Can't Have It Both Ways On Tannehill

[Scotty P]

There are drawbacks to moving a QB out of the pocket. Throwing on the run might be a strength of Tannehill's, but I don't think we should believe that playing to that strength wouldn't have come at a price.

The price of not playing to Tannys strength was a Dolphins record of 58 sacks given up and an offense of that ranked 27th in the league. Remember the Buffalo game?? Tanny was getting pressured all day and took a big hit that caused him to come out of the game?? A game that we didn't score a single point?? That's the price.

Kinda strange how the Seahawks and 49ers play to their QBs athleticism though. I guess the price they paid was the price of winning.

Give up on this thread Gravity. You have nothing to stand on and you are looking quite desperate.

 

[SSnowman]

97x. BAM. The future of rock n roll.

 

[Shouright]

The price of not playing to Tannys strength was a Dolphins record of 58 sacks given up and an offense of that ranked 27th in the league. Remember the Buffalo game?? Tanny was getting pressured all day and took a big hit that caused him to come out of the game?? A game that we didn't score a single point?? That's the price.

Kinda strange how the Seahawks and 49ers play to their QBs athleticism though. I guess the price they paid was the price of winning.

Give up on this thread Gravity. You have nothing to stand on and you are looking quite desperate.

We shall see.

 

[Sarnics13]

It's not only injury, but taking the whole field and removing a substantial portion of it as an area to which to throw. Try throwing all the way to the right sideline, or even the right half of the field, when you've rolled out to your left. You've just made it quite a bit easier for the coverage personnel to defend you.

Try finding a stat to prove that point. That point was made off of visual evidence.....which to your belabored point is NOT how success or failure is determined.

 

[J. David Wannyheimer]

97x. BAM. The future of rock n roll.

Nnnniiiiinnety seven X. BAAAM! The future of ROCK AND ROLL!

 

[Wallace17Miami]

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t scream from the rooftops about how bad Miami’s offensive coordinator was and then turn around and blast Tannehill for not performing better within his offense. Let’s be real. The offensive scheme was horrid. Formations rarely changed. Playmakers were always in the same spot. Misdirection running plays didn’t exist. Hell, you knew if it was run or pass by go vs. go-go. I could go on and on, but why relive the misery. The bottom line is that it was the most frustrating season I have ever been a part of, and I’ve only missed three games since I got my driver’s license seventeen years ago, and none of those were during 1-15.
In the end, I am so excited about Tannehill. I have no idea how all Dolphins fans are not. I agree, the deep accuracy has to improve. I also agree his needs to keep progressing on his pocket presence. But, let’s be fair, the jump from year one to year two was significant, as evidenced by, among other things, his much improved presence and touchdown numbers (doubled). That happened in...Sherman’s...offense. Which...anyone with eyes knew often caused involuntary vomiting. So, pick one. You can blame Tannehill or Sherman. Not both.
P.S. – I’m guessing the retort for those who want to blame both with be comparisons to Wilson, Luck, Foles, etc. Please remember that two of the three had elite running games. All three have above average to elite coaching. Hell, the one that won the Super Bowl played with possibly the best defense ever with a coaching staff that asked him to do what he does best, hand off the ball, run play action, get him out of the pocket, and let him throw to often wide open receivers. And lastly, ask yourself how those three would have done in Sheman’s offense. Even the great Andrew Luck, the man with an amazing ability to will defenders to drop the passes he throws right to them (Sean Smith is just one of many), and then throw for all kinds of yards when the ones they do catch cause his team to be way behind thus facilitating a prevent defense, would likely have struggled.

just because his td's doubled means nothing. They threw in general of offense much much more, he had waaaaay more attempts this year.

Also look at home may times they passed instead of ran in the redzone. He had a bunch more chances this year to get these td's, he should have doubled his td amount.

 

[Havanese13]

If you believe Sherman ran a predictable offense that focused primarily on his "scheme" as opposed to asking his talent to do what it does best, then you have to ease off the gas on the Tannehill bashing. That's the point of the post. I mean, it's akin to expecting racecar driver A to win a race against driver B when driver A has a Ford Tempo and driver B has a Mustang. You bitch and moan about the car but then turn around and bash the driver for not doing more with it. It's absurd. People can't have it both ways. Either Tannehill can't cut it or Sherman can't. If you blame Sherman then it is foolish and unfair to blame Tannehill as well. Also, his number of touchdowns was a throw into the post to appease the many who can't see past statistics. His toughness, intelligence and skill set are what excite me...not how many touchdowns he threw is the worst offense I have ever seen.

 

[Tureo]

I disagree with the premise that both the OC and the QB on any given team can't be both horrible or average.

 

[Havanese13]

That is not the premise. Of course a bad quarterback and offensive coordinator can be on the same team. The premise is that everyone (including myself) was jaw dropped by how predictable and horrid Miami's offense was. it was unbelievable how poorly the talent was used. In light of that, the premise is that it is unfair to judge Tannehill too harshly in that circumstance.

It's hard to see any quarterbacks truly excelling under the scheme Sherman ran. Disagree with that statement?

 

[jacquesstrap]

And this year the excuse for Tannehill will be that he had to learn a new offense under Lazor. Tannehill has the same issues that he had when he played at A&M. There was a reason why he didn't start at QB . Sherman had his limitations, but Tannehill appears to have his own limitations.

