The Fumble: Tannehill Checked Out of a Run Play

[hoops]

Speaking of which. I am still utterly in awe of how they've refused to utilize Yeatman as a TE on certain passing downs to provide extra pass pro. That kind of stubborn behavior is utter fail.

i wonder who called for that to be implemented during the bye week...the extra ot yeatman to help the run game and pass pro??? hmmm....

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

I'm going on only the information we have access to, which says Tannehill "checked into a pass play," and which I take to mean that he decided the offense was going to try to pass the ball after it got to the line of scrimmage.

I know that. You also said that Sherman knew the Bills would load up to stop the run. So, you are implying that Sherman called a play (a run) that Tannehill shouldn't check out of, no matter what. Then why have 2 WRs on the field that won't help you in that situation? They will be no help you in the short running game. Line up with a jumbo formation and run the ball. OR, as I suggest, run your offense with a play call that you think would be effective whether they put 8 in the box or not because you have the option to run or pass. Which is what Philbin says happened.

 

[Shouright]

I know that. You also said that Sherman knew the Bills would load up to stop the run. So, you are implying that Sherman called a play (a run) that Tannehill shouldn't check out of, no matter what. Then why have 2 WRs on the field that won't help you in that situation? They will be no help you in the short running game. Line up with a jumbo formation and run the ball. OR, as I suggest, run your offense with a play call that you think would be effective whether they put 8 in the box or not because you have the option to run or pass. Which is what Philbin says happened.

By the same token, why not just use the same personnel and call a pass, and then "check into" a run play if the defensive formation warrants it? Why was the play initially a run?

 

[hoops]

By the same token, why not just use the same personnel and call a pass, and then "check into" a run play if the defensive formation warrants it? Why was the play initially a run?

you ask the dumbest **** i've ever seen...god damn get yourself a football 101 book or something...

does anyone really take this ignorant cat serious???

 

[nick1]

he made the right call and knowing hartline, he would have been open. in another half second the ball would have been out. he was in the process of throwing when he was hit

 

[Zounds]

I haven't said that at all. I've wondered whether it rests on Tannehill's judgment at the time whether or not to audible, and whether the coaches would have frowned on it at all if he hadn't audibled in that situation. Philbin may have "approved" of the decision publicly, but he may have also been fine with a non-audible.

I don't think you get it, although folks like you rarely do. If there was a restriction on Tannehill's ability to audible, then he would have been told so by the OC or HC. There was no restriction, therefore Tannehill made the call based on the defense he saw and the plays that were given to him by the OC. And if you want to say Philbin secretly disapproved of the audible while publicly saying that Tannehill made the right call, well that's on you, and I'm not hear to discuss conjecture.

 

[Shouright]

i wonder who called for that to be implemented during the bye week...the extra ot yeatman to help the run game and pass pro??? hmmm....

IMO the team didn't need any help in the run game and pass protection yesterday, save for the play Tannehill changed, and scant others.

I suspect your response will be something that condescendingly rebukes my opinion, with you in a self-appointed role of an omniscient authority with whom no one is permitted to disagree. :)

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

By the same token, why not just use the same personnel and call a pass, and then "check into" a run play if the defensive formation warrants it? Why was the play initially a run?

What difference does it make? In either case (according the the coaches and Tannehill), you run the play (run or pass) that gives you the best chance against what the defense is doing (assuming players execute their assignments). If it was "pass first" they would have run the same play.

 

[Shouright]

you ask the dumbest **** i've ever seen...god damn get yourself a football 101 book or something...

does anyone really take this ignorant cat serious???

No, we only take you seriously, the all-knowing diety who calls himself "hooshoops" on a message board anyone can join with a few keystrokes. :)

---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 PM ----------

What difference does it make? In either case (according the the coaches and Tannehill), you run the play (run or pass) that gives you the best chance against what the defense is doing (assuming players execute their assignments). If it was "pass first" they would have run the same play.

But if it was "pass first," it would've reflected a different intent on the part of Sherman. That's the point.

---------- Post added at 12:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 PM ----------

I don't think you get it, although folks like you rarely do. If there was a restriction on Tannehill's ability to audible, then he would have been told so by the OC or HC. There was no restriction, therefore Tannehill made the call based on the defense he saw and the plays that were given to him by the OC. And if you want to say Philbin secretly disapproved of the audible while publicly saying that Tannehill made the right call, well that's on you, and I'm not hear to discuss conjecture.

I didn't say Philbin did any such thing. I said he may have similarly approved of a non-audible.

And if you're not here to discuss conjecture, I'll expect you to have little participation on a board in which it's about 98% of what happens. :)

 

[truedolfan57]

let me get this straight, so because tannehill changed the play, it's ok for clabo to let Mario walk past him? I don't understand how one relates to the other. no one can tell the future. what if it was a run play, and Mario stripped the ball from the running back? then what? tannehill sucks because he didn't audible to a pass with 8 in the box?

 

[hoops]

IMO the team didn't need any help in the run game and pass protection yesterday, save for the play Tannehill changed, and scant others.

I suspect your response will be something that condescendingly rebukes my opinion, with you in a self-appointed role of an omniscient authority with whom no one is permitted to disagree. :)

sure disagree all you want...just don't post obvious "i have no damn clue what i'm talking about" questions for all to see...

 

[FSU Truth]

let me get this straight, so because tannehill changed the play, it's ok for clabo to let Mario walk past him? I don't understand how one relates to the other. no one can tell the future. what if it was a run play, and Mario stripped the ball from the running back? then what? tannehill sucks because he didn't audible to a pass with 8 in the box?

Exactly right...it didn't matter what he did on that play....if the team loses he sucks....if they win he sucks...he just sucks

 

[Shouright]

sure disagree all you want...just don't post obvious "i have no damn clue what i'm talking about" questions for all to see...

Like I said. :)

 

[Zounds]

I didn't say Philbin did any such thing. I said he may have similarly approved of a non-audible.

And if you're not here to discuss conjecture, I'll expect you to have little participation on a board in which it's about 98% of what happens. :)

You did suggest that Philbin could secretly disapproved of it in an attempt to discredit what he said in his presser, and anyone that can read can see that for themselves in this very thread. And 98% of the conjecture on this forum comes from threads started by you.

 

[Shouright]

You did suggest that Philbin could secretly disapproved of it in an attempt to discredit what he said in his presser, and anyone that can read can see that for themselves in this very thread. And 98% of the conjecture on this forum comes from threads started by you.

I haven't said that at all. I've wondered whether it rests on Tannehill's judgment at the time whether or not to audible, and whether the coaches would have frowned on it at all if he hadn't audibled in that situation. Philbin may have "approved" of the decision publicly, but he may have also been fine with a non-audible.

:confused2: