Greg Cote: Tannehill doesn’t need to be great — just consistently good | Page 9 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Greg Cote: Tannehill doesn’t need to be great — just consistently good

Ilovemyfins4eva said:
IT STARTS WITH THE QB THOUGH. IS THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

when the qb plays well, its contagious. why do u think the colts with manning and pats with brady for all those years, and the pack with favre and rodgers, have all had success? it starts at the qb, ur right, everything needs to click, but the qb play is contagious.

ur not going to see wrs have awesome seasons without good qb play, the qb opens up everything.
Click to expand...

i was actually going to disagree, but the caps lock convinced me
 
BlueFin said:
Incidently....this was not Tannehill's best game as pro......

That was last year's 2nd New England game....300+ yards...3 td's....0 ints.....120 rating......

Despite getting sacked 4 times....

I believe he had zero sacks last week.
Click to expand...

Agreed, although the pittsburgh comeback and shake off of the pick 6 was pretty good also. But in the NE game, he overcame a double digit deficit and because only 1 of those 4 sacks occurred in the second half (Brady also sacked once in that half) he outplayed Tommy putting up a 122QBR for that half which underscores that protection is a critical component to his success.
 
mnphinfan said:
I don't know if this is relevant or not but Chris Carter this morning said that when he interviewed Bellicheck last week that Bellicheck told him, as far as a personal evaluation stand point, that due to the new collective bargaining rules, regarding practices and physical contact in terms of determining what, where and when players should play based on production in actual game time conditions, in their evaluations he and his coaching staff are only about where they would be after four preseason games before the new rules change.

I am guessing/hoping that the Fins are also going through those same types of problems with a new OC/offense and new/younger players playing a more significant role in special teams.
Click to expand...

Bellicheck was quoted during the game last night saying this same thing. Likely from the Chris Carter interview.
 
BlueFin said:
Incidently....this was not Tannehill's best game as pro......

That was last year's 2nd New England game....300+ yards...3 td's....0 ints.....120 rating......

Despite getting sacked 4 times....

I believe he had zero sacks last week.
Click to expand...

i dont much care about the rating but tannehill didnt put together a full game in that one like he did vs the raiders sunday...if you recall until the last drive of the first half vs the pats in that one the offense had done nothing...he was money from then on though...

they are both high end qb games but from a consistency aspect this raiders one was it...
 
roy_miami said:
Here's the deal:

Its a complex system, meaning if the system isn't working as designed the fault could be any one component or all components or any combination. Its impossible to know what is specifically broken when you're only evidence is the system doesn't work. If your car stops working you're going to be inclined to curse the entire car but in reality its likely just one bad component. If just the alternator is bad its going to make the whole car look bad. People are too quick to blame everybody for everything when the team loses. Maybe we just have a bad alternator.

Which brings me to my next point: this why the stat mentioned in the article is so intriguing to me, the 13-1 stat when the QB posts a 90+ passer rating. It's possible that its purely coincidence and the team and QB are always coincidentally up and down at the same times, but its much more likely that the team is steady and the QB is the one that is up and down. And that goes hand in hand with what I believe Philbin's philosophy is, that football games are won and lost by the QB and its the teams job to not lose games when the QB plays well enough to win. Thats why he's so quick to bench players that **** up outside of the QB like when a RB fumbles the ball, that is the type of thing that can cost the team a win despite a good game from the QB.

The bottom line is our system relies on good QB play first and foremost. We put it all on Tannehill's shoulders and for the rest of the team their job is to just be consistent. The QB is allowed to be inconsistent, the rest of the team isn't.
Click to expand...

IMO, QB rating is not a reflection of just the QB's play. It is a reflection of the offense's efficiency. Tannehill's QB rating against the Pats was 79.9. If three very ordinary plays are made by Wallace, Sims, and Clay, his QB rating would have been 118. Tannehill's rating was affected by his play AND the play of others.

When the QB's rating is 90+ it tells me several of these things are likely true:

1. The QB played at least reasonably well or better.
2. The OL blocked reasonably well or better.
3. The receivers got open and caught the passes.
4. The offense was in reasonable down and distance situations (perhaps from an effective running game).
5. The defense and special teams played well enough to keep the team in the game and not limit the playbook.
6. The offensive game plan was able to get favorable match ups.

The more of the above items are true, the greater the likelihood of an efficient performance.
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
IMO, QB rating is not a reflection of just the QB's play. It is a reflection of the offense's efficiency. Tannehill's QB rating against the Pats was 79.9. If three very ordinary plays are made by Wallace, Sims, and Clay, his QB rating would have been 118. Tannehill's rating was affected by his play AND the play of others.

