Can't Have It Both Ways On Tannehill

[NBP81]

The offense had no chance this year, 349 rushing attempts for the season is just not going to cut it. This is not my opinion, I made a thread during the season and I went back 5 years iirc and found out there were like 6 teams in all those years making it to the playoffs with under 350 rushing attempts... And 4 of those we`re QB`d by Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers. So the offense as a whole was poorly run this season, and that's not on Tannehill... Running a more balanced offense might not make Tannehill play better, but it sure as hell makes the offense as a whole better and that equates to more wins... Plain and simple I believe at the very least running the rock more would have notched one more win. One more WIN and we`re in the playoffs, and seriously, if we`d have made the playoffs none of those threads about Tannehill would ve been created... Comon sense people.

 

[NY8123]

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.

Your assumption here is you center the concerns around Tannehill as the basis for the argument. Forget about Tannehill altogether, Mike Sherman had zero offensive creativity when it came to moving skill personnel around the formations. It doesn't' matter who is lined up in the slot so long as they know their job in the slot, what does matter is the match up you get when you move players around. Even if Tannehill is mediocre in regard to his skill he is intelligent enough to recognize converges and match ups, that much is very well established and observable on tape.

Mike Sherman did not take advantage of match ups, Wallace wide right, Hartline wide left, you might get Hartline in the slot or Wallace in motion or maybe Hartline and Wallace flipped but that was the extent of his creation, looked like a 5 year old designing a playbook in Madden. It doesn't have to be complicated to be effective, it just has to be implemented.

 

[Shouright]

Your assumption here is you center the concerns around Tannehill as the basis for the argument. Forget about Tannehill altogether, Mike Sherman had zero offensive creativity when it came to moving skill personnel around the formations. It doesn't' matter who is lined up in the slot so long as they know their job in the slot, what does matter is the match up you get when you move players around. Even if Tannehill is mediocre in regard to his skill he is intelligent enough to recognize converges and match ups, that much is very well established and observable on tape.

Mike Sherman did not take advantage of match ups, Wallace wide right, Hartline wide left, you might get Hartline in the slot or Wallace in motion or maybe Hartline and Wallace flipped but that was the extent of his creation, looked like a 5 year old designing a playbook in Madden. It doesn't have to be complicated to be effective, it just has to be implemented.

Once again, I don't think we have the ability to know with any certainty whether the addition to the offense of the kind of complexity you're talking about would've overloaded Tannehill at a time when he was still assimilating the speed of the game.

The desirable thing to think is that he could've handled it, and he was only a more creative and sophisticated offensive coordinator away from playing a lot better. Of course the other possibility, however, is that the offensive coordinator kept the offense more simple so as to facilitate winning at a time when the QB was still adjusting to the speed of the game, and that additional complexity would've made him and the team play worse, not better.

Just because we see some QBs functioning well in more complex offenses doesn't mean Tannehill could have, in 2013. On the one hand, we want to be able to explain away the deficiencies in his current game by calling him raw, developmental, and in need of experience, but on the other we want the kitchen sink thrown at him, in terms of offensive complexity, during that period. That doesn't jibe, folks.

 

[Vaark]

 

[NY8123]

Once again, I don't think we have the ability to know with any certainty whether the addition to the offense of the kind of complexity you're talking about would've overloaded Tannehill at a time when he was still assimilating the speed of the game.

The desirable thing to think is that he could've handled it, and he was only a more creative and sophisticated offensive coordinator away from playing a lot better. Of course the other possibility, however, is that the offensive coordinator kept the offense more simple so as to facilitate winning at a time when the QB was still adjusting to the speed of the game, and that additional complexity would've made him and the team play worse, not better.

Just because we see some QBs functioning well in more complex offenses doesn't mean Tannehill could have, in 2013. On the one hand, we want to be able to explain away the deficiencies in his current game by calling him raw, developmental, and in need of experience, but on the other we want the kitchen sink thrown at him, in terms of offensive complexity, during that period. That doesn't jibe, folks.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” ~Socrates

 

[Shouright]

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” ~Socrates

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say we know "nothing," but some good, healthy doubt in some areas regarding the team is probably appropriate, and what would likely keep us from being quite disappointed later on. :)

 

[Sons Of Shula]

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."

It's very obvious you've never played the game of football and can only comprehend it from a warped fantasy statistical perspective.