 

[TX-FinFan]

I think Tannehill did improve in 2013 which is a good sign but we need to see continued development from him in 2014.

I think one of his biggest areas to improve on is fumbling and ints. I grabbed some stats from his 2012 QB class to see how he stacked up.

Tannehill: 18 fumbles / 30 ints / 32 games = 1.5/game
Wilson: 16 fumbles / 19 ints / 32 games = 1.09/game
Luck: 16 fumbles / 27 ints / 32 games = 1.34/game
RG III: 23 fumbles / 17 ints / 28 games = 1.43/game


Another stat I was interested in was how often the QB was sacked relative to how often they throw the rock.

Tannehill: 1072 attempts / 93 sacks = 11.5 attempts/sack
Wilson: 800 attempts / 77 sacks = 10.4 attempts/sack
Luck: 1197 attempts / 73 sacks = 16.4 attempts/sack
RG III: 849 attempts / 68 sacks = 12.5 attempts/sack

Stacking these numbers up to a future HOF QB (Peyton Manning) gives a good reference point:
69 fumbles / 219 ints / 240 games = 1.2/game
8452 attempts / 270 sacks = 31.3 attempts/sack

 

[Sons Of Shula]

How do we know the offense wasn't implemented as a response to the coaches' knowledge of Tannehill's strengths and weaknesses?

It's entirely possible that the offensive system Tannehill was playing in last year, based on his particular strengths and weaknesses, is what gets more out of him than any other offensive system in which he plays in his career. It's entirely possible that any change, whether due to the novelty of the new system, and/or an increase in its sophistication, makes him play worse, not better.

How do we know at this point?

Hey, we're all fans, and we all want to see him play like we want him to, but let's not believe we have a crystal ball here.

I can tell you as fact that the offense implemented last year was hampered by the weakness of the offensive line, not Tannehill. Anyone with an inkling of knowledge of the game of football understands that the game starts with the strength/weakness of your trenches. No offensive line = no offense. If you need a refresher on that FACT, just replay Sunday's Super Bowl.

 

[Shouright]

I can tell you as fact that the offense implemented last year was hampered by the weakness of the offensive line, not Tannehill. Anyone with an inkling of knowledge of the game of football understands that the game starts with the strength/weakness of your trenches. No offensive line = no offense. If you need a refresher on that FACT, just replay Sunday's Super Bowl.

First, you can't tell anybody that as a fact, and to think you can is grandiose.

Second, of course if anyone disagrees with you, it won't be because there are multiple ways of interpreting the same events, but because he doesn't have "an inkling of knowledge of the game of football." You've set up your argument such that, in your mind, you can't possibly be wrong, and you have a built-in way of discounting or devaluing the opinions of others.

So in sum, you're working from a position of paranoid grandiosity here, which is typical when people's need to believe something approaches the the point that it becomes analogous to "religion."

 

[Sirspud]

As I get more detached from the season the more I realize that while Tannehill really legitimately had to carry this team, and while his red zone TD rate was out of this world considering the lack of prototypical targets, there are some things that he is just not getting better at that are very possible, maybe even likely, to keep him from going from an average or slightly above average passer (not the worst thing in the world) to a frontline passer. The lack of a deep ball is a significant issue. You simply can't win against the best teams in the NFL on a regular basis without forcing them to play honest and cover the entire field. If the chance of you going over the top is so low that teams have little to risk by playing very shallow zones in order to make short and intermediate routes that much more difficult, you are going to have a limit to your success when playing tough teams and leave yourself more vulnerable to debacles like what we had the last two weeks of the season. What's worse is that Tannehill doesn't ever create a deep chance on his own because he rarely evades pass rush unless it is fourth down on a final drive, in which case he plays like Eli Manning in the Super Bowl at getting away with pass rushers.

Tannehill was a bright spot that for numerous parts of the season carried the team through some hot stretches, but I'm worried that what we saw this year won't get any better, and what we saw this year ultimately wasn't good enough as judged by our failing to get a playoff spot after a 3-0 start and after winning emotional games to give us a nearly giftwrapped playoff spot we choked away.

 

[Shouright]

As I get more detached from the season the more I realize that while Tannehill really legitimately had to carry this team, and while his red zone TD rate was out of this world considering the lack of prototypical targets, there are some things that he is just not getting better at that are very possible, maybe even likely, to keep him from going from an average or slightly above average passer (not the worst thing in the world) to a frontline passer. The lack of a deep ball is a significant issue. You simply can't win against the best teams in the NFL on a regular basis without forcing them to play honest and cover the entire field. If the chance of you going over the top is so low that teams have little to risk by playing very shallow zones in order to make short and intermediate routes that much more difficult, you are going to have a limit to your success when playing tough teams and leave yourself more vulnerable to debacles like what we had the last two weeks of the season. What's worse is that Tannehill doesn't ever create a deep chance on his own because he rarely evades pass rush unless it is fourth down on a final drive, in which case he plays like Eli Manning in the Super Bowl at getting away with pass rushers.

Tannehill was a bright spot that for numerous parts of the season carried the team through some hot stretches, but I'm worried that what we saw this year won't get any better, and what we saw this year ultimately wasn't good enough as judged by our failing to get a playoff spot after a 3-0 start and after winning emotional games to give us a nearly giftwrapped playoff spot we choked away.

Well, and based on the information recently leaked from the team, it sounds like Joe Philbin agrees with you.