When the QB's rating is 90+ it tells me several of these things are likely true:

1. The QB played at least reasonably well or better.
2. The OL blocked reasonably well or better.
3. The receivers got open and caught the passes.
4. The offense was in reasonable down and distance situations (perhaps from an effective running game).
5. The defense and special teams played well enough to keep the team in the game and not limit the playbook.
6. The offensive game plan was able to get favorable match ups.

The more of the above items are true, the greater the likelihood of an efficient performance.
Click to expand...

To further strengthen my point, check out the video post game discussion on espn between Dilfer and Young. Young was emphatic that the problem with the Patriots is not Tom Brady. He questions why, with all the draft picks, hasn't the team been able to support Brady in the last 5 years (especially this year) with enough personnel to go attack the Super Bowl.

Young:

"People are going to say that Tom Brady is the problem. He didn't play well, but I'm telling you there is a big separation between what the team is able to do offensively and what Tom wants to do. Also, Tom either gets no help behind the LOS or he gets no help down the field. Because, you saw the tape, nobody is open..... He is still capable of taking anybody that is really any good to the Super Bowl."

If a sure fire HOF QB needs help to play well and win games, surely Tannehill does too.
 
Consistency, Ryan Tannehill, and Miami dolphins are never in the same sentence. Cept that one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FinfanInBuffalo said:
To further strengthen my point, check out the video post game discussion on espn between Dilfer and Young. Young was emphatic that the problem with the Patriots is not Tom Brady. He questions why, with all the draft picks, hasn't the team been able to support Brady in the last 5 years (especially this year) with enough personnel to go attack the Super Bowl.

Young:

"People are going to say that Tom Brady is the problem. He didn't play well, but I'm telling you there is a big separation between what the team is able to do offensively and what Tom wants to do. Also, Tom either gets no help behind the LOS or he gets no help down the field. Because, you saw the tape, nobody is open..... He is still capable of taking anybody that is really any good to the Super Bowl."

If a sure fire HOF QB needs help to play well and win games, surely Tannehill does too.
Click to expand...

Dan Marino says that there is no defense for a perfect pass.

But even a perfect pass gets picked or defended if the receiver can't separate or catch with physical force. It's impossible to have the sacred *consistency* at the QB position if what Young says takes place on the OL and down the field.

Spoken like a true QB. Thank you, Mr. Young.

LD
 
brady is part of the problem...trent dilfer didnt want to say it but he was thinking it...brady is throwing more balls either in the ground or low and missing more throws than ever before...father time is catching up...he's not the alpha any more

garrapolos time is coming fast now
 
hooshoops said:
i dont much care about the rating but tannehill didnt put together a full game in that one like he did vs the raiders sunday...if you recall until the last drive of the first half vs the pats in that one the offense had done nothing...he was money from then on though...

they are both high end qb games but from a consistency aspect this raiders one was it...
Click to expand...

And if you factor in the huge QBR swing on that called back TD on Sims' penalty and the subsequent gift INT caused by Sims, the QBR would be higher than 120. So you are right.

LD
 
hooshoops said:
brady is part of the problem...trent dilfer didnt want to say it but he was thinking it...brady is throwing more balls either in the ground or low and missing more throws than ever before...father time is catching up...he's not the alpha any more

garrapolos time is coming fast now
Click to expand...
dont the pats owe him a ton of guranteed money over the next 3 years?

they are going to have to find someone to take him if that is the case, similar to a favre situation.

it would be hard to imagine brady in a different uniform, but if montana, manning, and favre can be let go, so can brady i guess.
 
if the pats put him on the block someone will pounce...but the tom brady that i knew as the best qb to ever play the game is long gone now...belichick won't sit on him either if he thinks garrapolo gives him a better chance to win going forward...i really think this is bradys last year with the patriots...you can kinda tell he's not being embraced as much etc already...he even has some doubt about where he will be

how many damn balls is he gonna throw at guys shoe tops on rise and fire screen plays even or in the dirt pitch and catch like easy money completions...i think it's his legs that are going personally more than anything else...doesnt have the same drive and torque on some things...

those picks yesterday were just lousy decisions...both of them...wtf type balls pretty much...

he only trust 2 guys to make a play in the passing game at wr or tight end...gronk who's not close to his old form and edelman...teams are sitting on those two for good reason although gronk in many situations can be handled one on one right now...that better change...but so better the play of the oline...and i think that's where the real issue and not being able to overcome it for them comes from...that oline is terrible compared to last year...nate solder must not want to get paid like a cornerstone left tackle cause he's been marginal at best...the interior replacements they started yesterday lmao...if i'm brady i'm just throwing the ball in the stands and looking at belichick like i got to make chicken salad out of chicken **** again...difference is he cant anymore
 
well this week vs cincy is a massive game for him.

forget the fact that at 2-2, its important just in general, for brady personally.

i deff agree he looks like he is at the end, but i wonder what would happen if brady had another miserable game and the pats fell to 2-3.

no chance they ever bench him this season, is there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom