that Tannehill was an even bigger outlier than Wilson. In other words, Wilson's sack rate, based on the pressure he experienced, makes more sense than Tannehill's sack rate, based on the pressure he experienced.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

If that's not a play where the ball comes out when his foot hits, I don't see why he didn't change it after seeing the off coverage. The QB has to know how limited his time is on a three step drop with five blockers against four rushers.

If the OL could actually block, the play to Sims was there. Period. There was a chance for a nice down field play.

It looks to me like he goes from Clay to Hartline (rather than Sims). On that play, you have time for a pump and throw. If he had gone from Clay to Sims, he had him, and he had time to get it to him. He would have taken a hit, but Sims won in time. Again, though, upon another look, I think he's going from Clay to Hartline. Once he sees that the defender doesn't bite on Clay (assuming Clay was the #1 option), I still think he needs to throw that over Clay's head. To me it comes down to my basic stance on our situation:

You are wrong, IMO. He never looks to Hartline. He resets his feet directly at Sims. There is no way he is intending to throw to Hartline. His feet are not in position to make that throw. The OL has to do their job better than that.

The O-line struggled, and Tannehill received more pressure, more often, than you'd like, but Tannehill isn't the kind of QB (right now, anyway) that has the quick decision making or elusiveness within the pocket to relieve pressure on the O-line. Maybe that's the next step for him, but the only upper-tier QB's who take sacks at rates close to that are guys who try to buy time with their feet - Rodgers, Big Ben, Wilson. Tannehill doesn't do that. He should have a sack rate that looks more like Manning's than it does Rodgers'.

It is comical that on a play that the QB correctly reads the defense, and quickly comes off to his second read but is let down by a crappy job on the OL, you want to try to blame the QB. Do you not watch other teams and see the time they get in the pocket.

Why do you ignore the multiple reviews by different sources that all conclude that the OL was terrible? What is the point of that? In addition, three or four of last years starters will be gone because of the terrible performance.

You are starting to act like Gravity without the bogus stats.

 

[hoops]

Unless you're never wrong, or he's never right, both which we know can't be the case, we have no way of knowing who's right and who's wrong here. You think you're right, and he thinks he's right. It's a disagreement.

And because that happens all the time here, with regard to the same topics and the same events, then there is no way of knowing what is correct on the basis of any one person's subjective perception or opinion, which is why we should adjudicate these issues with the objective data. We won't be right all the time doing that, but we'll surely be right far more often than we would be in choosing one subjective opinion or perception over another, in my opinion. :)

that's complete and utter bunk...nice try though...

this is a big part of the problem...there's a lot of people talking that don't even know what they are looking at...that example was a very poor one and a complete misread by the op who posted it...the op is a good football guy though he just misread that play...pretty much all the way

the qb did eveything right on that play...from the presnap read to work to that side to coming off the out and up when the db didnt bite to looking back inside to the seam where he had a chance at a play had he not been engulfed...it's a perfect example of the oline who like finfaninbuffalo said knows the call is a double move and needs time to develop protection wise letting the qb and offense down...perfect example...

and it's not a rare one

 

[Shouright]

that's complete and utter bunk...nice try though...

this is a big part of the problem...there's a lot of people talking that don't even know what they are looking at...that example was a very poor one and a complete misread by the op who posted it...the op is a good football guy though he just misread that play...pretty much all the way

Well how do we know it wasn't you who misread it?

 

[hoops]

Well how do we know it wasn't you who misread it?

put that in front of the oc and ask him what happened on the play and i bet you he says the exact same thing i have been saying...i know it's correct...i don't need to explain myself to you anyways...

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

that's complete and utter bunk...nice try though...

this is a big part of the problem...there's a lot of people talking that don't even know what they are looking at...that example was a very poor one and a complete misread by the op who posted it...the op is a good football guy though he just misread that play...pretty much all the way

the qb did eveything right on that play...from the presnap read to work to that side to coming off the out and up when the db didnt bite to looking back inside to the seam where he had a chance at a play had he not been engulfed...it's a perfect example of the oline who like finfaninbuffalo said knows the call is a double move and needs time to develop protection wise letting the qb and offense down...perfect example...

and it's not a rare one

BTW, it doesn't matter if the play was misread by posters on this site. Two independent sources have evaluated the sacks and determined that the OL was the biggest problem by a wide margin. That opinion is supported by the actions of the team during the season and will be further supported by the actions of the team this offseason.

But, Gravity will continue to try to predict yesterday's weather......

 

[Shouright]

put that in front of the oc and ask him what happened on the play and i bet you he says the exact same thing i have been saying...i know it's correct...i don't need to explain myself to you anyways...

Well if I could do that, then I'd sure have a way of knowing which if you is correct. But I can't do that, can I, and so therefore I don't know who is correct, and therefore I'll stick with the objective data.

In other words, there is no way of verifying the validity of the subjective opinions of anyone here, and so the most reliable method of knowing what's going on with the team, in my opinion, is with the analysis of objective data.

Hell, even you at one time thought Chad Henne was franchise quarterback material. Obviously you aren't always right, correct?

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

put that in front of the oc and ask him what happened on the play and i bet you he says the exact same thing i have been saying...i know it's correct...i don't need to explain myself to you anyways...

BTW, when does the Gravity cycle change back to "sacks don't matter"?

 

[hoops]

Well if I could do that, then I'd sure have a way of knowing which if you is correct. But I can't do that, can I, and so therefore I don't know who is correct, and therefore I'll stick with the objective data.

In other words, there is no way of verifying the validity of the subjective opinions of anyone here, and so the most reliable method of knowing what's going on with the team, in my opinion, is with the analysis of objective data.

Hell, even you at one time thought Chad Henne was franchise quarterback material. Obviously you aren't always right, correct?

i never said chad henne was a franchise qb so stop with the baiting...you just have no clue what you are looking at and talk a whole lot of **** about stuff you don't even understand...over and over...it does not surprise me in the least that you have no idea on that play...

 

[Shouright]

i never said chad henne was a franchise qb so stop with the baiting...you just have no clue what you are looking at and talk a whole lot of **** about stuff you don't even understand...over and over...it does not surprise me in the least that you have no idea on that play...

The point remains: we have no way of knowing when you're wrong.

Or are you never wrong?